Recently in Parliament, Prime Minister Albanese tried to ridicule me, saying “Senator Roberts thinks that build to rent is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda”‘ before calling it ‘a conspiracy theory. It reminded me of Gandhi’s quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
After One Nation doubled our Senate representation, it seems the PM has moved from ignoring to ridiculing — and in doing so, he engaged in misinformation.
Let’s be clear: the WEF’s push to end single-family homeownership is real. Their “you’ll own nothing and be happy” slogan isn’t a conspiracy—it’s a stated goal. The Albanese government’s nature-positive plan borrows heavily from WEF’s SUB (sustainable urban policy), after meeting with the new WEF co-chair Larry Fink of BlackRock.
Everyday Australians—especially our hardworking farmers—are being ignored while billionaires get the PM’s attention. No wonder he was booed at the Bendigo bush summit and chased out of town by farmers on tractors.
Labor is no longer the party of the worker. It’s the party of predatory billionaires destroying our country for profit, power and control. We’re going to need more tractors.
Transcript
There’s a quote from Gandhi which reads: ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.’ I was reminded of that quote last Thursday when Prime Minister Albanese said of me in the House of Representatives: ‘Senator Roberts thinks that build to rent is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda’—cue the spooky music— before calling this ‘a conspiracy theory’. Now, I can understand, after One Nation doubled our senators in the last election, why the Prime Minister would feel the need to move from ignore to ridicule. In trying to engage in ridicule, the Prime Minister only managed to engage in misinformation.
The truth is the World Economic Forum opinion leader, who originated their mission statement ‘You’ll own nothing and be happy’, is the same person who used the stage at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos to call for an end to single-family homeownership. Danish politician Ida Auken advanced his idea as part of the West’s sustainable urban policy, or SUB—as in subhuman. SUB is where the Albanese government took the name and many elements of its nature-positive plan, after meeting with the new World Economic Forum co-chair, BlackRock’s Larry Fink. Our Prime Minister should really be better informed on WEF’s evil agenda—or perhaps he is informed.
One thing’s clear: the world’s predatory billionaires have no trouble getting time with our Prime Minister. The people who can’t are everyday Australians, including our hardworking farmers who put food on our table and who we need more than ever to feed the millions of new Labor arrivals—our farmers who contributed $72 billion in exports last year to feed and clothe the world. No wonder the Prime Minister was booed and heckled while on stage at last week’s Bendigo bush summit and then filmed being chased out of town in the company of farmers on tractors.
Labor is no longer the party of the worker. It’s the party of predatory billionaires destroying our country for profit, power and control. We’re going to need more tractors.
One of the most fundamental duties of a senator is to scrutinise the government — not just its words, but its actions. That means asking tough questions about how public money is spent, and demanding transparency when answers are withheld.
Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as “government money.”
Every dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers — from you, from your family, from every working Australian. Yet time and again, ministers dodge this truth. When asked directly, Minister Walsh couldn’t even say the word “taxpayer.” Instead, she danced around the issue, talking about “revenues” and “costed policies.” But the reality remains: it’s your money. And what’s happening with it? Billions of dollars are being funnelled into subsidies and climate schemes with no parliamentary scrutiny.
The government even refused to answer questions about an alleged fund linked to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I made no accusations – I just asked questions – yet the government doesn’t want those questions asked. This secrecy is becoming a pattern. Whether it’s Housing Australia or climate targets, Labor refuses to disclose where taxpayer money is going.
Meanwhile, the push for net zero continues — a policy introduced by the Liberals and Nationals – costing Australians billions. There’s no detailed plan, no milestones, no way to measure progress. Even the CSIRO can’t quantify the impact of human carbon dioxide on the climate.
So, what are we paying for? Australians deserve better. We deserve transparency. We deserve respect. And above all, we deserve to know how our hard-earned money is being spent.
https://youtu.be/nWGyg9fpVfk
Transcript
I rise to take note of Minister Ayres’s comment. One of the most fundamental parts of a senator ‘s job is to review and scrutinise the government. That’s why I support almost every single order for the production of documents, regardless of who moves it. Most importantly, scrutinising the government means scrutinising how the government is spending money—and, by the way, scrutinising the impacts of government policy on the national economy and on individual Australians is part of scrutiny of government.
To build back on the first point, scrutinising how the government is spending our money: the government forgets that what it spends isn’t the government’s money; it’s taxpayer money. Minister Walsh recently couldn’t utter the word ‘taxpayers’. I asked her what government money was. She said it is about revenues and that the policy was fully costed. She twisted and turned and gave me several other answers, but she could not utter the words ‘taxpayers’ money’. There is no such thing as government money. It is all taxpayer money. As taxpayers, we all pay taxpayer money. It is Australians’ money.
Last week I spoke in the Senate about Minister Bowen taking subsidies, completely away from parliamentary scrutiny. It was a cosy little deal worth billions of dollars. I mentioned a potential deal with a fund taken over by Julia Gillard, the former Labor prime minister. I made no imputations. I’m just saying we need to have a look at that data. The government is hiding, hiding, hiding and stopping scrutiny, stopping us from doing our jobs, which is a theme for this government. Too often the government is willing to waste hard-earned tax dollars. The minister has just been hauled in front of the Senate to explain because the government refused to answer where they’re spending taxpayer money. This is the second—we’ve just had discussions about Housing Australia—and the government has refused again. This secretive Labor government refuses to tell Australians where it’s spending its taxpayer money. Why the secrecy? Why the hiding? It’s not your money. It’s the Australians’ money. It’s because you don’t want Australians to know that you don’t treat taxpayer money with respect.
Now we come to the second motion that Labor is trying to keep secret, on climate targets. There’s a backstory here that shows how incoherent the Liberals and the Nationals are. The motion is from the Liberal-National coalition asking the government to hand over documents in relation to the Climate Change Authority and their targets. Australians hear all the time that the Liberals and the Nationals want to ditch net zero, yet here’s a motion that the Liberal-National coalition pursues that’s criticising the government for not putting out information on net zero targets. This is insane. It’s almost as insane as the net zero pipedream.
While the Liberals and the Nationals spin their wheels and try to figure out which way the wind is blowing, One Nation is clear. On this motion, One Nation says to the government, we’re not bothered about you handing over your net zero targets. We say, don’t bother pursuing net zero at all. All of these billions of dollars amounting to trillions of dollars and efforts to keep things secret are a waste of time and money. Every minute you spend making climate targets, bogging businesses down in green and blue tape and hamstringing our productive capacity harms the country. Give it up, government, and start putting Australians first.
Remember that the Liberals and the Nationals introduced every major climate and energy policy, including net zero. You did it. That Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison introduced net zero after breaking his election promise to not pursue net zero. What about the government spending trillions on net zero without a detailed project plan—no milestones, no measures of progress, just leading Australia towards an economic cliff blindfolded. Worse, net zero is taking Australia to energy ruin without any policy basis. The CSIRO have never specified—and I’ve asked them repeatedly in personal sessions and in Senate estimates—the specific, quantified effect of human carbon dioxide on the climate. Without that, you can’t have a policy. Thus there’s no basis for policy cutting human carbon dioxide. That’s why there’s no way of measuring the progress of implementing climate and energy policies. That’s why you’ve got to keep it secret. That’s why you’ve got to hide it. I’ll continue my remarks on this topic in the future.
It’s “rumoured” the Labor government are planning to bring hundreds of thousands of Indian workers into Australia on top of the current mass migration crisis.
After days of coverage, this “rumour” has not confirmed nor denied.
Across Australia, construction companies are collapsing due to rising costs. The Treasurer must know that this massive construction plan will drive up the price of building materials even further because of demand.
The result?
More Australian businesses destroyed. More Australian jobs lost.
Transcript
Homelessness in my birthplace, India, is a national scandal. Close to two million people are living on the streets—children, women and the elderly—vulnerable to violence and disease.
Why would the government be discussing bringing hundreds of thousands of Indian labourers and tradesmen here to build one million new homes, financed with a United Arab Emirates loan? Is it a loan or will these be build to rent?
How about India borrows the $500 billion and builds housing in their country, getting their children, women and elderly off the streets? The Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal, told us about this plan and Indian mainstream media confirmed it. After days of coverage, this government has neither confirmed nor denied it. One would think that’s a concession. If you are not planning this, say so. If you are planning it, then admit it and answer our questions, starting with the fact that hundreds of thousands of Indian migrants have to sleep somewhere. Is that what the spare bedroom tax was for—billeting these new migrant workers? If not, then the first two years will be spent building homes for these imported workers who will, no doubt, never leave them. Where does that get us? Are these 200,000 workers on top of the 2.9 million new visa holders the government has let in since 2022 or are they extras?
It’s been four years now, and I understand that less than 10,000 of the 2.9 million you’ve let in are qualified construction workers. That’s 0.3 per cent building houses for the 99.7 per cent. Where are your plans to provide land, building inspectors and trade qualification checks to make sure these homes are built to standard? All over our country construction companies are going broke due to rising costs. The Treasurer must know that this massive construction plan will cause runaway demand inflation in building materials, forcing more of our builders to the wall. All you’ll do is destroy Australian companies and take jobs from Australians. Why do you hate our country?
One Nation moved to establish a Senate inquiry into the program of mass immigration.
On Monday 1 September, I asked the Australian Senate to establish an inquiry into the impact of immigration on our economy.
The Australian public and the government must be properly informed about the data and the impacts of this policy. Without that, there can be no genuine policy debate or discussion.
That’s why we want to establish this inquiry, to take the emotion out of the debate and deal with the facts and data.
See the Senators who voted NO to our inquiry 👇 Almost all Liberals, Labor and Greens teamed up to block the inquiry.
Live Debate: 1 hr 16 mins.
Motion Defeated – 37 to 9
Number of Temporary Visa Holders in Australia
Mainstream media is out there gaslighting Australia, telling us that immigration is going down.
Can anyone point to the part of the graph where we aren’t currently at record migration levels?
Source: Number of Temporary Visa Holders in Australia, Department of Home Affairs.
One Nation is the champion of free speech and have been since 2020 when we stood against the inhuman breaches of basic human rights imposed during COVID by both Labor and Liberal governments at all levels.
We support the Right to Protest Bill 2025—especially its recognition of peaceful protest—yet raise concerns about vague definitions and lack of protections for others’ freedoms, like movement and travel.
One Nation will always champion core freedoms and states’ rights, and we urge improvements to this bill to ensure clarity and accountability.
Transcript
One Nation leads the way on freedom of speech. We have done so since 2020, with the horrific impediments against freedom of speech and the withdrawal of free speech and human rights that occurred with COVID mismanagement under both Labor and Liberal governments at a state and federal level. I start by thanking Senator Shoebridge, who has, largely through his work holding governments accountable—this one and the previous one—earned my respect for his work on human rights. I do not, though, trust the Greens as a whole. They often, and usually, contradict data and evidence, so I don’t trust them. But I do trust Senator Shoebridge.
Let’s go through a quick list of positives. What do we like? This bill, the Right to Protest Bill 2025, recognises the right to peaceful protest. We support that right wholeheartedly. This bill also recognises that the right to peaceful protest is subject to issues of national security—rightly so—and also subject to public safety, public order, the protection of public health, and, importantly, the protection of other people’s rights and freedoms. That’s very important. Sadly, this last protection, the protection of people’s rights and freedoms, is just a motherhood statement, and the body of the bill contains nothing specific about those protections.
What are we not comfortable with? The definition of ‘protest’ in section 5(b) includes the phrase ‘actions that are disruptive or seek to disrupt’. We do not support disruptive matters, disruptive events or protests, or those that seek to disrupt; we oppose that. The bill does not specifically consider conflicts with other people’s individual or group rights, including the right to free movement and travel. I have a list of freedoms I keep in mind: the freedom of life, the freedom of belief, the freedom of thought, the freedom of faith, the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, the freedom of exchange, the freedom of movement and travel, and the freedom to live life free from government interference. These are basic freedoms. One Nation supports these, but we do not see any consideration in this bill for the rights of others specifically, including the freedom of movement and travel.
Nor does the bill guide or address the resolution of conflicting needs when people in society have conflicting needs, when one group wants to protest and the other group sees an infringement of its rights. The bill does not consider offensive language or intimidation through noise or numbers of protesters. For One Nation, it is extremely important, as we have said in the past on similar bills, to have Australians feeling safe. Australians must feel safe. We cannot abide by any intimidation of Australians.
My next point is that the bill encroaches on areas that should remain under state law. One Nation is very strong and clear on states’ rights because we believe in competitive federalism—a fundamental tenet of accountability in this country. What we have seen is that the states have had their rights robbed, stolen by encroaching, greedy, all-powerful federal governments that seek to run the country with no accountability under both Labor and the Liberals. We don’t like the encroachment into other areas that should remain under state law. The bill tries to limit penalties for contraventions that may be considered to apply to necessary restrictions, without defining the word ‘excessive’. There’s no definition of the word ‘excessive’. Sadly the word ‘peaceful’ is not defined, and that’s extremely important.
Our conclusions are that we thank Senator Shoebridge for introducing this bill and debating the bill, but we are concerned about the vague wording. Is there poor drafting? Let’s give Senator Shoebridge the benefit of the doubt because, although the Greens can be disruptive when it suits them, Senator Shoebridge has not done anything malicious in my experience with him.
Senator Shoebridge: Not actually malicious!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ciccone): Thank you, senators. Please direct your contributions through the chair.
I support the concept of peaceful protest. It’s very important to get that on the record. This bill, as it is, suffers from deficiencies that need to be addressed. Thank you.
Both the Liberal and Labor parties have left Australia unable to properly defend ourselves. As a result, we are entirely reliant on other countries to come to our aid.
One Nation believes we should have a Defence Force that is lethal, capable and well resourced to defend Australia and our approaches, not join forever wars in foreign countries.
In this speech, I share the story of RAAF pilot Daniel Dare, a man with an unblemished record, who has been forced into exile and will be arrested if he ever steps foot in Australia again.
Why? Because the Defence Department was just a few days late in approving his sick leave — and now they want to throw him into a maximum-security prison for not reporting to work while he was dealing with mental health issues caused by Defence.
This story is a clear example of out-of-touch generals and politicians destroying morale and the very people who sign up to put their lives on the line for this country.
No politician has the right to stand up on ANZAC Day and invoke the memory of our fallen if they aren’t willing to call out the gutless cowards in the upper brass who are destroying our Defence Force today.
Transcript
The Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 is an admission of failure on two fronts: the housing crisis and our ability to defend ourselves. Defence Housing Australia is the agency tasked with putting a roof over the heads of our Australian Defence Force personnel, the fine people who serve all Australians. This bill will extend that mission significantly to include housing foreign military personnel. This bill is a flow-on consequence of the housing crisis, a catastrophe.
It has been generated particularly out of concern for the situation in Perth. They, like all of our capital cities, are in an acute housing crisis, with a rental vacancy rate of 0.7 per cent, which is frankly shocking. Only Darwin and Hobart are slightly worse. Perth is lined up to cop the brunt of foreign personnel increases related to AUKUS under Submarine Rotational Force West, which is expected to accept thousands of foreign military personnel and contractors in relation to AUKUS preparations. This bill, though, isn’t just related to Perth. It extends the ability of Defence Housing Australia to house foreign personnel anywhere in the country.
Concerns have been raised about Defence Housing Australia’s ability to take care of our current soldiers. I want to now focus on Defence’s wilful, sustained, ongoing lack of care and accountability. 7 News Townsville reported on the story of Mitchell Connolly, a Townsville soldier who has been asking Defence Housing to fix black mould in his house that has been making his children and pregnant wife sick. After being ignored on all proper channels, he went to the media as a last resort and is now facing retribution for raising those complaints. That goes to the key problem with the Liberal and Labor approach to defence. Boats, submarines and fighter jets are all important, yet the people in our Defence Force are vital, and they are spat on by the upper brass.
To demonstrate this point, I want to read parts of a letter from a pilot who can’t return to this country because Defence will arrest him for being AWOL after they delayed approving his sick leave for a couple of days.
This is from his letter to me:
Dear Senator Roberts
My name is Daniel Dare and I served for more than eleven years as a pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force.
I am writing to ask for your help and to place on the parliamentary record how senior Defence officials handled my case after a serious abuse of administrative power by my Commanding Officer (CO).
My immediate aim is a simple: To be able to return to Australia safely and be with my family and support network, so that I can recover, as I have not been able to return to Australia for over eighteen months.
I am not seeking to excuse my conduct.
I am asking Parliament to consider whether the response was appropriate, proportionate, consistent with what Defence leaders tell Australians about empathy, prevention and member wellbeing.
Like many other ADF members, I joined straight after school.
I deployed in flying and non-flying roles overseas and at home, including the Middle East and support after bushfires, floods and cyclones, and work during Operation Aged Care Assist.
I am grateful for those years and for my colleagues.
My concerns are not with them but with a leadership culture that, when confronted with an avoidable problem, chose escalation over resolution and appearances over duty of care.
In March 2023, after more than a decade of unblemished service, my CO accused me of expressing a negative view of the Squadron to another member.
The allegation was based on a text message I did not write, disseminate, or even know existed. An extremely flawed “fact find” was conducted, which did not include interviewing me.
On that basis the CO attempted to impose a twelve-month formal warning and cancel an already-approved flying instructor posting, despite lacking the authority to cancel the posting and despite the Air Force’s desperate need of flying instructors.
Through later freedom-of-information requests I learned that legal advice was sought by the CO only after the punitive action had begun. The effort was abandoned only when I retained a civilian solicitor: Cameron Niven, of Soldier’s Legal Counsel, who persuaded the CO’s direct superior to drop it due to the deficiencies.
But by then the damage was already done. The episode was plainly maladministration.
It shattered any trust I had left in the organisation, leaving me completely disillusioned and was the point at which my mental health began to deteriorate.
Rather than pursue a medical discharge, I first tried to leave in a way that protected the taxpayer and kept me available if needed.
I applied to transfer to the Air Force reserves from December, totalling twelve years of full-time service, and agreed in advance to repay any service debt.
My new chain of command supported the application.
A delegate in the Directorate of Personnel – Air Force, denied it without even bothering to ring me and initially refused to return the application with his written reasons, in an apparent attempt to prevent me from redressing the denial.
My lawyer Mr. Niven was once again required to intervene, simply to get a document that should have been provided in the first instance. That became the pattern: stonewalling, delay and an aversion to transparent decision-making.
By late 2023 I was on medical sick leave. The grievance and review processes dragged with little substantive progress. As 31 March 2024 approached, being the date for medical review, I requested an extension of sick leave and, as a contingency, applied for long service leave from 2 April.
The application for long service leave was refused, and I was directed to report for duty on 2 April despite documented medical concerns.
Returning under those circumstances would have breached basic work health and safety obligations.
In the absence of a timely decision on my sick-leave extension, I made the difficult decision not to present for duty on 2 April in order to protect my wellbeing.
The response was senseless.
Military and civilian police were sent to my home to arrest me and return me to base in handcuffs, but I was overseas by this point.
The next phase escalated further.
An international pursuit was coordinated, drawing on ADF, Australian Federal Police, DFAT and foreign law-enforcement resources, all at the taxpayers’ expense. Group Captain Maria Brick, then Director of the Strategic Incident Management – Air Force section, coordinated actions; a five-year arrest warrant was issued by Air Commodore Bradley Clarke, Commander Air Mobility Group,
I do not contest Defence’s power to enforce discipline.
I question the appropriateness and proportionality of deploying such resources against one unwell member whose recent maladministration, attempt to voluntarily discharge and medical circumstances were known to the chain of command.
One act in particular crossed a line.
Air Marshal Robert Chipman, then Chief of Air Force, now Vice Chief of the Defence Force, wrote to my private overseas employer in his official capacity disclosing personal information about me and notifying them that I was subject to an arrest warrant under military law.
That letter is now the subject of a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
It is difficult to reconcile such an approach with what Air Marshal Chipman told the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, only weeks earlier, on the 13th of March 2024 about harm prevention, member wellbeing and empathy in leadership.
Publicly, Air Marshal Chipman emphasised avoiding the conditions that lead to ill-health and named empathy as the most important attribute of command.
Privately, he chose the most harmful and destructive punitive options available.
A key fact also emerged through Freedom of information.
Although my sick-leave extension was undecided on 2 April 2024 when I did not present for work, Defence medical approved a further six weeks on 6 April. That determination was not disclosed to me—
Isn’t that deceit?
No effort was made to de-escalate or correct the record. Instead, the pursuit continued as if I had no medical status at all.
With salary withheld and my employment prospects damaged, I had little choice but to pursue medical separation.
That process itself became an unresolvable ordeal.
I was told I needed a Defence medical officer assessment to support approval of sick leave, which would resolve the absence, but I was denied telehealth access while overseas.
If I returned in person to obtain it, I would be arrested and incarcerated before I could be seen.
In April 2025 a medical delegate determined that I was unfit for further service and should be medically separated, with sick leave until separation.
Five days later a separate administrative process was initiated to involuntarily separate me, relying on the record of absence that had already been resolved by the medical decision and commencement of sick leave five days earlier.
Defence appeared to be weaponising the military justice system to maximise harm.
I continue to seek review of that administrative decision, at my own expense through the federal court.
This will unfortunately also cost the taxpayer as Defence will undoubtedly seek to fight it.
My matter was referred to the Director of Military Prosecutions, Air Commodore Ian Henderson, for trial before a Defence Force Magistrate towards the end of 2024, with the prospect of up to 12 months’ imprisonment.
The human cost has been real.
During this period my great-uncle, Leslie, became gravely ill in December 2024 and passed away a few months later.
I asked to return home safely to see him, as we were close and he was dear to me.
This request was denied.
Given the existence of warrants and the charges, it was clear that if I returned, I would be arrested on arrival and held to face a DFM proceeding, without ever seeing him.
I spent Christmas alone overseas and later grieved his death, again alone and far away from family and support.
I am not seeking pity.
I am asking Parliament to consider what this says about the system’s priorities when a member is plainly unwell and clearly trying to resolve matters lawfully.
I also want to be clear about responsibility.
Failing to present for duty on 2 April 2024 was my decision.
I am not seeking to excuse it.
I ask that it be seen in context: an earlier abuse of administrative power, an irrevocable breakdown of trust and disillusionment, deteriorating health, a documented medical basis for leave, and a year-long pattern of escalation rather than resolution.
A response that ignores medical evidence, amplifies risk, and privileges appearances over problem-solving is neither good administration nor good leadership.
I have also raised a concern, currently the subject of an FOI request, that the Air Force may have interfered, formally or informally, with civilian hiring of ADF pilots, namely at Qantas, to manage retention issues.
If true, this would mean that even those who have completed their obligations can face covert barriers to employment.
This matter deserves inquiry and formal answers.
Pilots who serve their country should not be disadvantaged by secret arrangements once their service is complete.
Across the period of my ordeal, I made extensive work health and safety reports about the impact of management actions on my wellbeing, no less than 27 individual reports.
Decisions consistently increased risk and pressure, and the cost was shifted to the member and, ultimately, to the taxpayer.
I am not exaggerating when I say that, due to how this situation was handled by Air Marshal Chipman and his subordinates, it cost the Australian tax payer millions.
On 13 August 2025 I was discharged. In the lead-up I asked for a short administrative extension so I would not be left without income while DVA and CSC claims were processed.
This request was refused. As I write, I am navigating those claims from overseas without income, after a year of withheld salary.
I wrote to both Matt Keogh and Richard Marles, on several occasions, seeking an intervention grounded in reasonableness.
They ignored it.
This is not only about one member.
It is about the credibility of Defence leadership before Parliament and the public.
The ADF cannot rely on deterrence theatre, secrecy and maximal punishment to solve cultural problems.
Strength in leadership is restraint, fairness and good judgement. When the system confuses severity for strength, it looks weak—
it is weak—
It wastes public money, undermines morale, and deters good people from serving.
It also undermines recruitment and retention by signalling that members who become unwell or seek a lawful exit will be treated as problems to be crushed, rather than people to be supported and transitioned safely.
ADF members deserve better processes than the ones I encountered. Taxpayers deserve better stewardship than funding unnecessary pursuits that serve the egos of senior officers, rather than Australia’s interest. The public deserves a Defence organisation whose leaders model the empathy and prevention they commend in public.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Dare
This is what we have to fix if we ever want to have a hope of defending ourselves and housing our defence forces. We have to take care of the Australians who choose to put their life on the line and wear the flag on their shoulder. Thank you, Daniel, and thank you, every member and veteran of the Australian Defence Force. You all deserve far better.
One Nation will be supporting this bill because, without the help of allies, we are completely unable to defend our own country. That’s what’s happening in this country. We need a sovereign defence capability, and that starts with valuing our members—care, not systematic abuse; accountability, not bullying to cover up; and honouring Australian values, starting with mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum. All we want is some fairness, integrity and truth.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GnryZQpP4uw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-27 14:46:032025-08-27 14:46:10Australia Can’t Defend Itself — And the Major Parties Are to Blame
Last week at the Productivity Roundtable, a concerning proposal was floated—one that would force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters, under threat of a financial penalty (tax) if they refused. I asked the Minister why such a monstrous idea was even being entertained and pressed her on whether the government would rule it out to give our elderly peace of mind that they won’t be forced to share their family homes.
In response, Senator Gallagher claimed she wasn’t present at any session where that idea was raised and said it’s not something the government is working on. She acknowledged that tax reform and housing were discussed “broadly”, yet denied that specific proposals like this—or death tax or land tax on the family home—were part of any formal outcomes.
I asked whether these proposals were designed to push everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for large, co-located families among new arrivals—who, according to Labor-aligned researcher Kos Samaras, tend to vote Labor. Senator Gallagher refused to rule this out.
Transcript
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, relating to taxation proposals debated at last week’s productivity roundtable. The proposal was to force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty—a tax—if they don’t. Why did the roundtable even consider this monstrous idea, and will you now rule the idea out so our elderly can have peace of mind they won’t have strangers forced into their family homes?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. There was a pretty wide discussion on tax and Australia’s tax system. I did not attend all of the sessions and I was not at a session where that was raised. There was discussion around housing, as you would expect, and different views were being put around the table.
What I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient. There were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation, and there were discussions around intergenerational equity—about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you’ve raised were not raised with me by any roundtable participant, and I was not at a session where they were raised as something that people were seeking. It’s not something the government has worked on.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Additionally, the roundtable debated a death tax on the family home and a land tax on the value of the property. Are these mutually exclusive taxes, or will this government be introducing all three?
Senator GALLAGHER: Again, in the sessions that I was a participant at, that was not raised. I think the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were clear in the lead-up to the roundtable that there are no plans to change the taxation of owner occupied homes, and I have not been part of any discussions around that. Part of the discussion that was had was much more high level around how the tax system is working, how complicated it can be and whether or not the system is fair and working in the interest of every generation in this country. There were mixed views about that. But there were certainly no outcomes that went anywhere near what you have been asking about today. The tax reforms we will be doing are the ones we took to the election around standard deductions and income tax.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
All three of these new proposals will force everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for the large families and family co-location evident amongst new arrivals. Labor Party aligned researcher Kos Samaras has shown that these new arrivals vote heavily for Labor. Minister, why are you forcing Australians out of their homes to make way for Labor-voting new arrivals, and where are Australians supposed to go?
Senator GALLAGHER: There was a lot in that. I hope that I have answered your concerns around some of the ideas you say. They were not outcomes. In fact, in the sessions I was at, they were not raised. I don’t know anything about that. In relation to housing more generally, we are trying to build more housing. That is part of what we’ve been doing in this place and will continue to do, and, indeed, the announcement by the Prime Minister and the housing minister today was about how we ensure that owning your own home isn’t out of reach for generations of Australians and how we build more supply. In that respect, I hope that answers the second part. In terms of migration numbers, they’re outlined in the budget papers.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GFREg8txmnQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-25 17:03:042025-09-04 22:47:17Rent Out Your Spare Room or Pay the Price?
During the Productivity Roundtable, the Albanese Government allowed a proposal to be discussed that many consider “monstrous.” The proposal involves forcing homeowners who have spare bedrooms to rent them out to new arrivals – or pay a tax if they don’t. The outcome appears to be that elderly Australians will vacate their homes and move into retirement facilities, thereby freeing up housing for others.
Young couples will also be a target. Those purchasing their first home with extra rooms intended for a family in the future may mean that they will be required to take in boarders or pay a tax—an added financial burden at a time when many are already stretched thin.
During Question Time, I asked Finance Minister Senator Gallagher to rule out this horrible idea. Unfortunately, she declined to do so.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, “Eventually, socialists run out of other people’s money.”
It seems the Albanese Government has taken that as a challenge.
Transcript
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance to a question I asked today regarding taxation proposals raised at the productivity roundtable.
In public life, there are some ideas that are so monstrous they should never be raised. Last week, Treasurer Chalmers encouraged not one but two monstrous ideas for new taxation. The first is grave robbing. An Australian works their whole life, pays off their home and, on their death, their home is sold to help their children or grandchildren enter the housing market. Some use the money to pay off their HECS debt so they can afford some home repayments. Treasurer Chalmers now proposes we should tax the home and only give the children what’s left, forcing the children to sell the home to pay taxes levied. This is being dressed up as somehow helping the housing market. Instead it will take away the only chance many young Australians have of affording a home of their own.
Death duties were first introduced in Australia in 1851. In 1914 some states’ duties were as high as 54 per cent of the value of the property, before they were abolished after a public outcry and were never introduced again. Death taxes meant children could not afford to buy their parents’ farm and were forced off the land. The Prime Minister has met personally with the billionaires buying and controlling homes and farmland around the world—BlackRock’s Larry Fink, who is the new World Economic Forum co-chair, and vaccine king Bill Gates. Is this what they discussed—plundering our homes and farmland?
The other monstrous idea was taxing unused bedrooms. For this each person will need to report to government how many bedrooms are in their home and how many are occupied. That spare bedroom is often being kept for family to visit and stay a while, meaning this policy is designed the deliberately break the bonds of family. A tax on empty bedrooms is an attack on the elderly, and that will force people into retirement homes earlier, the reverse of what we accept as best policy. Will our elderly be forced to take new arrivals as boarders into their own homes to beat the tax—language, culture and religious differences be damned? Minister, rule these monstrous proposals out now.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Nd2hohblte0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-25 16:47:222025-09-04 22:48:42Rent It or Be Taxed: Albanese’s New Housing Solution?
In the July sitting, the Albanese Government introduced the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Most of the bill was a tidy-up of poorly drafted health legislation from the previous parliament.
However, one section was slipped in — a new power allowing the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to declare a drug shortage based merely on the suspicion of a future shortage. This would then enable the approval of drugs that haven’t been properly tested or assessed.
The TGA already has a similar power with a higher threshold for approval. This new legislation appears to be nothing but a pretense to give the TGA sweeping authority to bypass safety testing and scrutiny for new drugs. Even under the current “higher bar,” Section 19(1) has been used to approve 135 current drugs and 600 expired or lapsed ones — a total of 735 approvals of new drugs – or versions of drugs in two years.
I asked the Minister to provide an example of how Australians might be disadvantaged without these new powers. The Minister couldn’t answer. So I must ask — who actually wrote this? It clearly wasn’t the Government.
One Nation will repeal Section 19(1) and ensure that every new drug is subject to proper safety testing and full regulatory oversight.
Watch the video and see for yourself how clueless this Government is.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:Minister, the existing wording of section 19(1) already allows the TGA to approve the use of a drug that is not registered or approved in Australia, in the event of a shortage. That power has been used for 135 current approvals, and for 600 expired and lapsed approvals, for a total of 735 approvals of new drugs or versions of drugs in two years. Why do you need new powers when the existing wording is clearly no barrier to approval?
Senator McALLISTER(New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme): Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts. The advice that I’ve been provided is that the amendment goes to the ability to act in advance of a shortage arising—knowing that a shortage is coming towards us down the pipeline rather than being required to wait until the shortage actually arises. It will allow the government and the authorities to get ahead of shortages in relation to pharmaceuticals.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Minister, can you provide an example of a situation where this new power would be needed because the old wording did not provide for that situation?
Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts, I think I’ve explained the principle, which is that from time to time we know that shortages of pharmaceuticals do arise. They arise because of interruptions to global supply chains or, sometimes, an interruption in a particular facility’s manufacturing capability. That disruption doesn’t immediately translate into a shortage, but we know, logically, that it will at some moment. These provisions allow us to get ahead of that situation.
Senator ROBERTS: My previous question was theoretical, to understand the process that informed the legislation. This question, Minister, is not theoretical: in what situation has the existing wording of section 19(1) failed to provide a good outcome for everyday Australians? Could you give me a real example, please?
Senator McALLISTER: There are multiple shortages that are managed by the TGA, and we want to be in the best possible position in the future to be able to manage them as they arise.
Senator ROBERTS: Just one example, please, Minister—not a theoretical one, not a hypothetical; just one concrete example of where this has been needed in the past and was not available.
Senator McALLISTER: Senator, it’s not my intention to trawl over previous decisions and circumstances, but it is the case that, from time to time, we can see in advance the potential for a shortfall, and we want to give the TGA the best possible opportunity to be able to intervene and make sure that the medicines that Australians need are available.
Senator ROBERTS: That seems to be confirmation, Minister, that it has not happened in the past. There’s no need for it.
Senator McALLISTER: That doesn’t follow from the advice I’ve provided to you, Senator Roberts. There are shortfalls from time to time in medications that are important for Australians. The TGA presently acts to manage those and works very actively. We want to make sure that, in future, they have all of the tools available to them to be able to do that, and we consider this to be an important amendment that will assist the TGA in that task.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, thank you. You say that there are examples, but you won’t give me any, so let’s move on. Under this new low bar for approval, a pharmaceutical company would be tempted to avoid applying for a regular approval, which is expensive and time consuming, when they could just have their drug waved through under a spurious scarcity rumour—not fact but pending scarcity. Minister, what safeguards are in this legislation to ensure that big pharma does not create a false scarcity story to avoid making a normal authorisation application?
Senator McALLISTER: The TGA relies on intelligence; the TGA does not rely on rumours. The premise of your question is incorrect. It remains my position, as I’ve explained a number of times now, that it’s really important that we are able to act when we are aware of a forthcoming shortage or the possibility of a shortage of critical medicines. Australians rely on the availability of these, and it’s an important function that the TGA serves in protecting the supply chain.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is getting to be disappointing. You keep telling me there are many examples and it’s concrete, but I don’t get anything. Let’s move on. Minister, under this bill, is there a time limit for the approval, and, if so, can the approval be renewed at the end of that period, creating what is, in effect, a permanent approval where they just keep extending it?
Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts, when you’re speaking about an approval, which particular approval are you referring to? Obviously, the legislation canvasses quite a range of different approvals.
Senator ROBERTS: Any temporary approval.
Senator McALLISTER: The advice I am provided is that the approval, by its nature, is temporary and expires as the shortage is resolved.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if the shortage is not resolved, is there a time limit for that approval to be enforced? If there is, can it automatically be renewed—in other words, granting a bypassing of the normal full regulatory approval process?
Senator McALLISTER: I appreciate the senator waiting while I obtain advice. I want to give accurate information to the Senate. The advice I’ve been provided is that these are statutory criteria that need to be met for any approval, and the TGA would need to be satisfied that those statutory conditions were met. However, it is the case that, ordinarily, these circumstances resolve themselves, so we do see shortfalls from time to time, and they are generally resolved over time. Our interest is making sure that any short-term shortages or impacts on Australians can be managed and that the TGA has the tools to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: So, Minister, is there a time limit and is it automatically renewed if the shortage continues beyond that time limit?
Senator McALLISTER: The advice that I have is that the approval would be provided with a time limit. That doesn’t prevent a reconsideration of the same questions, but it would be against the same criteria that I referred to in my earlier answer to your question.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s highly likely we would just continue. The TGA has already approved certain drugs, including the product Pfizer sells as a COVID vaccine—their word. It’s already been approved for full TGA approval based, according to the TGA, on the safety profile data experienced during emergency use authorisation. Minister, will this legislation provide yet another way big pharma can make an end run around Australia’s longstanding authorisation process?
Senator McALLISTER: No. That’s a very leading question. The purpose of the legislation is set out in the explanatory memorandum and in other documentation around the bill, and there has been a Senate inquiry into the bill. Our objective is to make sure that Australians have the medicine that they need, even when shortfalls arise globally, and that we are in the best position to manage any consequences when we do see interruptions to global supply chains.
Senator ROBERTS: Of the 735 drugs granted authorisation under the existing legislation, how many are now subject to an application for full approval or have been approved based, according to the TGA, on the adverse events profile of the drug during approval under section 19(1) in the same way Pfizer’s Comirnaty was?
Senator McALLISTER: I am not in a position to confirm the numbers that you’ve cited in your question, nor do I have information about the numbers of applications on foot in various processes administered by the TGA. Perhaps you might like to think about another way of getting to the information that you’re interested in.
Senator ROBERTS: I will ask again and will try and break up the question: of the 735 drugs granted authorisation under the existing legislation, how many are now subject to an application for full approval?
Senator McALLISTER: As I indicated to you, Senator, I don’t have that information with me, nor would you expect me to. It’s a very detailed question.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I won’t continue with the other breakdowns of the question. Let’s move on to the next question. Does a drug approved under section 19(1) also go on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and, if so, does the normal negotiation on price still occur, or do we just pay whatever the drug company wants us to pay?
Senator McALLISTER: Thank you for waiting, Senator Roberts. I was seeking advice, again so that I can provide you with accurate information. The advice I have is that the standard process is for a medicine or product to be listed with the ARTG first before being considered by the PBS.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. The TGA have been enjoying unrivalled, unquestioned and unaccountable power since the start of COVID. Minister, why is the government extending the powers of the TGA again, with a bill that provides zero parliamentary oversight of the new powers?
Senator McALLISTER: I don’t agree with many of the propositions that are embedded in your question, Senator Roberts. I think I’ve been really clear about the purpose of the bill, or at least the elements which you’re asking me about now. Your very first question was: why do we need these additional provisions and abilities for the TGA? The answer is: from time to time we see shortages arise, where interventions are required to protect the interests, particularly the health interests, of Australian consumers. We want to make sure that the TGA has the capacity to manage these kinds of shortfalls.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate what you just said; I don’t agree with it at all, because the TGA has run roughshod over the people of Australia when it comes to health. They are not held accountable. We need to return, in my opinion, to the days when the department of health approved or did not approve a drug and then the department could be held accountable to the parliament. That’s not the case for the TGA. It completely bypasses the parliament. So I foreshadow my amendment to introduce a provision to the existing legislation that any approval issued under this legislation must be by way of legislative instrument to allow parliamentary scrutiny. We, not the TGA, represent the people. The TGA has so many close contacts and close conflicts of interest with big pharma. It gets 96 per cent of its revenue from big pharma. Minister, why is there so little parliamentary oversight of our health bureaucracy?
Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts, I think you and I have different views about the level of oversight. The TGA is part of the department of health. The department of health appears regularly at Senate estimates. There are also a range of forums in which the parliament may ask questions about these issues, including, of course, in this place, in our own question time. Our government is committed to scrutiny, and I simply disagree with the proposition that you have made in your question just now.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome to disagree, Minister. I’m sure that you welcome my disagreement. We saw the previous head of the TGA, Professor John Skerritt, retire from the TGA and, eight months later, get a job on the board of Medicines Australia, the big pharma medical lobby in this country. We also see that the TGA gets 96 per cent of its revenue from big pharma. That is a reason why we need to take the approval of drugs away from the TGA. Big pharma is not trusted, and, by association and due to their COVID mismanagement, we don’t trust the TGA anymore. I move One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3379 as circulated:
(1) Schedule 2, Part 6, page 22 (line 1) to page 23 (line 22), omit the Part, substitute:
Part 6—Therapeutic goods approvals
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989
52 Subsection 19(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, grant an approval to a person for the importation into, or the exportation from, Australia or the supply in Australia of specified therapeutic goods that are not registered goods or listed goods:
(a) for use in the treatment of another person; or
(b) for use solely for experimental purposes in humans;
and such an approval may be given subject to such conditions as are specified in the instrument.
Note: For variation of an approval for use of the kind referred to in paragraph (1)(b), see subsection (4B).
(1AAA) A legislative instrument made under subsection (1) must set out the reasons for the approval.
53 Subsection 19(4B)
Omit “by notice in writing”, substitute “by legislative instrument”.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate): I would like to make a couple of comments on the contribution that Senator Roberts has just made in relation to his amendment to this particular bill. I probably would have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Roberts’s position, particularly after the comment made by the government that they’re committed to scrutiny. I don’t think anything could be further from the truth, when we’ve seen the amount of times that transparency has been denied in this place. In fact, this morning we had a half-hour contribution about the refusal of this government to be transparent when it comes to the NDIS. So I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Roberts in relation to the lack of scrutiny of their actions that the government are largely prepared to allow this parliament and the Australian public over their time in government.
But, in saying that, I understand that one of the most critical issues facing Australia in recent times has been drug shortages, for a number of reasons, of medicines and treatments coming into Australia. As a legislature, whilst safety and efficacy are at the forefront of every decision we make in relation to providing treatments and access to treatments for Australians through the necessary processes that exist within the department of health—and that includes through the TGA—one of the things we must always do is make sure that there is quick access because we know that so many Australians rely on treatments.
When there are shortages, the government must be able to act with some haste to put supplementary or substitute treatments and medications in place to ensure that Australians are not denied the life-saving and life-changing treatments they often rely on. At no time should safety ever be compromised for Australians, but we do understand that many Australians rely on the agility of our health department and its agencies to do that. But we acknowledge the lack of scrutiny and the lack of transparency that have become a hallmark of this government.
Senator McALLISTER: I’d like to indicate the government’s voting position. As I understand it, Senator Roberts’s amendment seeks to essentially require certain decisions to be made by way of a legislative instrument rather than by notice of writing. The government consider that this would be unnecessarily burdensome and would deprive the TGA of the flexibility that is necessary to manage the health interests of Australians, and we won’t be voting in favour of Senator Roberts’s amendment.
The CHAIR: The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 3379, moved by Senator Roberts, be agreed to.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/HfuEERh_KRQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-19 08:55:112025-09-04 22:49:41Is This a Backdoor for Big Pharma?
Australia has up to 3.7 million noncitizens—in a population of just 27.4 million.
Hospitals are stretched, housing is unaffordable, and life is more expensive.
Why won’t the government reveal the real number?
Transcript
Not counting tourists, the number of people in Australia today who are not Australian citizens could be as high as 3.7 million. In a country with an estimated population of just 27.4 million people, this huge influx is stretching our hospitals, making housing unaffordable and making life more expensive.
Noncitizens must have a visa to be in Australia. These are split into two categories: permanent residency visas and temporary visas. The latest data from the Department of Home Affairs shows that, excluding the 320,000 tourist and crew visas, there are currently 2.5 million people in Australia on temporary visas. The data on permanent residency visas is not clear; it’s murky. Between 2000 and 2021, three million permanent residency visas were issued to permanent migrants. In 2023, it was estimated that 59 per cent of those three million permanent visa holders have become Australian citizens. As of 2021, that would leave 1.2 million people who have not become citizens and are still on permanent visas, plus any more permanent residents who’ve arrived since 2021. Adding that best estimate of permanent visa holders to the 2.5 million people on temporary visas, we get 3.7 million people who are potentially in the country on visas.
So what’s the real number? How many people are currently in Australia on a permanent visa, and why won’t the government tell Australians? Is it just too embarrassing for the government, after they promised to reduce immigration, to admit how many people in Australia aren’t Australian citizens? My new One Nation colleague Senator Tyron Whitten, Senator for Western Australia, will be asking the government about this number in question time today. In the middle of a housing crisis, the government had better know how many additional people it is letting into our country, undermining our standard of living and way of life.
