The Cosy UniParty Agreement

, ,

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 shifts defence review responsibilities to a new joint committee. Although it creates an odd dynamic for the remaining foreign affairs and trade committee, I agree that a dedicated committee is necessary.

The AUKUS alliance is the largest infrastructure spend in our nation’s history. Taxpayers deserve respect and absolute transparency, especially when everyday Australians are struggling.

Right now, there is a distinct public perception that this submarine deal is simply too expensive, particularly while the government concurrently executes a $3 billion fire sale of defence assets to fund its runaway spending.

I asked the Minister a direct question: Why wasn’t this asset sale run past the new committee? Minister McAllister gave a predictable answer, claiming you can’t refer current decisions to a committee that hasn’t been established yet. As it stands, membership on this new committee is subject to a cosy agreement between the Labor and Liberal party whips. This “uniparty” ticket effectively locks out the 50% of Australian voters who do not support either of these parties.

When I questioned why membership was restricted this way, the Minister claimed the Prime Minister would appoint non-government members in consultation with parliament. I must ask: Is this the same Prime Minister who gutted my staff while leaving compliant crossbenchers alone?

Too often, our committee system is a sham designed to protect the government’s narrative rather than find the truth. We saw this with the Select Committee on Information Integrity, which was nothing more than a Labor-Greens stitch-up designed to deplatform critics of net zero and control political speech like a totalitarian regime.

I moved an amendment to guarantee wider parliamentary representation, which would ensure automatic inclusion of Labor and Liberal parties and guaranteed seats for minor parties, including One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens.

With trillions of taxpayers’ dollars on the line for defence spending, we need deeper scrutiny, not a bipartisan shield to keep the public in the dark.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 takes defence review from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and puts those responsibilities into a new joint committee on defence.

I have two questions for the minister, but I want to speak a bit more before putting those questions. Aside from this leaving a rather strange committee comprising trade and foreign affairs, this is a necessary measure. AUKUS is the largest defence or infrastructure spend in Australian history. Oversight of this program is absolutely essential. There’s a perception amongst the public that the submarine deal associated with AUKUS is simply too much money at a time when the public are struggling, and the government is coincidentally selling off $3 billion in defence assets to fund its profligate spending. That decision should have been run past the new committee, surely. Why wasn’t it?

One Nation supports the AUKUS alliance, yet more respect should have been shown to the taxpayers to explain the spend, and more oversight on that spend was needed. That is why One Nation is moving a motion today to amend the bill to include wider representation on the committee. My amendment includes a place on the committee for at least one representative from each minor party—One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens. The ALP and the Liberal Party are represented automatically. 

There’s a perception that the committee system is not designed to get to the truth but, rather, to get to the government’s version of the truth. We’re seeing this process at the moment with the sham Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, which was established to prove that the critics of net zero are all lying and need to be shut up and deplatformed with misinformation and disinformation legislation. That’s the purpose. It’s a Greens and Labor Party stitch-up to control political speech in the finest traditions of totalitarian regimes throughout history, and we can see that in operation in every hearing of that committee.

Having representatives from every parliamentary party will ensure that all political opinions are represented on the committee and that witness lists and inquiries conducted by the committee reflect a diversity of perspectives. The uniparty unity ticket on major issues is making the public feel that they’re just not being listened to, that the people are not being considered. It’s not an Australian law that there shall not be taxation without representation, yet this Labor government is making One Nation’s many supporters wish there were such a law here. The government is to spend several trillion dollars on defence by the time a submarine contract is completed. This needs wider and deeper scrutiny for the taxpayers’ benefit and for the nation’s benefit. Membership under this bill is subject to agreement between the government and the Liberal Party whips. Isn’t that cosy? 

Senator Shoebridge: Doesn’t that make you feel safe? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes! That may serve to keep out the other parties unless the bill is reworded to protect the interests of the one half of Australian voters who currently do not intend to vote for the uniparty. You’re leaving out 50 per cent of the population. My amendment includes the votes of people who didn’t vote for the uniparty. Minister, my first question is: why is the membership of the committee expressed in a way that would allow only two parties to serve on the committee at the discretion of those same two party whips? 

Senator McALLISTER: That inaccurately describes the legislation. The legislation sets out provisions for the appointment of government members and non-government members. As is the case presently for the PJCIS, the Prime Minister of the day would make an assessment in consultation with the parliament about the specific appointments for the non-government members. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the same prime minister who took the staff of some of the crossbench, decimated our staff, actually intervened and sacked some of my staff, gutted our staff, and left the other crossbench alone because they generally vote with him? Is that the same prime minister? And why was the decision to have a fire sale of defence assets not run past the new committee? Surely bypassing the committee and just waiting a short while would be in the interests of the community. 

Senator McALLISTER: The intention in establishing this committee is to provide a forum for oversight of a range of matters, and the scope of the committee’s work is set out in the bill. I think, self-evidently, it would not be possible to refer decisions that are being taken now to a committee that is yet to be established, and the establishment of the committee depends on the debate that we’re having in the Senate right now. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, who selects the additional members?  

Senator McALLISTER: This is set out in the legislation, but the Prime Minister consults with recognised political parties in the House of Representatives. I will seek clarification, but it is also the case that the members of the Senate are appointed by resolution of the Senate on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, as Senator David Pocock said, it’s a stitch-up.  

Senator McALLISTER: I think it’s an unusual proposition to put here in the Senate chamber that a vote of the Senate is an illegitimate way to appoint a committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Only on candidates that the government puts forward—what could go wrong!  

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): There are other amendments. If there are no further questions to the minister, Senator Roberts, do you want to put your amendments? Do you wish to speak to them?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve spoken enough, thanks. I move my amendment on sheet 3634: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:  

(2) The Committee is to consist of up to 13 Committee members and must include at least:  

(a) 2 Senators who are Government members; and  

(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members; and  

(c) 2 Senators who are Opposition members; and  

(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Opposition members; and  

(e) 1 Senator or member of the House of Representatives from each minority party. Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5. (3) In this section: minority party means a party that:  

(a) is not part of the Government or the Opposition; and  

(b) has at least 5 members in the Parliament. 

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): The question is that One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3634 be agreed to. The committee divided. [13:25] (The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

/by

Undercutting Aussie Farmers for US Beef

,

I asked the department about its decision to allow US beef imports and why so much of the process is hidden behind redactions.

From what I understand, in 2017, the department reviewed biosecurity risks for cattle continuously resident in the applicant country since birth. Then, in 2019, it approved imports of cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. however in 2020, the US asked for something new: permission to export cattle that had been imported from other countries into the US. To justify this, the department commissioned two addendums to the original review.

One addendum was released publicly. The other? Completely hidden.

I asked for its title and a copy. The department refused, saying that I’d have to pursue review options on the FOI. What are they hiding?

Here’s the bigger issue: Australia is extremely efficient at producing beef. The only way US beef becomes cheap enough to compete here is if they import cheaper cattle from countries like Mexico, slaughter them in the US, and then export the meat to Australia. If we only allowed beef born, raised, and slaughtered in the US, they couldn’t compete. Now, by allowing Mexican cattle through the back door, we risk undercutting Australian farmers.

The department insists price isn’t part of their biosecurity assessment and that they only look at disease risk. Yet that’s exactly the problem. We’re ignoring the commercial reality that this opens the door to cheaper imports while relying on foreign assurances for safety.

Strong biosecurity is important, however Australians deserve transparency — not redacted documents and blind trust in foreign systems.

Transcript

ACTING CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. First of all, I’d like to discuss the decision to allow US beef imports. I’m going to go to freedom of information LEX 34322 for some of this information, which you charged me $600 for and heavily redacted. Thanks for that! I’ll go through my understanding. Pull me up if there needs to be a correction, please. The work the department did in their 2017 review strictly assessed risks from cattle continuously resident in the applicant country since birth. Then a 2019 assessment following on from that review approved the export to Australia of cattle that had been born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. Then, in 2020, the US asked for cattle imported from other countries into the US to be allowed to be imported to Australia via the US. The department then commissioned two addendums to the review. Is that correct?  

Dr Smith: From what I could hear, that sounded correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we have a 2017 review, a 2019 approval for US born cattle, then a 2020 request to allow cattle not born in the US and some additional addendums made to the 2017 review to justify that request. Correct?  

Dr Smith: Yes, the original 2017 review was for a number of applicant countries, not just for the US, but that was specifically born, raised and slaughtered in the US. The addendum was to allow for cattle born and raised in Canada and cattle born and raised in Mexico imported into the US, slaughtered and then brought to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you made two addendums to the 2017 review. One was called Final report: risk of lumpy skin disease via fresh bovine skeletal muscle meat from applicant countries, but you redacted the name of the second addendum. Why are you hiding it, and what was the second addendum titled?  

Dr Smith: I understand ..that was part of an FOI process and that the decision-maker has recently provided that decision and the reasons for doing so, which you’ve received. I think you’ve also been provided your options for a review, and, if any of those need to be taken further, then you have those avenues to do so.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying not only that I can’t get the list of the second addendum but that I can’t get the whole addendum from you?  

Dr Smith: I wasn’t the decision-maker on that FOI. I can say that there was an addendum which I referred to in relation to the expanded access. We did do some additional work around the safety of LSD, lumpy skin disease, in skeletal muscle as a separate process. That was also released publicly and deemed that LSD can be safely managed in skeletal muscle imports. 

 Senator ROBERTS: What I’m asking for is a copy of the second addendum.  

Dr Smith: As I mentioned before, I wasn’t the decision-maker in that process. If there is a question around what was provided back to you from the decision-maker, who was an officer in the department, then you have the right to review that decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have the right as a senator to get a document that I request in Senate estimates.  

Ms Saunders: We’ll take that on notice. We don’t have the documents available at this point in time. We’ll have to consider whether we would seek public interest immunity in relation to those documents.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to mention that. If you disagree, you’ll have to seek PII.  

Ms Saunders: Indeed.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just wondering what you’re keeping from the Senate. The core change, as far as I can see, is that Mexico have said they will certify that Mexican cattle were born and raised in Mexico. That’s to stop, apparently, the risk of cattle being brought up from Central American or South American countries, where lumpy skin or mad cow disease is present, into Mexico and then into the United States and exported to Australia. Mexico is considered some to be a narco-terrorist state. Even if you disagree with that assessment, they clearly have a higher risk of corruption and a financial incentive to lie about these certificates. Why are we changing our entire biosecurity tolerances because of assurances Mexico has given not even to us but to another country? They’ve given those assurances to the United States not to us.  

Dr Smith: There were a couple of processes of assessment. FSANZ, the Food Safety Australia New Zealand, did their own independent assessment of Mexico as a country. They also assessed US as a country and Canada as a country. They assessed that their systems, their controls, the ways they managed the BSE risk, which is the mad cow risk, was at the lowest category—category 1—noting that Mexico’s never had a reported case of BSE and that the last case of FMD in Mexico was in 1952.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who did that assessment of the risk with Mexican imports?  

Dr Smith: That assessment that I referred to was FSANZ, the statutory authority under the department of health. That’s publicly available.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve reviewed Mexican beef. What about Central American or South American beef?  

Dr Smith: We reviewed the importation of eligible cattle from Mexican supply chains, subject to the protocols that we strengthened with the USDA, to ensure that those cattle—live cattle, not beef—that were brought into the US supply chain could be traced back to their property of origin and that they were sourced from TB-free and other disease-free herds. They’ve tested as such, noting that, as I said in evidence earlier, 1.2 million cattle legally come into the US, and have done for decades, and then they become integrated as part of the herd. We’ve not seen any outbreaks of disease or issues in human health or, particularly, beef exports from the US that have resulted in disease.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re telling me that you have got assurance that cattle from Mexico going to the United States meet your standards. What about cattle that go from South America or Central America into Mexico and then to the United States?  

Dr Smith: We’re not assessing beyond Mexico; we’re only assessing those that have been brought into the US from Mexico. But the FSANZ assessment did look at Mexico as a country in and of itself, and they believed that they had the adequate controls to manage, in this case, the BSE risk. We’ve also done a lot of work with the USDA as well to make sure that they have confidence in the system because they need to protect their domestic herd, which is incredibly important for their own domestic consumption. Noting, too, that we import a lot of genetic material from the US, which relies on the same traceability of straws of semen and embryos into Australia—which we’ve been doing for decades—and we’ve never had any cases of diseases as a result.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re relying on the United States to protect itself from South American and Central American beef?  

Dr Smith: We’re relying on the fact that we did a systems audit of the US system, which we’ve relied upon for many years for importation of a number of commodities into Australia, that it has been done safely.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re very efficient with our beef production in Australia. The only way importing US beef gets cheap enough for them to compete with our growers here, is if they’re allowed to import cheaper cattle from other countries, slaughter them in the United States and export them to Australia. It’s true, isn’t it, that if we only allowed beef born, raised and slaughtered in the US, they just wouldn’t be able to compete—yet now we’re allowing countries like Mexico through the back door to undercut Australian farmers. Is that correct? 

 Dr Smith: I wouldn’t characterise it as that. The cattle that they bring are specific for their needs. They are bringing them into the supply chain mostly as feeder cattle—so steers and spayed heifers—that then get brought into their feedlots. They are fattened up and, essentially, they are then treated as US cattle and they would enter our supply chain for market access to us, subject to the raft of conditions that we put in place. Senator ROBERTS: So you’re confident that Mexican cattle coming into the United States, slaughtered in the United States, is not a way for the Americans to undercut our prices in Australia?  

Dr Smith: Our biosecurity assessment doesn’t look at price or competitiveness per se. I note that the price of US beef is quite high at the moment, I’m aware of that, but that is not part of our considerations as part of a biosecurity assessment. We’re not able to look at price comparators or impacts on domestic industries as part of our SPS agreement under the WTO.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your direct answers. So we’re potentially exposed to cheaper Mexican cattle coming into the United States and undercutting us in Australia?  

Senator Chisholm: I don’t think that’s accurate.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know that’s not correct?  

Senator Chisholm: Because I don’t think you’ve been able to point to evidence that that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking if that is a possibility.  

Senator Chisholm: There is no evidence that—  

Senator ROBERTS: What we’re being told is that only the biosecurity risks are taken into consideration.  

Senator Chisholm: I understand that, but there is no evidence that what you’re suggesting is the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying that there is evidence. I want to know—  

Senator Chisholm: Then you shouldn’t put something like that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking the question if there is a way of doing that.  

Senator Chisholm: There is no evidence to support that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying that. I have got the evidence. I’m asking if that’s a way—I have learnt that it is not a consideration; it’s just biosecurity. That is still an open-ended—  

Senator Chisholm: And I’m saying that there is no evidence to support that.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re just going around the merry-go-round.  

Dr Smith: Senator, maybe I can help. Commercial matters, as far as what consumers will import, are a matter for commercial operators. If there is a viable commercial market that they can bring product in that meets our requirements under biosecurity, then they are able to do so.  

Senator ROBERTS: And if there’s a problem with it, if it’s undercutting Australian beef, then it’s up to our beef growers to draw that to whose attention?  

Dr Smith: Yes; but I think it’s unlikely that that’s going to be the case. 

/3 Comments/by

Flawed Laws, Greedy Giants

,

One Nation agrees with the sentiment behind the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Coles and Woolworths have morphed from trusted Australian grocery stores into greedy, shareholder-driven machines that have rightfully become the most disliked brands in the country.

While we support the goal of reining them in, we cannot support this specific bill for several reasons:

✔️ Free enterprise is doing what it does best — punishing greed. We see Amazon partnering with Harris Farm to deliver fresh food and independent retailers like IGA and Supabarn are treating customers like they matter.

✔️ We don’t need more poorly worded regulations. What we need is the ACCC and the Labor government to grow a spine and enforce the laws we already have. The supermarkets are already using deceptive “specials” to manipulate prices and the fines they receive are a pittance.

✔️ If we’re going to talk about price gouging, let’s talk about the government. Between $70 cigarette packets, fuel excise, and skyrocketing energy bills, the government is the biggest price gouger of all.

This bill won’t help the Aussie family at the checkout.

Instead, it will simply create a goldmine for lawyers. And with their deep pockets, Coles and Woolworths will be the ones who will walk away winning while the customers lose.

One Nation supports the “principle” of stopping corporate greed, however we completely oppose this flawed implementation.

STOP making new, ineffective laws and start enforcing the ones that actually hold these giant corporations to account.

Transcript

One Nation agrees with the motivation behind the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Coles and Woolies have far too much market power and they’re exercising that power in a way that benefits their shareholders, not their customers. With BlackRock Inc. holding influential positions in the share registers of these once fine companies, rapacious greed was always going to be the outcome. The accent here, though, is on the fundamental mistake Coles and Woolies are making, which is to exercise market power for the benefit of their shareholders, not their customers. Customers have been given notice. Coles and Woolies, once trusted and respected names, are now the two most disliked brand names in the Australian corporate scene. What a fall from grace!  

This abuse of market power has caused customers to migrate to new options, so the market’s coming to the rescue. In a stunning rebuke to Coles and Woolworths, Amazon has now paired with Harris Farm to add fresh food to Amazon. Amazon now offers same-day and next-day delivery of Harris Farm products—including meat, dairy, eggs and fresh produce—to over 80 suburbs in Sydney’s inner city, inner west and surrounds. This will use specialised insulated chilled packaging via Amazon Flex for freshness. Harris Farm already had its own online store and partnered with Uber Direct for quick store based same-day delivery prior to this happening. That’s the beauty of free enterprise competition. If one retailer turns a cynical and greedy operation, this creates an opportunity for someone else. And Coles and Woolies will be done.  

If you haven’t been into your local Harris Farm, IGA or Supabarn lately, I suggest you do that because Coles and Woolies have put their prices up much more than the inflation rate would justify, and the independent retailers have not. The price difference now is almost negligible, and you still get served by human beings. Fancy that—a human being serving! A retailer who values the customers wants to treat them as human—what a refreshing change! The 25c paper bags don’t fall apart, but the Coles and Woolies’ paper-thin rubbish bags faint with fright when confronted with an escalator or steps on the way back to your car. We’ve all had this happen.  

The existing regulations need to be policed before we add new ones, especially ones as poorly worded as this bill. Seriously, this bill could mean anything. The ACCC conducted an inquiry into deceptive price advertising by Coles and Woolies and found they’re using specials to put the price of a product up, then down and then up again in a way that leaves the public confused as to the real price. And the public is learning from this. They know that Coles and Woolies are not focused on customers; they’re focused on their BlackRock Inc. investors. They exploit the confusion to put the prices up further. They were fined a pittance and they’re still doing it. Surely we have laws already to bring these companies to heel. This Labor government needs to grow a bloody spine and just enforce the laws. You’re not enforcing the laws, and then you’re quite often wanting more. How much have Coles and Woolies donated to the ALP in recent years?  

While we are on the subject of price gouging, will this bill cover price gouging by the government? Seventy dollars for a packet of cigarettes is price gouging. Fuel excise, the fees on passports, energy bills, insurance, strata fees—these are price gouging One Nation supports the principle but completely opposes the implementation. This bill won’t do anything except create a lawyers’ picnic that Coles and Woolies will win. It will be a lawyers’ picnic, and the customers will lose. 

/1 Comment/by

The Death of the Quarter-Acre Block

,

What we are witnessing under this Labor government is nothing short of a deliberate assault on the Australian dream.

Labor is systematically killing off the traditional quarter-acre block and removing the option of home ownership from everyday Australians.

Labor want to make us all equal by making everyone poor, destroying the independence that owning a home provides, so that every citizen is forced to rely entirely on the state, or global corporations.

Labor’s “Help to Buy” and low-deposit schemes are complete traps and push up housing prices. These schemes don’t let young people get ahead. Instead, they limit how far they can get ahead. Under “Help to Buy,” you become a slave to the government in your own home.

If you renovate, the bureaucrats pocket a percentage of your equity — for doing absolutely nothing. You can’t refinance, you can’t use your equity to start a small business, and you can’t help your children buy their own home.

Unlike Labor, One Nation has a fully thought-out suite of policies to restore the Australian dream.

👉 https://www.onenation.org.au/immigration

Transcript

I thank Senator Bragg for introducing the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, which One Nation supports. 

There’s an urgent need for this bill, which restores the Senate’s right to scrutinise regulations issued under a bill. In recent years, more and more provisions which would previously have been included in the bill—hard coded, if you like—are now provided for in regulations which are written by bureaucrats for the benefit of bureaucrats, ministers, donors and mates. These are regulations that, in many cases, are beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny. They avoid parliament. We are increasingly seeing not government but dictatorship—a collectivist agenda informed by communist ideology and deployed with complete contempt for the parliamentary process and the large majority of Australians who did not vote Labor or Greens.

The Liberal Party had form on this, yet Labor have normalised it. The Albanese Labor government is in the process of removing the option of homeownership from the reach of everyday Australians. Young people will simply not be able to own their own home or use that home in the way that most in this chamber have been able to. Let me explain.

One Nation opposed the Help to Buy scheme because the scheme ensures that people will, most likely, never fully own their own home—never. In the many, many years that this scheme makes you a slave to the government, in your own home, the government does nothing for you. For example, with any renovations you make, the government benefits from what you pay. Installing a new kitchen for $20,000 means you get only $12,000 in capital appreciation and the government pockets $8,000 in additional equity for doing nothing. If you spend $21,000, you’ll first need to get the government’s permission to modify your own home. You can’t use any equity you do accumulate to refinance and free money up for buying a business, for instance. That’s expressly forbidden. Say your children get into trouble or need a hand to buy their own home. You can’t help them. There is no part refinancing. You’re trapped. If you want to buy the government out, then you have to pay them back in five per cent lots.

Why? Well, the government knows prices appreciate. Taking a loan to pay all of the equity off in one go costs the government money. They miss out on the capital appreciation during the period you’re paying that loan off. Say you want to use your home as security for a personal loan: no. There are no secured loans against one’s own home. They’re expressly prohibited. That’s why we did not support the scheme. We are proud we didn’t support it, because it’s a trap. It’s not about letting our young get ahead; it’s about limiting the amount they can get ahead by. That’s what Labor is doing. As usual, communists make every person equal by making everyone poor. This scheme is a tax dressed up as a helping hand, a solution to the exemption of family homes from the capital gains tax. Nobody stands between this Labor government and the money they want to give away to other people in electoral bribes—sorry, ‘promises’.

One Nation opposes the Albanese government’s low-deposit homeownership scheme, which allows borrowers to get a home loan with a five per cent deposit—or, if they are single parents, two per cent. The government underwrites the mortgage so the bank does not wear the risk. You’ll notice a pattern here: this government is every bit as friendly with Australia’s rapacious banking sector as the Liberals were. Under the low-deposit scheme, the home can’t be valued at more than $1.5 million, and there’s no limit on the income of the applicant or the number of mortgages issued. Don’t you just love this scheme! It should be called the ‘making it easier for high-income earners to buy a house in urban Labor electorates’ scheme. 

No wonder the government’s support in recent opinion polls is strongest amongst those earning more than $100,000. It’s the party of the workers no more. The party of the rich is a better description of Labor. No wonder the Liberals have lost market share. Labor is stealing their voters.

One Nation is now the party of the worker and the party of small-business owners who use their home as security to grow their business. Our opposition to the low-deposit scheme has been proven to be the right decision. House prices in capital cities went up by between eight per cent and 10 per cent in the year to January 2026, adding $100,000 to the average Sydney home price. That’s $100,000 more that people will have to borrow to get their home. Thanks, Labor!

The additional demand for homes from these schemes forced the price up and made affording the mortgage harder. A low deposit is no help if you can’t afford the repayments on 95 per cent or 98 per cent of a $1-million-plus mortgage. They’ve done this and destroyed hopes. The combined average price for a home in our capital cities is now $1.14 million.

One Nation policy is to allow first home owners to top up the first home owners’ grant with secured equity from the person’s own superannuation account. We will allow low-income earners to buy with a five per cent deposit against a government guarantee on the mortgage. Why won’t this force up home prices? It will be because of the thing the Albanese government refuses to do: stopping mass immigration.

A One Nation government will deport around 200,000 people who are here illegally and will have a moratorium on new arrivals for three years, creating negative immigration. As Australians engage with the housing scheme, they will find there will be a home available to purchase without the price of homes being pushed up. One Nation policies have been thought through. One policy complements another, and every Australian will benefit. Our policies come in suites—s-u-i-t-e-s—unlike this Labor government, which continues to throw money at problems it never solves because it never thinks things through. They want to look good, not do good. It’s shallow and hurting young people.

Yesterday, the Reserve Bank put up interest rates by 0.25 per cent, which would not have happened if government policies had not driven up house prices by eight to 10 per cent in the last year. Every mortgage holder in Australia is now facing higher repayments because of the Albanese government’s inability to manage government policy. Senator Bragg is right that this bill is necessary to provide scrutiny and to try and elevate the standard of government in this country.

Can I say to the Labor government: for the love of Australia, please, please stop trying to help. You’re making it worse, especially for young people. Let people get about their business, keep more of their own money and more easily pay for their homes themselves. Stop bringing in millions of new arrivals—millions of new arrivals—all of whom need a home in which to live. Stop forcing people out of their homes with the evil land tax, as Labor are doing in Victoria, so that your mates running union super funds can buy up the homes. Every new scheme makes things worse for young Australians. That’s why we don’t support your idiot ideas—your dishonest, ludicrous ideas. Where else should the accountability be forced on the government?

Foreign corporations used to pay 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor has cut that tax to 15 per cent. It’s been halved; you’ve looked after your corporate mates from overseas. Labor makes it easy for its mates, globalist foreign wealth funds, to rip more money out of Australia and to rip more money off Australians. You lower the tax, and the tax will come out of the people instead. Let’s be clear. This Labor government said to foreign corporate landlords like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State—with interlocking ownership, they are in reality BlackRock Inc. Labor said to BlackRock Inc., ‘We’ll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.’ Australians: forget the Australian dream of owning your own home.

Labor’s dream is that you live in a shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock Inc forever whilst those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. Labor has just cut it in half. That’s what ‘build to rent’ means. Whenever you hear ‘build to rent’ from Labor, remember renting forever to a foreign corporate landlord. They will build homes for sure, but Australians will never ever own them. It’s ‘build to rent’ forever. Part of the United Nations and World Economic Forum’s agenda is global control of people and wealth transfer from the people to global wealth funds like BlackRock Inc. This Labor government is helping that along by giving these foreign corporations a big tax cut to incentivise foreign corporations to buy Australian homes.

The bill did not reduce the tax for Australian owners; it brought foreign owners’ tax rate down to the same level as Australian investors. That’s the most telling part of all. This bill only changed the tax treatment of foreign predatory multinational corporations. Is Labor the party for Australia, or is it the party for foreign corporations? Build to rent answers that question. Clearly Labor is for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street—BlackRock Inc. That’s why Labor’s policies on mass immigration and housing are designed to destroy homeownership for all young families. Instead, One Nation is for Australians owning their own home. On all this, I told you so for years. I initiated the mass immigration and housing debates four to five years ago and have hammered both.

Only One Nation’s housing policy covers all aspects: supply, demand, construction cost and finance. I’m going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from Senator Bragg’s dissenting report on the build to rent bill. I hope you don’t mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what’s wrong with the Labor Party. The following passages are taken from the dissenting report following the committee inquiry into the Labor Party’s build-to-rent scheme: Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, ‘mum and dad’ investors, not institutions. That is appropriate. This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers.

Dr Murray— a witness in the inquiry— was critical of the Bill’s attempted perversion of our tax arrangements: ‘It’s not clear to me why local investors shouldn’t be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don’t see that there’s a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It’s not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement.’ That’s similar to One Nation’s housing policy. Here’s another quote from Senator Bragg: At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (‘ASFA’) suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation’s landlords, and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a ‘hobby activity’. Really? Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund? A hobby activity—come on! Senator Bragg continues: This is the view of a vested interest— that Labor is cuddling up to— Most Australians would not agree with this proposal. Another witness observed that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia, not from the usual suspects, the Liberal Party, but from the Labor Party, the former party of the workers, headed by Prime Minister Albanese.

A witness said: … pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition. What we’re seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice. There’s just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what’s coming … Hence the need for Senator Bragg’s bill. His dissenting report said: The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia’s housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership: ‘… with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose … All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes.’ Personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a safe and productive society, I say. Senator Bragg continues: Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre— Really? Fund managers? Foreigners? How very corporate of the Labor Party! Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market.

Dr Murray warned the committee: I find it interesting because we’ve already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What’s even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We’ve got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we’re now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they’re already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill. It seems Prime Minister Albanese is not only best friends with billionaires like Larry Fink from BlackRock and Bill Gates from ‘Vaccines R Us’ but also best mates with the Islamist Abu Dhabi regime. The dissenting report said: Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market. Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office (‘the GAO’), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing. 

Prime Minister Albanese’s housing schemes will lead to foreclosures and misery. This is not an unintended outcome; it’s the point of it. Communists detest homeownership. It provides people with independence from the government, and that’s the opposite of the fundamental purpose of the Labor government, which is to make people reliant on the government. Senator Bragg continues: This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting.

There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly. While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australia is into it.

One Nation is dedicated to all Australians being able to own their own home and to use that home as they see fit. (Time expired) 

/2 Comments/by

Scrap Net-Zero, Not Health Rebates

, , ,

One Nation strongly opposes the Albanese government’s plan to remove the private health insurance rebate for older Australians (65+).

Removing these rebates will ultimately cost taxpayers billions more than it will save and will put immense strain on the public hospital system.

One Nation rejects the government’s “intergenerational fairness” narrative. It is nothing more than a diversion.

The true causes of financial hardship for Australian people are immigration, net-zero policies, inflation and high living costs.

Rather than cutting health rebates for the elderly, we should stop mass migration and abandon all net-zero targets, which will help ALL Australians.

Transcript

I thank Senator Ruston for this motion, which One Nation supports. Currently, all Australians get a rebate on their contributions to private health insurance. For the people under 65, it is 24.1 per cent, for those 65-69 years of age it is 28.1 per cent and for those over 70 it is 32.2 per cent. These are adjusted for income. Minister Butler described the system as ‘not fair between generations’. The government has announced the additional amount paid to our elderly will be removed, making everyone equal. How very communist and how self-defeating. The rebate is higher the older you get, because the cost to the taxpayer of a person moving from private to public care is higher the older they get. The extra payment encourages older Australians to stay in the private health system and save the taxpayers from having to carry the full cost of their health care. 

Across forward estimates, this measure will cost taxpayers—including young people—billions more than it saves, and it will put more pressure on public hospitals already dealing with bed block and long waiting times. Our young people will not always be young. A measure that helps more than three million older Australians today will help younger Australians tomorrow. 

The Albanese government is promoting division in order to set one age group against another. How dishonest! Classic communism! This is the politics of envy, designed to cover up the real reasons young people are struggling, which are immigration, net zero, grocery prices, energy prices, inflation—destroying industry, making lives harder and robbing our young of the opportunity to own their own homes, to enjoy the life that my generation enjoys. To pitch to younger voters, start there. Introduce negative immigration until housing and infrastructure catches up, reducing house prices. Terminate this net zero madness and let business get on with creating breadwinner jobs that provide a future for our young. 

Intergenerational wealth transfer is a term that is a furphy, a lie, a dishonest diversion. Labor is crippling the young. In reality, this is an excuse from Labor to increase taxes on people with assets who, after a lifetime of work, are the older generations. Remember, today’s young adults are the future older people. This aims to hit all Australians, including the young. You will eventually get hit. This is a lie that is masquerading to steal more taxes. One Nation will unwind this petty, dishonest, counterproductive measure. We are one nation, one community and One Nation will not set one Australian against another.  

/2 Comments/by

The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement

,
No, Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper’.

We’ve heard it before. A cataclysmic policy or international agreement disguised as performative, symbolic, or ‘a piece of paper’.

Anthony Albanese used this underhanded trick during the Voice to Parliament when he claimed the Uluru Statement from the Heart was ‘on an A4 bit of paper – that’s it!’ as if the Prime Minister had somehow forgotten the legislative burden of a parallel race-based Parliament and its entourage of discriminatory instructions, untold billions of cost, and the destruction of ‘equal citizenship’ – forever. To call it ‘a bit of paper’ was a lie.

This point does not need to be laboured. State-based Treaties enacted in defiance of the referendum result have demonstrated the true civic and economic cost.

Which brings us to an even more egregious violation of the truth – this time from the Coalition’s leadership team of Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan.

On a special episode of Sky News Australia, Taylor was asked by a voter (Brett) why the Coalition doesn’t get out of the Paris Agreement if they are serious about ending the Net Zero agenda.

‘We will get rid of Net Zero – we are not proposing to get out of the Paris Agreement because, frankly, it’s not going to change anything we do.’

When One Nation National Executive Director Lee Hanson asked Nationals Leader Matt Canavan to ‘please explain’, he said:

‘Net Zero is not in the Paris Agreement at all. We signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Net Zero didn’t come along until years later … it’s just a piece of paper.’

Significantly worse, when pressed again by Andrew Bolt, Canavan added:

‘We don’t have time for side quests … we don’t have time for symbolic gestures … keep in mind, it’s very important to make the point that Net Zero is not enshrined in the Paris Agreement.’

Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…

There are slight variations in wording, so let us look at the definition of ‘Net Zero’ as laid out in the IPCC glossary:

Unless Taylor and Canavan wish to challenge the IPCC and our international partners on the definition of Net Zero, let us put to rest the misleading idea that it does not appear in the Paris Agreement.

It does.

According to Onassis, Farhana Yamin is credited with ‘getting the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 into the 2015 Paris Agreement’ and was a key IPCC architect. She later joined Extinction Rebellion. Even Wikipedia says, ‘Net Zero was basic to the goals of the Paris Agreement’ with the IPCC’s follow-up to Paris, the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5*C, popularising Net Zero as a short-hand for the phrase already used in the original document.

This is not in dispute by anyone except, perhaps, the Coalition, who are afraid that admitting the Paris Agreement’s role in tying Australia to Net Zero weakens their political chances against One Nation.

As Canavan rightly said on First Edition eight months ago, ‘I think we should sort this issue out – that would be ideal. I think we should have a debate in the joint party room about our position on Net Zero emissions. The Liberal and National party room has never debated Net Zero emissions despite it being perhaps the most radical socialist plan ever envisioned for the Australian economy.’

If they wish to be honest with the Australian people, whose trust they are attempting to rebuild, they might try admitting that the Paris Agreement exists to codify and coerce the global acceptance of Net Zero into domestic legislation.

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.

Far from being ‘symbolic’ or ‘just a piece of paper’, its reach extends so deep into our Treasury and economic system that the Coalition simply lacks the moral fortitude and political ability to claw back control of our energy system and sovereignty.

Paris is not ‘a gesture’, it is the scaffolding that keeps a near-unknowable compliance cost hanging over the Treasury. The Coalition cannot meet its promise to end Net Zero without pulling out of Paris, and it is our opinion that they know this.

The sheer economic burden of ‘Paris’ is the largest silent line item in the Budget, and that does not include the stealth tax it takes from businesses and private citizens as a ‘green cost’ on power bills, additional requirements, or straight-out costs.

What is the Paris Agreement?

It is a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 195 parties at the United Nations Climate Conference (Cop21) in Paris, 2015. According to its official webpage, it requires economic and social transformation which works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. This includes a pledge to reduce ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ regarding greenhouse emissions, and to report on them. Developed nations are ‘encouraged’ to – and do – provide ‘climate finance’ to developing nations. It ‘encourages’ the uptake of green technologies.

Australia then went ahead and formalised this. The Paris Agreement is responsible, directly, and continues to underpin many things, including…

The Climate Change Act 2022, which legislates reduction targets and Net Zero goals. This document holds us, legally, to the Paris Agreement’s statements. This alone includes tens of billions in climate money and references Powering Australia, Rewiring the Nation, and Household Energy Upgrade Fund along with the Powering the Regions Fund, Hydrogen Headstart Program, National Reconstruction Fund, National Electric Vehicle Strategy, Critical Minerals Strategy, APS Net Zero 2030, National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, Disaster Ready Fund, Australia’s Strategy for Nation, Australian Carbon Credit Units, Safeguard Mechanism, Australian Sustainable Finance Strategy (Sovereign Green Bonds), Net Zero Economy Authority, and the Native Positive Plan. Net Zero Authority which was setup ‘to promote the orderly and positive economic transformation associated with achieving Net Zero emissions’ and its Net Zero Economy Agency and Advisory Board.

And then we have an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of government agencies involved with/tied to the Paris Agreement: Department of Climate Change, AEMO, Clean Energy Regulator, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Clean Energy Innovation Fund, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, The Climate Change Authority, BOM, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – Net Zero Agency.

A hell of a lot of ‘symbolic gestures’, I think you’d agree.

And this does not include any of the state initiatives, the reporting structures, the additional international agreements attached to Paris, or any of the small legal requirements placed upon business.

As I am certain Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan are aware, ‘pulling out of Paris’ means admitting to the extent of its influence.

This is not a piece of paper that can be torn up. Nor is our greatest concern, as Canavan suggested, ‘creating international tension’.

‘We shouldn’t just go around ripping up international agreements for no benefit to our own country … all it would do is create friction with other countries.’ – Canavan

The truth is – no one knows how much the Paris Agreement has cost this country.

There is no ledger or register, and certainly no way of assessing the loss of income and rise of costs due to the influence of Paris on our energy, infrastructure, mining, transport, agriculture, and private sectors.

The taxpayer cost since the Paris Agreement was signed sits at more than $100 billion with the total cost to the public and private sector expected to top $1 trillion by 2050.

An expensive bit of paper…

This is only an estimate assuming the industrial projects succeed. The cost blow-out of Snowy 2.0 and litany of failed or abandoned green projects (such as the Sun Cable), show how easy it is for a Budget to understate the true delivered cost.

And we should note, none of these costings include the replacement of short-lived renewable energy or the recycling/disposal cost. Both of which are assumed to be huge. Nor does it take into account the additional costs of things like … upgrading the entire continent for EV chargers and all the infrastructure that goes along with it or paying out the countless Indigenous land claims that might take place along the regional routes of energy networks.

Despite living in an acute financial crisis with Australians facing homelessness or levels of poverty not seen since their great-grandparents, the Paris Agreement – through our domestic legislation – compels us to gift billions of dollars in ‘climate aid’ to developing nations. We cannot afford this and the only reason we do it is a piece of paper. Australia is giving billions of dollars to the Pacific for a climate crisis that does not exist while the same nations take money from China, the world’s largest polluter, in exchange for resources and military perks. At least Beijing gets something meaningful in return.

These foreign aid groups tied to Paris include, Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership, REnew Pacific, Pacific Resilience Facility, Australian Humanitarian Partnership Disaster READY Program, Climate and Oceans Support Program in the Pacific, Weather Ready Pacific, Pacific Insurance and Climate Adaptation Programme, Climate Finance Access Network, Kiwa Initiative, Pacific Blue Carbon Program, Governance for Resilient Development, SPREP Core Funding, and whatever that AFL team and stadium come under…

This takes place while Australian farmers cannot secure insurance for flood or fire, are stuck with dirt roads and sub-quality energy, and cannot build something as simple as a dam or fence without excessive interference and added costs.

And yet we gift these things – and more – to other nations with the money our poor farmers give to the Treasury.

It’s easy to see why Donald Trump made pulling out of Paris a priority. The US received no punishment for doing so and has enjoyed a significant trade and economic boom since. They have already saved billions while not receiving any tariffs or sanctions. The worst you could say is they lost the prestige of ‘climate leadership’ but with the world’s worst emitter – China – crowned as a leader, who wants that title?

Why pull out of Paris? Why indeed.

‘I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off. The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.’ – Trump

Don’t worry. Shortly after ditching ‘Net Zero 2050’, the Coalition are now getting rid of ‘Net Zero’ entirely without unpicking any of the Net Zero infrastructure and still reporting this non-change in line with the Paris agreement.

At this point, the Coalition appear to be climate cult alcoholics, pledging to attend AA meetings to keep the voters happy and then catching up at the pub. That’s okay, because they’re in the meetings. The pub is ‘just a place’. It doesn’t mean anything. Some people don’t drink at the pub. Refusing to pull out of Paris is a failure of grand old Australian tradition of the ‘Pub Test’.

This week, we have watched the Coalition rightly mock the Prime Minister for ‘changing his position’ on tax policy within the Budget – and yet how is this different to Canavan’s statements?

On June 14, Canavan posted the result of a vote from the NSW Young National Metropolitan Branch that read:

57 Paris Agreement

That Conference call on The Nationals to advocate for the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to: a) restore national control over emissions targets and energy policy, and; b) ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, food, and manufactured goods for the Australian people.

Canavan’s post discussed Net Zero and Paris as if they were intrinsically linked.

In a Courier Mail article where Canavan admits ‘we never conducted a full cost-benefit analysis of adopting Net Zero’ he adds ‘Trump is at least doing what he says and has pulled out of the Paris Agreement’.

In a post from 2025, Canavan said to a man who runs a food distribution company, ‘Hopefully he encourages more business people to say what they really think, including if they think we should get out of the Paris Agreement SCAM.’

Is it a piece of paper or a scam?

‘Australia should leave the Paris Agreement. Ever since we signed up to Net Zero, we have had soaring prices, skyrocketing interest rates, and witnessed most other nations completely ignoring their commitments.’

Perhaps we should finish with Canavan’s words.

‘Now that the world’s biggest economy [the US] has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, it is just common sense – and a matter of time – that everyone else does too.’ And ‘There is no reason Australia should remain in Paris when China, India, Indonesia, and now the US, are not.’

Quite so, Matt, we completely agree.

It is a shame you ‘changed your position’ after moving from a spirited backbencher to co-leader in an opposition dominated by the Liberal Moderates who have made their commitment to both Net Zero and the Paris Agreement quite clear.

We cannot know if this is a genuine change of heart or a political concession to a Coalition partner hunting down Teal seats at the expense of the nation. (A doomed and dishonest venture by the Moderates who will never win back Blue Ribbon seats while misleading the taxpayer about Climate Change politics.)

However, it seems obvious a Coalition government, without One Nation to keep it honest, has no intention of ending Net Zero – not in the legislative ways that matter.

/3 Comments/by

One Nation’s Gas Policy: Securing the Wealth of the Nation

,

One Nation aims to increase domestic oil and gas exploration and production by partnering with the industry rather than restricting it. Our goal is to secure greater financial returns for Australians, lower energy prices, and reduce government debt through direct state investment rather than new taxes or forced reservations.

By financially backing exploration and taking an equity share, our aim is to boost fuel security and give Australians “real ownership” of their natural resources.

Transcript

Well, it’s a real honour to be with you today and especially to introduce my gas policy to you. I think it’s very important. I hope that you see in my policy, I have a vision for this country and I think it reflects in my gas policy, so let me share it with you.

Thank you to the Australian energy producers for having me at your 2026 conference. Today I will be announcing One Nation’s new oil and gas policy. This is a bold long-term vision that will give the Australian people vastly greater returns from their resources and align government objectives with our world-class gas industry.

Australia’s gas reserves are nothing short of a miracle. For a country with only 0.3% of the world’s population, we supply nearly 10% of the world’s exported gas. One Nation has always fought for a fair return for the Australian people on our country’s natural resources.

Australians are rightly unhappy. Despite our enormous resource wealth, ordinary families are not seeing the benefits in affordable energy, reduced debt or improved services. Public unrest is building because successive governments have failed to secure a fair share while pursuing policies that risk killing the industry that generates that wealth.

One Nation understands that gas doesn’t magically extract itself. Gas production is only possible with the expertise of the private industry. One Nation will work with industry as a partner, leveraging this expertise to get the most out of our incredible resources.

We want more gas, more oil and more energy to drive our economy forward, pay down our debts and secure our energy future. Before I go on to our policy, I would like to take a moment to address the other policies that have been put forward. Senator David Percock and the Greens Party, along with lobby groups like the Australian Institute, continue to call for an industry-destroying 25% tax on gas exports.

The tax would apply to the total value of all gas exports and destroy the economics of the entire industry. That is their goal. They have drawn false equivalency with countries like Norway, who share the full risks and rewards with their industry.

A model that has succeeded because government and industry partner together, supported by generous tax incentives. These activists simply want to destroy our gas industry and push their Green Agenda scam. It’s nothing more than economic vandalism.

They don’t live in reality. They live in a ridiculous net-zero fantasy world, where fertilisers, plastics, medicines and rubber can be made with the intermittent power from solar panels. Where the 1,500 degree furnaces for smelting can be run on wind turbines.

They want gas stopped. One Nation wants more gas extracted, bigger returns and real energy security. One Nation has previously considered an East Coast gas reservation policy.

However, through consultation with industry and stakeholders, it became clear that it fell short of our policy objectives. The government’s 20 per cent reservation policy will damage onshore development of oil and gas projects. Many of these projects are Australian producers currently supplying the domestic market.

It forces inefficient use of our precious resources under the oversupply model. We will not destroy the industry with forced oversupply. Our policy will instead be flexible to export surplus gas when domestic demand is satisfied, building sovereign wealth rather than undermining domestic supply projects.

Typical of this government, they have thrust these changes onto existing projects with little to no consultation, damaging their ongoing feasibility. This policy is a blunt tool that will result in less competition and less efficient industry. One Nation’s policy will drive more exploration, more development and more production, without pushing out smaller Australian producers.

One Nation is proposing a genuine partnership with the gas industry from exploration through to production and decommissioning. We will provide a 30 per cent rebate on genuine oil and gas exploration in Commonwealth waters. In exchange, the Commonwealth may take up to 30 per cent equity in issued production licences.

The Commonwealth would be responsible for its costs as an equity owner and in turn be entitled to a proportionate share of the production. These costs will include participation in decommissioning, ensuring responsible end of life management is planned from the outset to protect the environment and taxpayers. These ownership rights would be 100 per cent owned by a new Commonwealth special investment vehicle, the Australian National Wealth Investment Corporation or called ANWIC.

ANWIC will direct its share of oil and gas to Australia’s greatest benefit, selling to critical domestic industries like fertiliser production, energy and fuel refining or exporting when the domestic market is well supplied to pay down debt and build sovereign wealth. This flexibility will maximise value for Australians while encouraging industry participation. One Nation would ensure the ANWIC board consists of only industry experts who have had success in the oil and gas industry, not government appointed bureaucrats.

Any profits made on Australia’s equity ownership will be put into a sovereign wealth fund to reinvest and grow, not to be rorted by future governments. Importantly, ANWIC would only act as a non-operating equity partner. We recognise that the expertise rests in our world-class industry and we are there to benefit from their knowledge.

ANWIC would also be empowered to invest in current producing projects. And before the Greens get excited, this won’t be some socialist takeover. It must pay its way into any existing project under commercial arms length terms, not under compulsion or coercion.

This will be a direct financial investment, not a takeover. The equity model gives flexibility to support domestic manufacturing or capture high export prices. It also provides the predictability foreign investors need.

Japan and South Korea are looking elsewhere because of policy instability in Australia. We must look after our trading partners. South Korea takes our LNG and supplies us with essential liquid petroleum products.

Stable partnership policy will keep these vital relationships strong instead of driving capital away. Under One Nation’s policy, the government will have skin in the game as a true partner to industry, maximising returns to the Australian people. This bold new strategy will be supported by One Nation’s long-standing policies of cutting red, green, black and blue tape and dumping net zero targets.

When I consulted gas producers on this policy, they were shocked to be asked their views. One Nation has done more consultation with industry than this government has ever done. The gas industry has been fighting an uphill battle against net zero-obsessed governments.

To all the representatives here, you will not be spared by trying to satisfy the net zero zealots. If you accept any form of net zero or emissions reduction policy, you are signing your industry’s death warrant. They will not stop until oil and gas in Australia is gone.

One Nation will dump all net zero policies. We will abolish the safeguard mechanism that fines gas companies for doing their job. It is actively destroying investment.

It sets rigid emission baselines and imposes heavy penalties, often millions per facility for breaches, even if our gas supports energy, security or vital industry. Companies divert enormous sums to compliance and offsets instead of production and jobs. Constant rule changes create uncertainty, leading to project delays and cancellations and telling investors Australia is not open for business.

At the same time, insane environmental approval processes driven by activist litigation and aligned with UN net zero ideology are compounding the damage. Capital is fleeing to the places that are rolling out of the red carpet, taking jobs and money away from Australians. Red, green, black and blue tape must be cut.

Approvals will be decided within six months with certainty. Fixatious legal claims will not stop vital projects. One Nation is taking the industry in a fundamentally different direction, clearing the way for Australian industry and thinking in generations, not election cycles.

We want more gas unlocked and government as a genuine partner, not an adversary to the industry. Lastly, the petroleum resource rent tax has been a failure in the gas industry. PWRT for offshore gas is not consistent or fit for purpose.

It was designed for oil projects and its structure does not suit gas economics. This has led to unstable tax revenues and eroded community trust. One Nation would replace the PWRT with a simple Commonwealth royalty on wellhead value.

This will give the Australian people a consistent tax take, help preserve the industry’s social licence and provide industry with predictable costs based on production. This change will only apply to prospective projects, grandfathering current PWRT arrangements under which billions were invested. Our policy aims for returns through participation, not ever increasing taxation.

This policy is a massive shift in how Australia gets returns from its resources. Australians will have real ownership of their resource assets for the first time and they will get first use. One Nation will be a partner of industry on behalf of the people of Australia to ensure we have fuel security, cheaper power and pay down our debts while providing the predictability our trading partners need to continue their mutual beneficial relationship with Australia.

/by

Budget Reply: One Nation’s Blueprint to Put Australians First

,

In our Budget Reply, we had so much to say about saving this country that Senator Hanson ran out of time to deliver it all.

One Nation is offering a fundamentally different direction for Australia — one rooted in proven, common-sense economic principles.

➡️ Cheap, Reliable Energy: Ditching the “green” agenda to invest in coal and nuclear.

➡️ Real Wealth: Backing the local industries that actually build this nation.

➡️ Lower Taxes: Putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Australian families.

➡️Less Bureaucracy: Listening to engineers and physicists, not climate bureaucrats.

Transcript

For all the talk about this budget, many issues are all too familiar. Revenue is up from $773 billion to $815 billion. Expenses are up from $812 billion to $833 billion. Gross interest payments are at $27 billion, rising to $40 billion over the forward estimates. Budget deficits are forecast to balloon by another $100 billion over the next four years. Interest-bearing debt will climb another $300 billion to $1.3 trillion. Businesses are collapsing at record rates—almost 50,000 insolvencies since Labor took office. Productivity is stuck at six-decade lows. Eight out of 10 new jobs are now created by government because the private sector has become so disillusioned. Business confidence and domestic investment have fallen to 1990s recession lows. Our inflation remains the highest in the developed world.

Australian families have endured 15 interest rate hikes, pushing more than one million households into extreme mortgage stress. GDP per capita has fallen in 10 of the last 13 quarters, and 337,000 households can no longer pay their energy bills—double the level of five years ago—as power prices continue to surge.

Labor will introduce the working Australians tax offset. It’s less than $5 a week in relief and doesn’t kick in until next year, an election year. The government wants you to be grateful for 68c a day off your tax. That tax offset will be completely rubbed out by bracket creep. Bracket creep means working Australians will pay more in tax because of inflation. The government profits from higher inflation. It’s a stealth tax, a trap for the next election and an advertising slogan for 2028. They used the same trap in their election advertising in 2022. If anyone dares to refuse passing a useless, less than $5 tax cut, they will be accused of not supporting tax cuts. While Australians will receive just $2.6 billion back in the one-off WATO, they’ll pay tens of billions more in taxes because of bracket creep.

One Nation tried to end bracket creep by indexing income tax thresholds to inflation, ending the stealthy tax increases. Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens refused to support it. Instead of the measly $250, ending bracket creep would put thousands of dollars a year back in working Australians’ pockets. We don’t need Labor to protect Australians; we need to protect Australians from Labor.

The tax changes in this budget, including on discretionary trusts, will suppress investor appetite and speculative capital, forcing these businesses to set up in jurisdictions with no impediments. Capital will always, always follow to where it is most loved.

This budget reveals a political culture that relies evermore heavily on centralised bureaucracy, dependency on the state and short-term intervention. That is the Labor way. Forget the spin about intergenerational equity; it’s being used as an excuse to break election promises. True equity does not punish those who worked hard, took risks, built businesses and paid their taxes. It does not resent aspiration or success. Real intergenerational equity means giving young Australians the same opportunities their parents had—the chance to own a home, raise a family, start a business and get ahead through hard work. Young people are not struggling because older generations succeeded. They are falling behind because governments have chosen subsidies and wealth redistribution over allowing free enterprise to flourish.

On the forward estimates, our total liabilities will exceed $1.9 trillion—a burden to be repaid by our children and grandchildren. That is not equity. That is hypocrisy. Changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will further dampen economic activity, push rents higher and reduce housing supply. As a self-proclaimed scholar of Paul Keating, the Treasurer might have reflected on what happened in 1985 when these same policies were tried and had to be reversed two years later.

Housing is a national crisis only since Labor took office, and I say ‘crisis’. More than 40 per cent of the cost of building a new home is government taxes and unnecessary compliance costs. One Nation will take a different approach. We will slash the GST to zero on building materials for homes up to a value of $1 million for the next five years. Rapid population growth without matching supply is a recipe for declining living standards. This is not about blaming migrants. It’s about recognising limits. But this government has no interest in reducing migration, for all the talk. It expects to increase visa application fees from $4.7 billion today to $7.1 billion by 2029-30. Elevated migration is a money spinner. Canada cut migration sharply from 2024 and has now enjoyed 18 straight months of falling rents and easing house prices, something we have strongly advocated for.

We will introduce income splitting for every family with at least one dependent child. A single earner on $120,000 with a stay-at-home partner would be around $9½ thousand a year better off. We will exempt insurance from the GST, and we urge the states to drop stamp duty on it as well. Affordable insurance ultimately reduces burdens on taxpayers. We will allow aged pensioners and veterans to work as much as they want without losing any of their pensions or health card benefits.

For more than a decade, One Nation has consistently argued that Australia must strengthen domestic resilience, including strategic fuel reserves, reliable energy systems, food and water security, and sovereign industrial capabilities supported by true nation-building infrastructure. The current liquid fuel crisis has not only exposed our domestic unpreparedness but signalled to adversaries how vulnerable we would be in a conflict. Building a strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is still not enough to build resilience and liquid fuel independence. The total cost of not having sufficient supplies will always outweigh the net cost of having them in a crisis.

One Nation will cut the red, green and black tape that is strangling projects and fast-track major approvals, especially energy, to a maximum of six months. We will ditch net zero, exit the Paris Agreement and axe the climate change department, saving $30 billion in the process. We will back coal and gas and support bringing nuclear power to bring down prices, restore reliability and guarantee national energy security. Next week, I will introduce a bold new gas policy that underwrites our vast sovereign resource assets for decades to come. It will provide real equity investment and genuine skin in the game, where our healthy dividend will help pay down the debt racked up by successive governments.

We have listened extensively, and we will work with industry, not against it, in genuine partnership. We will bring back our mining and resources industries, the bedrock that funds schools, hospitals, roads and defence. A strong nation leverages its natural advantages. It does not demonise them. One Nation will swiftly move to get rid of impediments in an increasingly competitive global environment and restore our status as a nation that rolls out the red carpet in resources rather than roll it up. We are backing the Capricorn steel project, to connect coal in Queensland’s Bowen Basin to iron ore in Western Australia’s Pilbara region with a rail line that will open northern Australia to development. The project is strongly backed by Australian investors and is aimed at making Australia a major global supplier of high-quality steel. It will require the Inland Rail project, now abandoned by Labor, to be completed and extended to the more suitable Port of Gladstone, in Queensland. It will be the foundation for a national rail circuit that effectively circumnavigates the Australian continent, providing freight efficiencies and improved defence logistics. These are no longer abstract debates. They are national security imperatives.

In agriculture, we will ban the further sale of controlling interests in freehold farmland to foreign investors and limit the sale of leasehold farmland to a maximum of 25 years. We will ban foreign ownership of water and return balance to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. One Nation strongly supports the modern hybrid Bradfield scheme to improve water security, open new areas to farming and improve food security and exports. We will build new dams and water infrastructure, reintroduce drought payments and re-establish a federal government backed rural lending fund to protect farmers through other natural disasters.

Importantly, we will restore accountability. Australians work hard for their money, and they deserve a government that shows the same discipline. Successive governments have failed to tackle a culture where people in charge of creating multiple white elephants pay no price for their commercial illiteracy. Snowy 2.0, which has blown out 21 times—to $42 billion—is but one egregious example. One Nation will ensure past, present and emerging failures will no longer be transaction free for those responsible.

We will abolish divisive cultural departments and race based programs that divide Australians by skin colour or ancestry. Every Australian will be treated as equal under one flag and one culture. Help will be given on the basis of genuine need, not race. No more special privileges—equal rights for all, and special rights for none. There will be no more taxpayer-funded welcome to country rituals. Unity builds strength; division destroys it.

Our Defence Force must focus on operational readiness, capability and deterrence, not morale-sapping identity politics. One Nation will restore pride in wearing the uniform and give them the latest equipment to carry out their duties. We won’t sell off our historic sites of symbolic significance to cover irresponsible spending.

Australians are not asking for miracles. They are simply asking for a country that works again. One Nation continues to attract practical Australians with real world experience—people from finance, investment, trade, engineering, farming, small business, building, energy, manufacturing and defence. These are men and women who have built things, employed people and delivered results outside the Canberra bubble. Australia does not need more career politicians serving vested interests. One Nation believes the government is there to serve you. This budget only goes to prove yet again that this government believes you are there to serve it.

In closing, Australia stands at a crossroads. For too long, Labor’s failed experiment of reckless spending, crippling regulation, net zero ideology and wealth redistribution has driven businesses to the wall. It’s crushed living standards, saddled our children with debt and stolen the Australian dream from an entire generation. A nation loses hope when it loses vision. Australia now has near a trillion dollars in debt and nothing to show for it. One Nation will break the green, red and black tape that has tied us down. We will work with the natural strengths of the assets on our balance sheet. We have iron ore, coal, gas, cattle, rain, cotton, gold, copper, oil and so much more. Australia should be a powerhouse, but the major parties lack the management skills for us reach our potential. It is perverse that a government and an opposition believe they can change the weather, and are prepared to waste ultimately hundreds of billions to do it, while they mock the idea of a version of the Bradfield scheme that would open the massive potential for irrigation of the rich but dry soils of the western districts. It is perverse that a government and an opposition that came up with the biggest construction fiasco on earth, the $42 billion Snowy Hydro 2.0, cannot complete the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane, which would open up the intermodal efficiencies and commercial potential of the inland corridor.

We are covering the land with windmills and solar panels and, in turn, delivering— (Time expired)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, are you seeking the call?

Senator Hanson: I seek leave to finish my speech.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted? Leave has not been granted, Senator Hanson.

Senator Hanson: I seek leave to table my speech.

Leave granted.

“We are covering our land with windmills and solar panels and in turn delivering the dearest and most precarious electricity grid our nation has ever had, when we had the cheapest coal fired power and sitting on one of the greatest coal resources in the globe.

One Nation does not care about major party sneers. We care about handing our children a better opportunity than was handed to us by our parents, currently it is the other way around.

One Nation will reallocate the resources from the fool’s errand of Australia changing the weather to invest in coal fired power, nuclear, irrigation, freight, rail, ports and roads. We will work with businesses as partners in these projects.

One Nation will listen to civil engineers, nuclear physicists, and research scientists in medicine instead of climate change bureaucrats. These assets on our nations balance sheet allows us to pay for expenses on the Profit and Loss. These assets build a nation that can repay its debts. One Nation is offering a fundamentally different direction -one rooted in proven, common sense economic principles. We’ll lower taxes on working families, slash regulation that strangles enterprise, deliver abundant and affordable energy, and back the industries that actually create real wealth and opportunity.

We will never pretend we know better than you how to run your own lives. That is why we are determined to hand power back to the Australian people where it belongs.

We will reward hard work and aspiration, restore fiscal discipline, and put Australian families and businesses first once again.

One Nation’s word is our bond – and we have three decades of unwavering policy consistency to prove it.

We hope to earn your trust to implement the bold change Australia desperately needs.

Thank you.”

/1 Comment/by

The Forgotten Australians

,

Labor and the Liberals have abandoned their founding visions.

Today’s modern Labor Party has traded its commitment to the working class and the family for radical gender ideology, social engineering and control over children, undermining parental rights and effectively claiming ownership of our children.

And the Liberal Party has abandoned the middle class to serve wealthy corporate “puppet-masters” and big-money interests.

There is a stark divide between corporate success and the struggle of everyday Australians.

Data shows corporate profits have soared while the share of GDP going to wages has plummeted.

Real wages have stagnated since 1980, while the costs of education, healthcare, and housing have increased by 300% to 400%.

The “net zero” transition is causing skyrocketing power bills and economic suicide.

One Nation is the only party capable of restoring Australia’s prosperity.

Our plan includes: ▶️ Slashing government spending by at least $90 billion a year. ▶️ Putting $30 billion back into the pockets of Australians. ▶️ Investing $20 billion annually in wealth-growing projects.

One Nation calls for a return to patriotism, family values and economic fairness for the often “forgotten” middle and working class Aussies.

Transcript

Tonight I deliver One Nation’s eulogy for the status quo that had dominated Australian politics since 1949 and that passed away during the break. 1949 was the year Labor prime minister Ben Chifley delivered the famous ‘Light on the hill’ speech and Robert Menzies was elected as the first Liberal Party prime minister. Both were men of vision, both had the courage of their convictions and both were driven by a deep love for our beautiful country. This may cause offence amongst the 2026 rabble pretending to still be Labor, yet I must point out the ‘light on the hill’ metaphor Ben Chifley used as a regular churchgoer is almost a direct quote from the Gospel of Matthew 5:13-16. This is the famous ‘salt and light’ passage from Jesus’s ‘Sermon on the mount’, where he said inter alia: ‘You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candlestick, and it gives light to all that are in the house.’ And it’s true that Chifley’s speech was rooted in the trauma of the Great Depression, with this line: If the movement can make someone more comfortable, give to some father or mother a greater feeling of security for their children, a feeling that if a depression comes there will be work, that the government is striving its hardest to do its best, then the Labor movement will be completely justified.  

How times have changed. The Labor Party now refuses to even say ‘mother’ or ‘father’, let alone build them into their policies. Indeed, Labor ministers refuse to define what a woman is. Today’s Labor Party uses gender ideology to subvert the concept of man and woman. It refuses to back families as the fundamental building block of society. It undermines family. To those on the government benches, ‘uterus owners’ and ‘prostate owners’ now stand as references to women and men, with ‘birthing parents’ and ‘ejaculators’ serving as references to mothers and fathers.  

The Labor Party has used transgenderism to establish the principle that the state owns your child, and refusing the state’s instruction to transition your child will result in the termination of parental rights. Parents should understand that children are no longer, as Ben Chifley said, theirs; rather, they are the state’s. Last week Jacinta Allan, the Premier of Victoria, confirmed this new Labor principle in the extraordinary defence of child castration, which she still insists on calling ‘gender-affirming care’.  

Mass immigration eliminated job security for most unionists and forced unions to become more and more militant in response to the cost of economic growth. We stopped building wealth. Instead, the fight is over a greater share of the same pie, an inevitably futile task. It’s a game the wealthy have won and the working class have lost, because the Labor Party falsely pretends that it’s in the worker’s corner when it’s not. Corporate profits as a share of gross domestic product have risen from 17 per cent in 1975 to 65 per cent in 2020. The share of gross domestic product for wages and salaries has fallen from 25 per cent in 1975 to 17 per cent today. Corporate profits keep going up. The income share of the middle class, who are still paying everyone’s social security, just keeps going down.  

It’s impossible to look at this data and see a pattern which apportions blame only to the Liberal Party’s periods in office. Both parties are to blame and equally so. The status quo has done over Australian workers, and the polling for One Nation clearly shows workers, tradies and small business are sick of it. Ben Chifley spoke of comfort as a core Labor Party value, and I ask Australia’s working class: where’s your comfort? You’re not only being attacked as colonisers and being degendered and disrespected in Labor’s social policy; your financial position has gone backwards.  

The cronyism and corruption inherent in the net zero transition—the lie—designed as it is to subvert energy generation to the weather, has run riot and rampant through the economy. Business insolvencies are at a record high. Householders are terrified of opening their power bills, and bills are set to rise at five times the inflation rate this financial year, as the cynical energy subsidies the Albanese Labor Government uses to bribe voters and cover up the problem are removed to reduce Labor’s growing budget deficit. Inflation is out of control because of that deficit. And yet you’re responsible for the deficit and the inflation which has resulted from your bribes, dishonesty and pathetic financial mismanagement. It’s taken 75 years for the inspirational vision reflected in the ‘Light on the hill’—a vision of family, comfort and, yes, happiness—to degenerate into an imbroglio of self-interest, moral degeneracy, cronyism, cynicism and, in places, outright corruption. The status quo died because it failed Australia’s working class. It’s no accident that, in the latest polls, people earning over $100,000 a year still support Labor ahead of anyone else. Labor’s new culture of social engineering and division on ethnic grounds has support from those whose incomes insulate them from the damage these policies are doing. Indeed, this moral virtue signalling has replaced the light on the hill. Sit tibi terra levis: may the earth be light to you.  

The Liberal Party is as culpable in this attack on the middle class. In Menzies’s speech—which, to give it its correct title, was the ‘Forgotten people’ speech—he spoke of ‘salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on’. He said: These are, in the political and economic sense, the middle class. They are for the most part unorganized and unselfconscious. They are envied by those whose social benefits are largely obtained by taxing them. They are not rich enough to have individual power. They are taken for granted by each political party in turn. Menzies’s success was to put the middle class at the fore, recognising that a strong middle class would power the economy and provide a tax base for those who were not able to provide for themselves. His words in 1944 took him into government in 1949, and he went on to become Australia’s longest-serving prime minister for 18 years.  

That was then. The year is not 1949; it’s now 2026, and the modern Liberals no longer owe their allegiance to the middle class. Instead, they owe their allegiance to the wealthy interests who pay the bills and set the agenda. Those rivers of gold have enabled the Liberals to outspend the Labor Party during every election cycle since 2007. The Liberal Party puppetmasters are prepared to surrender the country to the Labor Party rather than see opposition leader Peter Dutton—someone who was asking for a modicum of independence and was eliminated. Those same forces are now defending their latest marionette, an opposition leader who’s so weak that one has to ask: just how much are these people paying?  

One Nation has no puppetmasters. We offer government decision-making based on facts and data, applying principles of fairness and patriotism. I will return to One Nation’s plan for the post-status quo Australia in a moment. Menzies was again correct when he said: The communist has always hated what he calls the “bourgeoisie”, because he sees clearly the existence of one has kept British countries from revolution, while the substantial absence of one in feudal France at the end of the eighteenth century and in Tsarist Russia at the end of the last war made revolution easy and indeed inevitable. What he did not realise is that the modern Liberal Party and the modern Labor Party are acting in unison to destroy the middle class, albeit for different reasons.  

The Liberals want more money for their corporate owners, who do not understand the meaning of a fair share for all. Labor wants to bring about a revolution in society to mirror their Prime Minister’s communist ideology, which is destroying the pillars of Australian society: family and the middle class. Not surprisingly, then, the middle class is shrinking, even as the overall share of wages and salaries in the economy is shrinking. Australia’s median wage has gone backwards by eight per cent under this Labor government, although this is not just on them. Since 1980, the median Australian wage in real terms, adjusted for inflation, has not increased. Nothing. Zero. In that same time, education expenses have gone up 300 per cent, health care up 300 per cent and housing up 400 per cent. If it feels like you’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because you are. The Liberal-Labor status quo has screwed Australia rotten.  

One Nation support has grown rapidly in the last eight months, which is proof that courage is contagious. For 30 years, One Nation has been confined to a cage built to contain our threat to the status quo, a cage that was plastered with a huge sign falsely declaring the contents racist. And, for 30 years, the narrative was successfully maintained because a host of dishonest, self-interested politicians, media and talking heads all benefited financially from maintaining the status quo.  

One Nation will return $30 billion a year into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will shrink the government to fit the Constitution, reducing government spending by $90 billion a year and putting the budget into surplus in our first year. We will invest $20 billion a year in infrastructure, which the private sector will legally match, to build projects that grow wealth for everyday Australians, not foreign corporate profits. We’ve showcased these. These fully costed plans were taken to the electorate last May. We have the details. We know how we will do this, and we know that it can be done. The Australian people have clearly decided it’s time to ignore the insults and instead vote with their heads and with their hearts. Australians want our country back. One Nation is the only party that can achieve that and, indeed, the only party that wants to achieve that. 

/6 Comments/by

The Systemic Failure Killing Our Soldiers

,

Beyond simple funding gaps, the medical, psychiatric, and legal challenges confronting veterans reflect deep-seated systemic failures.

The government and “top brass” of Defence are failing to manage and “mend” those who have served.

Standards are ignored. The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash is a primary example where warnings were reportedly ignored, leading to fatalities.

There is a disconnect between the “top brass” and rank-and-file members. The government overriding the findings of the Senate inquiry into Defence honours and awards is evidence that the concerns of service members are being ignored.

The veteran community is feeling “lost and broken,” struggling with loneliness, anger, and vulnerability. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide provides a backdrop to this desperation.

The “shambles” within the ADF leadership threatens the security of all 27 million Australians. By betraying the “heart” of the ADF, the effectiveness of the entire force is compromised.

Reform is needed and includes: ➡️ Enforcing honesty and “fair dinkum” treatment of veterans. ➡️ Holding senior ADF personnel, government ministers, and bureaucrats accountable for their decisions. ➡️ Restoring the standards and values that protect the lives of service members.

These failings are killing people.

Senior levels of the Australian Defence Force must be held accountable.

And until this is addressed, this issue will never be fixed.

Transcript

I support Senator Lambie’s motion and thank her for it. This is urgent. This is a crisis. This is growing. I want to talk more broadly about how to properly fix the system, and I commend Senator Lambie and the others who’ve talked about the system. The government is not managing vets, and this has led me to support Senator Lambie. The situation is critical. It needs action, because the neglect is piling issues on issues on issues for ADF members and veterans, and for Australia. This reflects on Australia. The Romans said, ‘We send them, we bend them, but we don’t mend them!’ That could be said of the ADF. Men and women are getting desperate. They’re feeling pain, hurt, loneliness, anger, desperation and vulnerability. They’re feeling lost and broken. They’re very concerned about their mates. We have people coming to us almost daily with legal problems caused by Defence, with medical problems or with psychiatric health problems. These are serious issues. They simply need honesty, mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum.  

These men and women have served our nation here and overseas. They deserve our support. What will it take? The government hasn’t cared. Although I commend Senator Chisholm for what he just read out, it needs to go far deeper. The government has made this an urgent issue. The findings of the recent Senate inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system were clear. The government came out and just did what the top brass wanted it to do— overrode the whole lot. It listened to people and then ignored them.  

There were the Taipan deaths. After our warnings, after Senator Shoebridge’s warnings, after the previous crash— in which, fortunately, no-one died—the chopper was faulty. The chopper model was faulty. The heads-up display was faulty. ADF top brass ignored the standards and now they’re trying to hide it. I once listened to a very experienced senior ADF member who had top service in Vietnam and had risen to a very senior rank. He said that 70 per cent of the deaths of Australian soldiers in Vietnam were due to breaches of standards, which shows that Defence measures breaches of standards. Now, here we are with the Taipan chopper fatality, ignoring standards. The ADF senior brass is ignoring standards.  

We’ve had a royal commission into veteran suicide. We’ve got the ABC, funded by taxpayers, defaming Heston Russell, who did a marvellous job in Afghanistan. When they were found guilty of defaming him, there was no apology. This man serves and then is targeted at home. Defence equipment purchases are hopeless, and people know it. What I’m saying is that this is systemic. It’s not just about dollars, Senator Chisholm—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Hodgins-May. It’s about accountability at the senior levels of the Australian Defence Force. Until that’s fixed, this will never be fixed.  

This shambles is killing people. Vets simply want to be heard. They want their issues addressed, and they want senior ADF responsibilities to be fulfilled. There are 27 million Australians whose security depends on senior ADF personnel. That security is at risk because the key to our Australian Defence Force—the heart, the mateship, the truth—is being attacked and betrayed. Costs are going up; results are coming down. This needs to incorporate a systems approach including senior ADF personnel, who set the tone, and including government ministers and bureaucrats. It’s an enormous problem, with the security of 27 million Australians at risk. 

/by