Labor’s Backdoor Deal for Equality Australia

,

The Albanese Government hid a provision in a Superannuation bill which gave charity status to a lobby group, Equality Australia. For those who don’t know, Equality Australia is an LGBTQI+ organisation committed to destroying religious freedom in Australia. For many years, Equality Australia has waged a campaign against Christian Schools Australia, as well as almost 2,800 other faith-based schools.

Their method is to target exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act and similar state laws. These laws permit schools to fire, demote, or refuse to hire teachers based on sexual orientation or gender identity, or to expel or deny enrolment to students on those grounds, as being contrary to their religious teachings — although they only target certain religious groups.

Equality Australia does not mention Islamic schools or madrasas on their website. They have taken Christian schools to court, yet never Islamic schools, despite both religions treating these issues the same way. It’s this double standard that defines Equality Australia as a lobby group, not a charity — and a gutless, dishonest one at that.

Equality Australia was refused charity status by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and finally the full Federal Court, because they are a lobby group, not a charity.

The Government has legislated this approval because they are desperate to keep the transgender industry going to secure votes in crucial city electorates, which they are defending from the Greens.

I ask suburban, regional, and rural voters to reject the Government’s perverse agenda and vote One Nation to end the transgender madness and the Queer mafia attacks on Christianity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Last year’s pre-election budget contained a hidden announcement indicating the federal government’s intention to award deductible gift recipient status to Equality Australia. Additionally, deductible gift recipient is called registered charity status. That allows donations to the organisation to be claimed as tax deductions. Reduced taxation from donors means taxpayers wind up paying more, so, if a body is getting charity status, they better deserve it. The innocuously named Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 makes that happen—granting charity status to a lobby group Equality Australia until 1 July 2030. In other words, taxpayers will pay for donations to Equality Australia. 

For those who don’t know, Equality Australia is an LGBTQI+ organisation committed to destroying religious freedom in Australia. Their strategy is to force religious schools to teach the same perverted agenda taught in public schools, even to the point of forcing religious schools to hire trans teachers. For many years, Equality Australia has waged a campaign against Christian Schools Australia as well as other faith based schools, numbering almost 2,800 schools across Australia. It strongly advocates to strip protections that currently and tenuously allow Christian schools to operate in name and in nature—that is, as Christian schools. 

Their method is to target exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act and similar state laws which permit schools to fire, demote or refuse to hire teachers based on sexual orientation or gender identity or to expel or deny enrolment students on those grounds, as being contrary their religious teachings, although only certain religious groups. Equality Australia does not mention Islamic schools or madrasah on their website. They have taken Christian schools to court, yet never Islamic schools. Both religions treat these issues the same way. It is this double standard that defines Equality Australia as a lobby group not a charity and a gutless one at that—a dishonest lobby group. 

The background to this issue is that Equality Australia has previously sought public benevolent institution status as a way to get tax deductibility for the donor, yet the government’s Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission rejected those attempts, and then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rejected the same attempts, and then the full Federal Court rejected the same attempts. All decided that Equality Australia is not a charity. It’s a lobby group. They even say that in their strategic plan. While this was going on, media reports suggest Equality Australia has been rorting the system, channelling donations through another charity, Thorne Harbour Health, formerly the Victorian AIDS Council, and there you have it. What a pile. This arrangement may be allowing an entity which is not a charity but a lobby group to use, in whole or in part, tax deductions to an AIDS trust. This is a clearly non-conforming operation. 

Complaints have been made to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The Prime Minister’s hand-picked governor-general is controversially the patron of Equality Australia, and the Australian newspaper has reported the Governor-General has declined to answer their questions on the appropriateness of this arrangement. 

This bill was passed through the House of Representatives on 26 November 2025 and went to the Senate standing committee on economics for inquiry and report, and, of course, they rubberstamped it. One Nation calls for the granting of deductible gift status to Equality Australia to be put on hold until the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission completes investigations into these dodgy financial arrangements. 

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission grants charity status as a routine measure. It’s only when an organisation which does not deserve to be a charity applies that bills like this come before the Senate. You know it—bills that overrule the experts, overrule the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and override the full Federal Court. Does the minister know better than all of these bodies? Of course not. This decision has been taken because there are votes in the urban bubble in this war on Christianity and in Equality Australia, the Labor Party, the Greens and the teals pursuing gender. 

And there’s more. The Productivity Commission is reviewing the whole system for granting charity status. Their final report on philanthropy within Australia proposed a wholesale upheaval of the deductible gift recipient system. Why don’t we do that—suspend more of these legislated overrules of the system until these matters can be settled? It would be terrifying to open the door to Equality Australia’s having more money to conduct its war on Christianity and on religious schools—sorry, its war on Christian schools. It’s not a war on Islamic schools but on Christian schools—not all religious schools, just Christian schools. With stronger campaign finance behind the lobby group, our schools are in danger of coming under attack once more. 

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 and to not take political positions. This leads to many questions for the government. Firstly, how is it that the Governor-General can be patron of a political activist group like Equality Australia, which actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children? Secondly, why did Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when, on three occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings 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 such a massive favour against the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the full bench of the Federal Court? Was it because the Governor-General is a patron of the activist group, the lobby group Equality Australia? Isn’t this a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the requirement of neutrality of the Governor-General? 

Observing the government’s blatant contradiction of the law, does the law mean nothing to this government? Is the lobby group, the activist group Equality Australia, when it attacks Christian schools, acting in any way on behalf of the government—on your behalf? Is this lobby group acting on behalf of the government in any way when it supports children’s futile attempts to change sex, to change gender? One Nation will propose an amendment to the bill as follows: delete clause 4 of schedule 5 of the bill in its entirety and, consequently, delete chapter 5.18 of the bill’s explanatory memorandum. 

Turning to the bill as a whole, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the choice of superannuation fund made during the onboarding of new employees and ban the advertising of certain superannuation products—fair enough. Additionally, it amends the income tax assessment acts to provide income tax and withholding-tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give legislative authority to the Convention between Australia and the Portuguese Republic for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance. It amends the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to increase the maximum amount of wine equalisation tax producer rebate that eligible wine producers can claim to $400,000 each financial year. 

I now address comments made by Senators McKim and Dolega in their second reading speeches earlier today. By the way, One Nation has members of the LGBTIQ community in its membership and in its voter base. In response to Senator McKim’s comments about LGBTQI+, I note that many lesbians, gays and bisexuals oppose gender affirmation as a treatment for gender dysphoria in children. They oppose it, and they oppose it very strongly—I’ve spoken to them. Like One Nation, they know that surgery to chop body parts off children and the hormone and chemical treatment of adolescents alters brain function and puberty and neuter the victims’ ability to have children later. One Nation clearly opposes gender affirmation of children as a way of treating gender dysphoria, a known mental health condition that children pass through. One Nation points to the lack of peer reviewed, double-blind, scientific and medical studies that support gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of studies and experts in the field now discrediting gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of children and parents using legal action, court action, to sue those now known to harm children through surgical, hormonal and/or chemical means implementing gender affirmation. 

In response to Senator Dolega’s use of labels—through you, Chair—including ‘cookers’ and ‘homophobes’, against us, I note that labels are the refuge of those incapable of responding with a rational, fact based argument, whether their claim is ignorant, incompetent, dishonest, desperate, stupid, weak, lazy or fearful. When people resort to using labels, they confirm they have neither the data nor the logical argument to counter their opponent’s position. In that way, those who resort to labels admit they lack a counter argument. They’re admitting they have lost. It’s also not possible to give offence—only to take offence. Calling me a cooker or a homophobe—whatever—has no impact on me. It won’t stop me telling the truth. I do not take offence. Until the recipient takes offence, labels are mere words that tell everyone about the labeller, not the labelled. 

In conclusion, as I foreshadowed earlier, One Nation will move an amendment to this bill in committee stage. If the amendment is not carried, One Nation will oppose this bill; if the amendment is carried, One Nation will support the bill. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sharma): Senator Roberts, before you conclude, I want to draw your attention to standing order 193(2) of the Senate, which directs: 

A senator shall not refer to the King, the Governor-General or the Governor of a state disrespectfully in debate … 

I would ask you to reflect on your comments with regard to the Governor-General and consider whether you wish to withdraw them. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I was referring to the Governor-General’s actions and whether or not the government condone them. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. I might refer this matter to the President to look at what you said a bit more closely, but my recollection, Senator Roberts, was that you called into question the partiality or otherwise of the Governor-General. Is that not your recollection? 

Senator ROBERTS: That is correct. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then I would ask you to withdraw, because that is a— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/2 Comments/by

Aged Care: Rights, Not Rules

,

In this session, I question the Aged Care Safety & Quality Commissioner on why some Commonwealth-funded aged-care facilities are banning family visitors without a legal or public health mandate. Many constituents are raising this issue, and I wanted to find out what was the lawful basis for these “operational discretions.”

I was pleased to get a direct admission from Ms. Metz that there is no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a provider to unilaterally ban a visitor. In fact, the Act explicitly protects the resident’s right to have visitors.

The ACQSC confirmed that they view an unjustified visitor ban as a serious breach of residents’ rights.

I questioned why funding continues to flow to these providers while they are under investigation for unlawful bans. Ms. Hefren-Webb clarified that while they don’t control the “funding lever” (which sits with the Department), they do have the authority to pursue civil penalties and compliance notices.

It was concerning to hear from Mr. Day that the Department hasn’t issued explicit guidance to providers telling them they can’t use visitor bans as a lazy substitute for proper staff discipline or complaints management.

The Commission could not provide immediate data on visitor ban complaints or subsequent enforcement actions, and took these questions on notice.

We must ensure that our elderly are not isolated from their loved ones just because a provider finds a family member “difficult.”

– Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Ms Hefren-Webb: Hi, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think my questions are fairly straightforward, so we should be able to move through them pretty quickly. On what lawful basis does the ACQSC permit Commonwealth funded aged-care facilities to impose visitor bans where there is no public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Can you just repeat that last bit of your question? Where do we allow them to impose visitor bans where there is no—  

Senator ROBERTS: No public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I think. Is there a specific circumstance you’re referring to?  

Senator ROBERTS: No—I don’t want to bring it up now but constituents are asking us. Does the ACQSC accept that a provider may unilaterally ban a family member as a matter of operational discretion? If so, where is that power derived from in law or regulation?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I might ask Ms Metz to come forward who heads up our Sector Capability and Regulatory Strategy area. I am aware that there are cases where family members are alleged to have caused issues or disruption, and that’s been the subject of the service, maybe, seeking that they don’t attend, but I’m not aware of a ban per se. I’ll just see if Ms Metz has anything to contribute.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like to know is where their power is derived from in law and legislation. 

Mr Metz: Under the Aged Care Act, residents have a right to visitors and people who are important to them. There’s no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a visitor to be banned. In fact, it’s the opposite, that people have the right to have visitors. We often, through our complaints process, will work through some of those difficult issues that Ms Hefren-Webb mentioned, where providers have difficult situations with certain family members. We do work through those, with both the providers and the families, to resolve those issues.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints has ACQSC received, since 1 January, relating to family or visitor bans in residential aged-care facilities?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We would have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Of those complaints, how many resulted in enforcement action, compliance notices or findings of noncompliance with the aged-care quality standards?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Again, we’ll have to take that one on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. Does ACQSC consider the imposition of an unjustified visitor ban to be a serious breach of residents’ rights and if not, why not? I think you’ve already answered that.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, we would consider it to be a serious breach of rights.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is Commonwealth funding continued to providers while they are subject to unresolved complaints regarding unlawful visitor bans?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We have complaints that cover a wide range of matters. Our focus is on working with the provider and the complainant and their family and carers to resolve those matters as quickly as possible, to make necessary restoration, if needed, to undertake mediation or other activities. We have no responsibility for the funding of the facilities. That’s the department. Our enforcement activities go to things like enforceable undertaking, civil penalties et cetera. There’s no direct link between if we consider that a provider has failed to respect someone’s rights and a funding lever. We would be taking action through other means.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have the authority to do that.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department of health issued any guidance to providers clarifying that visitor bans cannot be used as a substitute for proper complaints management or staff discipline processes?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’m not aware whether or not there’s been direct guidance on that matter. We can follow that up for you though.  

Mr Day: We haven’t provided explicit guidance on that specific issue. We have provided guidance on the impact of the statements of rights that came into effect with the new act, including, as Ms Metz indicated, the right to have access to individuals that are important to an aged-care resident.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. In the context of the new Aged Care Act and rights based reforms, what steps are being taken to ensure residents are not isolated from family due to provider convenience, disputes or risk aversion?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We have a number of mechanisms by which we are assessing the extent to which providers are respecting the rights of residents. Obviously, complaints are one source of information that we can follow up on. We also receive reports—  

Senator ROBERTS: Those are complaints direct to you?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, that’s correct, as well as serious incident reports that come through to us. We also, as I mentioned before, undertake audits of all residential care facilities every three years. In that, we will be interviewing a number of residents, family members and staff to make sure that residents’ rights are being upheld and respected. We also receive anonymous complaints, tip-offs and whistleblowing. So there are a range of ways that those matters can come to our attention. If we were made aware that someone’s right to have family or friends or loved ones visit them was being impeded, we would take that extremely seriously.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where do you have offices around the country? If someone in Central Queensland made a complaint, how would you address it? Through the phone?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Initially, we do address matters over the phone. But, if the matter raises significant safety concerns for us, we will send a team, and we can do an unannounced visit of a facility. We have staff who are trained to go and assess what’s happening, find out, investigate. Our staff are based in all the capitals around Australia. In that case, if it were Central Queensland, we’d send a team probably from our Brisbane based staff. 

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I want to put on the record that I rushed my questions because of another deadline, but I want to acknowledge the three respondents. They’ve been very prompt and concise with their answers. Thank you very much.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for using your eight minutes very efficiently for us. That’s very generous of you today.  

/2 Comments/by

Running on Empty

,

How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’

Despite decades of warnings, Australia has been exposed to an incredibly dangerous situation.

We have 20-ish days of fuel security, much of it hosted offshore, and all of it draining away as war escalates in the Middle East.

As for a backup plan? That doesn’t exist.

‘In a time of conflict, this government is running a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude.

‘There is no need to panic-buy petrol…’ insisted our reckless, over-spending Treasurer, Jim Chalmers.

Chalmers was simultaneously trying to blame the war in Iran for his dodgy budget accounting while pretending there’s ‘nothing to see here’ with the fuel situation.

Prime Minister Albanese’s Energy Minister, who has forgotten about carbon emissions, backed Chalmers’ comments, insisting that panic buying would ‘just make the situation worse’.

It’s impossible for Australian taxpayers to make the fuel situation ‘worse’ after successive Labor and Coalition Unitparty governments left us in a catastrophic position. We import 90% of our liquid fuel – this includes our requirements for domestic transport, industry, agriculture, and military defence.

To save money on storage, the vast majority of these imports come as ‘just-in-time’ deliveries.

Even the fuel we import from Asia is sourced largely from the Middle East – and we can expect China to lean heavily on this supply now that its import network is severely disrupted after what happened in Venezuela, Iran, and the wider Middle East.

Other nations are forced to rely on dicey international transit routes, and Australia has chosen to do the same. This is a monumental political failure.

Over 20 years, six of our eight refineries were closed or substantially wound down with ‘competition from Asia’ cited as the reason. Two of these critical refineries met their demise under the watch of the then-Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who now seeks to present himself as the salvation of conservatism.

At the time of ExxonMobil’s decision to close the Altona refinery (constructed in 1946), Angus Taylor said this ‘will not negatively impact Australian fuel stockholdings’.

This was simply wrong. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

Successive Coalition-Labor governments have sold Australia’s national security off to free up cash in the budget or because they could not be bothered to argue the case of national security when it mattered.

We still have minimum reserve supply rates, which are designed to buffer against natural disasters and temporary disruptions – they are not satisfactory for extended periods of global conflict nor do they make provisions for the fuel-guzzling behaviours of our geopolitical partners. This means that earlier war-gaming by the government, which insists Australia can buy its way out of a shortage, lack the real-world probability that nations will protect their own needs above our contractual arrangements.

It’s a cold, hard reality that if Australia were to be cut-off from its fuel deliveries, the wheels of our nation would fall off in early April.

A 2018 report commissioned by the government suggested Australia maintain domestic refinery capabilities. It did not foresee simultaneous disruption to Asian, Middle Eastern, and South American fuel markets. It did not foresee conflict zones and regime changes in Europe, the Middle East, and South America. It did not foresee the largest refinery in the Middle East going up in flames, or Iran deliberately targeting the entire energy structure of its neighbours. And it did not foresee the oil politics taking place between Russia, Ukraine, and neighbouring nations such as Hungary.

In other words, the government report failed to properly gauge future risk and assumed a world that no longer exists.

…even after US President Donald Trump gave everyone the hint with his, Drill, baby, drill! push to bolster domestic supply.

As the Maritime Union of Australia said earlier this week:

‘This is not a distant geopolitical drama, but a direct threat to Australian workers, families, and industries.

When a fifth of the world’s oil moves through a single maritime corridor and that corridor is shut by war, the consequences are immediate.’

It’s in this environment that our party leader, Pauline Hanson, put forward a proposal for an immediate inquiry into fuel security. To this we would also request full transparency on how long it would take and how much it would cost to construct domestic self-sufficiency in fuel refineries.

These are things we need to know.

And what did Labor and the Greens do?

They voted it down.

They put party politics ahead of Australia’s security and your future survival.

Their dislike of Pauline Hanson, who they wasted time censuring for a second time, overrode their responsibility to the people of this nation. This is the type of politicking that must end.

While we take fuel security seriously, there is evidence mounting that Labor and the Greens intend to use public panic as a means to prop-up their dying ‘Net Zero’ industry.

The Climate Catastrophism narrative has well and truly worn off, with most Australians – and nations around the world – realising that it was a scam designed to line the pockets of mining operations and foreign energy companies with public money. A lot of politicians found very rich private sector jobs after legislating in favour of all things ‘green’.

Now, ‘national security’ has become the next unquestionable buzz word that can be invoked by the Prime Minister, Treasurer, and his Energy Minister to justify another pivot toward decarbonisation.

The outrageous propaganda is already starting.

News.com.au ran a story at the beginning of March, Why your next car is a matter of Australia’s national security.

It was one of many pieces caught up in the ‘EV to save us from the Iran war’ frenzy.

If you wouldn’t drive an electric car for yourself, would you do it for your country? Conflict in Iran is a stark reminder: an EV is more than a personal choice – it’s a matter of national security. Choosing an EV makes you, me, and our wider community less reliant on fossil fuels.

The Australian Electric Vehicle Association also put out a press release: EVs have always been about fuel security. Really? I thought they were about ‘saving the world’?

AEVA argues that the full electrification of transport remains the single most effective strategy the nation can enact to improve fuel security.

Of course, there is no explanation as to how relying on communist China – which uses Middle Eastern oil to build EVs and Middle Eastern diesel to ship them to Australia – solves any of our problems.

Nor is there a reliable answer to the transport industry, which is incompatible with electric trucks. And there isn’t even a faint ‘nod’ to where China sources the materials for the construction of our renewable grid – those being volatile African nations which operate under a mixture of debt-trapping and despot corruption, abuses of human rights, and traversing regions of the world prone to terrorism and war.

Even if we were to replace our domestic fossil fuel energy grid with solar, wind, and batteries – there is nothing more vulnerable in a time of conflict than a giant solar industrial complex or thousands of kilometres of transmission lines running through undefended forests and open ocean.

Strategically, it’s madness.

In reality – it’s impossible.

Yet attempting to achieve this lunacy is a ‘national security’ narrative with which the Prime Minister and his mates will likely try to appease the Greens.

The Greens have come out in open defiance in recent weeks and their voters will see it as an ideological victory and anti-war protest. Their support will join huge corporations already gorging on taxpayer dollars and unions protecting Net Zero-inclined funds.

Money and opportunism are about to hijack public fear over the war to revive the Net Zero industry.

And it will do so at the expense of Australia’s national security.

One Nation believes this to be one of the most dangerous fake news narratives an Australian government has ever sold. A short-sighted, selfish political move that could leave Australia open to a very real logistic catastrophe.

We call on the entire Parliament to put fuel security at the top of the agenda, and to restore Australia’s energy grid to self-sufficient network as a matter of urgency.

One Nation will immediately buy whatever supplies we can obtain in the market, which the Albanese government is still not doing. Then we will work with fuel companies to get new oil refineries in Kurnell and upgrade the Lytton plant in Brisbane, and Geelong in Victoria.

We will immediately start construction on gas-to-fuel plants and legislate a domestic gas reservation so we have cheap Australian gas to convert to fuel. We will build the missing link in the national gas network – a pipeline to connect the East coast and West coast gas networks.

This violation of national security can never be allowed to happen again.

‘Running on empty’ by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’

Read on Substack

/by

The Cost of Looking the Other Way

,

The “she’ll be right, mate” attitude has failed us. From the Bali bombings to the Bondi massacre, the reality is clear: Radical Islam is a threat to our Western civilisation and the Albanese Labor government is too blinded by “tolerance” to see it.

While Labor and the Greens obsess over “right-wing strawmen,” they are ignoring the ecosystem of poison festering in our own backyard. Here is the truth they don’t want you to hear: ASIO is failing. They have a billion-dollar budget yet missed terrorists training in the Philippines and hate preachers holding gun licenses.

I am speaking out against this new firearm bill – the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 – because it is a blatant distraction from the government’s failure to curb extremist Islamist violence. Legal firearm owners are being used as scapegoats while radical ideologies are permitted to grow.

The “mollycoddling” has to stop. We don’t need “taxpayer-funded therapy” for extremists. One Nation’s version of deradicalisation is simple: a boarding pass and immediate deportation.

Australia doesn’t have a gun problem; we have a radical Islamic problem. This Bill is a $15 billion tax on law-abiding citizens. It does nothing to stop a terrorist with a knife or a truck. Our focus should be on removing spreaders of hate and deporting non-citizens who threaten Australian values, rather than restricting the rights of the innocent.

We must defend our Christian, Western heritage. Anyone who betrays our hospitality and wages war on Australians must be kicked out of the country.

Let’s be clear: Labor is rushing these “dog’s breakfast” bills before a Royal Commission has the chance to discover the truth.

Labor are choosing censorship and political correctness over your safety.

It’s time to stop shooting the messenger and start facing the message.

Transcript

Part of the Bondi massacre horror was the realisation that the great Australian ‘she’ll be right, mate’ has failed us. We’ve watched the growing pro-Gaza demonstrations openly calling for violence against Jews and anyone who supports them. We’ve watched Islamic clerics preach hate against Western civilisation and call for jihad—violence against unbelievers. Many Australians thought: ‘She’ll be right, mate! This is Australia. This will sort itself out.’ It did not. 

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, while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged. We were told that highlighting radicalisation, rather than the radicalisation itself, was the problem. Well, now look. Look! 

Australia will not be a safe and tolerant society again until the evil encouraged to fester in our beautiful country is cast out. It is an evil that has become an ‘ecosystem of poison’, as Labor’s Mike Kelly so aptly described it recently. The Bondi massacre was not Islamic-on-Jewish terror imported from the other side of the world. The gunmen did not stop to ask if the victims were Jewish before executing them. We must call Bondi what it is: a radical Islamist attack on all Australians. 

Why were the Labor Party, the Greens, the teals and the globalist Liberals so blind to the growing threat of Islamic terror in this country? As recently as 16 May 2023, Prime Minister Albanese denied the reality of Islamic terrorism when he said: … the strongest threat that has been identified for our security has been right-wing extremism. 

This statement from the Prime Minister and quisling bureaucrats is misdirection. Fascists and white supremacists are a strawman argument; their numbers are tiny and their influence non-existent, yet the Prime Minister knowingly and deliberately uses them to divert Australians’ attention away from radical Islam. 

The Greens are advocating an extension to the hate crimes legislation to cover hate against LGBQ+, transgenders and anyone else who does not worship their religion of the sky god of warming. Okay—I threw in the climate. But, once censorship laws such as those the Prime Minister is pushing are introduced, the inevitable outcome will be the deplatforming of political opponents. The Greens’ call to extend the hate crimes provisions are designed to confuse the issue, to create multiple moving targets and to allow the government to pretend it’s doing something without ever taking action against the real problem: Islamic terror. 

One only has to look at the history of Islamic terror attacks against Western civilisation to see strong measures are needed now. In the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972, there were 12 dead. In the Bali bombings of 2002, there were 202 dead, including 88 Australians. In the second Bali bombings, 2005, there were 20 dead, including four Australians. In the London bombings, 2005, there were 52 dead. In the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, 2015, there were 12 dead. In the Brussels Airport bombings, 2016, there were 32 dead. In the Nice truck ramming, 2016, there were 86 dead—and no calls for a truck buyback. In the Berlin Christmas market truck ramming, 2016, there were 12 dead—no truck buyback. In the Pulse gay nightclub attack in Orlando, 2016, there were 49 dead. In the Manchester Arena bombing, 2017, there were 22 dead. In the Hamas attack in Israel on 7 October 2023, there were 1,180 dead. In Moscow’s Crocus City Hall bombing and stabbing attack in Russia in 2024, there were 145 dead. And now there’s Bondi, which was not the first Islamic terrorist attack in Australia. There was the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney in 2014, with two dead; the car ramming in Bourke Street, Melbourne in 2017, with six dead—no car buyback; and the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in 2024. Islamic terror is here—right here—on Australian soil, and it’s been here for 25 years. All these terrorist attacks were predicated on a hatred of Western civilisation and a fundamental belief that Islam will rule the world and nonbelievers will convert or die. 

ASIO can’t warn against what it can’t see. ASIO’s budget is now over a billion dollars a year, double what it was five years ago, and it’s not enough. Australia must decide: does it further increase ASIO funding or does it start sending people home who have demonstrated hatred for Australians? 

At ASIO, there are 230 potential terrorists being monitored while they participate in deradicalisation therapy at the taxpayer’s expense. Here’s One Nation’s deradicalisation therapy: boarding passes, immediate deportation and remigration, never to return. While ASIO were busy mollycoddling violent extremists, they missed the Bondi shooters travelling to a known Philippines terrorist training ground for an extended stay before returning and committing their terror. ASIO missed that the father of a suspected terrorist purchased three guns on the same Thursday night in September 2023 from the same New South Wales firearms dealer. 

ASIO missed that hate preacher Wissam Haddad holds a current New South Wales firearms licence. Haddad led Sydney’s Al Madina Dawah Centre where Naveed Akram, one of the Bondi shooters, studied. Akram’s father had a gun licence for six guns in New South Wales. How did none of this trip a red flag for New South Wales police, Home Affairs or ASIO? A royal commission must determine if this was wilful ignorance to protect a demographic that’s much more likely to vote Labor than conservative. 

Australia is not the country it was when I was growing up. The destruction of social harmony started when successive governments let in people who came to live apart from us and not to assimilate with us. Those who betray the hospitality we show them must be required to leave. Those who wage war crimes against Australians should be charged. As an example, ISIS brides travelled overseas to conduct war against Australia and against our armed forces. 

ISIS bride Zehra Duman spoke on social media in 2015 and demanded that the faithful ‘attack the UK, Australia and the United States’. ‘Kill them, stab them, poison their food’—your food. This is who Minister Burke knowingly and secretly enabled and helped to be smuggled back into our country. They perpetrated criminal activities and should be prosecuted instead of making work for ASIO by needing to be followed around. 

Under our Westminster system of government, the buck for these failures stops with Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Minns. The terms of reference for the royal commission—if we ever see them—must allow scrutiny of how these failures occurred. This is no doubt why the Prime Minister refused for so long to call a royal commission: to protect himself and his ministers and to hide the truth. 

Today, the Senate is voting on legislation which could’ve been brought in on a regular sitting day later in the year. What we are not voting on is the enabling legislation for the royal commission, to first get the data and the facts. This is what royal commissions are for—to inform bills like this. The Albanese government is putting the cart before the horse and burying the facts. Prime Minister, Australia is watching this royal commission. Do not cover up anything. If the cards are not allowed to fall as they may then it’ll be your government that will fall. 

One Nation will oppose this rushed dog’s breakfast bill and the second bill coming after it later tonight. There are processes to produce good legislation. This government has made a mockery of them all. The atrocious, shoddy legislation reflects contempt for our democratic process and for the people of Australia. The hate provisions for the Commonwealth Criminal Code that Labor introduced in 2010 and subsequently amended to make prosecutions easier have never been used—not one prosecution. 

Australia does not need more laws which take away the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of protest. We need the government to start policing the laws we already have. Whether people are Christian or another civilised religion, there can only be one set of laws, which are laws based on our Christian, Western heritage. There can only be one allegiance in our community and it’s to those laws. Tolerance has been weaponised. Labor, the Greens, the teals and now the Liberals have elevated tolerance to be the end itself. The thing being tolerated became irrelevant. 

Speaking about Islam has been made prima facie racism, yet criticism of Christianity and Judaism is encouraged as being the religions of white-skinned people and of colonisers. White-skinned people are being demonised by the left-wing lobby groups and by other white-skinned people, like Greens Senator McKim, who said yesterday that Australians will not be safe until we’ve eliminated Islamophobia. In ‘Greens-land’, apparently there’s no radical Islam and the terrorist attacks I listed earlier never happened. It’s this illogical, suicidal empathy that’s led us to this moment. 

The list of terror attacks I read out used guns, bombs, knives, cars and trucks. Guns are a straw-man argument. ‘Look over here at these evil guns and don’t look at the person wielding the gun.’ Failing to act against radical Islam will lead to more Australians losing their lives. Australia does not have a gun problem; we have a radical ideology problem. One Nation strongly supports the right to own and use firearms lawfully and responsibly. This Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 penalises legitimate, law-abiding gun owners. The poor wording shows a failure to understand how guns are used on farms and in sport. This is what happens when city based antigun groups are consulted and gun owner associations are not. 

The bill proposes limiting the use of carriage services. This is pitched at limiting the use of the internet to access blueprints and use 3D printers to print guns. This is already illegal under state law. This bill elevates the description of ‘illegal material’ to mean whatever the hell the government decides is illegal. It could include a legal owner downloading the manual for a gun or educational YouTube videos on how to pull down, clean and reassemble a gun or on the science of a gun, like how the striking pin works and how to detect change, damage or wear to machine parts which may render the gun unsafe. 

Merits review of a refusal to grant a gun licence under this bill is eliminated. Appeals would now have to be undertaken through the Federal Court, which is—what?—$20,000 minimum. The Administrative Review Tribunal system is working just fine, so now the government are fixing a problem that doesn’t exist so they can use a spurious argument to take guns off anyone they dislike. 

As Minister Watt raised gun numbers, let me assist him. There are more guns in Australia now than there were in 1996, before the Port Arthur buyback, because our population has increased. The number of guns per person today is lower now than in 1996—lower—and the number of guns owned per person is lower. Honesty is important, Senator Watt. 

One Nation supports the right of Australians to participate in sports involving firearms, to use firearms for hunting or recreational shooting, to collect antique and historically significant firearms and to use firearms in rural areas for pest and stock management. One Nation seeks to end discrimination against legitimate firearm owners and users, ensure all stakeholders are fairly consulted in the development of firearms laws and regulations and make existing laws fairer. We seek to improve community safety by cracking down on illegal firearm use with stronger penalties if firearms are used in committing crimes. The buyback scheme is a blank cheque, which industry sources we spoke to said could cost up to $15 billion. This is a tax on everyday Australians, because it must be paid for with a tax. One Nation supports castle law—the right to use force, fatal force if necessary, in proportion to defend one’s home and family from an intruder. Bring that legislation before parliament and One Nation will support it. 

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 has been so badly rushed that critical passages are inconsistent to the point that a court is likely to refuse prosecution based on these inconsistent provisions. The changes on which the government and the Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, surrendered do not justify Liberals supporting this bill. The government said that creating a new offence of racial vilification was removed from the hastily redrafted bill, yet some elements are hidden in the revised bill. The bill still includes supremacy. Anyone who says ‘Australian society is superior to Islamic Society’ is off to jail for five years, 12 if you are a priest or a lay preacher. Will the government start rounding up hate preachers in the electorates of senior Labor ministers like Messrs Burke, Butler and Bowen for declaring the superiority of Islam over Christianity? Of course not. 

Make no mistake, this bill continues the war on Christianity and the promotion of Islam that has been a feature of left-wing politics for a generation. I welcome the last-minute government amendment to include a clause attempting to guarantee freedom of political communication, even if that protection is already in the Constitution. It may make it less likely this bill would be used to ban political rivals, including One Nation. 

The bill still does not mention antisemitism, not once. It was never about protecting Jews; it was always about promoting Islam over Christianity. Liberal leader Sussan Ley has sided with the Labor Party to wave it through without due process and with onerous clauses that take away peoples freedoms, will cost all Australians more in taxes and will, in the end, fundamentally change the nature of Australian society without protecting against a recurrence. Australians, your choice is now One Nation or no nation. 

/4 Comments/by

Running on Empty

,

Successive Liberal and Labor governments have run Australia’s fuel reserves down to dangerously low levels. Both parties are following an agenda to promote electrification, pushing for the adoption of electric cars and trucks. The most effective way to achieve this is to force petrol shortages, thereby forcing the public to buy electric vehicles.

Over the last seven years, four reports have all called for Australia to restart domestic oil production, open more refineries, build more storage tanks and increase our domestic reserves. For four years, the “Uniparty” did nothing.

This week, as the war in Iran has frozen oil shipments, I asked Minister Ayres what his government was doing to keep the economy moving. His non-answers would be laughable if the subject weren’t so serious.

One Nation will increase domestic extraction, refining, and storage because, unlike this government, we aren’t stupid.

⭐ I also need to correct the record regarding a statement in this video. I asked what would happen in a few weeks when our largest refinery closes for maintenance for 10 days; the correct information is that the refinery will actually be closing for 10 WEEKS 😲

Transcript

Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Yesterday, I asked you to confirm that Australia was entering a period of oil supply disruption, with a mere 26 days of petrol in the system. Under International Energy Agency guidance, the minimum fuel reserve is 90 days, yet you responded that Australia has 150 per cent of its minimum requirement. Last year, the Albanese government quietly chose to ignore the International Energy Agency and instead decided to introduce its own minimum stockholding obligations, which it set at a mere 24 days—problem solved! Aside from 26 not being 150 per cent of 24, how can you justify ignoring International Energy Agency best practice and introducing a patently absurd and dangerous minimum stockholding obligation of only 24 days of petrol supply? Why are you entrenching energy insecurity and volatility for which Australians will pay? 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (14:40): I’ll start at the end of that question, and then I’ll try to deal with some of the substance of it. Energy insecurity in Australia is a consequence of what happened over the Morrison-Abbott-Turnbull catastrophe where four out of our six oil refineries closed. Despite what Mr Hastie says, when he turns to you for work, these things are not straightforward to rebuild. Four out of six closed, so, if you want to ask questions about energy insecurity, ask them how it is that they sat on their hands for so long. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: Point of order: I’m not asking the opposition; I’m asking the minister, and I want an answer. 

The PRESIDENT: I will direct the minister to your question. Minister Ayres? 

Senator AYRES: While I’m on the subject of the opposition and the current fuel security arrangements—we have larger reserves on hand today than there have been at any time over the last 15 years as a result of the action, not words, that this government has taken. When Mr Taylor was in charge of energy, sort of—it was unclear, as I think Mr Morrison was secretly also the minister at the same time—he was the worst energy minister in Australian history and did more to debauch and pull down our energy policy framework. His proposition was that Australia’s fuel reserves should be contained in Texas. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator Roberts: In the next few weeks, Brisbane’s Lytton fuel refinery is scheduled to close for 10 days maintenance. Lytton produces the majority of Australia’s domestic petrol, diesel and industrial gas. Ten days production taken out of the system at a time of supply shortage is a recipe for disaster. Why didn’t the Albanese government secure additional supply prior to Lytton closing to ensure fuel security in Australia? 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (14:43): In relation to the previous question, Texas in the United States—not Texas, Queensland—is where, supposedly, this character had our fuel. You say that there is a 10-day—I couldn’t be any more relevant. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: Point of order: I’m not asking about Texas. I’m asking about Lytton and securing additional fuel supplies to protect this country. 

The PRESIDENT: I was about to direct the minister to your question, but he went to the question himself. Minister Ayres? 

Senator AYRES: I did. Of course, these kinds of maintenance shutdowns occur from time to time. If there’s anything in relation to this particular shutdown that I can provide to you, I will. There are not six oil refineries. Four closed. Four closed when Senator Canavan, who’s very noisy about these issues in opposition, was as quiet as a mouse when the other side was in government. I think I’ve run out of time. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator Roberts: Of the 3,000 oil tankers that service Australia, we own just four, with a total capacity of approximately 1.8 million barrels every delivery cycle, which takes 30 days from Singapore and 40 days from South Korea, our major supply point. 1.8 million barrels is enough to last Australia six days. Minister, what’s your plan here? Will you beg other countries for some of their oil, force Australians to pay $3 a litre at the pumps, or use the petrol shortage to introduce more Labor communism control? 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (14:45): I’m not sure there’s an adjective big enough for that overreach in the English language. If you’re so critical of Mr Taylor’s performance as the Minister for Energy and the fact that our merchant fleet declined over that period, the fact that four out of our six oil refineries closed and the fact that 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure, why do you cuddle up to them so much? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I’m not asking about his uniparty mate, Mr Taylor. I’m asking about his own policy. What’s he going to do? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you’ve made the point of order. I will draw the minister to your question. 

Senator AYRES: I’ve answered the question. I make the point that, if you and the Nationals and the Liberals really want to get behind Mr Taylor, who was the worst energy minister in our history, who did more damage than any other person to Australia’s energy security and who did more, along with Senator Hume, to trash the economic record of the Liberal Party at the last election, be our guest. 

/3 Comments/by

Elitism: The New Labor Way

,

Premier Malinauskas is campaigning in the South Australia state election with the lie that building submarines in SA will provide our young with “breadwinner” jobs — jobs that will allow them to own their own homes, start a family and generally live the life successive Liberal and Labor governments have actually taken from them.

The numbers don’t add up. The subs’ program will employ 4,500 people during fit-up and 4,500 during construction, out of a workforce in South Australia of 975,000. Shipbuilding already employs 14,000 and many of these will move over to the subs.

Most likely, the subs will employ a few hundred of our young, a drop in the employment bucket in SA. Not only is the Premier lying about how many young people will be employed in subs’ construction, he’s wrapping the whole thing up in an elitist sales pitch. Your children, he says, will be so busy building subs and living the high life that they will not have time to look after their elderly parents; therefore, we need immigrants to, quote: “wipe their bums.”

This is offensive to South Australians who are looking after their parents and to aged care workers who do so much more than personal care.

The Premier’s elitist view of the world is not shared by One Nation.

Transcript

One Nation has long maintained that the immigration invasion is about politics, not economics. South Australian Premier Malinauskas waded into that debate last month, when he said:  

My message to One Nation voters is: ‘Who’s going to feed you and bathe you and wipe your bum when you’re 90?’ … Because it ain’t going to be your kids, because if I get my way, they’re going to be working on submarines, with high-paying jobs, so they can afford to own their home … 

And he said that, if we’re taking real people out of the housing construction industry to work on the submarines, we’re going to need people to do that work too—to work in aged care. What a socialist nirvana South Australia will be, with migrants, according to the Labor premier, acting as a servant class to their white masters and their children, who will have economic abundance and not have to wipe their own bums! 

Elitism and socialism go hand in hand. The Russians, during communism, called this elitist cabal the ‘nomenklatura’. In communist China, they’re called ‘princelings’ for their wealth and imperial manner. In Australia, we just call them the Labor Party. What an insult to the many migrants with real qualifications who have come to Australia to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour and who, in so doing, have lifted up all who are here. 

A quick look at employment numbers gives the lie to the Premier’s grand vision of recreating the Raj in Adelaide. Total employment on the submarine program will be 4,500 during construction of the shipyard and then 4,500 to build the submarines. The 10,000 jobs are sequential, not all at the same time. The size of the South Australian labour market is 975,000 people. Shipbuilding already employs 14,000 people, some of whom will move over to the subs. All we need to fill the remaining places is for state and federal Labor to start planning now for the subs workforce through targeted vocational and university placements for Australian workers. The Premier’s big pitch to the electorate is elitist and dishonest. 

/by

Ending the Era of Mass Migration

,

For decades, the Liberal-Labor Uniparty has put the cart before the horse, bringing in record numbers of people before building the infrastructure needed to support them.

And what’s the result? Record homelessness, average house prices skyrocketing across Australia, and an entire generation of young Aussies giving up on the “Great Australian Dream”.

One Nation introduced the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 to put the power back in YOUR hands.

We must: ✅ Build the homes before the people arrive. ✅ Prioritise Australians over globalist agendas. ✅ END mass migration.

The Division

How They Voted

Transcript

Firstly, I have some housekeeping. The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 has been amended to update the question to be proposed in the plebiscite. It was necessary to reintroduce this bill and then amend it to overcome drafting delays due to inappropriate staffing levels in parliamentary support services, thanks to the Labor government. It’s a constraint the government has not inflicted on itself, given the thousands of pages of legislation before the Senate this week alone. Some technical amendments have been circulated to update section references. 

The intent of the bill, though, is the same as on the previous occasions One Nation has brought this bill before the Senate. It’s time to ask the Australian people in a plebiscite: how much immigration is enough? That is a question for the people. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of a parliamentary representative is to listen to the MP’s masters—the people. I’ll say that again. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of every parliamentary representative is to listen to the members of parliament’s masters—the people. The remainder of the bill sets out the provisions necessary to conduct the plebiscite. That section of the bill closely follows the provisions of the gay marriage plebiscite. Just as One Nation respected the wishes of the Australian people in that outcome, we would expect all members of parliament and senators to respect the outcome of this plebiscite. 

This bill will pose the question, ‘Do you support a zero net migration policy for a period of five years?’ It’s a very simple, straightforward question. ‘Zero net’ simply means the number of new arrivals must equal the number of people who leave—zero net migration; net migration, zero. This brings to an end the era of massive population growth and mass migration started under John Howard’s prime ministership. That will ease the pressure on housing, medical services, education, transport and infrastructure and provide space for the assimilation for the massive number of people who have been brought to Australia under this Labor government. Five years is enough for that process to work through, especially the construction of housing and infrastructure. 

And One Nation would police existing immigration laws. There are an estimated 200,000 people here illegally, meaning people who have deliberately breached their visa conditions, which is illegal. These people should be deported—remigration back to where they came from. That provision is not in this bill. We should not need a bill to make the government police the laws it already has. One Nation does not oppose immigration. We oppose mass migration, which—for the deliberately ignorant or unaware, unconscious and uncaring left-wing commentariat—can be defined as new migration from all sources which exceeds the housing construction rate after accommodating natural population increase. Pretty simply, build the home before the person arrives. This is not rocket science—build the home before the person arrives. I speak as a migrant and as an Australian citizen. 

For a generation, the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties have had this simple concept backward—bring a migrant to Australia and, once they’re here, build them a home. In the meantime, they’re homeless. Eventually build them a home—no rush! This backwards approach to immigration has caused the worst housing crisis in Australian peacetime history—record homelessness and growing. New migrants coming in here are homeless. Australians are homeless. The elderly, unemployed and working poor are being priced out of the housing market as new arrivals increase demand. That drives up rents and home prices. 

The government has then stepped in and created schemes to make it easier to afford one’s home, supposedly, usually through low-deposit mortgages and first home buyer grants. All these do is drive up the price of the house, so the young person is back where they started, needing an unaffordable deposit and a higher income to cover repayments on a home that should, at their asking price, be made of gold. Other speakers, I’m sure, will point out how the Albanese government’s latest confidence trick on young home buyers, the low deposit housing scheme, has had exactly this effect—driving up prices so that young buyers are no better off. 

You will hear an opposing argument that the housing crisis is not about population growth; it’s about housing construction. In recent days, the Labor Party has once again stood in front of cameras in their high-vis gear, complete with hard hat, all borrowed from the wardrobe department, to announce more money is to be spent on housing. What comes of these announcements? Nothing. People cannot build with what we don’t have. There is a lack of approved land, equipment, materials and experienced construction labour. It’s an outrageous thing to say all we need to do is to bring in more tradies. To begin with, more new arrivals is the cause of the problem. I’m mindful that sitting right behind me is someone who’s in the construction industry from Western Australia, Senator Tyron Whitten, and he will be speaking later. Secondly, homes are not making it to the tradie stage fast enough to justify more tradies. 

This is all a smokescreen anyway. The reality is that the ALP doesn’t want more tradies, having only brought in 6,000 new tradies in their entire first term. That’s less than one per cent, a fraction of one per cent, of the government’s mass migration intake—less than one per cent building houses for the other more than 99 per cent, as well as the pent-up demand from the past. The government wants a labour shortage so their union boss mates can demand ludicrous wage rises. I’ve heard of stop/go attendants earning $140,000 per year and, in some areas, $200,000 a year. What does that do to the cost of houses? What does that do to the profit and viability of builders? Construction companies are going under. We can see that. 

What do material shortages do to their profit? This epidemic of mass migration is happening around the world, a global push from globalists setting the agenda in BlackRock Inc. and then moving into the housing market with benefits given to them by the Labor government only in recent weeks. In the absence of Australian production of building materials, Australia is a price taker. We are competing with literally the entire world to get building materials to Australia. Local councils are flat out processing development applications. Everyone in the housing chain is juggling red tape, green tape and blue UN tape to somehow manage to get homes built. More tradies won’t fix that problem; reduced housing demand and fewer new arrivals will fix that problem. 

Consider this question: more arrivals increase home prices and cause homelessness, so what does reducing new arrivals do? There’s no need to guess at the answer. Our friends across the ditch in New Zealand have answered the question for us. New Zealand has woken up. Immigration numbers were reduced from 70,000 in 2024 to just 13,000 in 2025. As a result, new home prices fell and rents stabilised after just one year of reduced migration. Look at Canada. The same has happened in Canada. In contrast, Australia keeps bringing in more new arrivals than we have houses. And guess what? House prices and rents keep going up and up and up. Go figure. It’s pretty simple. Australia is already building more new homes per capita than any other country in the world, yet record homelessness continues growing.  

An entire generation of young Australians is being disenfranchised. I talk to these fine young Australians every day. They tell me that they’re giving up on ever owning their own home—giving up! Giving up on their own country. Scott Challen, a builder in Brisbane, tells me that, daily, young people are being disenfranchised. That is dangerous for the future of our country. These young people speak of their frustration, of their betrayal, at the hands of the governing Liberal-Labor uniparty. These are children that have done everything society has asked of them. They’ve studied hard, stayed out of trouble and achieved a trade or university degree. They are working in a good job—or two jobs, or for some of them three jobs, to make ends meet—and they find that, despite this dedication and sacrifice, they’re struggling to pay rent, let alone save for a home deposit. Even if they can save a deposit, where can they afford to buy? Sydney? The average home price is above $1.5 million. No young person can afford that, yet Sydney is where the jobs are. Why is Sydney so dear? Well, new arrivals—that’s the answer. Analysis of average home prices, average rents and immigration numbers in Sydney in the last five years shows a simple fact: the higher the immigration intake, the larger the increase in rents and home prices—full stop, end of story. Conversely, the lower the intake, the lower the prices. 

How many people are currently in Australia who aren’t Australian citizens? Good question. After a bit of digging, I believe the answer is around 3.7 million people, made up of 2.5 million temporary visa holders and 1.2 million permanent residents, plus 380,000 tourists and short-stay crew. That makes four million people plus, when including tourists, here in this country who are not citizens. Migration statistics are opaque and confusing. They are deliberately opaque and confusing. There are lots of traps when adding different types of data together, and it’s an area where we’re prone to get fact-checked, misreported and misrepresented. This allows the champions of mass migration to understate the intake and then deflect away from migration to blame other factors, like a lack of tradies. Don’t fall for it. It’s rubbish. 

If you are in this country and not a citizen, you need to be on a visa. We know how many visa holders are in the country right now. As at July 2025 there were 2.5 million temporary visa holders, not including tourists. There were 1.5 million permanent visa holders, and four million noncitizens—four million non-Australians—all of whom need a home in which to live. The effect this is having on the housing market can be seen in a simple statistic: 43 per cent of the population of Greater Sydney and 41 per cent of the population of Greater Melbourne were born overseas. That isn’t migration; that’s mass migration. It’s invasion. It’s part of a globalist agenda across many woke Western nations, and Australians are shouting this in the streets now. 

In every nation, it is the government’s duty to design immigration policy for the benefit of citizens already in the country, not for the benefit of those outside wanting to come into the country. Immigration policy, just as a side point, has four broad aspects in my view. The first is numbers of people allowed—no, invited—into the country. The second is the quality of people allowed in, their skills, whether they will be put straight to work and contribute productively, safety and security, the quality of people and the culture. The third is: will the people coming in assimilate and integrate into the identity of the country? The fourth is: will Australia’s identity be preserved? Multiculturalism, introduced by Bob Hawke and reinforced by John Howard, undermines assimilation and integration and destroys Australian identity. 

Stop it and restore Australian identity. This bill, though, is only about numbers. The question of how much immigration is too much has never been put to the Australian people. It’s time. As a migrant and as a citizen, I value our country and say: it’s time. 

/1 Comment/by

Bureaucrats vs. Parents

,

I have used Estimates several times to draw attention to the filth being distributed in libraries, material that targets children and is available to them regardless of age. This includes graphic sex-instruction manuals that most adults would find excessive.

We urgently need an intermediate classification for graphic written publications. We have raised this issue for many years; and while the Classification Board seems to agree, there has been no action for almost two years.

During this estimates session, I questioned the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) on the bureaucrats currently running our classification system. We have three different bodies: ACMA, the Classification Board, and the Classification Review Board, all pointing fingers at each other while inappropriate material continues to be freely available to children.

ACMA admitted in their “Stage 2 reforms” submission that we need to rationalise this mess into one single national regulator. It’s common sense: one body, one set of standards, and actual accountability.

I also asked how these obscene publications could possibly meet “community standards.” The answer? They haven’t done any “community standards” research in years. How can they claim to represent the public if they aren’t even talking to them?

The government says they are “awaiting reports,” yet our children can’t wait.

We need a system that reflects your standards, not the standards of Canberra bureaucrats.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Australian Communication and Media Authority review of Australian classification regulation written form closed submissions in May 2025. What’s happened since and when will we
get an outcome?

Ms Field: I believe that is the work of the department, not the ACMA. We have not published a paper.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, then. ACMA made a submission titled Modernising Australia’s national classification scheme: stage 2 reforms. It was dated 6 June 2024. Your submission calls for a national
classification regulator to oversee a reformed classification scheme. Is this in addition to the ACMA, the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board?

Ms O’Loughlin: What we were reflecting on in our submission is that classification is undertaken by a range of different organisations and that there may potentially be benefits of rationalising that, because you have the national Classification Board doing publications and film, you have the Classification Review Board. You also have us who have responsibility for classification and broadcasting. What we were saying is: is there a way of looking at that? Is there any rationalisation that could happen?

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was: that’s a lot of bureaucracy, to have three agencies, which most likely will have the outcome of nobody being responsible. Are you talking about rationalising it from three to
one?

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s our proposal.

Senator ROBERTS: One of the duties you suggest for the rationalised body is to conduct community standards research. Community standards are central to the existing Classification Board decision process. Do you
do community standards research at the moment?

Ms O’Loughlin: We do from time to time in the broadcasting space, but we were indicating that, if there was a combined organisation, if I can use that term, there would be a requirement to make sure there was community research done across all those different mediums—broadcasting, film, literature—to inform the decisions of that new rationalised body.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you currently doing that with broadcasting? You are saying that it needs to continue so that the new rationalised entity does not drop that community standards research?

Ms O’Loughlin: The body is actually testing what the community standards are rather than only relying on its own judgement.

Senator ROBERTS: Seeing as you do community standards research for broadcasting, can you provide on notice the most recent round of research and the cost to the taxpayers for that process?

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly. We haven’t done some for some time, but I’m happy to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could give us the date of when it was done?

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to see how some obscene sex manuals for children could be considered as meeting community standards. I’m horrified/shocked at a publication called Let’s Talk About It. The title probably
should be This is How to Do It. It’s an instruction manual, not an information manual. It’s pornography. I’ve asked many questions in many estimates sessions regarding the failure of the rating system to offer a restricted
classification for printed material, something between the existing unclassified and R18-plus such as we have for violent teenage videogames. What’s ACMA’s position on a legally enforceable, mature-age, 15-plus or similar classification for these graphic sex instruction manuals targeted at children?

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s not part of our responsibilities currently; that is a matter for the Classification Board. I would expect that may be something that will be raised in the stage 2 classification review that’s being undertaken by the department. That would be the place for that to be considered.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the government’s opinion or view?

Senator Green: I’ll answer your question by saying that the chair is correct; we did have officials here who are working on a review. They were here a bit earlier. Unfortunately, they can’t answer those questions for you
now. Obviously, stage 1 was quite successful. We’re working on stage 2 reforms now. The department has engaged a social research centre and Mendelsons to undertake a functional update of the classification guidelines. The minister awaits the final report from this functional update. Unfortunately, I can’t give you any more information without officials here at the table. As the chair indicated to you as well, the Classification Board itself and the Classification Review Board will be appearing later this evening and can answer questions about specific classifications about which you might be concerned.

Senator ROBERTS: We have to get something done about this.

Senator Green: Of course.

/by

Whistleblowers Left Unprotected

,

In Senate Estimates, I questioned ASIC over the case of Roxanne Mysko, a whistleblower who spoke up about major safety failings in the trucking industry, only to be left unprotected.

Why hasn’t ASIC used the Corporations Act to protect her?

Why was the matter referred elsewhere when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?

Will ASIC reopen case CAS-94551 and prosecute for whistleblower retaliation?

ASIC couldn’t, or wouldn’t answer, taking every question on notice. It’s clear that right now, Australian whistleblowers are standing alone. I won’t stop pushing until that changes.

If our regulators won’t act, “protections” are just words on a page. We need real accountability for those who risk everything to keep us safe.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I hope that this session is a bit longer than the previous one. Are you aware of Ms Roxanne Mysko?  

Ms Court: I will try to be. The name is vaguely familiar but—  

Senator ROBERTS: Roxanne Mysko?  

Ms Court: Is there a company that Ms Mysko is associated with that you could help me with?  

Senator ROBERTS: I think she’s a whistleblower. Yes, she’s a whistleblower to you guys.  

Ms Court: If that’s the case, I won’t be able to speak about anything to do with that. But just let me check with Mr Savundra, just to make sure, to see if we have anything that we can assist you with here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ll ask the question. You can decide. Ms Roxanne Mysko is an honest person who discovered that there were significant failings of safety in the trucking industry. She found that international corporations, including Santos and Ensign, had contracted ECS Project Logistics as freight logistics. ECS and approximately 70 contractors operated with zero safety audits, fatigue controls and licence and registration checks done from 2007 to 2020. Why did ASIC fail to enforce the Corporations Act whistleblower protections? 

Ms Court: I don’t have any information about that with me, I’m afraid.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice?  

Ms Court: Of course, I’ll take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did ASIC refer whistleblower matters to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?  

Ms Court: I’ll have to take that on notice as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIC reopen CAS-94551 and prosecute whistleblower retaliation, identified breaches and victimisation by Santos, Ensign and ECS under Part 9.4AAA?  

Ms Court: I’m not familiar with the document you’re referring to, but, again, I’m happy to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: These disclosures by Ms Mysko revealed grave safety failings in the heavy vehicle industry. These safety issues are of significant concern for all road users. Ms Mysko has suffered terribly at the hands of big corporations and those public servants who have not done their jobs. Minister, when will this government get serious about protecting genuine whistleblowers and stop them from being victimised by wrongdoers?  

Senator Ayres: I have no knowledge of the matters that you raise. I understand you’ve asked ASIC questions about how they may or may not have dealt with this, and they’ve taken it on notice. In terms of the extent to which—you could make an argument that their responsibilities touch on this matter. But I have no knowledge of this set of circumstances, and I can’t help you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible for you to comment once we get the answers from ASIC?  

Senator Ayres: If there’s anything that we can help you with, we will.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know when this government will protect whistleblowers. That’s all.  

Senator Ayres: That’s a broader policy question. I’m not sure that ASIC’s in a position to respond to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m asking you for that.  

Senator Ayres: The broad approach that the government’s taken in relation to whistleblower protections is probably a matter for the Attorney-General. I’m here representing the Treasurer, and I’m not sure that I’m in a position to provide you with much information at all about this issue, as important as it is, both broadly and in relation to the person who you’ve referred to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think that’ll give whistleblowers much confidence, but thank you for your answer.  

Senator Ayres: Then you should ask these questions in the Attorney-General’s section if you are genuinely looking for an answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/by

Are There Really 200 Would-Be Terrorists in Australia?

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned Mr Burgess, Director-General of ASIO, about the scale and nature of extremist threats in Australia. I cited figures of 200 potential terrorists and 18,000 people on threat-related watchlists.

Mr Burgess clarified that while “tens of thousands” have been investigated since 2001, not all remain active threats. He stated that the vast majority of individuals investigated since 2001 fall under religiously motivated violent extremism. However, he noted growth in other sectors, specifically – nationalist and racist violent extremists; extreme left-wing groups (anarchists and revolutionists) and broad “issue-motivated” extremists.

Mr Burgess declined to say whether the majority of persons under investigation were Islamist extremists.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of root cause analysis, you’ve reassured me already. Thank you for your statement. I have a few questions. Is it true that there are approximately 200 would-be terrorists living in Australia? Is it true that there are over 18,000 people on the threat related watch list?  

Mr Burgess: What I can say publicly is we have a number of people we have subject to investigations, including a number of people in our priority counterterrorism caseload who obviously get the priority. There are tens of thousands of people who have come to our attention and are no longer being investigated by us. That does not mean tens of thousands of people are potential terrorists, but they’re people we have investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that the majority of these are Islamic sympathisers?  

Mr Burgess: The vast majority of people we’ve investigated since 2001 have come from a religiously motivated violent extremism cohort. But of course we have seen growth in broader issue motivated violent extremists, including nationalists and racist violent extremists and people with a range of other grievances, including on the extreme left, anarchists and revolutionists, which is something recently that we’re getting involved in. The mix is spread.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIO take direct action in the future on strong suspicion of threat even if the action runs the risk of being branded racist or the result of profiling religion or whatever? It seems to be a matter of life and death.  

Mr Burgess: If it’s a matter of life and death, we and the police will be on it. We’ll be doing that together with the police. If it’s an immediate threat to life, you need the police to go through the front door, not the security service. We always investigate threats to security, and that’s what we’re investigating. We’re not racially profiling or doing anything else. We’re looking at people who hold certain ideological views that think politically motivated violence or promotion of communal violence is something that supports them or in their remit. We will act accordingly with the full force of our law. Everything we do and everything we must do has to be legal and proportionate to the threat before us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you label them at the risk of being called names?  

Mr Burgess: It depends what you mean by ‘label’. We assign ideology—  

Senator ROBERTS: Identify their background. 

Mr Burgess: Religiously motivated violent extremists, Sunni violent extremists, Neo-Nazis, nationalist and racist violent extremists—we call them what we need to to explain their ideology and motivation.  

Senator ROBERTS: One last challenge for you, and a very difficult one. Could you teach the minister about root cause analysis, please?  

Mr Burgess: That’s a matter for the minister, if he’s interested. He probably has a very busy day job. 

/by