Speeches Archives - Page 5 of 62

Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Bank Guarantee Raises Serious Questions

In a recent Senate hearing, I questioned the government on its decision to include a standing appropriation—an open-ended budget allocation—in its Pacific Banking Guarantee legislation. This approach bypasses the annual appropriation process, removing Senate oversight and public transparency.

The Pacific Banking Guarantee is a scheme whereby the Federal Government guarantees the operation of banks across the Pacific. If these banks encounter financial difficulties, the Federal Government will bail them out. Why this is the business of the Australian Government escapes me. Why banks such as the Commonwealth and ANZ require a Federal Government guarantee, despite earning profits exceeding $15 billion annually, is a question they refused to answer. The Guarantee itself is worth no more than $2 billion—even in the unlikely event of a total loss. This Guarantee has been provided to give the Big Four banks a competitive advantage over other banks and financial institutions. With this Guarantee, they can borrow money at lower rates, thereby increasing their profits and creating an “I owe you one” sense of obligation to the Federal Government. I assume Minister Bowen intends to leverage this influence to “encourage” investment in wind and solar energy, despite the questionable economic viability of such ventures.

This is how government operates: influence-trading using taxpayers’ money.

Standing allocations cannot be questioned, and the only way to halt this flow of money to our major banks is through legislation that overturns the allocation. Given that the Greens have supported big banking in this country throughout the Albanese Government’s term – alongside the Government itself – any effort to restore accountability to the Pacific (big) Banking Guarantee is going to fail.

This reflects the contempt of the Albanese Government. The ALP is proving to be even bigger corporate lapdogs than the Liberals were.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills requested a justification for why this bill includes a standing appropriation rather than being included in the annual appropriation bill, which would give the Senate oversight. Please explain why a standing appropriation is required.

Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks, Senator Roberts, for the question. A special appropriation is more suitable for meeting possible liabilities than annual appropriations. While the likelihood the Commonwealth will need to make a payment is very low, we may be urgently required at any time to meet liabilities arising under a guarantee, which may fall outside the usual budget cycle. This means the annual appropriation process may not be available within the timeframe any liability falls due.

Without a special appropriation, it is possible parliament will be recalled to pass an urgent appropriation or the Commonwealth can risk defaulting on its liabilities. The special appropriation is not proposed to have a direct dollar limit, as this provides the Commonwealth with flexibility to ensure it achieves a significant national interest objective, securing an Australian banking presence in the Pacific over the long term.

The Commonwealth would not provide an unlimited guarantee, however there may be circumstances where the maximum amount guaranteed under the appropriation could change. This includes if the Commonwealth entered into a new agreement with another Australian bank and the legislation limits on the types of guarantees the government can provide to guarantees—only from an ADI banking business in the Pacific region. Specifically, the legislation limits the guarantee to only the ADI’s Pacific operations.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s an open-ended budget allocation. The guarantees being provided by this government are commercial-in-confidence. This means the Senate will not have oversight on what the government is agreeing to. Is that correct?

Senator CHISHOLM: In terms of reporting obligations, any Pacific banking guarantee, including the ANZ agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank’s compliance with its obligations. This includes regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities and the compliance with bank commitments as well.

Senator ROBERTS: The duration of the ANZ guarantee is 10 years, meaning this government is binding future governments. Can the federal government withdraw from a guarantee at any time in those 10 years? If so, is there any sunset clause or time limit to the guarantees?

Senator CHISHOLM: It’s a commercial agreement that’s been entered into with the Commonwealth. There is no sunsetting clause.

Senator ROBERTS: I am told the World Bank is also working on a plan to assist correspondent banking intermediaries in the Pacific. Why didn’t you join that international effort, and will you use what they come up with as a way of sunsetting this arrangement?

Senator CHISHOLM: Any Pacific banking guarantee is expected to complement the World Bank’s Pacific Strengthening Correspondent Banking Relationships Project, the CBR project. The government strongly supports the World Bank’s work on this in terms of the work they are doing in the Pacific.

Senator ROBERTS: If you have strong confidence in the World Bank, why not let the World Bank do it?

Senator CHISHOLM: Phase 1 of the World Bank project will establish a correspondent banking relationship provider of last resorts, which countries can call upon should they lose their financial correspondent banking relationship in a particular currency. It is intended to be a fallback for when there is no other commercially viable option.

Senator ROBERTS: This bill does not specify what is being guaranteed, so let me ask. Does the guarantee extend to the Australian government guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations?

Senator AYRES: Senator Roberts, we’ve just had a small changeover. I’m just trying to ensure that I can give you accurate information. The Commonwealth provides a limited guarantee to ANZ, under this legislation, in connection with banking operations in nine markets across the Pacific and Timor-Leste.

Those markets are Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga and Vanuatu. The guarantee only covers certain eligible liabilities, and it is only triggered if certain trigger events occur and result in a loss to ANZ. The Commonwealth has only provided the guarantee for certain eligible liabilities in order to minimise the risks and potential costs of any Pacific banking guarantee to the Commonwealth and to mitigate any potential competition or market distortion risks in Pacific financial markets and the Pacific banking sector.

To preserve the non-distortionary mechanisms in the guarantee, the government will not be disclosing the specific terms of the guarantee, including the types of exposures that are covered. If it assists Senator Roberts, the government was, of course, provided with extensive commercial advice on the guarantee, including around the risks, and commercial risk assessments found the likelihood of a default to be very low.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your statement that you’d like to give me accurate information, but you didn’t answer the question. I take it that you can’t answer the question of whether or not the Australian government is guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations.

Senator AYRES: I’ll try and answer a little bit more directly, if it assists. The reason that I answer it in the way that I do, Senator Roberts, is that the advice that is provided and the terms of the guarantee are, of course, commercial in confidence, for policy reasons, in particular so that they don’t distort the banking and financial services markets in the Pacific. I’ll get the team behind me to correct me if I answer this incorrectly.

The question about the support that the Australian government provides to Pacific island countries is quite different to this set of arrangements, which is about ensuring that banking services are provided and that there is trade, the free movements of goods, investment and all of the things that go with having banking services provided with the facilitation and support of the Australian government. I hope that assists; I’m not sure that it will. If you’ve got further questions, I’ll endeavour to answer them.

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t answer the question, but I’ll come back to it later. Minister, Australian banks like the ANZ raise money to lend in the market, issuing bonds and debt securities. If the intended use of that capital is to issue government-guaranteed loans to Pacific nations, which this bill would allow, does that not give banks like the ANZ a competitive advantage in the capital market? And is any oversight intended of the capital raising of Australian banks to make sure they are honest in their representations to the capital market?

Senator AYRES: Any banking guarantee in the Pacific, including this agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank’s compliance with its obligations, which include regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities, and to ensure compliance with bank commitments. There are measures undertaken in order to deal with that concern, which is at present, I would argue, theoretical.

I hope that the financial markets in this area lift to a point that is consistent with the kind of development, growth, investment and trade that the Australian government is working with our Pacific partners to facilitate. That is in their interest and in our interest for that to occur. The kinds of measures that you’re talking about—I’ll put that backwards—do not have a distortionary effect on capital markets or on financial markets.

There is extensive work that sits behind this that has been directed towards achieving that outcome. ANZ has made a number of commitments to its Pacific operations in the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu in exchange for this guarantee that includes maintaining face-to-face banking services and enhancing the ANZ Bank’s services, including digital services. That is important for people and businesses and economic growth and investment in each of those states.

It supports ongoing access to correspondent banking services in the Pacific and international money transfers, including the Australian dollar but also the New Zealand dollar and the US dollar. It will also maintain fee-free remittances for ANZ customers. That is important for facilitating more trade and more transactions. It will involve investing an additional $50 million to enhance the ANZ’s digital banking offering in the Pacific, excluding in Papua New Guinea, again, mobilised by some of the issues about making sure that the effect here is to support providing banking services where they are at risk.

The uplift that is engaged there will impact the ANZ’s retail banking operations everywhere, except for Papua New Guinea, where ANZ today currently only offers institutional banking services that play an important role for the mining sector and other parts of the Papua New Guinea economy. Alongside this, there are efforts to continue to support and promote financial inclusion and literacy, and ANZ will continue to support Pacific countries in terms of their infrastructure financing, in line with the bank’s credit risk policies.

That is the nature of the impact of the guarantee, in terms of capital markets. It should not be conflated, of course, with the efforts that the Australian government engages in through EFA and various efforts to support infrastructure development and economic development more broadly in the Pacific. This is about supporting the banking infrastructure—maybe I shouldn’t say ‘infrastructure’, because it’s confusing—the banking retail network and digital services that sit alongside that throughout the Pacific states.

Senator ROBERTS: I noticed that, in starting that answer, you used the words, ‘I hope that the financial markets lift’—I hope—to the trade, yet, in Australia, we had severe breaches of the law by senior banking and financial institution officials and no-one went to jail—no-one! You also said that you’d like to maintain face-to-face banking services in the Pacific islands, yet we can’t get that here in Australia. Minister, is this bill just putting more money in the pockets of the big four banks by lowering their borrowing costs relative to other banks?

Senator AYRES: The short answer to that question, Senator Roberts, is no. It does not achieve that objective in any practical way. It’s not one of the principles that’s engaged here. Australia does have a very well-regulated banking sector, and that is a national asset for Australia. That is important for our capacity to deliver investment and growth and financial transactions and security for borrowers and lenders and projects.

In times of financial stress, our well-regulated banking sector is a fundamental part of Australia’s economic resilience in what is a pretty challenging world that we live in. That is not related to what is being provided for here. There will always be, as you’ve alluded to, bad actors, bad things happening, malfeasance, errors, omissions or whatever in any system. I have no argument with that. That is what the regulatory sector is designed to deal with. This situation is about extending banking services that might not otherwise be extended to a part of the world that needs banking services, and it is in Australia’s interest for those to be provided.

This ensures that, through arrangements supported by this legislation and also by the commercial and non-distortionary measures, it’s provided in a way in which there is no disadvantage to the Australian banking sector—and, when I say ‘banking sector’, what I mean is the kind of services that customers and businesses would need and expect from the Australian banking sector. Quite the contrary to the final suggestion in your question, this is not a matter of the government paying an amount to the ANZ; in fact, it’s quite the reverse.

The ANZ pays an annual fee with respect to the guarantee, and the Department of Finance and the Commonwealth’s commercial advisor have provided advice on the annual fee. That fee amount, for some of the reasons that you’ve alluded to in some of your previous questions and in order to ensure that it doesn’t have a distortionary effect, is commercial in confidence and cannot be disclosed publicly. The guarantee isn’t a subsidy. It’s not a bailout. The government will not be providing any direct funding to Australian banks for their Pacific operations.

Senator ROBERTS: That sounds like a protection fee. Let’s get this straight. Banks have no risk—they have a guarantee if they have any losses—so banks cannot lose, so that sounds like a protection fee. Minister, who drafted your bill for you? The banks?

Senator AYRES: Certainly not. That is certainly not the case. This bill is drafted, this arrangement has been struck, in order to support regional communities in Australia and Pacific nations to access banking services. That is in Australia’s national interest. That is fundamentally what is engaged here. For Pacific nations, remaining connected to global finance is one of their highest priorities because it supports their own economic development and their economic resilience. Investment in capability; investment in new businesses; microfinance for small businesses; and making sure that project finance can be accessed for the kinds of mining, development, manufacturing and other projects that deliver good jobs, stable investment, national economic growth, regional interdependence and economic resilience in the region—all of that is in Australia’s national interest.

Those are the questions that are being engaged here. In terms of regional Australia, this government has secured commitments from the banks that previous governments have failed to secure—a moratorium on regional bank closures from the four major banks, as well as an agreement to increase their commitment to, and their investment in, Bank@Post. I grew up in a little country town. I know how important those services are. And I know you would not be so mischievous as to suggest that there is a relationship between the services provided to regional Australians through their banks and the government’s determination to protect that—

CHAIR: Minister, I hate to interrupt you, but it’s 1.30.

Progress reported.

November 13, 2025/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Your First Home Shouldn’t Be a Dream

National, Speeches

A good idea has many parents—just look at the push to suspend costly National Construction Code changes. One Nation proposed it first, saving $50K per home. Now the Liberals and Labor are claiming credit.

Yet the real crisis is homelessness, driven by mass immigration policies started by the Liberals and turbocharged by Labor—over 500,000 arrivals a year while Aussies sleep in cars.

Only One Nation has a comprehensive housing policy. We would cut demand by stopping illegal immigration and visa abuse, ban foreign home ownership, slash construction costs by ending net zero and overregulation. On the finance side, One Nation would roll HECS debt into home loans and allow super to fund deposits.

It’s time to put Australians first.

Transcript

A good idea or a popular idea has many parents. A bad idea or an unpopular idea is an orphan. Well, look at this! One Nation came up with the idea of holding the National Construction Code changes—stopping them, suspending them—to save $50,000 per house in construction costs. That was One Nation, before the election! Now we see Senator Bragg taking ownership of it for the Liberal Party. Then we see the Labor Party coming up with the idea at the roundtable. Where did it come from? One Nation. We have a homelessness crisis in this country. Every major provincial city in Queensland has homeless people sleeping in cars. Working mums and dads are sleeping in their cars. They come home to see if their kids are still there. Why? Because the Liberal Party started mass catastrophic immigration under John Howard, and the Labor Party has turbocharged it now with over 500,000 new immigrants per year.

That’s what’s driving the homelessness crisis. And only One Nation has a comprehensive policy for housing—working on the demand side, working on the supply side, working on the cost side and working on the finance side to reduce demand. To stop immigration, we would deport immediately 75,000 people who were here illegally and deport students who were not in compliance with their visas. On the supply side, we would stop foreign ownership of houses in this country—just stop them! We’d give them two or three years to sell and get out. Free them up. Many of those homes are locked. On the cost side, we would reduce regulations, stop the National Construction Code changes, and end net zero to reduce the price of energy. On the finance side, we would roll HECS debts into home loans and allow access to super accounts to get a deposit. Why can’t your super account invest in your own home when it can invest in other people’s homes? This is bloody ridiculous!

November 13, 2025/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Secrecy, Power, and Big Pharma

National, Speeches

The Labor Government is running scared of scrutiny. Their atrocious bill to establish an Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC) is significant legislation—and I’ll go so far as to say it’s the worst I’ve seen in my nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous.

There were countless amendments that required answers, and many speakers were denied the opportunity to contribute. Serious questions remain unresolved.

The Albanese Government manipulated the speaking list to push One Nation Senators to the bottom. Just before it was my turn to speak, Labor guillotined the bill, preventing any further speeches from being delivered. I managed to use the debate on the guillotine to deliver part of my speech, which is the video you see here.

This marks a new low for the unscrupulous and arrogant Labor Government. The Greens should be ashamed for supporting the guillotine on such an important bill.

The CDC will provide the government of the day with cover to do whatever it wants. It’s expensive, it will control dangerous research, and the reporting and scrutiny provided in this bill are virtually non-existent. This is unacceptable.

One Nation will repeal this bill.

Transcript

Yet again, a guillotine stops debate immediately before I was scheduled to speak against this bill, and after pushing all three One Nation senators, who were going to speak, to the bottom of the list. One Nation opposed the guillotine. We want to know why the coalition and the Greens join with Labor in supporting big pharma.

Senator Canavan interjecting—

Senator ROBERTS: Except Senator Canavan. Thank you, Senator Canavan. This is significant legislation, and I’ll go so far as to say that it’s the worst legislation I’ve seen in nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous. There are many, many amendments that need answers, and there are many speakers that missed out. There are many questions.

The first question I have for you is: why are you avoiding scrutiny? This is half a bill! The bill establishes what the CDC director can do. It does not, though, establish what the director cannot do. There’s nothing in this legislation to establish rules around the following, so can you please clarify. What is the process for determining where the CDC will be located and what the site features should be—what protections for the community? What research will be conducted at the CDC, if any? Will that research include gain-of-function research, which was the cause of the COVID outbreak in 2019, which killed millions of people? Who will own the taxpayer funded CDC research? There are no answers to these questions. These are fundamental. What research will be conducted in cooperation with research facilities overseas, and what countries should be excluded on national security grounds? Start with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and exclude Anthony Fauci’s haunts, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and America’s National Institutes of Health, and Fauci’s colleagues including Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak.

Will live animal testing be conducted, and, if so, on what animals and how? Will research be conducted on behalf of commercial corporations, and, if so, who owns the taxpayer funded research. What annual reporting will be produced to alert the parliament and the Australian people about the risks to which they’re being exposed? If the CDC facility handles sensitive material, what level of containment will be used, and what will be the process for investigating and rectifying breaches? And what is the purpose of and limit to research? Is it just ego—’Look at what we can do!’—or is there a genuine medical outcome they’re working towards?

We know the CSIRO at its Geelong facility is already conducting risky experiments on deadly viruses such as Ebola, and they’re experimenting on animals. Those are my questions. Additionally, what’s happening with taxpayer funds? We know the CSIRO monetises its research, or used to, and we know lately the CSIRO has been publishing the results of their research allowing corporations to piggyback off that research free of charge, saving them years in developing new drugs from which the Australian taxpayers will have no commercial benefit. The taxpayers pay and get no benefit. This is the state of medical research in Australia. What impact will the CDC have on the CSIRO? We don’t know. The bill doesn’t set out these matters. It’s a glaring omission.

The minister says the Australian CDC will undertake technical and advisory functions based on its public health expertise and knowledge and access to relevant information. What expertise? It hasn’t started yet. You’re assuming bureaucrats and health officials actually have the expertise and knowledge to perform these studies, yet there’s nothing in this bill to say they must have that knowledge—nothing. This is a pretence to give ‘thank you’ jobs to COVID era health officials who have a track record of very dangerous, dishonest and inhuman decisions. These bureaucrats will be given powers. The Chief Medical Officer, for example, must be a doctor, but the director of the CDC does not. What could possibly go wrong?

Continuing cover ups from the government and freedom of information—an issue which One Nation senator for Western Australia Senator Whitten has raised is the changes the bill makes to the Freedom of Information Act. The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt the CDC from freedom of information applications to which the same documents are currently open. I wonder if this is to cover up information from the COVID years or just to get ahead of the next lab leak.

Finally, I’ve already discussed sensitive biological agents with regard to Ebola. The CDC bill transfers responsibility for the Security Sensitive Biological Agents Regulatory Scheme from the department to the Australian CDC. This scheme regulates certain biological agents that are considered dangerous. Now, let’s take a closer look at this one. Who would decide if a biological agent is sensitive and subject to extra checks? The CDC. Who would be most likely to be importing sensitive biological agents like Ebola and heaven knows what else? The CDC. Who would now be their own regulator? You guessed it, the CDC. This is a recipe for no accountability, a recipe for disaster, a recipe for rampant, unbridled control over the people.

Officially, this bill simply brings together powers spread across several departments into one place. If that’s really the case, why does the bill have a price tag of $250 million for the first three years and $73 million per year after that? Shouldn’t the cost of the CDC be offset through savings in other departments? If that’s all they intend, then that would be true. Clearly the Australian CDC will be doing much, much more. You’re given them the money to do it, and they’ll be doing it away from prying eyes and protected with freedom-of-information blocks and negligible reporting criteria, regulating itself and sending the bill to the taxpayers. In nine years in the Senate, this is one of the worst bills I’ve dealt with. Minister, I’ve given you many questions. I’d like some answers.

November 12, 2025/1 Comment/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

A Billion-Dollar Climate Talk Fest — And You’re Paying!

National, Speeches

Albanese wants you to pay $1 billion to host a party for climate billionaires to fly in on private jets and lecture us on “reducing our carbon footprint”.

The “Conference of Parties” has previously told the world to stop eating red meat, stop driving affordable petrol and diesel cars, and generally commit economic suicide on the altar of net-zero.

One Nation says ditch this nonsense and restore in cheap power, paddock grown meat on the BBQ and an affordable four wheel drive in the garage.

Transcript

One billion dollars—that’s how much the Albanese Labor government expects hosting a United Nations climate talk fest in Australia will cost taxpayers. The United Nations’ Conference of the Parties involves millionaires, billionaires and politicians bouncing around the world in fuel-guzzling private jets. Now the government wants Australians to pick up the tab for this party. What would all these people be talking about if they came to Australia? At last year’s Conference of the Parties, known as COP, the first order of business for attendees was fuel up the gulf stream, with 644 luxurious fuel-guzzling private jets descending on Dubai for last year’s Conference of the Parties. For drivers though, COP organisers this year will cut a brand new highway through tens of thousands of acres of untouched Amazon forest in Brazil. The second order of business is to tell everyone else in the world to reduce their carbon footprint.

The next order of business for attendees is to tell Australians to stop eating their abundant supply of organically raised chemical-free meat. Only we lowly peasants would be banned from eating healthy protein and forced to eat bugs or lab grown horrors, of course. The climate activist billionaires will still be able to afford a good steak. The final order of business for the climate lecturers is to tell those Australian freaks who take their four-wheel drives and camping gear out into the bush to appreciate nature that those cars are banned. Australians are being faced with a choice—pay a billion dollars to be lectured by out-of-touch climate billionaire parasites or reject all this nonsense and save trillions of dollars. One Nation stands for Australia with Australians. We believe in cheap power, paddock grown meat on the barbecue and an affordable four-wheel drive in the garage. We believe in putting Australia first. We will continue to put Australia first.

November 6, 2025/5 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Another Step Toward Economic Ruin

National, Speeches

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is yet another example of the wasteful, agenda driven legislation that a One Nation government would abolish. For three decades, Australians have been held hostage by the costly green climate scam – climate fraud. This Bill continues that trend—now with a hint of desperation.

One Nation stands with everyday Australians. In contrast, the Liberal-Labor-Greens alliance has long served the interests of globalist elites, foreign corporations, unelected non-government organisations, the UN and the World Economic Forum.

Minister Chris Bowen — otherwise known as the “Minister for Blackouts” — is acting like a addicted, compulsive gambler chasing losses, dragging the nation deeper into debt. If the government truly believes in the merit of this bill, it should table the rules and show Australians exactly where the money is going.

The net zero transition is not helping the environment — it’s harming it. It’s driving up costs, strangling businesses and pushing families into poverty.

It’s time to face reality: net zero is a scam. Only One Nation has the courage to call it out, and a real plan to put Australians first—by restoring affordable energy, rejecting imported UN and WEF ideologies, and putting more money back in your pocket where it belongs.

Transcript

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation.

The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen were commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive.

Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity.

Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using its shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated.

There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation.

Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government.

The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs.

Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either.

In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch.

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend.

The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering.

I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living.

Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order:

The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution …

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero.

I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia.

Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money.

November 6, 2025/1 Comment/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The PM’s Political Weaponisation of Staff

National, Speeches

Right now, the Prime Minister has the authority and sole discretion to decide how many advisers each senator receives—an authority he’s used to punish those who challenge him.

Advisers are vital for researching and scrutinising legislation, engaging with constituents, and holding the government accountable. Cutting staff for senators who oppose him does not pass the pub test. It’s not just unfair—it’s undemocratic. What is the Prime Minister afraid of? Is it scrutiny, truth, or the rise of One Nation? His actions show he fears accountability and seeks to silence those who stand up to him.

The staffing decisions reveal a disturbing pattern. Senators who vote with Labor—David Pocock, Tammy Tyrrell, Lidia Thorpe, Jacqui Lambie—kept all their advisers. Those who challenge Labor—Senator Ralph Babet and One Nation senators—had their staff cut in half. Senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor, had no advisers before or after the election. Queensland, which I proudly represent, has ten times Tasmania’s population and a vastly larger economy, yet Tasmanian senators receive more than double the staff. This inequity across states is blatant and raises serious concerns about bias, discrimination and political bastardry. The Prime Minister’s refusal to meet with Senator Hanson and me together, his lack of consultation, and his disregard for administrative law and workplace safety standards show a pattern of vindictive, chaotic governance.

This bill is a practical, fair solution supported by Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation. It sets minimum standards for staffing while preserving the Prime Minister’s discretion to allocate more. It ensures that support for senators is not subject to political whim.

Previous Liberal PMs treated all senators fairly—PM Albanese does not. He promised transparency and fairness, but his actions betray those values.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this bill to restore fairness, integrity and justice to allocation of staff in crossbench senators’ offices, to protect accountability in parliament and to guard democracy. The Prime Minister currently has the authority and sole discretion to determine the number of parliamentary advisers to crossbench senators.

Here’s how he allocated staff in the previous parliament, and then after the recent election. Firstly, the crossbench senators who largely vote with Labor. David Pocock had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Tammy Tyrrell had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Lidia Thorpe had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Jacqui Lambie had three advisers before the election—three! After the election, it was unchanged—three advisers.

Secondly, let’s move on to the crossbench senators who often oppose Labor in the Senate. Senator Ralph Babet had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was cut in half, to one adviser—one! One Nation senators had two advisers each before the election. After the election, on average, it was cut in half, to one adviser each—one!

Thirdly, crossbench senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor in the last term, embarrassing the Prime Minister and the Labor Party, had zero advisers before the election—nil! After the election, she had zero advisers—nil, none!

Next, consider this: the Prime Minister sacked both of my advisers. He bypassed me, their employer. The parliamentary adviser’s duty, the personal adviser, is to assist senators with researching proposed legislation, assist senators in writing speeches, advise on parliamentary tactics, help prepare questions for Senate estimates hearings, be the first point of contact for community groups, and deputise for the senator in meetings when the senator is engaged in the chamber or elsewhere in the state. The Prime Minister radically gutted the staffing of those senators who hold the Labor Party accountable. This does not pass the pub test, nor any test for fairness, integrity or justice.

When the Prime Minister cuts the staffing of those senators who take positions opposing his, he has an obvious conflict of interest. The incentive for the Prime Minister is to cut the resources of his political opponents, seeking to take political advantage and to cut us off at the legs. Reducing the number of support staff for a senator effectively reduces the ability of a senator to function on behalf of the electorate and provide an effective opposition, a foundation of our Westminster system of democratic government. This is an abuse of taxpayer funds and of the nation’s top political office—that of Prime Minister—to cripple senators with the courage to hold the Prime Minister’s government accountable and to reward those senators who support the Prime Minister’s agenda. This Prime Minister seems to forget that parliament does not serve him. He serves the people through the democratically elected parliament.

The state I proudly represent, Queensland, has 5.7 million people. Tasmania has 575,000. The state I represent has around 10 times the number of constituents as Tasmania. Queensland is 25 times larger in area that Tasmania. Queensland has more diverse regions and climates and a much larger and more diverse economy. Queensland’s gross state product is 12 times larger than Tasmania’s. Yet the Prime Minister allocates more than twice the number of advisers to each Tasmanian crossbench senator than to each Queensland crossbench senator. Senator Whitten’s state of Western Australia has an area almost 40 times that of Tasmania. He has to get around that. The state of New South Wales has a population 14 times that of Tasmania’s. The disparity between our states and the Australian Capital Territory, with its tiny population, are even more striking than with Tasmania.

This treatment of different Senate offices is inequitable and raises issues of bias, discrimination and political bastardry. This clearly shows the Prime Minister to be incapable of fairness and clearly displays his vindictiveness, incompetence and biased behaviour. Is he aiming to cripple One Nation after we received a huge increase in votes, doubled our members in parliament and came close to having a total of seven senators elected? One of our candidates for the House of Representatives achieved two-party preferred status and came close to being elected. Is the Prime Minister afraid of One Nation’s rise? Perhaps the Prime Minister is sensitive to criticism or to being held accountable. He reportedly found $886,000 of taxpayer money to splash on refurbishing the new Greens party room, his partners in the government’s communist coalition. By the way, the journalist who exposed this news was banned from parliament for a week. Of what is the Prime Minister afraid?

Further, after his gutting of our staff, the Prime Minister and his chief of staff refused to meet with Senator Hanson and me together. He insisted that he and his chief of staff would meet with only one of us. In my subsequent meeting with the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, I raised three main issues: the unfairness of the Prime Minister’s staffing allocation; that the Prime Minister’s actions breached recognised processes expected under administrative law provisions; and that the Prime Minister was imposing needless stress on staff who are already working hard in the taxpayers’ interest.

Let’s next consider the process the Prime Minister chose to follow. On 23 June 2025, Prime Minister Albanese notified Senator Pauline Hanson of his decision to slash half the parliamentary staff allocation for each One Nation senator, from two each to one each. In doing this, he had exercised a discretion authorised under sections 4(1), 11(3) and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, the MOPS Act. In determining these allocations of parliamentary advisers and implementing these notices of allocation, the Prime Minister breached important provisions of administrative law, which is defined in common law as decisions from courts, including the High Court. The breaches include that he gave no reasons for his decision; he had not consulted or sought input from any One Nation senator; he did not act in good faith; he did not act with a proper purpose; he had not considered relevant matters; he had not acted on reasonable grounds, given that One Nation had doubled its number of senators from two to four, with no increase in personal staff offered; he did not act based on supporting evidence; and he had not provided procedural fairness to affected persons, including personal parliamentary staff and senators.

Senators and affected staff were given no opportunity to put their case to the Prime Minister before he made his decision to slash staff allocations. He or his office ordered the employment of my staff to be terminated before my staff were made aware—the only senator’s office in which that occurred. I was given 12 minutes notice to respond to a communications deadline late on a Friday evening, and I worked that night until 10.30 pm and did not check my emails—12 minutes notice to respond! The Prime Minister had not properly considered the merits of the decision. He has still not indicated that he had evaluated all relevant evidence. He had not acted reasonably or fairly, as senators were not allocated staff on the basis of need. Nor were senators treated evenly. Some senators had savage cuts made to their staff, while others had no cuts made at all. The Prime Minister did not inform senators that he had made a decision that affected them. Some senators found out via the media.

Our Australian courts have clearly recognised that the exercise of administrative discretion, including the decision to reduce support for selected senators, must follow the procedural principles set out in Australian case law. The Prime Minister did not follow these principles. The process he stumbled through appears to be different for every crossbench senator.

The decision also flies in the face of the recent Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet review of health risks to parliamentary staffers from workplace stress and excessive work demands that lead to workplace health and safety issues. A Parliamentary Workplace Support Service review into the resourcing of parliamentary staff concluded:

Staffing levels overall are not adequate to meet all the parliamentary and electorate work demands placed on staff in some offices.

This translates to the fact that personal staff are overworked and translates further to a workplace health and safety issue.

The way in which the Prime Minister slashed some senators’ staffing and caused staff to be brutalised shows he does not care about workers. If the Prime Minister supports a fully functioning parliament and democracy and supports accountability, then he should ensure that members and senators are provided with reasonable resources, including qualified and professional advisers as personal staff. After securing re-election based on promises of transparency, the Prime Minister appears to have abused his position, disrespected Australian law and courts and jeopardised democracy for his political advantage. The Prime Minister shows he is incapable of fairness and competence. He will be more able and likely to hide with a reduced opposition. That hurts Australia. It hurts democracy. This is clearly a further example of the Prime Minister seeking control over democratic processes.

I remind everyone that always beneath control there is fear. Why is he afraid of democratic scrutiny? Why is he afraid of losing the control that he covets? Why is the Prime Minister afraid of me? I’m not a big bloke. Is he afraid of my work as a crossbench minor party senator? Is he afraid of my passion for exposing the truth and serving constituents? Is he afraid of my teamwork with my staff, making us more effective as a team? Is that why he dismantled my team and stressed them needlessly? Is he, with just one year’s experience in the real world, afraid of my diverse practical experience, including underground coalface miner, vineyard labourer, engineer, mine and project manager, executive leadership consultant, and board director? Is he afraid of One Nation rising, or does he still have blind prejudice towards One Nation, as revealed in his adjournment speech of May 1998? Last week during question time in the House of Representatives, why did he try to ridicule me, a small-party crossbench senator? Doesn’t he realise that name-calling and labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest or the fearful and are signs of fear?

Before the election, the Prime Minister promised transparency and fairness. His actions show why I take note of people’s actions, not their words. What’s important is what we can do, not who we can be. In other words, what we do matters; our title matters not.

This new bill’s co-sponsors include Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation—indicating a unity of support. Under this new bill, the government retains over 520 staff and access to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of departmental staff. The bill provides fair allocation of staff to government, opposition, Greens, other parties and crossbench senators. This bill is well considered, well written and fair. The bill offers career progression for crossbench staff. It nominates only minimum standards. The Prime Minister still has the freedom to allocate more and to exercise his discretion.

We are all tired of partisan politics that threaten to destroy our country and our democracy. This bill will ensure that support for senators and for Australian democracy is not subject to the whims of a recalcitrant prime minister who puts his own needs ahead of the effective operation of this chamber. Both preceding Liberal prime ministers allocated equal numbers of personal advisers to each crossbench senator, showing that they both saw merit in fairness and in democracy. Prime Minister Albanese hides from, buries, prevents and kills democracy.

One Nation welcomes the spirit with which many diverse senators approached this issue’s resolution in a united way. This bill is a sensible, practical and responsible solution to digging the Prime Minister out of the ridiculous and embarrassing hole he has dug for himself. All One Nation senators support this bill. I encourage all senators to support this bill. I say to all Australians: the ABC, and the media generally, won’t report this issue, so, if you’re concerned about the Prime Minister’s abuse of power and taxpayer money, please share it and spread it. Bringing back and restoring our country starts with the people driving parliamentary accountability.

November 5, 2025/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Build-to-Rent is Really Build-to-Never-Own

National, Speeches

Labor’s decision to slash the withholding tax for foreign corporate landlords from 30% to just 15% is a slap in the face to everyday Australians. While families struggle to buy a home, Labor is rolling out the red carpet for global giants like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—offering them tax breaks to build rental stack-and-pack apartments that Australians will never own.

Let’s call it what it is: build-to-rent is build-to-never-own. It’s designed to lock Australians into a lifetime of renting from foreign billionaires, while those same corporations pay less tax than the hardworking people they’re renting to.

One Nation has been warning about this for years. We believe in the Australian dream—owning your own home, not renting it forever from a global landlord.

We stand with Australians, not greedy foreign corporations and parasitic predators driving the World Economic Forum and the United Nations agenda.

Transcript

Senator Bragg’s disallowance seeks to throw a spanner in the works of the build-to-rent scheme. That’s a very good thing and One Nation will be wholeheartedly supporting it. Foreign corporations used to pay a 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor cut that in half, to 15 per cent.

Let’s be clear: this Labor government said to foreign, corporate landlords like BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and first state, ‘We’ll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.’

Forget the Australian dream of owning your own home. Labor’s dream is that you live in a stack-and-pack shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock forever, while those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. That’s what build to rent means.

Whenever you hear ‘build-to-rent’, remember ‘renting forever to a foreign corporation, a foreign corporate landlord and a foreign global wealth investment fund’. They’ll build homes, for sure, and Australians will never, ever own them—never. It’s built to rent forever. I’ll quote from the Economics Legislation Committee report into the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 and the provisions of the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024. The provisions of the bills include ‘reducing the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments—distributions of rental income and capital gains—from eligible managed investment trust investments from 30 per cent to 15 per cent, starting from 1 July 2024’. So there you go—a tax cut in half for those global, corporate, predatory investors, who own almost everything and are determined to own everything. I’ll say that again: they own almost everything and are determined to own everything.

The report states:

The draft legislation was adjusted as a result of this consultation to ensure the government’s policy objective of incentivising foreign investment in BTR—

Build-to-rent—

including affordable housing supply, is achieved.

They are admitting that the objective of the bills is incentivising foreign and predatory corporations into owning your home. The report also states:

The Property Council advised the 15 per cent tax rate for investment in housing is already available to Australian investors. The MIT—

managed investment trust—

withholding tax rate applies to withholding tax that goes back to overseas investors—

Predators and parasites—

but foreign investors can also capital partner with Australian investors.

That is the most telling part of all. This bill would only change the tax treatment of foreign, predatory, multinational corporations. That’s all. There’s nothing for Australians. Australian companies could do it. Foreign companies pay a penalty—that’s a good thing. Yet the Labor Party of Australia would change that; you in the government would change that. Are Labor the party for Australia, or are they the party for global, foreign corporations? Build-to-rent answers that question clearly. Clearly Labor are for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. One Nation, though, is for Australians owning their own homes.

I’m going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from the coalition senators’ dissenting report on the build-to-rent bills—an outstanding report. I hope you don’t mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what’s wrong with the new Labor Party:

Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, ‘mum and dad’ investors, not institutions. That is appropriate.

This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers.

Why? The report continues:

Dr Murray was critical of the Bill’s attempted perversion of our tax arrangements:

It’s not clear to me why local investors shouldn’t be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don’t see that there’s a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It’s not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement.

That’s just like One Nation policy. The report goes on:

At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (‘ASFA’) suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation’s landlords—

Really? You would?

and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a ‘hobby activity’—

How condescending; how arrogant—

Senator BRAGG: Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund?

Mr Clare: I think that they would be very happy with institutionally owned residential property where there is an option of having longer-term tenancies rather than the more-typical-in-the-market situation where there is a lack of assurance of continuity of tenancy because it’s a small-scale, hobby activity for individual landlords.

The report continues:

This is the view of a vested interest. Most Australians would not agree with this proposal.

Other witnesses did not share ASFA’s view. Grounded Community Land Trust Advocacy told the Committee:

Senator BRAGG: Are you concerned that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia?

Mr Fitzgerald: Absolutely. This is delivering horrifying results in the Northern Hemisphere, and this legislation makes no account of that—

No account of what’s actually happening—

It perplexes me that this government, which purports to be in support of labour—

That is, workers—

is allowing rent-maximisation strategies to come through unabated. Yes, I agree: pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition—

An oligopoly for the big fellas—

What we’re seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice—

Yet you want to bring it in—

There’s just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what’s coming.

The report goes on:

The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia’s housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership.

Senator BRAGG: But isn’t it the case that the character of the housing market in Australia is largely focused on individuals? … Do you think that’s a good or a bad design feature?

Mr Reardon: I think that is a very positive outcome, with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose—all of those dynamics.

This is reinforcing what we already know and what Senator Bragg has already discussed. Mr Reardon goes on:

All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes.

Personal responsibility is a cornerstone, a foundation of a safe and productive society. Personal responsibility enables and is the basis for a safe and productive society.

Senator Bragg’s report then says:

Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre:

There are a lot of foreign investors using the MITs because of the withholding tax concessions and other benefits from using that structure, but there can also be domestic investors using the MITs; they just get a different tax regime. Those investors will be working in partnership with commercial developers to develop these buildings.

The report continues:

Cbus Super has previously committed to scaling up in the Build to Rent sector, announcing a plan to scale up its portfolio to approximately $2 billion in apartments.

Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this Bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market. Dr Murray warned:

I find it interesting because we’ve already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What’s even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We’ve got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we’re now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they’re already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill.

It is bizarre. The report continues:

Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market.

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US—

I will digress from Senator Bragg’s dissenting report for a minute. The bankers in the United States said in the 1920s that their dream was a combination of predatory behaviour and legislation to get a monopoly and own every house that they could in the country—to control people—because once people have their residence at stake, they are easily controlled. The report says:

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office (‘the GAO’), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing.

In 2023, corporate housing funds held $1 trillion USD in assets. In Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville, institutional investors own 25, 18 and 21 per cent of the rental stock respectively.

That is what you are wanting here. We don’t want it. The report continues:

This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting—

This is exactly what we’ve been warning for the last five years. It continues:

There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly—

Watch what’s happening; this has failed—

While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australians into it.

Well, Senator Bragg, I’m not ashamed to admit we probably couldn’t have written it better ourselves; thank you.

Build-to-rent is an abomination that destroys the Australian dream of owning your own home. One Nation raised this cruel reality years ago. One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s see if you repeat that: One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations, predatory parasitic corporations and parasitic predators driving the World Economic Forum and the United Nations agenda, on your conscience. All Australians should be able to work hard and one day own their own slice of this great, big, wonderful country with so much potential. Only One Nation has the policy to make this real for everyday Australians.

November 5, 2025/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Scrap Net Zero, Stop Waste, Restore Australia

National, Speeches

Australia watched the Treasurer turn the cabinet room into a stage for business and union bosses instead of using it for real cabinet deliberation. The roundtable wasn’t about shaping policy—it was about rubberstamping what the government had already decided. Their attempt to link productivity to higher taxes collapsed, and Australians are left wondering why this government keeps chasing revenue instead of fixing its spending problem.

One Nation will fight the Albanese government’s tax hikes and end the wasteful net zero transition that’s draining billions a year while driving private enterprise away. We will restore fiscal sanity by cutting unnecessary spending, imposing an eight-year residency requirement for Social Security, and cracking down on fraud in agencies such as Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS, and the PBS.

Smaller government and a sensible energy policy will deliver real productivity gains and prosperity for Australians—especially our young.

Transcript

Last week, Australia watched the Treasurer host business and union bosses in the cabinet room. The irony escaped the Treasurer—using the cabinet room to hold a policy debate cabinet itself should be doing. The usual suspects were not there to help form government policy; they were there to rubberstamp the policies the government intends to implement in this parliament. The roundtable even failed to achieve that. We know this because the ABC leaked the outcome of the week before. That communique remains in Treasurer Chalmers’s drawer, abandoned and unloved. The core intent—making productivity about taxation—failed.

One Nation will oppose the tax hike the Albanese government will still try to introduce to cover its growing financial black hole caused largely through the increasing use of taxpayer money to pay for a net zero transition from which private enterprise is walking away—indeed, running away. This government doesn’t need more revenue; it needs to spend less money. One Nation will abolish the net zero transition, saving the government $30 billion each year in direct expenditure and generating that much again in extra revenue from a revitalised economy. One Nation will impose an eight-year residency requirement on access to social security, taking tens of billions of dollars off the cost of Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS and the PBS and giving auditors and police a chance to investigate and prosecute the rampant fraud. Net zero insanity, deficit spending and throwing cash at new arrivals are robbing our children of their future.

Smaller government and a sensible energy policy are where productivity improvements will actually come from. One Nation’s policies will restore wealth and prosperity for all who are here, especially our young. The Albanese government will just take your money and leave working Australians with less—much less. A One Nation government, though, will restore Australia.

November 4, 2025/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Hands Off Our Homes

National, Speeches

Transcript

I thank Senator McGrath for this motion, which One Nation supports. This government is flooding the country with new arrivals who need a bed to sleep in. Home construction is 500,000 homes behind, and this figure is not reducing; it’s growing. A sensible party would simply impose a moratorium on new buildings until housing catches up. That’s One Nation policy.

This, though, is not a sensible government nor an honest government. The roundtable received a proposal to force Australians with spare bedrooms to take in new arrivals or pay a penalty tax. Elderly Australians living in their family homes, with children moved out and bedrooms galore, are terrified of this idea. Current best practice is for the elderly to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Now they are to be turfed out through taxation and forced into retirement homes. In answer to my question on this topic to Minister Gallagher yesterday, I did hear a qualified denial. The minister did not rule the idea out, though; rather she used vague words like, ‘The proposal was not raised while I was in the room.’ Really? That’s not a clear statement. The idea must be dismissed and never considered again.

I would raise this simple question: what’s a bedroom? Does ‘bedroom’ mean any room that can be used to house a new arrival? Studies, rumpuses, garages turned into granny flats? Who will make these decisions? SBS, who promoted the idea, has clearly never watched Doctor Zhivago, a movie depicting life under Soviet rule, which depicted this very thing. The Soviets actually did this, so it’s an idea with precedent. Will the government include compulsion in addition to taxation? Will all those Australians who are buying their homes under Help to Buy or government guaranteed mortgages, who have the government as the shareholder or guarantor on the mortgage, be forced to comply? Will they? Who knows, because no-one is saying. They won’t deny it.

I call on the Prime Minister to rule out any new taxes on the family home, including land tax, bedroom tax and grave tax.

November 4, 2025/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Mass Immigration Is Failing Australians

National, Speeches

I’m an immigrant, and I love this country deeply. Like many others who marched in the March for Australia, I came here legally, embraced the culture, and built a life as part of the Australian community—not separate from it. We weren’t born here, but we’re proud Australians.

What we’re standing up against isn’t immigration itself—it’s immigration without assimilation. We’re tired of politicians pushing mass immigration without thinking about the social and economic hardship it causes. We’re fed up with being called racist or hateful just for wanting to protect our way of life, our jobs, and our communities.

Australians aren’t against migrants — we’re against policies that prioritise foreign workers over Aussie ones, that erode secure employment, and that replace permanent jobs with insecure subcontracting. Labor used to stand for workers, but now they’ve abandoned the working class in favour of globalist agendas, predatory billionaires and their corporate interests.

The truth is diversity is not our strength. Our strength lies in people from all over the world with different backgrounds coming together as Australians, respecting our laws, values, and culture. That’s the Australia I believe in – the Australia I marched for. If you love this country, if you want to contribute and be part of a united Australia, then join us.

Transcript

Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.’ So read the T-shirt that a lovely, older immigrant lady wore in the Cairns March for Australia on Sunday. Many of the tens of thousands of Australians who marched for Australia on Sunday were not born here. Like me, they’re immigrants. I spoke with marchers from all over the world, of every religion and skin colour. They are wonderful Australians who came here as migrants legally, who love this country and who have built a life in Australia, not on top of it—not those who impose their religion, their culture, their intolerance and their perpetual hate onto Australians and who marchers rightly criticised. Marchers criticised politicians and others who hate this country so much that they seek to flood Australia with like-minded arrivals to destroy our culture and to carve off religious and ethnic enclaves in order to divide us. The Australian public are not against immigrants. We’ve had a gutful of excessive, mass immigration—a simple distinction that the unhinged rants from Greens and Labor senators yesterday were designed to cover up. I appreciate the far left in this country have disappeared up their own nobility complex and have completely abandoned any pretence of democracy, decency or civil discourse. Vile, unhinged abuse devoid of facts—indeed, devoid of any relevance to the motion I presented yesterday—doesn’t work on One Nation. It doesn’t work on our supporters and it doesn’t work on those who attended the many marches for Australia. Our beautiful country can embrace and lift up only so many people before the economic and social costs cause the elastic of society to snap back, which is the process you’re watching with confused looks on your faces and fear in your eyes.

The immigration debate is not an argument about someone’s past nationality, religion or skin colour. It’s an argument about wealth, opportunity and security. Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard knew this to be true. In an address to the University of Western Sydney in March 2013, then prime minister Gillard promised Labor would ‘stop foreign workers being put at the front of the queue, with Australian workers at the back’. She said:

We will support your job and put Aussie workers first.

What a difference 10 years makes! Now those foreign workers are being advanced to the front using DEI, and Australian workers are being told not to apply. Often, the application is not even for a job with secure employment, an award or guaranteed conditions. In the new Australia, jobs are now a subcontracting arrangement requiring an Australian Business Number, an ABN. A microbusiness with a single customer—the same business which used to employ Australians on permanent employment, with awards protecting wages and working conditions—is no more. In just 10 years, the Greens have pushed Labor so far to the left they have abandoned their working-class base, embracing a UN/World Economic Forum sustainability agenda which gives their members less and foreign, predatory billionaires more.

It’s no surprise that marches included members of the AWU, the CFMEU, the ETU and other unions who’ve seen their wealth, opportunity and place in Australia be reduced. Labor has failed to defend Australian workers from employment arrangements that destroy the standard of living of everyday Australians. Instead of listening to the public, rightly complaining, Labor came into this place yesterday and ranted against One Nation. They name-called, lied and misrepresented out of confusion and fear. One Nation has a message for this government: go back to your masters at the World Economic Forum, go back to your owners—the world’s predatory billionaires—and tell them Australia has had enough. We’re not going to be ground zero for your evil plan to tear apart Australian society, culture and cohesion and rebuild in the image of the World Economic Forum. Everyday Australians want our country back. Our success is inevitable because our Australia, built on family, on community and, yes, on national pride, is paradise compared to your ugly vision of a society based on an ever-changing agenda relying on intimidation and bullying.

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam found that the greater the diversity in a community the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and the less they work on community projects. A massive new study based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America supports those who marched on Sunday. In the most diverse communities, neighbours trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogeneous settings. The study found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. Ask the five tight monocultures—Japan, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Singapore. Diversity is not our strength. Our strength is Australians who’ve come here from all over the world, with different races and religions providing different perspectives on life, working together as a community of Australians old and new. One Nation welcomes anyone who loves our country, who wants to join in and who wants to pull their weight, follow our laws and, in so doing, lift themselves up. If that’s the Australia you love, please join One Nation and help us reverse the decline of our beautiful country.

November 3, 2025/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Bank Guarantee Raises Serious Questions

Transcript

Your First Home Shouldn’t Be a Dream

Transcript

Secrecy, Power, and Big Pharma

Transcript

A Billion-Dollar Climate Talk Fest — And You’re Paying!

Transcript

Another Step Toward Economic Ruin

Transcript

The PM’s Political Weaponisation of Staff

Transcript

Build-to-Rent is Really Build-to-Never-Own

Transcript

Scrap Net Zero, Stop Waste, Restore Australia

Transcript

Hands Off Our Homes

Transcript

Mass Immigration Is Failing Australians

Transcript

Pages

Malcolm’s Fight

Categories