In this session with the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC), I asked questions on the Border-to-Gowrie section of the Inland Rail, a project that continues to look like a horrendous waste of taxpayers’ money.
I asked how much hard-earned taxpayer money has been spent on this 217-kilometre stretch to date and what it will cost before construction even starts. This question was taken on notice. Estimates have been submitted to the federal government, yet the actual cost of building 37 bridges and 3,000 culverts remains up in the air.
We were originally promised a “port-to-port” network from Melbourne to Brisbane. Now, the ARTC admits the actual scope only goes from Beveridge to Kagaru. They’re admitting they cannot get double-stacked, 1.8-kilometre trains into the Brisbane port — and never will. Moving the intermodal terminal to Ebenezer is a flat-out confession of that failure.
They’re stubbornly sticking to a route that goes over a mountain and straight across the Condamine flood plain, which is an engineering nightmare that we’ve warned them about for years. They’re even talking about a “vast new rail tunnel” down the range before they’ve even sorted the basic costs or engineering reality.
I put it to them directly: every single cent being spent on this Queensland route is completely wasted. If you can’t get double-stacked freight to the port, the entire business case goes completely out the window.
While I know the ARTC is just “following orders,” I urge the government to stop throwing good money after bad.
Although they need to finish costing that range tunnel, they must immediately halt the rest and look at alternative routes, such as taking the alignment to the Port of Gladstone, which would actually deliver real logistical and economic benefits for the entire nation.
Once again – this was taken “on notice.”
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight, and have a good evening. My questions are on Inland Rail from the Queensland border to Gowrie specifically. This stage is at phase 4 approval. For 2026, ARTC anticipates increased activity, with teams conducting more site investigations, surveys and updates as they work towards securing final environmental approvals. How much money has been spent on the border-to-Gowrie section to date, and how much is expected to be spent before the first construction begins?
Mr Zambelli: I’d have to take that historical data on notice. At the moment we do have a design team engaged—that’s working on that border-to-Gowrie section to get the next refinement of the design—and we’re out there doing site investigations. I’d have to take on notice the total amount that we’ve spent over many years.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that—and also the cost of the design.
Mr Zambelli: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It appears you’re persevering with a route over a mountain and across the Condamine flood plain, which we’ve talked about many times, to get down to the Brisbane rail network, which will never be able to handle 1.8-kilometre trains or double-stacked trains—never. Why are you persevering with a route that will never get you to port, instead of taking the Inland Rail alignment to the port of Gladstone? There are many logistical benefits for the whole nation.
Mr Zambelli: The scope of Inland Rail is to go to Kagaru, not to Brisbane port, with double-stacked trains to Ebenezer and single-stacked trains to Kagaru. That is the scope. Inland Rail does not go to Brisbane port.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that, but we were originally told it was port to port—Melbourne to Brisbane. That’s what we were originally told was the vision for Inland Rail. It’s not going to do it. It can go to the port of Gladstone.
Mr Zambelli: I’m just telling you the scope, Senator. Inland Rail is Beveridge to Kagaru.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. You’ve got to follow orders. The border-to-Gowrie section is 217 kilometres of mostly new track, 37 bridges and 3,000 culverts. How much will this cost?
Mr Zambelli: The cost of that section is still being determined. We’ve provided some scope and design, schedule and cost estimates to the federal government, and that’s a matter for the federal government and their assurance verification specialist that’s working with them.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s horrendous. There’s Gowrie to Helidon, including a ‘vast new rail tunnel’—they’re Inland Rail’s words. Surely, taking Inland Rail to Toowoomba shouldn’t be considered until you sort the cost and engineering for taking it down the range. I put it to you that every cent you’re spending on the Queensland route is completely wasted. If you can’t get double-stacked freight to Brisbane, the whole business case is out the window, and your recent update about moving the intermodal from Kagaru to Ebenezer acknowledges you can’t get double-stacked trains to Brisbane itself, which you’ve admitted. Would you please continue work on costing the tunnel down the range but otherwise spend your time, Minister, revisiting alternative routes for Inland Rail? There are so many other fine options that will benefit the country.
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice, Senator Roberts.
Black market tobacco and vaping in Australia is a real problem. I raised concerns that, while seizures have increased by 38%, there’s no clear data showing whether that’s actually making a dent in the total illicit market.
Even the department couldn’t tell me how much illegal tobacco is getting through compared to what’s being stopped. They admitted that assessment is still pending in a report from the Illicit Tobacco and E‑cigarette Commissioner.
I asked for clarity on illegal vape consumption, noting that import figures alone don’t tell the story, especially when some products are being made domestically. Again, the answer was that they don’t know how many illegal vapes are actually being used across the country, only how many have been intercepted at the border.
I raised serious concerns about the criminal activity tied to this black market — violence, intimidation and organised crime. Yet no-one present could provide figures on how many violent incidents are linked to illegal tobacco and vaping. I was told that that information sits with law enforcement agencies, not the commissioner.
On the financial side, I asked how much revenue Australians are losing due to illegal tobacco. While officials highlighted that billions in evasion have been prevented through seizures, they still couldn’t provide a clear figure for total revenue lost. I pointed out that estimates suggest the cost could be as high as $8–9 billion annually, which underscores just how massive this black market has become.
What we’re dealing with here is a large, organised criminal enterprise, often driven from overseas, and that we need proper data on the size of the market and the broader social costs. Without that, we’re flying blind.
Finally, I asked Minister Watt directly on whether its excessively high tobacco taxes are driving ordinary Australians into the illegal market by making legal products unaffordable.
True to form, Minister Watt flatly rejected that connection, yet offered no evidence to support that position. I pointed out to him that this approach risks empowering organised crime while reducing government revenue, placing greater burdens on taxpayers.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reynolds, a constituent says: ‘If the seizures have increased by 38 per cent, what has been the proportion of the total growth in the illicit tobacco market? Has it grown by more than 38 per cent? How do we know that?’ Compliments to you for the seizure, but how do we know if that has had a big impact?
Mr Reynolds: It’s a reasonable assessment that there has been an increase in the amount of illicit tobacco coming into the country. But I’m not in a position to tell you what the delta is. The amount that we get on the border to the amount that is coming into the country is not a figure that I have for you.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t have it?
Mr Reynolds: What I’d offer is this: the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner is working through an assessment of what that delta is, and that will be provided in a report to the government.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, when do we expect that report?
Ms Foster: The commissioner gave evidence earlier that she was just finalising the report at that moment.
Senator ROBERTS: So we should see that soon? Will that report contain an assessment or an estimate of the total illicit tobacco market size?
Ms Shuhyta: It will.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s good. How many illegal vapes were consumed in Australia in the last 12 months? I say ‘consumed’ because I understand some are being made here. Importation figures are less relevant than they are for tobacco; is that correct?
Mr Reynolds: I can tell you we allowed 1.2 million legal vapes into Australia and we intercepted six million illegal vapes on the border coming into the country. But I’m not in a position to tell you how many illegal vapes were consumed in Australia during the financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many acts of violence were committed in Australia that were directly related to illegal tobacco and vapes? I’m talking about murders, fire bombings, assaults and similar acts or threats of violence. We know from tobacconists that they’ve been threatened. Some have been shut down.
Mr Reynolds: I think that’s really a question for, potentially, the Australian Federal Police—or the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission may have an answer to that question for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there someone from the AFP who could answer that—or perhaps the commissioner could.
Ms Foster: The AFP is appearing later this evening.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the commissioner have any idea of that? You’re in charge of coordinating stopping this.
Ms Shuhyta: I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to get them on notice?
Ms Shuhyta: I will do my best to work with law enforcement.
Ms Foster: I think the question is best directed to the law enforcement agencies rather than the ITEC commissioner. They will be here later.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t the ITEC commissioner overseeing and coordinating everything?
Ms Foster: She’s coordinating the response, but, where there is a specific function like law enforcement, those questions are best directed to the specific agency.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, how much government revenue has illegal tobacco taken out of the budget?
Mr Reynolds: I don’t have that figure. That may be an inclusion in the ITEC commissioner’s report to the government. What I can tell you is that we have prevented $4.4 billion worth of evasion by intercepting 2.5 billion cigarettes and over 400 tonnes of loose tobacco on the border.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. Those figures and the number of cigarette sticks you’ve intercepted are pretty impressive, but my understanding is that the government has lost about $8 billion or $9 billion a year on excise due to illegal tobacco coming into the country. We need to understand the size of the overall market, because it’s huge. We also have to understand the costs of the crimes being committed. We’ve got criminal gangs working from overseas, as I’m sure you’re aware, who are taking over tobacco trade in this country.
Mr Reynolds: Indeed. The ITEC commissioner has already given evidence that that report will be provided to government; that’s yet to be forthcoming.
Senator ROBERTS: I must compliment you on your evidence; you’re very direct, which is good. Minister, do you consider the government’s very high tobacco duty is the reason otherwise law-abiding citizens are prepared to buy illegal tobacco for generally a third of the legal price?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Any reasons?
Senator Watt: There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that argument.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re joking?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is this office designed to make it look like you’re doing something to solve a problem your greedy tax grab created—and your predecessor’s?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: No data, just meetings—empowering organised crime, decreasing revenue that taxpayers have to make up, and you just say ‘no’.
Senator Watt: You asked me a question, and I said ‘no’.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you: are you ignoring the data to just put in meetings, empowering organised crime and decreasing the revenue to the government?
Australia faces a serious crime problem. Many Australians believe our crime rate is low compared with countries like the United States, yet sadly that myth stems from misunderstanding statistics about how crime is measured.
Media coverage reinforces the myth and the real questions are why that misunderstanding persists and what can be done about it.
Consider a simple example. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that only about 19 per cent of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to police, while in the United States about 45 per cent are reported. Obviously, simply comparing reported crimes therefore dramatically understates the extent of the problem in Australia.
Both countries try to address this gap using large-scale surveys that estimate total crime, not just crimes reported to police. The Australian Bureau of Statistics runs such a survey annually. In the United States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the National Crime Victimisation Survey, which surveys about 240,000 people each year.
When we compare these broader estimates, Australia’s rape and sexual assault rate is roughly three times higher than that of the United States. Australia’s assault rate is about twice as high, and its burglary rate is about 2.5 times higher. Robbery is the only category where the two countries report similar rates.
Whether people report crimes depends a lot on whether people think the criminals will be caught and punished.
Although, key methodological differences still affect these comparisons. Australian data count the proportion of people or households victimised at least once during the year, while US data count the total number of crimes. If someone in Australia is robbed twice in a year, the survey records only one victimisation. In the US, the survey counts two. This difference means the figures still understate how much higher Australia’s crime rates may be.
Image: Pexels
Earlier international comparisons reinforce this pattern. The International Crime Victimisation Survey used consistent definitions and methods across countries. Even in 2000, it found Australia’s violent crime rate (including robbery, sexual incidents, assaults, and threats) was 104 per cent higher than in the United States. Robbery was 150 per cent higher, sexual assaults 167.9 per cent higher, and assaults and threats 72.3 per cent higher.
Australia is clearly safer in one area: homicide.
Latest data show Australia’s homicide rate at about 2 per 100,000 people in 2024, compared with roughly 4 per 100,000 in the United States in 2025. But homicides make up a tiny share of overall violent crime – less than 0.1 per cent in Australia and about 0.3 per cent in the United States – so they do not reflect most people’s risk of victimisation.
In the United States, murders concentrate heavily in very small geographic areas. Just 2 per cent of counties account for about 56 per cent of all murders, and within those counties, roughly two-thirds of killings occur within areas spanning about ten city blocks. Gangs drive most of these murders, and about 90 per cent of offenders already have prior violent criminal records.
In contrast, 52 per cent of counties report zero murders, and another 15 per cent report just one.
Reducing crime is straightforward: policymakers must raise the risks criminals face. Three ways that can be done are to increase arrest and conviction rates, to lengthen prison sentences and to allow victims to defend themselves.
Yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not collect data on arrest or conviction rates for specific crime types. This glaring omission prevents direct comparisons with the United States.
Another major difference separates the two countries. In practice, Australians cannot use guns for self-defence. In the United States, in contrast, people use guns defensively far more often – roughly five times more frequently to stop crimes than criminals use guns to commit them.
Those who benefit most from owning guns are often the most vulnerable – people who are physically weaker, such as women and the elderly, and those who face the highest risks of violent crime. In the United States, that risk falls disproportionately on poorer Black residents in high-crime urban areas.
The National Crime Victimisation Survey provides detailed breakdowns that highlight these patterns, unlike the more limited data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In most cases, a man commits the crime, and when a man attacks a woman, the strength disparity is typically greater than when a man attacks another man. A firearm can significantly offset that imbalance and increase a woman’s ability to defend herself.
Additionally, research shows that women who respond passively face much higher risks. Women who do not resist are about 2.4 times more likely to suffer serious injury than those who defend themselves with a gun.
The issue goes beyond guns. Outside of Western Australia, Australian law prohibits people from carrying pepper spray or mace for protection. It also bars individuals from carrying knives for self-defence – and in any case, knives offer limited help to women, since using one requires close contact, where a male attacker can more easily overpower them.
Australians cannot address crime effectively if they underestimate its scale or ignore how measurement differences distort comparisons. Policymakers should focus on raising the risks to criminals – through higher arrest and conviction rates – and on giving law-abiding citizens more ability to protect themselves.
Until Australia confronts these realities, it will continue to misdiagnose the problem and fall short on solutions. Australian lives will continue to be endangered more so than in the USA.
Australian and American data point to the solution needed to reduce Australian crime rates and improve Australians’ safety.
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and a world-recognised expert on crime. He is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center in the United States. During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and then the Office of Legal Policy in the US Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions, including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/5e6c9019-f874-4f7d-8db9-a83823f4d721_3888x2592-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=117072560Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-06-16 11:00:282026-06-16 11:00:36The Shocking Truth About Australian Crime Rates
The UN’s dire financial situation could save Australia a fortune.
The United Nations is in a state of ‘imminent financial collapse’.
Apparently.
Their decline is moving at a glacial pace. Nations are drip-feeding them cash while the UN negotiates for structural change to how they handle money. Essentially, they want to keep more of it. No thanks.
Since its establishment in 1945, justified with a view to ‘maintain international peace, security, and develop friendly relations among states’, I believe the project has become an expensive failure that inflicts genuine harm on the world.
Far from solving the endemic social and economic problems besieging third-world nations, the presence of the UN – and its credit card – has turned misery and corruption into a sustainable industry further weaponised in the hands of powerful nations that govern themselves in contradiction to everything the UN claims to stand for.
Besides, if the goal is to gather all the nations together to ‘talk about things’ in a neutral space – they can hold a conference, like everyone else.
This is the modern world. We no longer require an Earth-sized bureaucracy to babysit dialogue.
Why is the UN in trouble?
The UN’s recent claims of economic strife come as a direct result of America protesting against its aggressive anti-capitalist, anti-democratic goals and dubious projects. In response, the US has withheld funds and exited key UN bodies.
President Donald Trump successfully sold the point to the American people that they should not pay for the comfort of those seeking the demise of the US hegemony.
That said, much like the fabricated Climate Crisis, the deadline for this UN economic disaster is poorly defined and frequently used as a donation rallying call.
Which is a shame, because the UN can’t collapse fast enough.
We may never be able to convince the ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ Coalition to pull out of the Paris Agreement or unsubscribe from the overreach of the World Health Organisation. If it were to fall apart on its own, the work would be done for us. Freedom is freedom, and we’re not about to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Still, there does seem to be some truth to the UN’s economic strife.
Everywhere you go, the global bureaucracy is shaking its charity tin next to politicians’ ears.
Unfortunately, an emotionally and morally weak Labor Party – along with a skittish Opposition – govern Australia. They are likely to reach into the pockets of Australian taxpayers to save this ideological failure that somehow dragged itself into our century.
To be clear: Australia must not save the UN.
Let it die. Let it rot.
Allow global politics to heal.
Is the UN really going bust?
Back in October of 2025, Secretary-General António Guterres penned letters to member states complaining about ‘the worst cash crisis in nearly a decade’. A month later, just over 70% of nations had coughed up their dues. The United States, which is unfairly carrying the burden of cost, owes something along the lines of $4 billion. President Donald Trump has little interest in giving them another cent. In response to the collapse of finances, the UN has threatened to shut down their headquarters in New York. Given New York is under communist occupation, it’s unlikely to bother anyone of significance.
Unfortunately, the UN still enjoys five-star travel, first-class flights, buildings occupying the most expensive real estate in European cities, and armies of bureaucrats that would make Stalin weep with envy.
This monstrosity is a long way from ‘tightening its belt’ and even further from dying.
It is sending out desperate cries for help to keep the status quo rather than presenting its financers – us – with a slimmed-down program of essential services. At no point has it tried to show us where genuine benefit can be found or assessed itself for situations where it poured a fortune of money into a situation only to make it worse. Despot nations don’t stop their genocides because the UN frowns in their direction. Indeed, we have seen crimes against humanity rewarded with some of the highest positions of power.
Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, told Fox News Digital, ‘The UN elected Beijing’s and Tehran’s loyal agents as “human rights experts” – without a ballot, without shame. These regimes persecute minorities, jail anyone who speaks freely, and rule through fear and censorship. The committee that once drafted the UN’s anti-racism convention has now been captured by those who embody racism, repression, and the silencing of truth. It’s an inversion of human rights – and a stain on the United Nations itself.’
And more to the point, the UN does not believe it did anything wrong. This isn’t even its first moral catastrophe.
Do we need the UN?
If we are going to be completely honest, Australia and all of its Western allies would be significantly better off if the UN were to collapse completely.
Economically, socially, democratically, regionally, militarily – we stand to benefit.
Not only is the UN an expense, it has allowed third-world, communist, and despotic states to band together under the protection of a few like-minded states to wield very real global power they never would have achieved on their own.
Why does Hamas have influence on the streets of Sydney? It is absurd. And yet the thread of causality can be followed straight to the UN’s mass migration demand that forced nations like Australia to open its borders to individuals whose views and loyalty remain seated in foreign regimes that, in their free time, chant ‘death to the West’. And we can’t send them back, even if they swear allegiance to international terror groups or threaten to behead Australians in broad daylight. Far from repenting and offering to help Australia regain control of its national security, the UN actively restricts and obstructs our democratic efforts to protect innocent Australians. This is not okay.
UN rulings, policies, and programs have directly disadvantaged Australia, and we have no ability to stop them.
And contrary to what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in his recent pitch to place Australia on the UN Security Council, Australia has never had less influence as a middle power.
The organisation designed to hold world peace by stopping the influence of socialists, communists, fascists, and criminals has become a proxy for their goals.
China’s complex debt-trapping across the third-world, and other networks of influence, leave many of these nations voting as obedient blocs or the West’s most dangerous economic and cultural advisories. Meanwhile, members of other international alliances – Shanghai Cooperation Organisation etc – have already sworn to defy UN rulings. As some of their members hold veto power at the UN, these orbiting structures that circle the UN override its decisions without anyone noticing.
For example, if a nation decides slavery or child marriage is acceptable in defiance of the UN, the veto nation prevents the UN from acting against it. In return, that nation – almost always despotic – promises the votes and support of nations in other alliances. It’s like a disease holding the world’s tyrannies together that no one wants to talk about because they’re frightened Western power will evaporate if the curtain is pulled away.
Donald Trump has effectively asked why the West pays roughly 80% of the UN’s operational costs for the privilege of losing its strategic grip?
Have human rights advanced as a result of the UN – or does the organisation stand around and watch the Caliphate of Islamic terror creeping through African nations where Christians are tortured and executed?
It is not controversial to say that human rights are declining.
Part of the problem is that the UN spend all their time ‘monitoring’ like they ‘monitored’ the Rwanda genocide. Like they would monitor an attack on Australia or Taiwan. Always monitoring. The UN presents themselves as powerless, passive observers after tugging on all the strings.
When the fluffy language of ‘peace, nature, and aid’ are stripped back to the cold mechanics of the UN, it becomes a despotic, wasteful, dangerous, and bloated machine housing our rivals who watch our collapse while drinking champagne we paid for.
Australia receives no benefit from its membership – only punishment.
And if it were to collapse, every Western ally would find their hold over world power significantly strengthened. Trade, culture, and the threads of the Enlightenment would once again form the spine of power. Influence would hold on its merits, not shadowy backroom handshakes.
As for the money… It is difficult to feel sorry for the UN.
It has not occurred to the UN that the member states it’s trying to fleece might have more money for their bureaucracy if the UN hadn’t forced first-world countries into trillions of dollars of ‘climate expenditure’ which has eaten away their treasuries.
You can have Net Zero or a gravy train. Not both. And the UN might end up being a casualty of its own greedy policies.
Indeed, Trump coyly shrugged, indicating he didn’t know the US had slipped behind on its payments … then questioned if other nations could solve the problem ‘very quickly’ via paying their share. It is the same lesson he dished out to Nato.
It was then that the US Secretary of State, Macro Rubio, cocked an eyebrow and asked, ‘What is the purpose of the UN?’ Bewildered journalists stared back dumbly.
‘The UN is supposed to be a place where you can peaceably resolve global conflict … right now you have [Iran] who unlawfully, criminally, and illegally taking possession of an international waterway.’
Looks like the US might want something tangible for the tens of billions they’ve poured into the UN over the years.
Donald Trump was far harsher a year or so ago when he spoke from their own podium:
‘Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should – too often – it is actually creating new problems for us to solve. The best example is the number one political issue of our time: the crisis of uncontrolled migration. It’s uncontrolled. Your countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders.’
And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.
The US has since withdrawn from 31 UN agencies to ‘end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities’.
Australian politicians are still begging at the door, trying to get in.
Something tells me Trump will watch the financial collapse of the UN with a smile and it may go down in history as one of his greatest victories over the undemocratic institutions that have manipulated, impoverished, and damaged Western nations.
They have created a class war between nations and a true global ‘democracy’ free to oppress without the safeguards of a constitution, bill of rights, or benevolent monarch. The UN is merely one of many national ‘collectives’ of negotiating blocs where individual leaders, who often came to power without real elections, shape the future of a world where no citizen has a say over the direction of global politics. In short, terrifying.
What does the UN cost the nations of the world?
Its core bureaucracy operates on a (slimmed down) budget of $3.5 billion while ‘everything with a UN tag on it across the world’ sits between $66-75 billion depending on the year. This is an estimate. The true cost is largely unknown.
Then there is the other question … what costs did the UN’s existence create to domestic budgets?
Those are costs so terrifying and vast, they have settled around Australia like a heavy sea fog clinging to the coast. Since 1950, AI estimates the UN has cost global budgets $150 trillion in UN-inspired projects or direct funds. How much of this money benefitted the taxpayers who had it taken from them? I would go so far as to say the UN is the chief culprit in Australia’s present state of economic anguish. It is certainly the reason our business landscape was torn apart during Covid hysteria and our rainforests are being blown up for wind turbines and solar panels.
Generations of Prime Ministers were either scammed, pressured, enticed, lured, or tricked into adopting UN policy goals that have thoroughly screwed Australia.
Worse? They’re not even sorry about it.
Too many of these political leaders continue to protect the UN as some international moral touchstone and would throw money at its collapsing infrastructure knowing full well that cash forms a slush fund for despots, dictators, and terrorists in the third-world.
As we speak, Western money – in the billions – is being poured into Islamic terror states or regions under occupation. Afghanistan, under control of the Taliban, not only receives humanitarian aid while it abuses women and girls with ever more disgusting policies, Azerbaijan invited a Taliban contingent to COP26, COP27, COP28, and COP29 to hunt around for hundreds of millions in ‘climate finance’. In Gaza, UN-branded aid workers were confirmed as either taking part or assisting in hostage-taking and terror activities while unknown amounts of aid either kept terrorists alive or helped furnish their armouries. Yemen, Syria, and Iran all have similar problems with 80-90% of aid hitting the bank accounts of terrorists.
These regimes are effectively farming their own people for poverty to cash in on Western aid. They have no incentive to fix their countries. Indeed, the UN actively encourages them to make the situation worse.
Politicians with an ideological commitment to multilateralism wrap the UN in virtue to protect a narrative of global governance that is just as fake and cynical as the climate apocalypse.
They will stand before voters and preach ‘world peace’ while money they donate from the Treasury lines some violent thug’s palace with gold and our own citizens sleep on the street.
Australian taxpayers subsidise foreign terrorists while hosting Royal Commissions into terrorist acts that are themselves prevented from reaching the truth by the UN ‘social cohesion’ guidelines that ensure people remain peaceful while they are picked off by ‘lone wolves’ with ‘no motive’. Many of these politicians expect to exit politics and personally benefit from the UN platter of job offers. Protecting the UN is in personal interest – a paddock where politicians graze for a few years to fatten their bank balances.
The hypocrisy of the UN goes on… At the height of the ‘climate panic’, reports released showed UN officials spending tens of millions flying around the world first class while staying in five-star hotels. Employees and bureaucrats were living the high life on money that was meant to be spent on ‘world peace’.
In 2017, it was even reported that World Health Organisation staff broke the rules with their combined travel costs exceeding some of their disease budgets. In another corner of the UN, one former head spent half a million on travel.
As always, the people most concerned about the ‘climate crisis’ are least concerned about their so-called ‘carbon footprint’. It’s no wonder no one says anything about the superyachts or private jets arriving for conferences. This behaviour has been normalised.
When the UN Secretary-General says, ‘We simply must find a lasting solution for recurring liquidity problems!’
My reply would be: ‘Shut it down – forever. Problem solved.’
The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned was handed down last week. Although the report included substantial criticism of New Zealand’s mistakes in its response, it did not give them prominence. Instead, the report focused only on process errors—specifically process, rather than medical, errors—especially advice failing to reach decision-makers and the repeated failure of politicians to follow the advice they did receive. It turns out they were not following the science after all.
Specific criticisms of the response included youth vaccine mandates for 12- to 17-year-olds. On 9 December 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine technical advisory group gave clear advice to the government that the risks of COVID-19 transmission among under-18s were “insufficient to justify mandating a two-dose schedule” and that it may “add unnecessary risk of myocarditis.” The politicians did it anyway.
The bureaucrats who gave this advice kept their mouths shut. The former Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, was subsequently knighted and is now at the World Health Organisation running the International Health Regulations. The knighthood was obviously not for services to honesty and transparency.
Furthermore, Auckland was kept under Alert Level 4 for 32 days longer than the Director-General of Health advised. These 32 days were over the Christmas period, causing massive social harm during a Christian holiday. The commission notes that this contributed to unnecessary social and economic disruption for businesses and families, which is a huge understatement. Jacinda Ardern clearly shares Prime Minister Albanese’s desire to break the bonds of family, community, and Christianity.
Finally, there was a failure to clearly communicate the risks surrounding COVID injection harms—especially myocarditis in young people—which eroded trust in both the government and the medical profession. No kidding!
The evidence continues to pile up. Last week, Dr. Helmut Sterz, Pfizer’s former European chief toxicologist, testified before Germany’s Bundestag coronavirus inquiry commission. He stated that the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity tests for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were never conducted, and that reproductive toxicity tests were defective. This violated standard protocols and enabled an untested mass rollout, yet billions of dollars in sales rolled in anyway.
One Nation will not stop until we get a Royal Commission into Australia’s response to COVID.
Transcript
The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned was handed down last week. The royal commission that New Zealand’s prime minister during COVID, Jacinda Ardern, started was a cover-up until the new government made it slightly more fair dinkum. The report was framed politically, praising all involved as running one of the world’s best COVID responses. To say they didn’t harm people as badly as most other countries is not a compliment, and even that’s unsupportable, based on testimony to the commission. One Nation is not letting go of this issue, because there is another pandemic on the way, just as soon as the gain-of-function research is completed and the inevitable lab leaks occur. Australia is running gain-of-function research at the CSIRO facility in Geelong, including on new strains of Ebola—insane.
The report did include substantial criticism of New Zealand’s mistakes in their response, although the report did not give it prominence. The report focused only on process errors—not medical but process errors—especially advice not reaching decision-makers and the repeated failure of politicians to follow the advice they did get. It turns out they were not following the science after all. The commission examined so-called vaccines, lockdowns, testing and economic responses from February 2021 to October 2022 to assess decisions taken on the basis of information available at the time. Many decisions that we know today were wrong were not investigated, because that information was not available at the time, nor did the commission hold politicians accountable for making decisions which clearly flew in the face of decency and common sense.
And the royal commission failed to address the COVID injection’s long-term medical outcomes. Massive increases in cancer rates, myocarditis, brain function, permanently elevated mortality levels, harm to children’s emotional education and development—none were subject to rigorous inquiry. Nothing in this report would stop a future government from repeating key steps of their failed response, because the true extent of the harm was not subject to detailed longitudinal medical study during the inquiry.
Here are the main findings and the main failings in the government response that the commission did find: Firstly—youth vaccine mandates for 12- to 17-year-olds. On 9 December 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine technical advisory group gave clear advice to the government that the risks of COVID-19 transmission amongst under-18s were ‘insufficient to justify mandating a two-dose schedule’ and that they may ‘add unnecessary risk of myocarditis’. This specific advice never made it to the right people. As a result, the injection mandates for education workers and children over 12 remained in place, wrongly. The commission called this a significant failing yet did not require those who received the guidance to explain why they chose to ignore it, nor why the advisory body that made the guidance chose to keep their mouths shut. The former director-general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, was knighted and is now at the World Health Organization running the International Health Regulations. How come? In the public service, silence is a golden ticket.
Secondly—the Auckland lockdown extension in late 2021. Auckland was kept under alert level 4 for 32 days longer than the director-general of health advised. These 32 days were over Christmas, causing massive social harm during a Christian holiday. The commission notes that this contributed to unnecessary social and economic disruption for businesses and families. That’s a huge understatement. Jacinda Ardern clearly shares Prime Minister Albanese’s desire to break the bonds of family, community and Christianity in order to usher in their communist utopia of scarcity, censorship and control.
Thirdly—communication of risks. The failure to clearly communicate risks around COVID injection harms, especially myocarditis in young people, eroded trust in the government and in medical professions. This is why the Albanese government is rigging the mis- and disinformation inquiry now underway—to prove the need for mis- and disinformation censorship laws, to ensure the government is the only source of information during the next emergency.
Fourthly—vaccine mandates. The commission found that there was ‘insufficient monitoring’ of impacts around job losses and exemptions, although the commission did not scrutinise adverse effects from the deadly COVID shots. Their process was to accept the health department’s explanation of the adverse events documented on the New Zealand version of the Database of Adverse Event Notifications. The commission found that decisions to continue or remove mandates were ‘not well-informed by data’. No bloody kidding! Just not informed!
And Australia has committed this grave mistake. Perhaps we did it even worse in this country.
Tonight, I’m sharing with the Senate new evidence, published last week, using Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration’s own documentation, which suggests that the TGA may have committed malfeasance in office. Last week, Paul Rekaris presented this evidence, published on SSRN, the world’s largest social science research network, based on his four years of freedom of information requests and investigations, using the TGA’s own data. I’ll say it again: ‘using the TGA’s own data’. Titled Documentation gap analysis: independent audit of TGA COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan, the paper used thousands of pages of data, covering 68.4 million injection doses, and audit standards from the Australian National Audit Office and the international standard for auditing, ISO 19011.
Here’s some background. The Commonwealth signed formal bilateral agreements with Australian states and territories that established governance frameworks requiring systematic reporting of vaccine safety and surveillance data, including adverse event monitoring via the TGA. These agreements implemented the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, which National Cabinet endorsed in November 2020, and gave operational effect through the TGA’s February 2021 ‘COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan’. Remember that title. The states relied on that plan. The public relied on that plan. Yet the TGA did not properly implement that plan. They weren’t even close.
This is at the heart of the cover-up of COVID injection harm. The monitoring, called pharmacovigilance, had to be done according to the plan. Monitoring was not done—and people died.
The ministers are culpable. Under the Cabinet Handbook, 15th edition, paragraph 25, ministers must carry out policies that cabinet has determined, and, as recorded in cabinet minutes, portfolio agencies must act on cabinet decisions. This binds the TGA, as a portfolio agency under the Department of Health and Aged Care, to implement the enhanced monitoring commitments.
This is a brief outline now of the evidence of their failure. Firstly, in September 2024, when the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner directed the TGA, the TGA identified no implementation records for the vaccine safety monitoring plan—a position the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner confirmed in Decision 2025 AICmr 54. Secondly, vaccine safety monitoring was managed through routine ‘day-to-day processes’, contradicting the enhanced monitoring requirement attached to provisional vaccine approval. Thirdly, of 19 audited plan outputs, only three have complete implementation documentation, 10 are partially documented and six have no documentation at all—only one-sixth compliance. Fourthly, the TGA investigated 148 safety signals, called adverse events, and took 57 regulatory actions. They have published no documentation linking specific signals to specific actions or explaining why they took or did not take action—none. Fifthly, ISO 19011 conformity assessment revealed systematic implementation failure by the TGA. Objective 2 was signal detection—the thing they were supposed to be monitoring closely. Across eight outputs, they achieved zero per cent full implementation, and, across two outputs in governance, achieved zero per cent.
The evidence continues to pile up. Last week, Dr Helmut Sterz, former Pfizer Europe chief toxicologist, testified before Germany’s Bundestag coronavirus inquiry commission, saying that the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine carcinogenicity and mutagenicity tests were not done. Reproductive toxicity tests were defective. This violated standard protocols and enabled untested mass rollout. Yet billions of dollars in sales rolled in. Essential toxicity studies were sacrificed to speed, with no acceptable reasons, with the result that the approval led to prohibited human trials. Sterz cited post-marketing data showing over 2,133 German deaths in the first two months, estimating up to 60,000 German deaths after adjusting for underreporting, while noting that increased age-adjusted mortality from 2021 onwards contradicted claims of a positive benefit-risk ratio.
It was wrong to inject people with these things. Pfizer’s management’s confession is damning. How much more evidence do you need? Call a royal commission now. Finally, I appreciate that some citizens want COVID as an issue put behind us. We can’t do that, because big pharma and their TGA will do it all again. We must hound down those responsible and hold them accountable.
How government greed turned citizens into criminals …
As a government, if you wish to stop a destructive public behaviour – you punish it. This can be through fines, incarceration, or economic coercion (taxes).
If you want to turn a public behaviour into a permanent cash-cow that props up the Budget – you tax it carefully.
Somehow, uniparty greed has found a way to implement a ‘worst of both worlds’ policy surrounding tobacco and nicotine products which has turned smoking into a criminal underworld gold mine.
Between 2010 and 2026, tobacco excise has increased in the order of 490% and returned half the revenue in real terms. People didn’t quit. If anything, there is evidence of Australia’s 30-year trend of decreasing smoking being reversed.
After reaching its lowest level with Millennials, smoking has become ‘cool’ again for Gen Z and Gen Alpha. Excessive taxation has destroyed all the good public health work done in this field.
Economically, this is not only a concern for the estimated $11 billion lost excise tax for tobacco.
It also involves the loss of general revenue associated with the full cost of tobacco which previously paid wages, kept stores open, and was re-invested in local communities.
Tens of billions is now being given to the black market where it funds violent crime. This tears apart Australian suburbs and has a follow-on health and economic impact that lowers the quality of life for everyone, not only those directly involved in illegal tobacco. Everything from personal safety to house prices are being affected.
Police have warned that this money, often funneled into crypto, has also been used to expand drug trafficking, firearms offences, worker exploitations, and property damage through activities such as coordinated firebombing.
Worse, if that is possible, the quality and safety of illegal tobacco and vapes is a matter of acute concern. Australians are now exposed to a considerably more dangerous product that was once strictly regulated for safety. And it’s dirt cheap. We are hearing reports of those who gave up smoking previously falling back into the habit because it’s only $10… As for kids, how likely is it that illegal traders are checking them for ID?
Every single feature of the system has been undermined.
It’s clear to me that public health, citizen choice, and the Treasury are in conflict.
And yet they should share the goal of a profitable, legal, regulated industry.
Our current incoherent approach to nicotine products is often referred to as ‘thoroughly broken’ by those trying to petition the government to act.
As Professor Ron Borland said, ‘We are worse off in every conceivable way.’
Tobacco isn’t quite Australia’s re-run of American Prohibition. However, it does share similarities. As with Prohibition, the first question we have to answer is: Should smoking tobacco (and other nicotine products) be legal?
Like alcohol, if the answer is ‘yes’, then any civil penalty or pseudo ban (vaping doctor certificates), should be discontinued.
The second question is: Do we consider smoking tobacco a health risk that costs the state money and which the state actively seeks to discontinue in the long-term?
If ‘yes’ – and this is what we were told for decades through school programs and public advertising campaigns – then the government cannot expect to use taxation on tobacco as a permanent feature in their Budget spreadsheet.
As Clive Bates said, ‘If you push it too hard – the taxes are too regressive, too brutal – then people will defect from the system and they will move to illicit trade and illicit suppliers will come in because there are enormous economic gains to be made.’
The Treasurer must have a replacement plan for tobacco revenue that does not entail continuously raising excise to the point criminals take over distribution.
Experts have suggested alternatives, such as using public information campaigns and alternate products, to wean society off tobacco long-term rather than smacking Australians with tax hikes on an addiction exasperated by economic stress.
To that point, there may never come a time when tobacco and nicotine products exit public use.
As with alcohol, they require a legally and economically stable environment that protects as many people as possible, dissuades new users, and yet does not create opportunities for crime. The most effective measure so far involved banning smoking from bars, clubs, restaurants, and residential balconies which turned it into a social inconvenience rather than a cost burden.
And here sits the heart of the problem.
Tobacco was a huge part of society until earlier suspicions of health risks were confirmed in the 1960s. Community anger and government complicity in a public health catastrophe created a lot of guilt and revenge.
Those days are almost gone. People who choose to smoke today do so knowing the risks and great lengths have been taken to contain those risks to the individual smoker. And so the conversation becomes one about public health costs similar to obesity. How is it fair, it’s said, that the public pay for the self-inflicted health problems of smokers? The numbers strongly suggest that this was never the case. Revenue on tobacco is widely held to cover the health bill. Until now.
The situation today reveals a growing smoking population with a more dangerous product and decreased revenue that doesn’t cover the cost of health, let alone the huge cost of policing the illicit trade. Economic arguments for the current excise level do not hold up to reality.
Scroll through the crime releases…
Permanent surveillance and enforcement on hundreds of tobacco shops. Thousands of online ad takedown orders. Monitoring nation-wide criminal distribution networks. Raiding shipping deliveries. Prosecuting and incarcerating those responsible. Storing and destroying the product. It’s an open-ended revenue drain. And then you have to include illegal vapes, of which the market is in the billions.
If you’re wondering how much policing this costs, the answer is, ‘we don’t know’. No full-cost figure is published. It’s estimated in the hundreds of millions just for policing itself at a state and federal level, while the government admits to investing approximately $350 million specifically for the ‘fight against illicit tobacco and vapes’.
Whatever the number is, it came out of your pocket.
The Australian Federal Police reported that 2.66 billion illegal cigarettes, 510 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco, and 7.5 million vapes have been seized since 2016. Operation PRINTWALL saw the Australian Border Force intercept 998.5 tonnes of tobacco.
Just this year 20 million illegal vapes worth $1 billion were seized by the Australian Border Force since 2024. The Therapeutic Goods Administration removed another 2.2 million valued at $110.5 million in the same period. They also reported a 300-fold increase in requests to remove online ads for illegal vaping products.
These are not victories so much as temperature readings offering a glimpse at a thriving market.
We must sit down and soberly confront the truth.
Government informs the public that tobacco costs the taxpayer money through the healthcare system, and yet it desperately wants Australians to keep buying tobacco and funding the Treasury. When vapes entered the market, and people began to organically switch products due to health, convenience, and cost – government all-but banned the product. A cynic may say this had little to do with health and a lot to do with an absence of lucrative excise tax. The Treasury saw tobacco revenue evaporating and instead of taking the public health victory – they panicked. This raises serious questions about the government’s motives and ability to solve the current problem.
Listening at length to experts in the industry, it seems clear that we require a carefully timed approach.
The legal market must be restored before law enforcement can come down on the black market.
To do this in the wrong order risks wasting money and encouraging citizens to protect a criminal underworld to facilitate their smoking habit. This would entrench the behaviour we’re trying to resolve. As one expert said, in some communities, illegal tobacco sellers have reached a ‘Robin Hood’ status actively supported by locals. A path back to legal markets must be seamless as it would in any competitive business environment.
The suggestions that I have heard from a variety of people from within the industry include:
Setting the tobacco excise at a level that keeps cigarettes competitive against black market alternatives.
Removing the ban on vapes and adding the same location restrictions as smoking.
Considering an excise on vapes to recoup some lost revenue.
Ensuring that the tobacco and vape products on offer include a wide variety to ensure maximum customer return from the black market to legal channel.
And then…
Severe and serious penalties for black market traders and the criminal gangs involved.
Mandatory sentencing to simplify the process of cleaning up crime.
Reporting channels to allow people to alert police to continued criminal activity.
And as I have said publicly in front of the Panel of Harm Reduction Experts at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the solution will not be simple.
The cost of living is very high and will naturally lead otherwise law-abiding citizens toward illicit markets – in general. They don’t want to break the law. Any solution must deal with lifestyle measures right across our economy.
People are suffering and nicotine products are part of their lives.
All measures must be enacted with a least-harm approach to Australians who were pushed toward the black market due to government-enforced economic pressures.
And we absolutely must support the legal businesses who wish to help rebuild the market – this will include protecting these shops and owners from crime gangs. For example, insurers say it has become almost impossible to find cover for tobacconists after arson attacks…
Once the legal and government approach is fixed – the criminal infrastructure will have to be dismantled – rapidly – or it will adopt a new product such as alcohol – which is experiencing an almost identical problem.
Make no mistake, excessive alcohol excise has already started to push people toward extremely dangerous black market product. This is even more concerning than illegal tobacco.
No one can solve a public health problem for a product owned and distributed by the criminal underworld.
While I agree that protecting our natural environment is a duty of government, I completely disagree with Senator Pocock’s definition of “protection.” The rush toward net zero is not saving our environment; it’s state-sponsored vandalism.
Here is the reality of what net zero is doing to Australia:
✖️ Creating unmanaged havens for pests that will devastate native flora and fauna while destroying food production because of “carbon-dioxide farming.”
✖️ 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests will be required to be cleared for wind turbines, 1.25 billion solar panels installed and the carving out of 20,000 kilometres of 75-metre-wide transmission easements through national forests.
✖️ Transmission line costs have blown out from an initial $8.5 billion estimate to upwards of $120 billion, and likely over $200 billion. When you add the generators, the total net zero cost sits at around $350 billion. Financed with high-cost loans over 35 years, this will ultimately burden taxpayers with a bill exceeding $1 trillion.
I have stood in these forests myself. I have seen developers blowing the tops off mountains to install massive concrete turbine bases. Offshore wind is no better. Data shows these marine turbines slow the wind, trap heat at the sea surface, disrupt marine life (including whales) with sediment and noise, shed microplastics and kill birds.
It’s not possible for anyone to look at Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful? No, it’s not. It’s vandalism.
We cannot put the tops back on the mountains that have been destroyed by this insanity.
This is literally killing the environment to save it.
One Nation will protect our beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism.
One Nation is the true party of the environment.
Transcript
One Nation agrees with Senator Pocock that protection of the natural environment is a fundamental duty of any government. I do, though, disagree with Senator Pocock on the definition of environmental protection. ABARES executive director Dr Jared Greenville said last December that research indicates that projected land-based carbon sequestration goals for our net zero transition will require sequestration projects across 18 million hectares by 2050. While some of this land is co-used, agricultural land locked up for carbon credits is not environmental land. Inevitably it becomes a refuge for pests which infect local farms and devastate native fauna and flora. Carbon dioxide farming is the enemy of the natural environment and the enemy of food production.
Add to this total the 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests which are being clear felled for the construction of wind turbines and access roads, plus the land for the 1.25 billion solar panels needed to reach net zero—that’s billion with a ‘b’. Then add the 20,000 kilometres of new transmission lines necessary to take power from where it is being generated to where it is needed. Each transition line runs through an easement, usually 75 metres wide, of clear felled land. In 2020 the AEMO cost estimate for most of the transmission line projects was $8.5 billion. Now the transmission line cost is estimated to be at least $120 billion and is more likely to blow out beyond $200 billion. Add another $160 billion for wind and solar generators and we have a $350 billion net zero cost being financed with high-cost loans, which in turn blows out the total 35-year outlay to above $1 trillion.
For environmentally destructive projects like Snowy 2 and for most of the wind projects in North Queensland, those transmission easements run through forests of national significance. I’ve been there, in the very forests this motion is calling to protect. They’re the same projects in which so-called green environmentalists are installing wind turbines and blowing the tops off mountains to make space for the huge concrete bases of massive wind turbines.
Here’s what I don’t understand. Here’s a sensible motion about the need to protect our beautiful environment, yet the motion ignores the massive environmental damage from net zero measures. How can anyone look at one of Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful. No, it’s not. It’s vandalism. This is not just happening on land. Offshore wind turbines harm the environment. A new study in Science Advances shows that offshore wind turbines actually warm the sea surface. Turbines slow the wind. This weakens mixing, shuts down upwelling and in turn traps heat at the surface. This changes the microclimate for more than 10 kilometres behind and stirs up sediment which interferes with marine life, including whales. Add this to bird kills, underwater noise and microplastic shedding and the picture is clear: offshore wind isn’t solving an environmental problem; it’s creating one. This does not even take into account the environmental cost of manufacture, transport, insulation, maintenance, decommissioning, disposal and remediation of massive wind turbines.
One Nation will care for the natural environment. We will ensure that the land is in the hands of the best stewards: farmers. We will cancel the entire project and protect those beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism, returning land, where possible, to its best use, be that farming or native forests. Unfortunately, we can’t put the tops back on mountains. That damage is there for eternity—a testament to hubris and the tragedy of the paradox of virtue. It’s the killing of the environment in the name of saving the environment. One Nation is now the party of the environment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/14qDPVETo1U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-29 14:55:132026-05-29 14:55:25Saving the Planet or Destroying It? The Ugly Truth
The Australian government is using the UN refugee visa program to intentionally bring radical Islam into the country.
25,000 migrants arrived under the UN refugee program last year, the vast majority coming from Muslim countries. Applications from Christian refugees in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Syrian Alawites, were excluded.
The president of the Australian National Imams Council, Shadi Alsuleiman (and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram) released a video in which he promises that “Islam will enter every home in Australia.”
Australians have a legitimate reason to fear the current government’s immigration policies.
Transcript
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today.
His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia’—and he doesn’t mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.
I wanted to get some straight answers about the government’s 5% deposit scheme, because to me, it looks like risky lending at the taxpayers’ expense.
APRA have previously said that loans with a 95% value ratio are high-risk. I asked how they reconcile that with a government scheme that encourages this exact behaviour. They admitted that high-ratio lending is “more risky” and they are watching it closely.
I’m worried about what happens if property prices drop by 10 or 20%. If people fall into negative equity, the taxpayer is underwriting a huge chunk of those losses. APRA ducked out of giving a specific answer on the scheme itself, however insisted their “stress tests” for the overall banking system are even more severe than the scenarios raised.
I asked: was the Treasurer warned about the scheme’s risks? They told me they gave some advice to Treasury early on about mortgage insurers, but nothing specifically to the Treasurer. They will provide me with a copy of that advice on notice.
I questioned APRA as to whether this scheme follows their own sound risk management standards. They replied that they don’t “opine” on government policy, however confirmed that they’ll expect banks to hold the same amount of capital against these loans as any other high-risk product.
Finally, I asked if they would publish stress test results specifically for this 5% scheme. They stated that their stress tests are “much broader than any one government policy” and that they are “not aware of a stress test” planned for this specific scheme.
APRA knows these loans are risky and are tiptoeing around the topic.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. APRA has previously stated that loans with loan-to value ratios above 90 per cent ‘clearly expose an ADI to a higher risk of loss’ and that prudent loan-to-value ratio limits are essential for portfolio risk management. How does APRA reconcile those warnings with the government’s five per cent deposit scheme, which institutionalises 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio lending, backed by taxpayers?
Mr Lonsdale: Well, it’s something that we’re watching very closely, Senator. I think the premises of your question is correct: high LVR lending, as a general statement, and high debt-to-income lending are at the more risky end. Because of that, we watch that type of lending very closely.
Senator ROBERTS: Has APRA provided advice to government on the systemic risk and implications of guaranteeing high loan-to-value ratio loans under this scheme? If so, will you table that advice?
Mr Lonsdale: As I mentioned to Senator Brag, we were asked for our advice on LMI providers for the early design of the scheme, which we provided to Treasury, not the Treasurer. But we’ve not provided any advice to the Treasurer on the systemic effects of the Home Guarantee Scheme as currently implemented.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we get a copy of that advice that you gave to Treasury, on notice?
Mr Lonsdale: I’m happy to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Borrowers with 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio loans are more likely to fall into negative equity during downturns, and taxpayers are underwriting 15 per cent of these loans. Has APRA modelled fiscal exposure if property prices fall by, say, 10 to 20 per cent?
Mr Lonsdale: We do very stringent stress tests on the banks and on the system that are more stringent than you just outlined there.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve done what I’ve said?
Mr Lonsdale: More stringent, I would say, and we publish those results. The outcome is that our banking system, particularly our major banks, are very resilient.
Senator ROBERTS: Does APRA consider the scheme consistent with Prudential Standard APS 220 and APG 223, guidance of sound risk management?
Mr Lonsdale: I don’t want to comment directly on the scheme, but what I can say is that that’s a very important standard that you mentioned, and we deal with the banks all the time to make sure that they are resilient and are adhering to our standards, of which that is one.
Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you discuss the scheme in relation to that?
Mr Lonsdale: As I said to Senator Bragg, if we’re looking at the scheme, we want to have a look very closely at the empirics, the loans being used—
Senator ROBERTS: Once you’ve got experience.
Mr Lonsdale: After we’ve got experience. We like to base our conclusions on facts.
Ms McCarthy Hockey: Government schemes at federal level and state level come and go from time to time. We see different structures of ways in which government make their decisions and put in place policies. At all points in time, it is for the bank to determine its risk appetite for the kind of lending that it would extend and then that it adequately capitalises that and puts liquidity against it. So, I think the really key point here is that we don’t opine on any regime put forward by a government. It is their prerogative. However, the banks are to uphold the lending standards and the risk management, and to capitalise it and put liquidity accordingly. What we then do is look at the macroprudential picture that we monitor—you can see us very regularly publishing our view of that— and take our macroprudential measures accordingly, which are within our gift to do. There are different roles that we play, but the key thing is that banks are managing that risk, we are managing the system risk, and governments will make their decisions as they see fit.
Senator ROBERTS: APRA’s guidance emphasises limiting large volumes of high-risk lending. Does APRA classify the government’s scheme as high-risk lending?
Mr Lonsdale: Again, I don’t want to comment directly on the scheme, but I’ll make this general point: the higher the LVR, generally, the higher the risk involved, and the higher the probability of default. I think that is true. Because we’ve had a large number of questions on high-LVR lending, can I just make this point: it is part of our normal course that we would seek reporting from the banks on high-LVR lending; because it is high-risk lending, we do that. The other thing that I think is a very important point is that when you look at the capital settings that we apply, the vast bulk of lending that is happening in the country—but also that we’d expect under this scheme—is done by the major banks, the lion’s share. The capital that we are requiring to be held is agnostic to the Home Guarantee Scheme. So, regardless of that guarantee, we are requiring the same amount of capital to be held.
Senator ROBERTS: So that means that APRA will apply the same supervisory expectations to banks originating these loans as it does to other high loan-to-value ratio products?
Mr Lonsdale: Yes, we will.
CHAIR: How are you going, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Almost. Will APRA commit to publishing stress test results for the five per cent deposit scheme under scenarios of price declines and unemployment shocks?
Mr Lonsdale: The stress tests that we do are much broader than any one government policy, and we do publish those. I’m not aware of a stress test that we will be doing on the particular scheme.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your succinct answers. Thanks, Chair.
There is a massive disconnect between the RBA’s projections and the reality facing Australian families.
Reckless government spending is fuelling inflation, and everyday people are paying the price.
In this session with the RBA in December, I questioned Governor Bullock on her claim that inflation expectations are ‘anchored’ at 2.5%. With CPI at the time sitting at 3.8% (now 4.2%), that ‘anchor’ looks like it’s dragging. I asked her who has lost credibility here — the RBA or the government?
There’s a real risk of cutting rates too early because of political influence and outside pressure. While Ms. Bullock insists the Board isn’t being swayed by politics, I’m still sceptical about what really happens behind the scenes.
One of the biggest risks I raised was the threat of a federal credit rating downgrade. If the government can’t show budget discipline and we lose our AAA rating, bank borrowing costs will shoot up.
And if that happens, mortgage rates will go up, even if the RBA doesn’t touch the cash rate and that’s a rate hike due to government incompetence.
Finally, we touched on the data. I pointed out how absurd it is that the ABS classifies someone as ’employed’ if they work just one hour a week.
While the Governor appears to trust the official statistics, these numbers are masking the true level of underemployment. There are far more Australians struggling to find work than the headline figures suggest.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about government spending, but I’ll ask a few questions before getting on to that directly. In October, you said to me that ‘all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2.5 per cent’. I know you went to this with Senator Hume’s question, and you continued that’s ‘what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2.5 per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market’. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations. With the Consumer Price Index headline rate now at 3.8 per cent in the year to October and the trimmed mean up 3.3 per cent, it certainly doesn’t appear that we’re heading to 2.5 per cent anymore. Do you still have no evidence that inflation expectations are above 2.5 per cent?
Ms Bullock: What we’ve observed is what we usually observe, that the very short-term inflation expectations rise, but at the moment we’re still seeing that the longer term inflation expectations are remaining reasonably anchored. But you raise a very relevant point. It’s a risk and it’s something the board is very focused on.
Senator ROBERTS: What does it say about the credibility of the Reserve Bank or, more likely, the credibility of government in terms of government spending if inflation rears its head again?
Ms Bullock: I think credibility is demonstrated by where inflation expectations are. Inflation expectations in the long term remain anchored, which I think says a lot about the credibility of the central bank.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2026, are more families going to be pushed to the brink and paying more on their mortgages because you cut interest rates too early while this government attempted to jawbone and pressure you into doing it?
Ms Bullock: We’ve never been under any political pressure. The board has done what the board has thought was the right thing to do. We thought we were moderately restrictive. We made a conscious decision not to go up as high as some other countries. Our projections still see inflation coming back down, but obviously we’re alert to the possibility that there might be inflation pressures building, and the board will respond accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you expect under current government strategies and policies to be having to deal with the government again on this?
Ms Bullock: We take what the government is doing as a given, and that is in our forecasts.
Senator ROBERTS: I refer to federal budget discipline, to the credit rating and mortgage rates. The banks are implicitly guaranteed by the government’s AAA credit rating, which allows them to borrow cheaply. If the federal government were to suffer a significant credit rating downgrade below its AAA, could that imply higher borrowing costs on the banks and a wider spread between the going mortgage rate and the Reserve Bank cash rate? In other words, could interest rates charged by the banks rise?
Ms Bullock: The Australian banks aren’t only underpinned by the government, they’re underpinned by the fact that they are very strong, unquestionably strong according to the language. They have strong capital, strong buffers, low arrears rates. They’re rated well because they are very strong financial institutions.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your clear answers. Nonetheless, if the federal government doesn’t get its spending under control and is given a lower credit rating, what people pay on a mortgage could actually go up without the Reserve Bank raising rates; is that right?
Ms Bullock: It could possibly tighten financial conditions. Those are the sorts of things that the Monetary Policy Board would take into account in setting the cash rate. Financial conditions can vary for similar cash rates. The cash rate at a particular level now isn’t necessarily the same tightness in financial conditions as the same cash rate in the past. We have to take into account financial conditions.
Senator ROBERTS: Just a quick question to tidy up my understanding of where you get your figures. The RBA, as I understand it, does a lot of listening right through the community. That’s correct, isn’t it?
Ms Bullock: We have a very extensive liaison program, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the sources of your inflation rate and the unemployment rate? Is it many factors—ABS, for example? Whom else would be involved?
Ms Bullock: The inflation rate is the CPI published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The unemployment rate is the same.
Senator ROBERTS: The unemployment rate is just over 4.4 per cent. How many people does that translate into being unemployed right now in Australia?
Ms Bullock: I’d have to get back to you on that in terms of the actual numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s just a straight calculation, right, arithmetic?
Ms Bullock: It depends on the labour force and who’s in the market. I don’t know what the number is. I’ll have to come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: That varies month to month of course. My concern is that the actual number unemployed may be far greater than what is indicated by the unemployment rate. As I understand it, the definition—and I’m looking for guidance here—is that anyone who’s employed or works paid work for one hour or more in a week is counted as employed?
Ms Bullock: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration of underemployment in your deliberations?
Ms Bullock: Yes, we consider underemployment. That’s a rate that we calculate. Basically, that captures people who are employed but would like more hours.
Senator ROBERTS: What is your level of confidence in the accuracy of the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate?
Ms Bullock: We’re pretty confident that the ABS does a very good job of calculating these numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: Is one hour per week employed really employed?
Ms Bullock: That’s the definition, but there are others. As I said earlier, for what it measures, we’re confident they measure it well. But that’s why we take into account a lot of different indicators, including things like vacancies, job ads and how many people actually have a job but would like more hours. These are all things that we consider as well.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/vXTyj3nMYWo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-29 13:40:192026-05-29 13:40:31Government Spending is Fuelling the Fire
