These Appropriation Bills allocates an additional $9 billion in spending for the current financial year, with roughly one-third ($2.9 billion) directed toward “net zero” measures.
This Labor government is using an accounting trick by borrowing money and on-lending it, keeping $33 billion in “off-the-books” expenditure out of the formal budget deficit. This money will result in financial losses. If these projects were viable, private enterprise would be funding them.
Net-Zero infrastructure (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries) has short lifespans, requiring multiple replacements before 2050 and 2060, incurring massive, overlooked installation, maintenance and disposal/ remediation.
Unlike the mining industry, “renewable” energy projects cause permanent environmental damage to landscapes without requiring environmental bonds for remediation.
Independent groups like Net Zero Australia and Bloomberg estimates that the total economic cost of the transition ranges from trillions of dollars up to $9 trillion, while asserting that government spending on net zero has surged by 400% between 2022 and 2026.
Transcript
In accordance with the arrangements made with the whips of the major parties, I seek leave to continue my remarks, and I express my regret that I wasn’t here at the start of the debate.
Leave granted.
I’ll continue my speech from the other night. Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department, plus the net zero reporting, government grants to industry and academia to research this made-up problem. It really is a fabricated nonproblem; a monstrous, calamitous fabrication that is costing the Australian people dearly. Some of these grants are substantial, including $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Authority to counter the effects of climate change. I’ll talk more about that in a minute. The further we get into the pointless, disastrous ‘transition’, the more that the burden of funding of these measures will fall on the taxpayer through direct payments, loans and sovereign guarantees, not to mention the inefficiencies—sorry, Siri is trying to talk to me.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Neill): Siri doesn’t have the call, Senator Roberts!
I’ll pay that one!
Senator Cox: You were caught out at estimates doing that. Come on, now.
Senator McKim interjecting—
You’ve got a fertile imagination. Conspiracy theorist, is it? These measures will cost so much in the years ahead that, ultimately, the government of the day will be faced with a choice of social security, free health and education or saving the planet from a natural trace atmospheric gas that’s essential to all life on earth. One Nation does not worship the sky god of warming. We know the climate varies naturally and inherently and that nothing in the current data suggests the variation is outside of normal cycles.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
We have 24,000 datasets from around the world, including CSIRO and BOM, and they prove no change in climate at all, just natural, inherent variation superimposed on cycles. A One Nation government will terminate net zero measures and withdraw from international agreements which provide the heads of power the requirement on our government to spend this money—not necessary. We will immediately suspend all government activity associated with net zero and review all expenditure and loans to see what can be clawed back legitimately under the contract terms. I suspect noncompliance with contract requirements—especially around supply agreements—is widespread, so it shouldn’t be too difficult. We will terminate all ongoing subsidies where that option is available under the contract, and we will renegotiate contracts where it’s not. This will save around $10 billion a year in recurring expenditure, which we will put towards eliminating the deficit—$10 billion taken out of this year’s budget figures.
I foreshadow my amendment No. 3662 in the committee stage to return these bills to the Treasury to have net zero spending removed and ask for the Senate’s support. It’s time to call out this parasitic net zero nonsense and get back to the real business of government: making people’s lives better, not harder, as net zero measures currently do.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you resume your seat, Senator Roberts, it would assist the Senate if you would move your motion. I believe it has been circulated as a second reading amendment.
I move:
Omit all words after “That”, substitute “further consideration of the bills be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after amendments are circulated removing all funding for net zero measures and the administration of net zero measures”.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/cRxZeI8kgXc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-11-05 20:35:302026-11-05 20:35:36Billions on the Line for Net Zero
The Australia Institute recently claimed that big government serves everyday Australians while small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack One Nation’s “neoliberal” policies. They completely miss our core belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people creates growth and abundance so Australians can be self-sufficient and independent. It’s not about the size of government, it’s about what government actually does.
The left hates economic independence because self-sufficient Australians don’t rely on the state. That’s why the Australia Institute is pushing destructive measures like an inheritance tax on lifetime savings and a 2% wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income – assets! These taxes hit asset-rich, cash-poor Australians hard; our farmers, truckers, fishers and small business owners, which will force many into bankruptcy.
One Nation firmly rejects both wealth and inheritance taxes. The Albanese Labor government has already embraced these left-wing ideas, pushing capital gains tax changes that crashed housing prices, erased billions in national wealth and trapped young buyers in negative equity.
Labor needs to stop pushing ideology over economics.
Bring on the next election so One Nation can put an end to this socialist agenda once and for all.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Last month, the Australia Institute stated that big government serves the interests of everyday Australians and small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack as ‘neoliberal’ policies that One Nation is promoting. It fails to understand One Nation’s central belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people will grow wealth and abundance for all, reducing the need for government support as people take care of themselves. It fails to understand that it’s not the size of government but what government does that counts. The Australia Institute advocates an inheritance tax to target, in their words, ‘the untaxed compounding of intergenerational wealth’. One Nation calls that wealth that parents build up during a lifetime of hard work ‘people getting ahead’. That’s what it is. It’s what parents do: work hard and pass the benefit to their children.
The political left hate people becoming self-sufficient, because economic resilience removes subservience to government. The fundamental difference between One Nation and Labor-Greens socialism is economic independence. Small business is in the Australia Institute’s sights, with a proposed two per cent wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income—assets. The losers from this include farmers, truckers, restaurants, fishers, fast food franchisees and childcare workers. These Australians are asset rich and income poor. Paying a $100,000 annual tax would force them out of business.
One Nation rejects a wealth tax and an inheritance tax. The Albanese Labor government listened to the Australia Institute when they advocated recent capital gains tax changes. The Treasurer needs to stop pushing socialism. Founded on ideology not economics, these changes have caused a housing price crash, wiping billions from our national estate and placing many young Australians who used the five per cent deposit scheme in negative equity. Thanks, Treasurer. Now please stop helping. Enough! Bring on the next election so that One Nation can slay the socialist dragon.
The Greens are trying to force higher taxes onto Australia’s resource sector and I have to ask: how much is enough?
With the mining, oil and gas industries contributing $45 billion in taxes and royalties last year alone and $335 billion over the past five years, true economic growth comes from expanding, not shutting down, natural resource projects.
A recent meeting with Tamboran in the Northern Territory emphasised the life-changing impact of resource jobs for regional and Aboriginal communities. Providing real skills, stable incomes and financial independence, these projects offer a path out of welfare dependency and toward home ownership and prosperity.
Everyday Australians already see returns in their superannuation from our resource industry, while governments receive critical royalties to fund essential public services, as well as the “free stuff” they love to dish out. The Beetaloo project is already attracting interest from data centres seeking direct access to the Northern Territory’s national internet backbone. With guaranteed gas for power and water for cooling, planning could begin today.
This is One Nation’s approach: maximising resource development for the benefit of all Australians, while maintaining genuine, practical environmental protections. We will focus on our real landscape, not the climate orthodoxy pushed by Labor, the Greens, Teals and globalist Liberals.
Blocking new coal, gas and mine extensions will crush jobs and cripple regional towns. The Federal Court’s recent decision to overturn the government’s ban on the $1.3 billion McPhillamys goldmine reaffirms One Nation’s commitment to sound, responsible resource extraction that delivers long-term abundance for all Australians.
Taxing the resource industry into extinction while expecting it to fund the nation is pure madness!
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator McKim for this motion. The first thought I had after reading this motion was simply ‘how much is enough?’ The resource industry, mining, oil and gas paid $45 billion last year in company tax and royalties in Australia. Over the last five years, they’ve contributed $335 billion in tax. If the Greens want even more, there is a simple way to achieve that: more mines, more gas wells, more utilisation of Australia’s immense natural resources to bring in taxation and to create the wealth and opportunity for all who are here, especially in rural and remote areas where the workforce has a large Aboriginal component.
My office met this afternoon with Tamboran, who operate a new gas well in the Northern Territory, and included hearing about their successful Aboriginal employment program. Tamboran are giving Aboriginals breadwinner jobs, training and a future independent of government handouts, empowering Aboriginal workers to break free of welfare dependency. I can see why the Greens don’t like it. Who knows? Once Aboriginals own their own homes, are married with families and enjoying the benefits of resource job brings, they may vote One Nation.
Resources already provide returns into their superannuation funds of everyday Australians, as well as extra royalty into government coffers, to pay for the free stuff that government offers. The Beetaloo project has already attracted inquiries from data centres looking for a location connected to the national internet backbone, which is the Northern Territory. Data centres could start planning today, knowing the gas for power and the water for cooling are available. This is One Nation’s solution: more resource utilisation for the benefit of all Australians while, of course, ensuring the protection of our natural environment—the natural environment, not the sky god of warming as Labor, Greens, teals and globalist Liberals still believe. The green solution is to tax the resource industry while shutting down the resource industry. This is insane. Yes, I know it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Published Greens party policy is no new coal, no new gas and no extensions to coal or gas leases. High taxes will force resource projects out of business and, importantly to the Greens, prevent new developments. Massive job losses will result from this Greens party policy. Huge communities will be cast into poverty, heat and isolation because wind and solar are a useless way to drive air conditioners, transport and industry. Government revenue to pay for all the free stuff goes, and superannuation returns fall, and the Greens celebrated the refusal of a $1.3 billion extension to the McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales. The reason Minister Plibersek gave for the refusal was the section 10 Aboriginal protection order, as the site hosted a mythical blue-banded bee important to Aboriginal culture, apparently.
Today, the Federal Court officially overturned the mining ban. Justice James Stellios ruled that Minister Plibersek’s protection order was legally invalid due to a procedural failure and a lack of procedural fairness. The company that owns the mine paid $900 million in taxes last year on other projects. The taxes on this mine will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Who knows, there may be enough to cover the operating losses of one of Senator McKim’s Greens supermarkets.
This motion shows the stark contrast between the Greens and One Nation. The Greens will use high taxes to force resource companies out of business in the name of social justice virtue signalling while One Nation will encourage environmentally sound resource extraction in the name of providing abundance for everyday Australians for many, many, many years to come. Voters of Australia, the choice is yours.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/EFifNtBTy7w/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-11-05 20:33:002026-11-05 20:33:12Killing the Golden Goose
Great Australian Infrastructure (GAIN), led by a consortium of major Australian companies, would add over $100 billion to Australia’s GDP and create 40,000 vital “breadwinner” jobs. This project would deliver essential transport, power, water, and internet connectivity across northern Australia, helping to lift remote Aboriginal communities out of poverty.
I questioned Minister Farrell (representing the Minister for Northern Australia) about the long-delayed GAIN proposal, which has been sitting with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) for over two months despite proponents providing all requested information.
Minister Farrell acknowledged the ambition of the transcontinental rail proposal (from the Pilbara to the Bowen Basin) yet shrugged off the delay, comparing it historically to the decades it took to build the Alice Springs-to-Darwin railway.
Why is the supposed “party of the worker” dragging its feet on a project that would create tens of thousands of jobs in mining, steel, ceramics and cement vital for housing construction?
The government’s inaction regarding this vital infrastructure project is baffling. GAIN would provide basic utilities, fresh food and improved market access for Indigenous cattle graziers, improving the current appalling living conditions in remote communities.
Minister Farrell conceded that the proposal’s aims were worthwhile and agreed to personally make inquiries to see where the project’s assessment is up to and get back to me.
Update: Thank you to the Minister for achieving a result. With the NAIF providing clear direction, the ball is now in the project sponsor’s court.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Government to bring this incredibly beneficial project to life.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Australia, Senator Farrell. Minister, the great Australian infrastructure project—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber. I need to be able to hear the question. Senator Roberts, I’m going to invite you to start again, and I expect there to be silence.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, President. There’ll be no welcome to country. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Australia, Senator Farrell. The great Australian infrastructure project, GAIN, proposal has been with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for more than two months now. The proponents have provided all the information the NAIF requested.
This proposal is coming from a consortium of leading Australian companies, some publicly listed, who have the expertise and resources including funding to progress this project. The GAIN project will add more than $100 billion to Australia’s GDP, provide 40,000 breadwinner jobs and provide transport, power, water and internet access across northern Australia, including lifting remote Aboriginal communities out of poverty through improved market access, town services and tourism.
Minister, will you undertake to work with the NAIF to progress GAIN as a matter of urgency?
Senator FARRELL (Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for his intriguing question and thank him for the advance notice, which gives me an opportunity to give a very factual response.
Senator Scarr: As opposed to usual.
Senator FARRELL: That is very unkind. Look, I could be hurt by something like that, but I won’t take offence. So just as to make sure I understand this particular project, the idea behind this particular project, is to run a transcontinental railway line from Pilbara through to the Bowen Basin. That’s the proposal we’re talking about here, I think. Senator Roberts, just to make sure—?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, Senator Roberts has asked a fulsome question. It’s not question and answer. Thank you for standing, Senator Roberts, but I’m going to ask the minister to continue.
Senator FARRELL: Well, let’s assume for the purpose of the debate—and perhaps in your subsequent question, you can answer that question—if this item has only recently been put forward to the NAIF then I don’t think the proponents on a proposal like this, a very dramatic big-picture proposal, should necessarily expect a response in weeks. It obviously is a very ambitious project. I can recall when South Australia handed back the Northern Territory to the federal government in 1911, the condition was that the railway line between Alice Springs and Darwin would be completed and that took another 80 years to happen, so these big-picture proposals don’t occur overnight. But can I say this— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The mining industry employs 314,000 Australians directly and 800,000 indirectly. These are largely breadwinner jobs that create families. Many are union members. Minister, why is the supposed party of the worker showing no interest in a project that will create tens of thousands of breadwinner jobs in mining, steel, ceramics, fertiliser, industrial gas—including oxygen—and cement, which we badly need for housing construction and to revitalise the productivity in this country?
Senator FARRELL: I would hope all of the jobs would be union jobs, not just some—the Australian Workers’ Union, I suppose, a very good union, a very fine union actually, come to think of it. All of those things that you’ve just mentioned are really, really good things for this country to be doing and, I would imagine, would be the sorts of things that the NAIF is interested in. But the NAIF has an independent board process that assesses all project financing applications against its investment mandate and rigorous due diligence requirements. You wouldn’t want a project that can’t be successful to be supported by public funds, I’m sure. These processes can take some time, and as the NAIF very, very diligently manages public funds— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Aboriginal communities across the Top End are living in appalling conditions. The GAIN project will bring transport, town water, electricity, internet, fresh food and market access to more than 100 remote communities. It will facilitate movement of cattle to port in a way that does not stress the animal and improve returns to Aboriginal communities who rely on grazing for their income. Minister, why is the government not interested in a real project to change the lives of Aboriginals in remote communities?
Senator FARRELL: Senator Roberts, this government is interested in doing exactly what you say in Indigenous communities around the country. Obviously, if this project could help those people, then that’s a very good thing. Given your interest in this, Senator Roberts, I shall personally make some inquiries to see whether or not I can find out where this proposal is up to. It’s a very ambitious proposal. I think you’re being a little bit unrealistic in how quickly you can expect a response, but, nevertheless, I shall take it upon myself to make an inquiry to see where it’s up to and I shall come back to you personally on this issue as soon as I can.
Schedule 4 of The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 was added to address the government’s secret rollout of AI algorithms to assess aged-care applications. For the past year, human assessors were strictly prohibited from overriding computer decisions (even when clinically wrong), leading to under-assessments, long waiting lists and a sixfold surge in appeals, with elderly Australians dying before their reviews were resolved.
One Nation believes that although AI can be used for background legwork, it must never be allowed to make final, unreviewable decisions over human lives. We will legislate to ban fully automated government decision-making.
This AI decision-making system is part of a broader pattern of attacks by the Albanese Government on our elderly, including:
❌ Reducing health insurance rebates, pushing up to 75,000 pensioners into the public system and costing taxpayers approximately an extra $2 billion annually.
❌ Attempting to impose co-contributions on basic personal care (which they were forced to roll back).
❌ Increasing means-tested accommodation fees and daily living costs for retirees.
❌ Creating backlogs through the Support at Home framework.
❌ Raising Centrelink deeming rates by 0.5%, effectively reducing pensions based on assumed, unearned interest.
❌ Capping allied health services for older veterans at $5,000 (which the Senate successfully blocked).
Basically stealing money from pensioners!
Finally, I foreshadowed a second reading amendment regarding Voluntary Assisted Dying. While VAD is legal across all Australian states, state laws currently force aged-care facilities to allow external VAD practitioners onto their premises.
My amendment does not restrict VAD access for individuals; rather, it protects the freedom of conscience and religion for faith-based aged-care providers by allowing them to conscientiously object and opt out of facilitating VAD on-site, provided residents are informed and assisted with transfers to participating facilities. Based on the sensible South Australian model, this ensures respect for differing moral convictions in our community.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 amends the Aged Care Act 2024 to, firstly, establish yet another permanent statutory office, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner, within the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission; secondly, to incorporate temporary modifications made to the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) (Aged Care System Modification) Rules 2025 into the Aged Care Act and Aged Care Rules 2025 and repeal the instrument; and, thirdly, to vary arrangements concerning refundable deposits, including their use while an individual awaits a means-test assessment, the ability to transfer deposits between providers and the treatment of deposits in aged-care means-testing. One Nation is in support of these long-overdue changes. Fourthly, it will make other administrative and regulatory amendments concerning direct-care staff, local government providers, specialised residential care homes, residential care subsidies, fee advice notices, deemed decisions and the recovery of Commonwealth overpayments.
This bill has been referred to two committees for reporting—the second because the government added a new schedule late in the passage of the bill. Both reports recommend the bill be passed. I note once again that the Labor government has packaged something we do agree with—the improvements and technical clean-up in schedules 2, 3 and 4 of the bill—with something we do not agree with, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner. This is designed to force One Nation to oppose the bill and, in so doing, provide social media fodder for the ALP and the Greens at the next election. They want to claim One Nation opposed reforms to help our elderly. It’s a wedge, another bloody wedge—one of the many wedges this cynical Labor government have used lately to entertain themselves while everyday Australians continue to go backwards. You don’t care about the people.
One Nation has moved an amendment on sheet No. 4177 to remove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander commissioner provisions and leave the remainder of the bill intact. One Nation opposes discriminating against Australians based on physical characteristics, including ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation and disability. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. It seeks to present a morally superior position which inevitably fails in a perfect storm of cost escalation, empire building, self-interest, mission creep and unexpected consequences that the taxpayers pay for.
According to the Guardian newspaper, Aboriginal children in Australia have historically been murdered at roughly three times the rate of non-Aboriginal counterparts—three times. Aboriginal children experience rape at five times the rate of non-Aboriginal children, a figure that’s underreported to the point of official data being useless—bloody useless. Aboriginal children are being left in squalor without adult supervision. All of this is under the watchful gaze of the virtue-signalling elites who advance bills like this and then crack open the chardonnay to celebrate how worthy they are. This government and state governments won’t stop Aboriginal children being raped and murdered, yet they have the money for a dedicated Aboriginal aged-care commissioner and their staff. This will of course lead to more regulations and higher costs for everyone. The entire idea, of course, will have no KPIs—not one—to measure progress, because for Labor it’s not about the outcome; it’s about feelings.
We do not need an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner. We need our aged-care system to support everyone that it’s tasked with supporting. A One Nation government will send its attorney-general into Aboriginal communities, along with ministers for housing, health and infrastructure, to fix the crime and the structural problems behind these heartbreaking, unacceptable statistics—unacceptable to most Australians but not the government.
We will create jobs to restore the future of Aboriginal communities, using mining and value-adding of raw production, including in agriculture. We will oversee Australia’s largest infrastructure project, the northern rail crossing from east to west, part of the national rail loop, to bring rail transport, water, electricity and the internet to remote communities. That’s our idea of helping the Aboriginal community, not this window dressing BS.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea need only look at Closing the Gap. A measure there intended to reduce the life expectancy gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians has in part failed, completely failed, with life expectancy in recent data getting worse for Aboriginals, not better. An analysis of government outlays over the first eight years of the strategy alone, from 2008 to 2016, calculated that total combined spending towards meeting the Closing the Gap targets exceeded—wait for it—$130.2 billion. The source of that data is Adam Creighton in the Australian quoting the Productivity Commission data on 12 February 2018. The Productivity Commission estimated in 2017 that federal government spending on Aboriginal affairs was $25 billion a year. I see nothing to suggest that that number has been going down since then. And then add the state spending.
I hope the Senate will realise it’s time to change course on the Aboriginal industry. Stop funding more parasites in consultants, academics, lawyers, bureaucrats and larger top-end supervisors. Instead, directly fund the communities where it’s needed. I’ll say it again. This is what we’re advocating: instead of the parasites getting the money, let’s get it to the communities, to fund the communities, where it’s needed directly.
Moving on, the new schedule 4, added in the House of Reps, makes changes to take account of criticism of the government’s use of AI for decision-making. Applications for aged care have for the last year been determined using AI, not human beings. The Albanese government implemented a system last year which featured strict prohibition of human override. Expert, qualified human-needs assessors were explicitly barred from altering or overriding the algorithm’s outputs, even when they knew a decision was clinically wrong. Second was the systemic under-assessment of vulnerable people. Critics noted that the rigid computer program frequently failed to capture the complex realities of ageing, leaving vulnerable older Australians without adequate funding or essential homecare packages. Without their packages—so much for care! Third was the lack of consultation and transparency. The automated tool was introduced quietly with no public consultation, no industry trials and no transparency regarding the underlying algorithm—no openness; just a secretive AI. Fourth was the severe bureaucratic backlogs. Appeals against robodecisions ballooned sixfold after the system rolled out, meaning many elderly citizens faced extensive waiting lists, with some tragically dying before their reviews were resolved. Robo decision-making is a counterproductive efficiency measure, and I wonder about the real motivation for robo decision-making.
This Labor government has declared war on the elderly. Just listen to these: removing their health insurance discount rebate, forcing more elderly Australians into the public health system and, in the end, costing taxpayers at least $2 billion more a year in public health to save $350 million on the rebate. That $2 billion figure is likely conservative, with up to 75,000 elderly Australians being forced to give up private health, almost double the government estimate—your estimate, doubled. The Albanese government tried to introduce co-contributions on personal care for aged pensioners. This was so badly received that the government backed down—you backed down—and agreed that vital personal care, like bathing and dressing, would not require out-of-pocket fees. Increased costs for capital and daily living—self-funded retirees and part pensioners must pay significantly higher means tested fees for everyday accommodation, capital contributions and clinical assistance.
The Support at Home mess—the government absorbed existing homecare packages into the new Support at Home framework. Seniors groups have heavily criticised the measure for severe package backlogs, long wait times and plans to fold the entry-level Commonwealth Home Support Program into it, which critics say threatens independent living in regional and remote communities. The government lifted social security deeming rates by 0.5 per cent—half a per cent!—which means that, even if pensioners’ bank accounts are not yielding high interest, Centrelink now legally assumes they are anyway and adds made up unpaid interest to their income, reducing their pension. That’s what you’re doing. You’re basically stealing money from pensioners. For older veterans reliant on specialised treatments, the government produced a $5,000 annual cap on allied health services. Older veterans who require year-round support were told to pay for it themselves—’Just pay for it yourself’—a measure that the Senate forced the government to withdraw. It’s no wonder the government wanted to use robo decision-making to deflect the blame for this attack on elderly Australians away from themselves—cowardly, dishonest, a lie.
Schedule 4 in this bill will help in improving rules around robodecisions. It must be the law that any decision taken using AI be subject to human review. A One Nation government will introduce legislation to prevent computerised decision-making anywhere in the government. AI can do the legwork, sure. It should never, though, be used to make a decision, let alone make final decisions that a qualified staff member cannot overturn when an error is detected.
I foreshadow second reading amendment 4176, which has been advanced in response to many constituent concerns around the expansion of and advocacy for voluntary assisted dying. Voluntary assisted dying is now legal in all states. Nothing in our amendment advocates against voluntary assisted dying occurring. It simply seeks to protect aged-care providers who have a conscientious objection to providing voluntary assisted dying services on their premises. A religious objection is the most common conscientious objection. New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia have a law in place which explicitly regulates institutional objections. They mandate that residential aged-care facilities must not block external voluntary assisted dying practitioners from entering the premises. Because an aged-care room is legally considered a resident’s home, facilities are required to allow all stages of the voluntary assisted dying process, from consultations to death, to take place onsite. In Ontario and British Columbia, provincial governments in Canada have removed the right for aged-care facilities and hospitals to refuse voluntary assisted dying. This is very troubling to me, and it’s troubling my constituents. Our amendment seeks to provide support for aged-care facilities with encouragement that they’re not alone and to hold the line and uphold their convictions.
This amendment is not about voluntary assisted dying as much as it’s about freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Currently, in South Australia, healthcare providers can opt out of voluntary assisted dying if they advise residents that the facility does not offer voluntary assisted dying. This allows the resident a transfer to a facility that does offer voluntary assisted dying. My amendment reflects this sensible compromise. The South Australian model works and should be the national model. In the very difficult, emotive space of euthanasia, it’s very important to respect the differing views in the community and to allow residents to choose a non-voluntary-assisted-dying facility if they so want and for providers to opt out of voluntary assisted dying if it conflicts with their values. I ask the Senate to support my amendment 4176.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/KpZLsZ9Uygk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-29 14:25:072026-11-04 10:09:38A Duty of Care to Our Elderly
One Nation warned about Labor’s housing policies — and now young buyers are paying the price.
Negative equity, tax hikes and soaring interest rates have created the perfect storm.
We won’t stop exposing this incompetent government’s selling out of young Australians trying to get ahead and own their own home.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: When the government released its housing policy, we warned about the debt trap, which is exactly what is happening. The debt trap has closed on young buyers. We warned about the negative equity arising. Here it is. Thank you, Labor! We warned about changes to capital gains tax. Look at the consequences. We warned about negative gearing being abolished. Here it is. We warned about interest rates increasing because of Labor government spending. Here it is. It’s the perfect storm, thanks to the Labor Party. We will continue to expose this lazy, tired, dishonest, incompetent government.
While market competition and cost-of-living relief are urgently needed, the Greens’ proposal for state-run supermarkets and price caps is economically flawed and infeasible.
Instead, One Nation supports increasing competition by funding the ACCC to investigate and prosecute restrictive trade practices, dishonest advertising, and unfair competitor advantages used by major supermarkets (Coles, Woolworths, Aldi). We propose shrinking government waste and passing those savings directly to Australians through tax cuts.
State-run supermarkets historically fail.
Will the Greens’ proposal to acquire existing Coles and Woolworths sites offer fair compensation, or will they rely on state acquisition tricks similar to what John Howard used to steal farmer’s property rights in the past?
Supermarket profits (around $1 billion combined from $100 billion in sales) represent a thin profit margin on actual sales. A 1% reduction in retail prices would completely erase those profits. And the Greens’ promise of a 30% price reduction is mathematically unrealistic without massive taxpayer subsidies, which ultimately will require raising taxes.
While the Greens’ policies will add to your cost of living through higher taxes, One Nation’s policies will put more money back in your pocket, delivering genuine, lasting cost-of-living relief.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: This motion is two-thirds of a good idea. Yes, the Colesworth duopoly needs competition. One Nation would do that, funding the ACCC to investigate and prosecute restrictive trade practices in the industry used for the market advantage of Coles, Woolies and Aldi, including supplier agreements, side agreements, rebates, dishonest advertising and disadvantaging competitors, sweetheart union agreements and government policy designed to damage small and medium competitors. Secondly, yes, everyday Australians desperately need cost-of-living relief. One Nation would do that, shrinking the government to fit the constitution, as we said, in early 2025, eliminating government waste and duplication, then passing on the savings in the form of tax cuts, with more people keeping more money of their own. That’s One Nation’s way.
It’s the third part that One Nation opposes: a government run supermarket. With this policy, the Greens looked across the Pacific to New York and its communist mayor, Mamdani, and thought: ‘You know what? We’re going to try to run state run supermarkets.’ That’s always failed badly. And price caps have been another disaster wherever they’ve been tried. At least Mamdani is building his supermarket. The Greens just want to steal Coles’s and Woolies’s existing sites. Mamdani doesn’t open his first supermarket until next year, and already the Greens are declaring the idea a winner. There’s no talk of just compensation, because it’s against the federal constitution, so I assume the Greens will use state governments for acquisition—the same trick John Howard used to steal farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN Kyoto protocol. Strange bedfellows, indeed! Supermarkets are low-margin operations. Yes, they’re getting greedy, and this is where One Nation would step in, as I mentioned. The $2.1 billion figure is not accurate. The figure includes all divisions: supermarkets, variety stores, pet stores, liquor, property, hotel businesses, and online and loyalty programs in Australia and New Zealand. Coles has funds employed—the investment to build and run supermarkets—of $12 billion on a 12 per cent return on investment. Woolworths has $19 billion invested on a 17 per cent return on investment. Those are healthy returns and suggest more competition is needed—not much, though. The actual $1 billion or so in profit that ‘Colesworth’ makes from supermarket sales comes from around $100 billion in annual sales. A one per cent reduction in prices would wipe that out completely. Are the Greens promising to subsidise their supermarkets with taxpayers’ money? If so, be honest about it. How much will be needed, and whose taxes will you put up to pay for it? The most this idea will save is between one and two per cent. The Greens are promising a 30 per cent saving. It just doesn’t add up.
Decarbonisation has completely infected our bureaucracy, with dedicated offices and lavish government grants funding a fabricated, calamitous nonproblem at the expense of everyday Australians. From wasting $444 million on the Great Barrier Reef Authority to funding endless research, this pointless transition places an escalating financial burden on taxpayers.
As these costs spiral, future governments will be forced to choose between funding essential services like health, education and social security, or chasing the myth of “saving the planet” from a natural trace atmospheric gas that’s essential to all life on earth. One Nation knows that climate variation is entirely natural.
To stop this madness, a One Nation government will immediately terminate all net zero measures, withdraw from international agreements and suspend all related spending.
Clawing back grants, terminating subsidies and renegotiating contracts will save around $10 billion annually, helping eliminate the deficit.
It’s time to stop this parasitic nonsense and focus on making Australians’ lives better, not harder.
Transcript
The government has advanced a suite of appropriation bills covering an additional $9 billion of spending for this financial year. These appropriation bills provide allocations of taxpayers’ money to maintain the government’s recurring expenditure on operational matters and on the many, many, many schemes the government is using to funnel taxpayers’ money into the pockets of their donors and friends in the net zero scam, the parasitic net zero scam.
Of the approximately $9.2 billion in spending in these bills, $2.9 billion is for net zero measures—one third. Of that, $130 million is for additional departmental expenses and the rest is funding projects. This is on top of the $1 billion allocated in the previous appropriation bills for departmental expenditure and on top of $5 billion for funding projects this financial year. And this is on top of the $24 billion that has been spent so far in off-the-books expenditure for net zero measures and the additional $9 billion which has been allocated to fund projects in the near future, for a total off-the-books spending of $33 billion. For clarity, these figures are to date, not just this financial year.
Off the books is an accounting trick the uniparty has come to rely on. It’s based on the premise that, if the government borrows money and then on lends that money to other people, that is not a budget expenditure and, as such, does not form part of the budget spending or contribute to the deficit. Now, $33 billion is a huge amount of money to have sitting off the books, much of which will result in financial loss to taxpayers when these projects fail and their mates’ projects fail. If these projects were any good, private enterprise would be building them. The fact the government has had to stump up $24 billion so far, with another $9 billion expected over the forward estimates, suggests the private sector knows something the government doesn’t know—that is, that these projects are boondoggles which will never recover their full or lifetime cost.
This includes not only the cost of the solar panel, the wind turbine, the battery transmission line and such like; it includes the installation cost, maintenance cost and replacement cost—batteries last 10 years; solar panels last 15 years, being generous; and wind turbines last 15 years. This means every piece of net zero generation and storage we have in Australia right now will have to be replaced before 2050, some twice, and replaced three times before 2060. The cost won’t end in 2025; it keeps going forever and ever, because these things have to be replaced. They have short, limited lifespans. In addition, lifetime costs include the thing net zero idealists never talk about: the disposal and remediation costs. New wind turbines are massive to tear down. They’re up to 250 metres tall, and the installation cost per turbine is over $1 million. Plus, removing them when they are damaged, catch fire or reach the end of their life costs $1 million each.
If a company wants to open a new mine in Australia, it must put aside money or a surety to cover the cost of remediation: a bond. This bond payment has been law in mining for years, and it should be there. No such law, though, exists for wind and solar installations. I can understand why. Blowing the top off a mountain to create the flat area necessary for the massive footprints these things require is permanent environmental damage. No remediation can fix it. One can’t come along after the projects have been shuttered and glue the mountain back together again. The damage, the vandalism, is permanent. In these appropriation bills, the government has made provision for subsidising the build of these things, although not removing and remediating afterwards.
Nobody has added all these expenditures together to compile a whole-of-government cost of net zero. One Nation has asked the Parliamentary Budget Office for that figure, so stay tuned. The total economic cost of the transition out to 2026, government and private sector, has been estimated at between $7 trillion and $9 trillion. These people in the government do not even know, and these people in opposition did not have a clue when they started this transition. This information is from the independent Net Zero Australia, a project of the universities of Melbourne, Queensland and Princeton. Bloomberg puts the figure at $2.4 trillion out to 2050. Net zero spend is up 400 per cent under this government, between 2022 and 2026. The expectation is that this government will keep throwing money at an imaginary, confected problem for as long as the public think humans can change the weather on a global scale. This is insane.
Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department plus the net zero reporting, plus government grants to industry—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you will be in continuation. It being 12.15, we will move to senators’ statements.
I spoke in support of the Born Alive Protection Bill and called on all parties to allow a conscience vote.
My challenge is simple.
If no child is suffering this fate, pass the bill and let it gather dust. But if Parliament refuses to do that, it raises an obvious question – why oppose protections for babies born alive?
This should not be a partisan issue. If a baby is born alive, that child deserves the same care and protection as any other newborn.
Why is that up for debate?
Transcript
As I speak, outside Parliament House is a gathering of Christians and humanitarians, called to support Mr Llew O’Brien MP’s introduction of the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2026 in the House of Representatives. One Nation supports this bill. Our leader, Senator Hanson, and our deputy leader, Barnaby Joyce, are addressing the rally.
There’s no disagreement on the number of babies who are born alive from a failed abortion in Australia. The disagreement goes to the viability of the baby. Health authorities would say all these babies—around 70 a year—were not viable and lived fleetingly. Evidence from healthcare workers, though, would say as many as one baby a week was viable—a healthy human life extinguished, allowed to die alone on a cold steel kidney dish or in a biowaste container. The Left challenge this, although there’s no logic to their argument.
Dr Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs, has stated there’s no medical reason for a late-term abortion, a position that has not been disproven. In the event of a medical threat to the life of the mother, an emergency C-section is faster, safer and more effective than an abortion. Late-term abortions exist because the mother is demanding the killing of her baby, the death of her baby. It’s that simple.
The political Left mindset says any compromise on abortion risks all abortion. To these people, if one healthy baby a week has to be cruelly sacrificed, then so be it. If no child is suffering that fate, then pass the bill and it can gather dust. No, you prove my case. One Nation speaks for the infertile couples who will praise God for the gift of an adopted child, a life saved, a family created, a community enriched, a species enriched. I call on all party leaders to declare this matter a vote of conscience.
Why is the Labor government deceiving Australians by claiming electricity prices are falling when the reality is that electricity bills are RISING?
I pointed to the facts.
Connection charges have surged from 26 cents a day to as much as $1.46 a day over the past decade, adding around $530 a year to household power bills.
Solar feed-in tariffs have fallen to as little as 5 to 15 cents per kilowatt hour, while households are being charged 25 to 45 cents per kilowatt hour for the electricity they buy from the grid.
Australians with rooftop solar are getting less for the power they generate while paying more in fixed charges and connection fees.
When I asked why Australians are being told electricity prices are falling while their bills keep rising, the government did what it does best – blame someone else and avoid the question.
Australians don’t care about Labor’s talking points. They care about what leaves their bank account every quarter.
If electricity is supposedly getting cheaper, why are Australians paying more?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. In the early 2000s, electricity companies were allowed to charge a special solar metre fee to customers with home solar. Over time, it morphed into a daily connection fee. In 2025, the Australian Energy Regulator reduced electricity charges, and energy companies responded, increasing the connection fee—in one case, up from 26c a day 10 years ago to $1.46 a day, $530 a year, 15 times the inflation rate. Minister, are the energy companies profiteering, or is your government trying to hide the real cost of electricity?
Senator Watt interjecting —
Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science): I was giving some thought to that as I got up, actually, Senator Watt. The idea that you would, as the minister for energy, conceal from Australians anticipated price rises in electricity that you had been provided and that you would make all sorts of administrative arrangements to cover that up until after an election—that dubious honour only belongs to one bloke. I can tell you he’s not a comedian, this fella, Mr Taylor, from the other place, who was the minister for energy under the Morrison government. He did share that honour with Mr Morrison for a period. You asked you asked about concealing—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: On a point of relevance, I asked about the current government’s policy, not someone else in the lower house.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll draw the minister back to your question.
Senator AYRES: If there’s anything we can provide you in addition to that answer in relation to the relationship between connection fees—these things are very clear. We have just provided, for example, starting yesterday, three free hours of solar power, which are required to be produced for the 455,000 Australians who have solar panels on their roofs and have now got a home battery, who will pay zero in electricity costs because of the support of this government. These are not people in inner-city suburbs, I can tell you, but, overwhelmingly, people in the outer suburbs and in the regions of Australia, who are benefiting from low or zero cost and delivering benefit to the rest of the electricity system. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Electricity feed-in tariffs—the price energy companies pay people for rooftop solar electricity fed into the grid—have fallen. Retailers pay 5c to 15c per kilowatt hour on new contracts while charging 25c to 45c for additional power plus $530 a year just for connection. Minister, did you deceive Australians into installing rooftop solar to save money when the benefit is being ripped away in increased connection charges and reduced feed-in tariffs?
Senator AYRES: Senator, I know that One Nation doesn’t like solar electricity. I know. Australians have benefited from this. Many, many households, pensioners and working Australians are benefiting from having solar on their home. Many hundreds of thousands of households are benefiting from batteries. Now, I know you don’t like it. I know One Nation doesn’t like it. I know you’ve led the National Party into not liking it—they don’t like it any more—and, of course, dragged the Liberal Party into this far-right vortex and into taking wilder and wilder positions that have got nothing to do with the experience of suburban and regional Australians who have benefited from solar on their roofs, benefited from batteries in their homes, benefited— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is your government deceiving everyday Australians, telling them electricity prices are falling when, owing to connection fees, electricity bills are actually rising and rising quickly?
Senator AYRES: It will be a source of disappointment. Every time Australia succeeds, it’s a source of heartache and misery over there, isn’t it? You feel sad when Australia does well.
We are making progress. There are 22 gigawatts of new generation capacity in the grid. Default market offer shows that the Albanese government’s work in this area, after a decade of disinvestment and decay in the electricity system—it was utterly irresponsible, what Mr Taylor did. He wrecked our fuel refineries. He wrecked our electricity system—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts on a point of order?
Senator Roberts: It is on relevance. Why are electricity bills rising? I didn’t ask about someone in the lower house.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will draw the minister back to your question.
Senator AYRES: He wrecked our electricity system, wrecked our fuel refineries, didn’t invest in transmission—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Ayres.
Senator AYRES: and did more to damage Australian energy security—
