Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Labor’s Tax Break for Gender Lobbyists

,

One Nation opposed granting Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) tax status to Equality Australia.

The Labor government is ignoring rulings from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court that found Equality Australia ineligible for DGR status.

Equality Australia is a political lobby group rather than a benevolent charity, which advocates for LGBTQ+ rights and gender-affirming care.

Typical of this Labor government, Senator Chisholm dismissed our concerns as political motivations.

There’s nothing political about protecting our children from harmful, irreversible treatments.

It’s about doing what’s right for our youth.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I have some questions, as I implied before. We’re generally supportive, One Nation, of these superannuation modifications, except for what we see as dishonest provisions. In February’s Senate estimates hearings I asked the office of the Governor-General about Equality Australia, because Australia’s Governor-General is supposed to be neutral—to not take political positions. This leads to many questions of the government. Firstly, Minister, how is it that the Governor-General can be a patron of a political activist group, Equality Australia, that actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children—mutilation of children?

This is not about people’s support for Equality Australia, because that’s what is essentially happening by giving it DGR—deductible gift recipient—status. This is about the law and Equality Australia’s DGR status. My questions include: Why did assistant charities minister Mr Andrew Leigh intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when on three occasions the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings had held that Equality. Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to deductible gift recipient status?

Deductible gift recipient status allows donors to claim tax deductions for donations. Why did the Labor government give Equality Australia a massive favour against the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
and the Federal Court’s full bench, on two occasions? Was it because the Governor-General is a patron of the activist group Equality Australia? Isn’t this a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the requirements of neutrality by the Governor-General?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Kovacic): Senator Ghosh.

Senator Ghosh: I hesitate to interrupt my colleague, but I think it’s a contravention of the standing orders to cast aspersions on the motives of, or reflect disrespectfully on, the Governor-General of Australia.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Noted, thank you. Please withdraw, Senator Roberts, and refrain moving forward.

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator ROBERTS: Observing the government’s blatant contradiction of the law in giving DGR status — deductible gift recipient status—to Equality Australia in defiance of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings, I ask: Does the law mean nothing to this government? Is the lobby group Equality Australia, when it attacks Christian schools, acting in any way on behalf of the government? Is the lobby group acting on behalf of the government in any way when it supports children’s futile attempts to change sex? Essentially, what you’re doing, Minister, by giving Equality Australia deductible gift recipient status is asking taxpayers to subsidise the mutilation of children. Why are you going against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Federal Court rulings? We want to protect superannuants—adults—but not at the sacrifice of children.

Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks, Senator Roberts. My understanding, having just taken over this bill this morning, is that Senator Gallagher responded to similar statements that were put by Senator Whitten when this was last in committee stage. The government rejects the claims of Senator Roberts. All of the entities that are being provided with DGR status in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 were found to be legally ineligible for DGR status through routine channels. This prior ineligibility is the precondition for a government to consider applications for a specific listing. Let me be clear: all the entities that are being provided with DGR status through this bill have been supported in this way because, in spite of the benefits they bring to communities, they did not fit into the defined DGR categories. Our tax system is set up so that when this happens—and it has happened routinely since 1948—a government can decide that a charity, in spite of not fitting a specific DGR category, nevertheless warrants the support that DGR status provides. That’s what is part of this bill . There are other organisations that are recipients. It says a lot about One Nation that they are just singling out this group in particular for their political motivations.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand your response, Minister, but can you explain why the government is supporting a group that is a lobby group, an activist group, not a charity, as the Full Bench of the Federal Court ruled twice and as the Administrative Tribunal also ruled? Why are you supporting a lobby group, an activist group, that’s harming children and is not recognised as a charity?

Senator CHISHOLM: I disagree with Senator Roberts there. Contrary to false media reporting, Equality Australia is indeed a registered charity. Equality Australia has been registered as a charity under the ACNC Act since 4 January 2016. Specifically, Equality Australia has been registered as a charity with the subtype ‘advancing public debate’. Advancing public debate and engaging in public advocacy is a valid charitable purpose. Equality Australia is a registered and compliant organisation, meeting the required governance standards and making a significant contribution to Australian communities.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, Minister, you didn’t answer my question. Why are you going against a Federal Court ruling on two occasions and an Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruling?

Senator CHISHOLM: I already answered that in the previous answer. The entities being provided with DGR status in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 were found to be legally ineligible for DGR status through routine channels. As I said before—let me be clear—all the entities that are provided with DGR status through this bill have been supported in this way because, in spite of the benefits they bring to communities, they did not fit into the defined DGR status. Our tax system is set up so that when this happens—and it does happen regularly and has occurred since 1948—a government can decide that a charity, in spite of not fitting a specific DGR category, nevertheless warrants the support that DGR status provides

/0 Comments/by

Going Backward: The Reality of Labor’s Economy

,

Labor’s record spending and trillion-dollar debt are smashing living standards — driving inflation, hiking interest rates and leaving Australians worse off.

Families are going backwards while Labor taxes harder and spends faster.

One Nation will shrink government, drive down inflation and put more money back in Aussie pockets.

Transcript

Today, Treasurer Chalmers has taken to social media to claim credit for the 2.6 per cent increase in annual GDP, calling the rise the strongest growth in the Australian economy for three years. Has the Treasurer forgotten he’s been in office for almost four years—meaning the Treasurer took over the economy and made it worse! 

Putting that aside, how did the Treasurer create this increase? To haul GDP out of negative territory, the Treasurer has spent like a drunken sailor. Almost all of the increase in employment and economic activity in the last year has come from increased government spending, which has to be paid for with? Higher taxes. In effect, the Treasurer has taxed everyday Australians more, and then spent their money faster than the taxpayers would have. As a result, the money supply has expanded 11 per cent in the last year, and our national debt has now passed $1 trillion. 

A funny thing about spending other people’s money: it eventually runs out. Already, the government is looking for ways to raise taxes. Capital gains tax increases and increased taxes on superannuation are on the agenda. Even worse, the government is selling off the silverware. The sale of Defence Force property has already been announced—$3.5 billion in extra cash. What was once a strategic asset, which didn’t add to the money supply, will be cash in the bank for the Treasurer to spend—more solar and wind subsidies; more money to the Taliban. Already this government has given the Taliban $320 million. 

Selling off the silverware to keep the GDP out of recession leads straight to even higher inflation than we have now. To counter this inflation, already the Reserve Bank has been forced to increase interest rates. The result will be a loss of spending power for everyday Australians, who will have to spend more of their income on their mortgage or rent. Government spending is approaching 28 per cent of our GDP and is heading to over 30 per cent, which offsets the reductions in private sector spending that have resulted from overregulation and a lack of confidence in this Labor government. In the short term, this approach makes the data look better. In the medium term, inflation spikes, and wage growth goes negative, as it has been for much of the Treasurer’s term. If everyday Australians feel like they’re going backwards and working harder, it’s because they are going backwards—especially if they’re paying off a home or renting. One Nation will solve this vicious cycle of economic decline with our policy to shrink the government to fit the Constitution and to fit our means. One Nation took a policy to the last election to reduce the size of government by $90 billion in our first term. That number, from what we can see from Labor, is now looking much, much bigger than we can save. Our policy will reverse Labor’s deficits, stop Labor’s inflation, cancel Labor’s interest rate rises and leave more money in the pockets of everyday Australians. 

/0 Comments/by

Facts Over Fashionable Politics

,

Months ago, we saw a pivotal moment in the Senate.

It showed exactly what the 2028 election will centre on for One Nation: protecting Australians, strengthening families, keeping education affordable and defending the values that make this country work.

I made it clear that One Nation stands for facts over fashionable politics and for confronting violent extremism wherever it appears.

When Senator Hanson was attacked for raising concerns about radicalisation, I reminded the chamber that her comments were about extremists, not ordinary people of faith. I also warned that shutting down honest debate only leaves Australians exposed.

As we head toward 2028, my message remains the same. One Nation will defend Australia’s values, culture and security – and we won’t be intimidated out of telling the truth.

Transcript

Yesterday, the 2028 federal election battlelines were drawn. The first and foremost job of government is to protect its citizens, to allow them to lead their lives with a minimum of government interference and to provide the infrastructure to grow our productive capacity and create breadwinner jobs for all who are here. Government must educate our children without imposing a lifetime of debt. We must guarantee that someone who takes their place in society and the workforce can afford their own home and start a family. These are the things to which One Nation is dedicated. 

Australia can return to being the best country in the world. We can provide wealth and abundance for all. We’ll cast off the oppression of identity politics and implement government policy based on facts, not feelings or fashion. One Nation has always defended and will always defend the safety of everyday Australians against radicals committing violence, whether that’s radical Islam, antifa, ‘trantifa’ or any other group. 

Yesterday, our leader, Senator Pauline Hanson, was attacked here with a ferocity I’ve not seen in three terms in the Senate—for the crime of speaking the truth. Senator Hanson called out radical Islam as incompatible with Australian values and Australian security. Then it was on for one and all. 

As commentator Andrew Bolt said last week, the assertion that Senator Hanson said, ‘There are no good Muslims,’ is a lie. Her exact words were as follows: 

I’ve got no time for the radical Islam. Their religion concerns me because what it says in the Koran—they hate Westerners, and that’s what it’s all about. You know, you say, ‘Oh, well, there’s good Muslims out there.’ Well, I’m sorry—how can you, you know, tell me there are good Muslims? 

The context was clear. It was about radical Islam—not all Muslims. In her interview later with Sharri Markson, Senator Hanson confirmed she agrees there are good Muslims. Of course there are. 

Yesterday, in the Senate, I read a letter from Persian refugee Janet Shay. It explains the difference between ‘good Muslim’ and radical Islam perfectly clearly. I’ll repeat Janet’s words: 

There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want: 

safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims. 

The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC— 

the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps— 

Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith. 

These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims. 

The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people. 

Yesterday, when I read Janet’s comments, the Greens objected to Janet’s differentiation between good Muslims and true Muslims. My message to the Greens is simple: get used to it. To tar all Muslims with the crimes of the few is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of good and decent people who’ve assimilated into Australia and who maintain their religion in no different a manner than that of any other religions, including the orthodox religions, Taoism and Judaism. 

The political left’s refusal to differentiate good from true is deliberate. It provides protection to true Islamists, allowing them to hide behind the innocent. This is, of course, an action which will lead Australia to ruin—as it is in the United Kingdom and as it did in Iran, which fell to the ayatollahs after the Left formed a suicide pact with radical Islam to overthrow the shah. They expected a socialist paradise; instead, they got a short flight off a tall building. Thirty thousand leftists died in the first few months of the Iranian Islamic regime. That’s fact; that’s history. As much as the Greens and the Labor Party wish they could rewrite history, they cannot. Iran was a warning. If true Muslims can subvert a Western culture like Iran, true Muslims can subvert any nation. 

In the last few weeks, I’ve spoken with many Australians from Persia, Lebanon, the Middle East and, today, Armenia who warn of the dangers of true Islam. I’ll be clear: the Bible contains some objectionable verses. Christianity, though, had a reformation 500 years ago, which saw those verses excluded from worship. Islam has not had a reformation, and true Islam celebrates the penalties prescribed in the original works. The word Islamophobia is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have crucial conversations about the religion—the ideology—of Islam. A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Koran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values is not irrational. 

Christianity is openly mocked in Australia without legal protection from criticism, nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. Except, when Islam is questioned, the conversation is shut down and the person asking the question is labelled the problem. The question about Islam never gets answered. In the words of Senator Hanson: 

If there is a person out there who is a Muslim and does not support sharia law, female circumcision, child marriages, who (does) support our culture our way of life and our laws, then I apologise to you – if my comment has offended you … 

I repeat the apology, and I am concerned about where this persecution of truthful senators will end. 

The recently passed hate crimes bill contains provisions which may be used against One Nation, and it seems to me that the disproportionate response from the Senate’s ruling cabal is designed to warm Australia up to doing exactly that. The hate crimes provisions added to the Commonwealth Crimes Act back in 2010—and twice since strengthened—have never been used. The only prosecutions for hate crimes have been under state legislation. This shows the federal legislation is not needed. The states already have hate speech covered. As I said during the bill debate: 

For many years, the left-wing commentariat, politicians and media accused those who sought to raise the alarms around rising antisemitism and Christianophobia with the crime of ‘threatening social harmony’. The very elastic crime of racism has now been extended to describe as racist anyone who defends Australia and our way of life. Many Australians have been guilty of shooting the messenger— 

Behaviour we saw again yesterday in this chamber— 

while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged. 

And it remains unchallenged. The hate crimes bill was sold to the Australian public as the only way the Islamic terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir could be banned. Well, it’s been more than three months, and that organisation has not been banned. For the third time, parliament has passed hate speech laws that have not been used because Islam was never the target. In the latest polling, One Nation is four points behind the government, and the panic—the political revenge—is starting. 

The left is using the same playbook, as did Germany, recently, where the ruling coalition just tried to ban Germany’s version of One Nation, Alternative fur Deutschland, AfD. Fortunately, the appeals court blocked the move, for now—the point being, they tried. The Left hate contesting ideas in the court of public opinion and prefer to use thuggery, tyranny, censorship and control. One Nation will repeal the hate crimes legislation and leave the matter to the states. 

Meanwhile, true Islam in Australia continues to flout our laws, our culture and our language. In this Senate, yesterday, Senator Faruqi spoke in Arabic, which I would have thought breached the standing orders—though apparently not. It does, however, assist communication between the senator and her electorate, the same electorate which, as we speak, is holding tearful vigils for the deceased Iranian dictator and terrorist, Khamenei, at their largest mosques here in Australia—the same Khamenei whose photos Hamas supporters recently carried above Senator Faruqi’s head as they marched together across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. What more of a demonstration of the allegiance of true Islam in this country can there be than carrying the photo of a terrorist leader proudly over the harbour bridge? Protestors included the Bondi murderer Naveed Akram. The Greens are the party of the Islamic Australian caliphate. 

Without the Islamic vote, this Labor government is unlikely to be re-elected. Apparently, no betrayal of everyday Australians is beyond their chase for votes and power. Our refugee program is being used to import 25,000 true Islamists a year from countries who’ve already destroyed their own Western culture and are coming for ours. For clarity, One Nation will oppose any religion, any ethnicity and any social movement that is an affront to Western civilisation. My motion next week relating to childhood gender mutilation is an example of just that. To defend Australian culture, language and heritage is not racism, xenophobia nor whatever label the Left chooses to attach. It’s common sense. It’s designed to protect everyday Australians from the hatred and violence of radical activists and terrorists. True Islam is one element of that, but it’s not the whole problem. 

I’m a migrant who values the country to which my father brought my family in 1962, and so do the many migrants who have joined One Nation to protect our Western culture, social harmony, coherence, safety and security. One Nation will join with those who were here first and who have come since to accompany us all in our beautiful country. In fact, we represent you. Why the rest of the Senate does not will be the question to be settled in 2028. 

/0 Comments/by

From Iran to Australia: A Defiant Warning

,

On a motion supporting the people of Persia and the safety of all in the Middle East and globally, I read a letter from Janet Shay, an Iranian woman who escaped the Islamic regime, converted from Islam to Christianity and now lives safely in Australia.

Janet calls for honest debate, the freedom to question belief systems, and for clear distinctions between those who live peacefully and those whose convictions threaten public safety.

She urged the government to apply consistent standards, learn from Iran’s experience, and put Australians’ security first.

Her message is clear: It’s not good enough for our government to call behaviour ‘Terrorism’ when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it’s inside.

The safety of Australians must never be sacrificed because politicians are too afraid to have difficult conversations.

Transcript

This morning, I received an email from a constituent who was born into the Islamic regime in Iran. Her parents were Muslim yet converted to Christianity, and they were successful in fleeing Iran and moving to Australia. These are her words, based on her lived experience and that of her family: 

My name is Janet Shay. I’m an Iranian-Australian. 

Yesterday, on the 1st March 2026, the Leader of the Islamic Government of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed. 

The Iranian people have waited 47 years for this moment. 

This is a historical and joyful time for Iranians and for the world. 

Although I am joyful for them, and hopeful that soon I may visit my family the graves of my loved one in Iran, I am deeply concerned for us here in Australia. 

I’ll say that again: she is ‘deeply concerned for us here in Australia’. She continues: 

In 2025 Prime Minister Albanese declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC) a terrorist organisation. Thank you Prime Minister. 

However, declaring a group a terrorist organisation means very little if the ideology that drives that group continues to be taught and defended on Australian soil without consequence. 

What does our government intend do about those living among us who actively promote and defend the same ideology that endorses killing of apostates, abusing women and the sexual violation of children. 

On the 14th of December 2025 there was an attack on Bondi: on Australian soil, against Australians. The Prime Minister said sorry. Ok. 

But sorry is not honesty about what we are dealing with. An ideology cannot be called terrorist overseas but acceptable when it’s in our own country. 

See, the people protesting in Iran are not afraid of being politically incorrect, to NAME what they endured under Islam. They are not going to be gaslit into calling it a misinterpretation. 

So I’ll follow in their footsteps and speak plainly. 

There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want: 

safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims. 

The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith. 

These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims. 

The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people. 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear— 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sterle): On a point of order, Senator Shoebridge. 

Senator Shoebridge: The inflammatory language here of ‘good Muslims’ and ‘true Muslims’—attacking the Muslim faith in the way that this senator is—is contrary to the standing orders. I’d ask you to have him withdraw that commentary and ensure that the debate we have in this chamber does not lead to that Islamophobia that we just heard from Senator Roberts.  

Senator Hanson-Young: Or hate speech. 

Senator Shoebridge: Or, as my colleague says, hate speech. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, I don’t quite see it as you do, but I’m going to check with the Clerk to make sure. The Clerk has concurred with me. You have the floor, Senator Roberts. 

Janet Shay continues: 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Quran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values isn’t irrational.  

Christianity is openly mocked in our country without legal protection from criticism. Nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. 

But when Islam is questioned the conversation shuts down and the person asking the question is called ‘the problem’. And the question about Islam NEVER gets answered. 

She says: 

Australia, we have the right to read, question and think for ourselves. Go to your local library. Pick up a copy of the Quran. Read the Hadith, the recorded words and example of their Prophet Muhammad. Draw your own conclusion and decide if Islam should be shielded from scrutiny in a democratic nation. 

Demand that our government clearly distinguish between those who wish to live freely alongside us and those whose convictions oppose the safety and freedom of Australians. 

And let us build our immigration, our policy and our national values accordingly. 

That is not hatred. That is not phobia. That is us protecting ourselves. 

It is not good enough for our government to call behaviour Terrorism when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it is inside. 

The people of Iran were duped into accepting an Islamic government and have paid for it in blood for 47 years, while the world stood by and didn’t listen. 

Do not let Australia learn that lesson the way Iran did. 

Long live a free Australia. 

Thank you, Janet Shay. I will return to this topic later today—the interests of Australian people at a time of threats to our security. This is what matters. The security of Australians is paramount to One Nation, and it should be paramount to every member of the Senate. 

/2 Comments/by

Labor’s “Suicidal Empathy” on ISIS Brides

,

One Nation supports the private Senator’s Bill that was introduced in March by Senator Duniam.

This Bill finally forces transparency and accountability around the return of individuals linked to terrorism.

The Bill makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of people who’ve engaged in terrorism-related conduct unless both key ministers sign off in writing.

This legislation exposes Labor’s role in repatriating women who travelled to ISIS territory as committed participants in a violent extremist organisation responsible for severe harm and human rights abuses.

Their return was quietly brokered through intermediaries, even though some had openly urged attacks on Australia and its allies. A true case of suicidal empathy.

To these female terrorists, One Nation says this: you got what you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They’re the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I’ll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named ‘ISIS brides’ inspires this legislation. The term ‘ISIS brides’ is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to ‘breed the cubs of the caliphate’ and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they’re Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we’re supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they’ve committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That’s what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It’s called suicidal empathy. Let’s quote one of Minister Burke’s ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: ‘Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.’ That’s charming—really charming. It’s suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that’s telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate? As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia.’ And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

/1 Comment/by

One Nation’s Fight to Save the NDIS

,

In March this year, the Senate voted down a One Nation motion moved by Senator Hanson that sought to establish a dedicated inquiry into waste, fraud, and abuse within the NDIS.

The rampant rorting, profiteering and misconduct inside the NDIS is draining resources from Australians with genuine need and pushing the scheme toward collapse.

Billions have been siphoned away, frontline workers pulled out of hospitals and aged care, and essential services are under strain nationwide.

One Nation’s position is very clear – genuinely disabled people deserve an insurance scheme for service. The NDIS is meant to be that scheme.

Only strong oversight and honest accountability will save the NDIS and safeguard taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This isn’t about care—about whether or not people care about the disabled. This is about restoring sound governance. This is so that we can have disabled people getting good care. I will make One Nation’s position very, very clear: disabled people deserve an insurance scheme for service—genuinely disabled people. We also want to stop exploitation of the disabled. That’s right: stop exploitation. 

I’m going to read from the terms of reference of Senator Hanson’s motion: 

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 3 September 2026— 

nothing wrong with that. I will read item (f): 

(f) the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on NDIS participants, including the diversion of resources away from Australians with genuine need; 

I’m going to read that again: 

(f) the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on NDIS participants, including the diversion of resources away from Australians with genuine need. 

I’ll go back to the start of the terms of reference: 

(a) the scale, nature and drivers of waste, fraud and abuse within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS); 

(b) the adequacy of existing safeguards, compliance, auditing, investigative and enforcement mechanisms to detect, prevent and respond to waste, fraud and abuse; 

My responsibility, our responsibility, is to the people of Australia—to the taxpayers of Australia and to the disabled of Australia. The third item in the terms of reference is: 

(c) qualifications of workers under the scheme; 

We know it is being rorted at the moment, with people who are not qualified. The fourth one is: 

(d) the role of National Disability Insurance Agency processes, registered and unregistered providers, intermediaries, participants, nominee arrangements and any other relevant entities or persons in contributing to or preventing waste, fraud and abuse; 

What is wrong with any one of these? Nothing. Nothing is wrong. They’re needed to protect the disabled. The fifth one is: 

(e) the financial impact of waste, fraud and abuse on the sustainability of the NDIS and on taxpayers; 

If we don’t do it, the NDIS will be heading for the largest line item by far on the budget. It’ll go out of existence under its own weight. I’ve already talked about (f). The sixth and seventh ones say: 

(f) the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on NDIS participants, including the diversion of resources away from Australians with genuine need;  

(g) distortionary impacts of increased wages and fees for service under the scheme on the labour market and other industries; 

Nurses and aged care service people are being dragged out of their professions and being put into the NDIS because of the higher wages, the distorted increased wages. This is causing problems for veterans. It is causing problems for people in hospitals and doctors’ clinics. Its causing problems for people in aged care. The eighth one is: 

(h) the impact of the scheme on the housing market and construction costs;  

That’s impacting so many more Australians. There’s a serious impact there. This is about all Australians. This is about understanding the problem, and Senator Hanson has shown yet again that she understands the guts of the problem in the whole context. Who can disagree with any of these? The ninth one is: 

(i) the appropriate scope, powers and priorities of a Royal Commission into waste, fraud and abuse within the NDIS; 

Senator Hanson said it herself just a few moments ago. She’d prefer a royal commission, but this is the first step. The tenth one is: 

(j) any legislative, administrative or governance reforms required to strengthen oversight, restore public confidence and protect the integrity of the NDIS; and 

And restore trust as Senators Bell and Whitten have just spoken about. And the last one is: 

(k) any other related matters. 

This is what it is all about. I can’t see anything there that anyone would object to if they genuinely cared for the disabled, unless they’re rattling the tin to make someone a demon. All of these work to restore trust, service, care and accountability. 

We need to go back to the start of the NDIS scheme. It was a bastard. Julia Gillard as Prime Minister needed a pre-election headline, so she cobbled up the NDIS—minimal research, minimal thought, minimal consideration. Just get that bloody headline. Then the Liberals came into power and they saw a dog with no details. But instead of canning it and sending it back to the states, they saw the vulnerabilities and they tried to stop the rorts. As a result it was overcomplicated, arbitrary and crooks kept stealing. The needy kept getting no service as a result of it being a bastard at birth thanks to the Labor party. I personally think, as a side issue, that the NDIS is best done at the state level because it restores competitive federalism and accountability. I’m in favour of sending it back to the states. 

As I said, it is out of control. As Senator Hanson, Senator Bell and Senator Whitten said, it is out of control. It will soon be the biggest line item on the budget. This is important not only for the disabled where it’s extremely important but also for the taxpayers because of the rorting and the fraud of taxpayer money. The fraud is heading into the billions. In fact, I was told in Senate estimates in an answer to one of my questions that the fraud investigation is stunned with how big the impact of fraud is. It is so big that it will eventually curtail services for people needing genuine care. It will curtail nurses, aged-care workers and other carers. It’s not just affecting disabled who need care. It’s affecting people right across Australia, even the housing market. 

Every Friday I try to do a livestream, and I start with heroes who have been active in our democracy. I want to name two heroes—Drew Pavlou and Pete Zogoulas. They have exposed the rorts. We knew about them. We’ve been raising them, but they started the community with the depth and breadth of the rorts. Ultimately, what happens when we have an abusive government—that’s what this is about. This is an abusive government abusing taxpayer money. There’s no government money. There’s only taxpayer money. There’s an abuse of taxpayer money because very few citizens stand up and hold the government accountable. So Drew Pavlou and Pete Zogoulas deserve commendation for being active participants in democracy. 

For democracy to succeed, we need active participants in democracy. What has happened in this country is we’ve had it too easy, and many citizens have fallen into passive democracy. Then, that falls into apathy, and that falls into tyranny. We saw signs of that tyranny in the way the COVID mismanagement corralled people, stomped on people and suppressed people, making them do some hideous things. And we’ve seen signs of that apathy in the way the Labor government is wanting to bring in and follow through on the former prime minister Scott Morrison’s misinformation and disinformation censorship bill. They destroyed free speech and many other freedoms and basic rights during the COVID response, and now they want to bring in censorship. That’s the essence of human progress: when we have passive democracy, it leads to apathy, and then it leads to tyranny, which, as I’ve just given you some examples, is coming in to this country. Eventually people get sick of the tyranny and they rise up, and we have anarchy. That’s the cycle throughout history: active democracy becomes passive democracy becomes apathy becomes tyranny becomes anarchy. There’s a way to avoid that, which is by having more citizens like Drew Pavlou and Pete Zogoulas. 

We need an inquiry to get the facts. The Greens, being the Greens, introduced talk of an enemy and division. Where’s the enemy? Can you see the enemy, Senator Bell? Where’s the enemy? Why do they do this? They do it because they want to create victims and make those people dependent, and that’s bloody cruel. Victims are in a permanent state of dependence. That’s no way to go through life. I do not see Senator Steele-John as someone in a wheelchair. I respect his ability. I see him as an Australian with plenty to contribute. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but at least he gives that other view. But shame on the Greens for yet again creating victimhood and dependence. It’s cruel. 

We need to clean up the NDIS for the improvement of services to the disabled. Those who really care will support this motion. And the Senate, as Senator Bell has said, is an entirely appropriate place to have this inquiry. The Senate, after all, is the house of review. Let me be very clear: One Nation wants to stop exploitation of the disabled. It wants to give the disabled confidence that they’ll be getting good service, and to do that we need to restore sound responsible governance. 

/0 Comments/by

COVID Lessons Learned?

, ,

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned was handed down last week. Although the report included substantial criticism of New Zealand’s mistakes in its response, it did not give them prominence. Instead, the report focused only on process errors—specifically process, rather than medical, errors—especially advice failing to reach decision-makers and the repeated failure of politicians to follow the advice they did receive. It turns out they were not following the science after all.

Specific criticisms of the response included youth vaccine mandates for 12- to 17-year-olds. On 9 December 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine technical advisory group gave clear advice to the government that the risks of COVID-19 transmission among under-18s were “insufficient to justify mandating a two-dose schedule” and that it may “add unnecessary risk of myocarditis.” The politicians did it anyway.

The bureaucrats who gave this advice kept their mouths shut. The former Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, was subsequently knighted and is now at the World Health Organisation running the International Health Regulations. The knighthood was obviously not for services to honesty and transparency.

Furthermore, Auckland was kept under Alert Level 4 for 32 days longer than the Director-General of Health advised. These 32 days were over the Christmas period, causing massive social harm during a Christian holiday. The commission notes that this contributed to unnecessary social and economic disruption for businesses and families, which is a huge understatement. Jacinda Ardern clearly shares Prime Minister Albanese’s desire to break the bonds of family, community, and Christianity.

Finally, there was a failure to clearly communicate the risks surrounding COVID injection harms—especially myocarditis in young people—which eroded trust in both the government and the medical profession. No kidding!

The evidence continues to pile up. Last week, Dr. Helmut Sterz, Pfizer’s former European chief toxicologist, testified before Germany’s Bundestag coronavirus inquiry commission. He stated that the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity tests for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were never conducted, and that reproductive toxicity tests were defective. This violated standard protocols and enabled an untested mass rollout, yet billions of dollars in sales rolled in anyway.

One Nation will not stop until we get a Royal Commission into Australia’s response to COVID.

Transcript

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned was handed down last week. The royal commission that New Zealand’s prime minister during COVID, Jacinda Ardern, started was a cover-up until the new government made it slightly more fair dinkum. The report was framed politically, praising all involved as running one of the world’s best COVID responses. To say they didn’t harm people as badly as most other countries is not a compliment, and even that’s unsupportable, based on testimony to the commission. One Nation is not letting go of this issue, because there is another pandemic on the way, just as soon as the gain-of-function research is completed and the inevitable lab leaks occur. Australia is running gain-of-function research at the CSIRO facility in Geelong, including on new strains of Ebola—insane. 

The report did include substantial criticism of New Zealand’s mistakes in their response, although the report did not give it prominence. The report focused only on process errors—not medical but process errors—especially advice not reaching decision-makers and the repeated failure of politicians to follow the advice they did get. It turns out they were not following the science after all. The commission examined so-called vaccines, lockdowns, testing and economic responses from February 2021 to October 2022 to assess decisions taken on the basis of information available at the time. Many decisions that we know today were wrong were not investigated, because that information was not available at the time, nor did the commission hold politicians accountable for making decisions which clearly flew in the face of decency and common sense. 

And the royal commission failed to address the COVID injection’s long-term medical outcomes. Massive increases in cancer rates, myocarditis, brain function, permanently elevated mortality levels, harm to children’s emotional education and development—none were subject to rigorous inquiry. Nothing in this report would stop a future government from repeating key steps of their failed response, because the true extent of the harm was not subject to detailed longitudinal medical study during the inquiry. 

Here are the main findings and the main failings in the government response that the commission did find: Firstly—youth vaccine mandates for 12- to 17-year-olds. On 9 December 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine technical advisory group gave clear advice to the government that the risks of COVID-19 transmission amongst under-18s were ‘insufficient to justify mandating a two-dose schedule’ and that they may ‘add unnecessary risk of myocarditis’. This specific advice never made it to the right people. As a result, the injection mandates for education workers and children over 12 remained in place, wrongly. The commission called this a significant failing yet did not require those who received the guidance to explain why they chose to ignore it, nor why the advisory body that made the guidance chose to keep their mouths shut. The former director-general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, was knighted and is now at the World Health Organization running the International Health Regulations. How come? In the public service, silence is a golden ticket. 

Secondly—the Auckland lockdown extension in late 2021. Auckland was kept under alert level 4 for 32 days longer than the director-general of health advised. These 32 days were over Christmas, causing massive social harm during a Christian holiday. The commission notes that this contributed to unnecessary social and economic disruption for businesses and families. That’s a huge understatement. Jacinda Ardern clearly shares Prime Minister Albanese’s desire to break the bonds of family, community and Christianity in order to usher in their communist utopia of scarcity, censorship and control. 

Thirdly—communication of risks. The failure to clearly communicate risks around COVID injection harms, especially myocarditis in young people, eroded trust in the government and in medical professions. This is why the Albanese government is rigging the mis- and disinformation inquiry now underway—to prove the need for mis- and disinformation censorship laws, to ensure the government is the only source of information during the next emergency. 

Fourthly—vaccine mandates. The commission found that there was ‘insufficient monitoring’ of impacts around job losses and exemptions, although the commission did not scrutinise adverse effects from the deadly COVID shots. Their process was to accept the health department’s explanation of the adverse events documented on the New Zealand version of the Database of Adverse Event Notifications. The commission found that decisions to continue or remove mandates were ‘not well-informed by data’. No bloody kidding! Just not informed! 

And Australia has committed this grave mistake. Perhaps we did it even worse in this country. 

Tonight, I’m sharing with the Senate new evidence, published last week, using Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration’s own documentation, which suggests that the TGA may have committed malfeasance in office. Last week, Paul Rekaris presented this evidence, published on SSRN, the world’s largest social science research network, based on his four years of freedom of information requests and investigations, using the TGA’s own data. I’ll say it again: ‘using the TGA’s own data’. Titled Documentation gap analysis: independent audit of TGA COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan, the paper used thousands of pages of data, covering 68.4 million injection doses, and audit standards from the Australian National Audit Office and the international standard for auditing, ISO 19011. 

Here’s some background. The Commonwealth signed formal bilateral agreements with Australian states and territories that established governance frameworks requiring systematic reporting of vaccine safety and surveillance data, including adverse event monitoring via the TGA. These agreements implemented the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, which National Cabinet endorsed in November 2020, and gave operational effect through the TGA’s February 2021 ‘COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan’. Remember that title. The states relied on that plan. The public relied on that plan. Yet the TGA did not properly implement that plan. They weren’t even close. 

This is at the heart of the cover-up of COVID injection harm. The monitoring, called pharmacovigilance, had to be done according to the plan. Monitoring was not done—and people died. 

The ministers are culpable. Under the Cabinet Handbook, 15th edition, paragraph 25, ministers must carry out policies that cabinet has determined, and, as recorded in cabinet minutes, portfolio agencies must act on cabinet decisions. This binds the TGA, as a portfolio agency under the Department of Health and Aged Care, to implement the enhanced monitoring commitments. 

This is a brief outline now of the evidence of their failure. Firstly, in September 2024, when the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner directed the TGA, the TGA identified no implementation records for the vaccine safety monitoring plan—a position the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner confirmed in Decision 2025 AICmr 54. Secondly, vaccine safety monitoring was managed through routine ‘day-to-day processes’, contradicting the enhanced monitoring requirement attached to provisional vaccine approval. Thirdly, of 19 audited plan outputs, only three have complete implementation documentation, 10 are partially documented and six have no documentation at all—only one-sixth compliance. Fourthly, the TGA investigated 148 safety signals, called adverse events, and took 57 regulatory actions. They have published no documentation linking specific signals to specific actions or explaining why they took or did not take action—none. Fifthly, ISO 19011 conformity assessment revealed systematic implementation failure by the TGA. Objective 2 was signal detection—the thing they were supposed to be monitoring closely. Across eight outputs, they achieved zero per cent full implementation, and, across two outputs in governance, achieved zero per cent. 

The evidence continues to pile up. Last week, Dr Helmut Sterz, former Pfizer Europe chief toxicologist, testified before Germany’s Bundestag coronavirus inquiry commission, saying that the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine carcinogenicity and mutagenicity tests were not done. Reproductive toxicity tests were defective. This violated standard protocols and enabled untested mass rollout. Yet billions of dollars in sales rolled in. Essential toxicity studies were sacrificed to speed, with no acceptable reasons, with the result that the approval led to prohibited human trials. Sterz cited post-marketing data showing over 2,133 German deaths in the first two months, estimating up to 60,000 German deaths after adjusting for underreporting, while noting that increased age-adjusted mortality from 2021 onwards contradicted claims of a positive benefit-risk ratio. 

It was wrong to inject people with these things. Pfizer’s management’s confession is damning. How much more evidence do you need? Call a royal commission now. Finally, I appreciate that some citizens want COVID as an issue put behind us. We can’t do that, because big pharma and their TGA will do it all again. We must hound down those responsible and hold them accountable. 

/5 Comments/by

Saving the Planet or Destroying It? The Ugly Truth

,

While I agree that protecting our natural environment is a duty of government, I completely disagree with Senator Pocock’s definition of “protection.” The rush toward net zero is not saving our environment; it’s state-sponsored vandalism.

Here is the reality of what net zero is doing to Australia:

✖️ Creating unmanaged havens for pests that will devastate native flora and fauna while destroying food production because of “carbon-dioxide
farming.”

✖️ 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests will be required to be cleared for wind turbines, 1.25 billion solar panels installed and the carving out of 20,000 kilometres of 75-metre-wide transmission easements through national forests.

✖️ Transmission line costs have blown out from an initial $8.5 billion estimate to upwards of $120 billion, and likely over $200 billion. When you add the generators, the total net zero cost sits at around $350 billion. Financed with high-cost loans over 35 years, this will ultimately burden taxpayers with a bill exceeding $1 trillion.

I have stood in these forests myself. I have seen developers blowing the tops off mountains to install massive concrete turbine bases. Offshore wind is no better. Data shows these marine turbines slow the wind, trap heat at the sea surface, disrupt marine life (including whales) with sediment and noise, shed microplastics and kill birds.

It’s not possible for anyone to look at Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful? No, it’s not. It’s vandalism.

We cannot put the tops back on the mountains that have been destroyed by this insanity.

This is literally killing the environment to save it.

One Nation will protect our beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism.

One Nation is the true party of the environment.

Transcript

One Nation agrees with Senator Pocock that protection of the natural environment is a fundamental duty of any government. I do, though, disagree with Senator Pocock on the definition of environmental protection. ABARES executive director Dr Jared Greenville said last December that research indicates that projected land-based carbon sequestration goals for our net zero transition will require sequestration projects across 18 million hectares by 2050. While some of this land is co-used, agricultural land locked up for carbon credits is not environmental land. Inevitably it becomes a refuge for pests which infect local farms and devastate native fauna and flora. Carbon dioxide farming is the enemy of the natural environment and the enemy of food production. 

Add to this total the 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests which are being clear felled for the construction of wind turbines and access roads, plus the land for the 1.25 billion solar panels needed to reach net zero—that’s billion with a ‘b’. Then add the 20,000 kilometres of new transmission lines necessary to take power from where it is being generated to where it is needed. Each transition line runs through an easement, usually 75 metres wide, of clear felled land. In 2020 the AEMO cost estimate for most of the transmission line projects was $8.5 billion. Now the transmission line cost is estimated to be at least $120 billion and is more likely to blow out beyond $200 billion. Add another $160 billion for wind and solar generators and we have a $350 billion net zero cost being financed with high-cost loans, which in turn blows out the total 35-year outlay to above $1 trillion. 

For environmentally destructive projects like Snowy 2 and for most of the wind projects in North Queensland, those transmission easements run through forests of national significance. I’ve been there, in the very forests this motion is calling to protect. They’re the same projects in which so-called green environmentalists are installing wind turbines and blowing the tops off mountains to make space for the huge concrete bases of massive wind turbines. 

Here’s what I don’t understand. Here’s a sensible motion about the need to protect our beautiful environment, yet the motion ignores the massive environmental damage from net zero measures. How can anyone look at one of Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful. No, it’s not. It’s vandalism. This is not just happening on land. Offshore wind turbines harm the environment. A new study in Science Advances shows that offshore wind turbines actually warm the sea surface. Turbines slow the wind. This weakens mixing, shuts down upwelling and in turn traps heat at the surface. This changes the microclimate for more than 10 kilometres behind and stirs up sediment which interferes with marine life, including whales. Add this to bird kills, underwater noise and microplastic shedding and the picture is clear: offshore wind isn’t solving an environmental problem; it’s creating one. This does not even take into account the environmental cost of manufacture, transport, insulation, maintenance, decommissioning, disposal and remediation of massive wind turbines. 

One Nation will care for the natural environment. We will ensure that the land is in the hands of the best stewards: farmers. We will cancel the entire project and protect those beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism, returning land, where possible, to its best use, be that farming or native forests. Unfortunately, we can’t put the tops back on mountains. That damage is there for eternity—a testament to hubris and the tragedy of the paradox of virtue. It’s the killing of the environment in the name of saving the environment. One Nation is now the party of the environment.  

/3 Comments/by

Is the Refugee Program Changing Australia?

, ,

The Australian government is using the UN refugee visa program to intentionally bring radical Islam into the country.

25,000 migrants arrived under the UN refugee program last year, the vast majority coming from Muslim countries. Applications from Christian refugees in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Syrian Alawites, were excluded.

The president of the Australian National Imams Council, Shadi Alsuleiman (and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram) released a video in which he promises that “Islam will enter every home in Australia.”

Australians have a legitimate reason to fear the current government’s immigration policies.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today. 

His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia’—and he doesn’t mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.  

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by

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