While market competition and cost-of-living relief are urgently needed, the Greens’ proposal for state-run supermarkets and price caps is economically flawed and infeasible.
Instead, One Nation supports increasing competition by funding the ACCC to investigate and prosecute restrictive trade practices, dishonest advertising, and unfair competitor advantages used by major supermarkets (Coles, Woolworths, Aldi). We propose shrinking government waste and passing those savings directly to Australians through tax cuts.
State-run supermarkets historically fail.
Will the Greens’ proposal to acquire existing Coles and Woolworths sites offer fair compensation, or will they rely on state acquisition tricks similar to what John Howard used to steal farmer’s property rights in the past?
Supermarket profits (around $1 billion combined from $100 billion in sales) represent a thin profit margin on actual sales. A 1% reduction in retail prices would completely erase those profits. And the Greens’ promise of a 30% price reduction is mathematically unrealistic without massive taxpayer subsidies, which ultimately will require raising taxes.
While the Greens’ policies will add to your cost of living through higher taxes, One Nation’s policies will put more money back in your pocket, delivering genuine, lasting cost-of-living relief.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: This motion is two-thirds of a good idea. Yes, the Colesworth duopoly needs competition. One Nation would do that, funding the ACCC to investigate and prosecute restrictive trade practices in the industry used for the market advantage of Coles, Woolies and Aldi, including supplier agreements, side agreements, rebates, dishonest advertising and disadvantaging competitors, sweetheart union agreements and government policy designed to damage small and medium competitors. Secondly, yes, everyday Australians desperately need cost-of-living relief. One Nation would do that, shrinking the government to fit the constitution, as we said, in early 2025, eliminating government waste and duplication, then passing on the savings in the form of tax cuts, with more people keeping more money of their own. That’s One Nation’s way.
It’s the third part that One Nation opposes: a government run supermarket. With this policy, the Greens looked across the Pacific to New York and its communist mayor, Mamdani, and thought: ‘You know what? We’re going to try to run state run supermarkets.’ That’s always failed badly. And price caps have been another disaster wherever they’ve been tried. At least Mamdani is building his supermarket. The Greens just want to steal Coles’s and Woolies’s existing sites. Mamdani doesn’t open his first supermarket until next year, and already the Greens are declaring the idea a winner. There’s no talk of just compensation, because it’s against the federal constitution, so I assume the Greens will use state governments for acquisition—the same trick John Howard used to steal farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN Kyoto protocol. Strange bedfellows, indeed! Supermarkets are low-margin operations. Yes, they’re getting greedy, and this is where One Nation would step in, as I mentioned. The $2.1 billion figure is not accurate. The figure includes all divisions: supermarkets, variety stores, pet stores, liquor, property, hotel businesses, and online and loyalty programs in Australia and New Zealand. Coles has funds employed—the investment to build and run supermarkets—of $12 billion on a 12 per cent return on investment. Woolworths has $19 billion invested on a 17 per cent return on investment. Those are healthy returns and suggest more competition is needed—not much, though. The actual $1 billion or so in profit that ‘Colesworth’ makes from supermarket sales comes from around $100 billion in annual sales. A one per cent reduction in prices would wipe that out completely. Are the Greens promising to subsidise their supermarkets with taxpayers’ money? If so, be honest about it. How much will be needed, and whose taxes will you put up to pay for it? The most this idea will save is between one and two per cent. The Greens are promising a 30 per cent saving. It just doesn’t add up.
In this time of high inflation, every wage rise or tax cut is simply compensating for government-driven inflation rather than getting people ahead. Worse, these increases push taxpayers into higher tax brackets, leaving many workers worse off with very little of their pay rise left to keep.
To fix this, One Nation has a clear policy: we will index tax brackets to inflation. This ensures that getting a wage rise to fight inflation won’t push you into a higher tax bracket, offsetting the previous year’s inflation.
While Liberals joined Labor to defeat our amendment in 2025, pressure from One Nation has since brought the Liberals around, though Labor still refuses — showing they certainly don’t represent workers anymore.
Labor claims this will cost over $30 billion a year. Reality is that the cost depends entirely on inflation. No inflation means no cost at all. Their high estimates simply prove they expect inflation to remain out of control under their watch.
One Nation also propose allowing income splitting for families with a dependent, putting $9,000 a year back into the pockets of single-income families who choose it.
One Nation proudly stands up for Australian families and workers with common-sense tax reform.
Transcript
In this time of high inflation, every wage rise or tax cut, rather than getting people ahead, just compensates for government driving inflation. Worse, these increases move many taxpayers into higher tax brackets, increasing their tax rate and leaving many workers worse off, as many are finding when they see how little of this week’s pay rise they actually get to keep.
One Nation policy will solve this. We’ll index tax brackets to inflation so that getting a wage rise to compensate for inflation does not put you into a higher tax bracket; inflation one year will be offset by tax brackets being lifted the next year. In 2025, the Labor government joined with the Liberals to oppose and defeat our amendment to index tax brackets. Because of the heat One Nation applied to the Liberals, the Liberals now agree with One Nation. Labor still does not, which is telling about who they represent these days—certainly not workers. This move will cost around $22 billion over the forward estimates and may come in at a much higher rate over time. Labor will engage in a scare campaign, of course, over this cost. The reality is that the costing depends on inflation; no inflation means no cost at all. Labor advances a cost above $30 billion a year. This means Labor is really saying they expect inflation under their government to remain out of control. Tax cuts take the pressure off businesses to give larger wage rises, countering the wage-price spiral that harms business, workers and every Australian.
Another major element of our income tax policy is to allow income splitting between families with a dependent, if that suits them. Families with two wage earners will probably keep their existing arrangements. Families with one income who split will have $9,000 a year back in their pocket. The PBO has put the cost to budget revenue at $7 billion a year, depending upon uptake. Money well spent helping families. One Nation represents families and workers. These are just two of many, many tax reform policies we took to— (Time expired)
The Labor government has failed everyday Australians through its handling of labour market economics and reckless immigration policies.
At the start of the Albanese government in 2022, according to the ABS, there were 1.35 million underutilised Australians in the workforce and by July 2026, that number surged to 1.68 million. Aside from the COVID period, underutilisation had been consistently falling since 2014, until Labor took over. With 1.68 million Australians unable to find enough hours or work, I asked Minister Gallagher why Australians can’t find enough adequate employment.
In response, Minister Gallagher dodged the core issue by rattling off broad statistics while ignoring the growing number of underemployed Australians.
According to ABS data, workforce participation has barely budged, with unemployment jumping from 3.4% to 4.5%. Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ promise of “a paid job for everyone who wants one” has fallen flat. I wanted to know whether the government has failed miserably and has broken yet another promise, or whether they have simply changed their position. Once again, the Minister avoided accountability.
In my final question, I brought up the elephant in the room: mass immigration. ABS border movement data shows that in 2025–26, Australia recorded a record 476,000 permanent and long-term overseas arrivals.
I asked the Minister how on earth the government can justify maintaining such high levels of mass immigration when hardworking Australians are struggling to find enough work. Predictably, the Minister again dodged the question, leaning on their “standard” talking points about visa arrangements, completely ignoring the damage their migration policies are doing to workers.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is, once again, to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, on the subject of labour market economics. In June 2022, at the start of the Albanese government, there were 1.35 million Australians underutilised in the workforce according to the ABS. In July 2026, this had increased to 1.68 million. Taking out the COVID period, underutilisation has been falling since the measure began in 2014, until Labor took over. Now, it’s going up. The only interpretation of this data is that there are not enough hours and not enough work to go around. As a result, 1.68 million Australians are working less than they want and need to. Why can’t people find enough work under this Labor government?
Senator GALLAGHER (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. I think that’s the second week in a row you’ve had Senator Babet’s question. I wonder where—you lucky guy! I wonder where the ghost of the Senate is. We never see him anymore, do we? I noticed he did launch a clothing range a few days ago though, so he had time to do that.
Senator Roberts interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I will draw the minister to your question, Senator Roberts.
Senator GALLAGHER: As Senator Roberts will know, unemployment is at historically at low levels, sitting at 4½ per cent. In recent times, over the data sets, participation rates have been historically high, including for women. We’ve got the gender pay gap at record lows. We’ve got employment at 14.8 million, so we’ve created 1.3 million jobs since coming to government. Women are employed full time at much higher rates—4.1 million. We’ve got industrial disputes down. We’ve got annual wage growth over three per cent. So I think, on any measure, when you look at how the labour market is performing, Senator Roberts, it is being pretty resilient against the backdrop of global uncertainty and all of the risks that come with that. The Australian economy has actually fared very well in terms of job numbers, in terms of the participation rate, in terms of wages and in terms of the number of jobs that have been created under this government.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Workforce participation under your government only increased 0.1 per cent—a rounding error—and male participation has fallen. Unemployment is up from 3.4 per cent to 4.5 per cent. In August 2023, Treasury Chalmers promised ‘a paid job for everyone who wants one’. Minister, has your government failed miserably to keep that promise, or have you ‘changed your position’ on creating jobs for all who are here?
Senator GALLAGHER: Over 1.3 million jobs have been created, Senator Roberts—three out of five are full time and five out of six are in the private sector. We’ve got the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in the last 50 years, a record number of Australians in full-time jobs and a participation rate at near-record highs. The advice I have is that the participation rate has gone from 66.3 per cent in May 2022 to 66.9 per cent, which is near a record high. As a Labor government, we will always do more to make sure that people have all of the opportunities they can from the dignity that work provides and—not only that—good, secure jobs that pay well. That is what Labor governments are all about, and that is what we will continue to deliver.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: ABS border movement data reveals that, in 2025-26, Australia recorded 476,000 permanent and long-term overseas arrivals, the highest on record. Australian workers can’t find enough work, yet this Labor government continues to bring in record numbers of arrivals. Minister, why would you keep mass immigration at such high levels when it’s taking work off Australians?
Senator GALLAGHER: As I said in answer to your colleague’s question, Australia has always relied on being able to supplement our own Australian workers with workers who migrate here under different visas and under various arrangements with those visas. I would say, Senator Roberts—I don’t know whether Mr Farley from the other place has commented on your migration policy today. But we know from everyone who’s had a look at what you’ve announced today, whether it be those key stakeholder groups like the Farmers’ Federation, all of those regional employers or all of the people who rely on workers who come to Australia to work and take up those opportunities alongside Australian workers and the jobs that we’ve created here—the good, secure jobs that deliver the dignity of work to those families. But we know from all of the feedback that we’re seeing about your policy that it’s not going to work and it would damage— (Time expired)
Labor says the private sector is creating jobs. The numbers tell a different story.
While government-funded employment grows, private businesses are being crushed by rising costs, red tape and net zero policies.
Australians need lower power prices, stronger wages and an economy that rewards productive enterprise, not government dependence.
Labor’s lies aren’t going to pay the bills.
Transcript
I thank Senator Collins for this motion, which One Nation supports. Labor elder Bill Kelty has warned that Australians cannot pay their bills with the Treasurer’s spin. Last week, the Treasurer indulged in spin yet again when he said that six out of seven jobs created during the Albanese government were in the private sector. No, they were not. Seventy per cent of the jobs created under Treasurer Chalmers are in the care economy, which is government funded, not the private sector. This did not stop the Minister for Finance, though, repeating the line yesterday in question time. Truth be damned with you lot!
The Labor government is running up deficits to directly fund jobs to keep the economy from going into a recession. We are already in a per capita recession! Net zero madness and insane regulations are destroying huge numbers of private sector jobs. Mosaic Brands lost 950 jobs; Fortescue, 700 jobs; and Telstra, another 650 jobs. The Whyalla steelworks lost 600 jobs yesterday, although Minister Bowen’s $1.9 billion handout of taxpayer money to fund a green steel arc furnace powered using weather-dependent solar and wind is still trying. Taxpayers can kiss that money goodbye. The Tomago smelter stood to lose 1,000 jobs until the government bailed them out with $2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money to secure heavily subsidised, expensive power in the Hunter. It’s a shame local residents didn’t get the same deal. They’re really struggling from high electricity prices and high petrol prices, after the Labor government reversed the fuel excise cut and put fuel up 32c a litre yesterday.
Under Treasurer Chalmers, Australian wages have gone backwards by five per cent. Headline inflation is at three per cent and rising, outpacing wage rises, forcing mortgage rates up and trapping many people who signed up for the Treasurer’s five per cent deposit scheme in negative equity. ‘Spin’ doesn’t come close to expressing the anger everyday Australians are feeling towards the Albanese government.
One Nation are committed to a net-negative migration plan during the first three years of a One Nation administration.
We will slash over 750,000 temporary visas.
Because of how broken the current system is, a period of adjustment is necessary.
Every day Aussies are having to grapple with the consequences of mass migration. Consequences that the career politicians running the country are entirely insulated from.
One Nation are determined to end mass migration.
There is only one party in Australia with credibility on this issue.
One Nation is proud of its comprehensive, detailed seven-page immigration policy, designed to fix the daily challenges facing everyday Australians.
While critics, particularly from the Uniparty, dismiss our policy, we recognise that their opposition is either politically motivated or stems from an ignorance of the facts.
And let’s be clear, backpacker, PALM and tourism numbers will remain unchanged under our policy.
Backed by Treasury’s FIONA model, it shows that while prime working age migrants (aged 25 to 35) yield a positive lifetime contribution of $198,000 per person, family reunions, older migrants and non-working arrivals create a net financial COST of $126,000 per person to taxpayers. Our policy seeks to increase young, skilled workers in critical areas like construction, nursing and aged care, while screening out non-producers to maximise overall economic value.
Our policy almost mirrors Canada’s successful approach, where recent immigration slowdowns have already eased rental pressures and supported workers. Australia currently has 690,000 unemployed and 1 million underemployed citizens who deserve to be prioritised and trained first.
One Nation will always put Australians first!
Transcript
Liberal Senator Hume described One Nation’s immigration policy as ‘a headline number and a few slogans’. I have the policy here. It’s seven pages of details and facts. It took months of research to source the numbers and formulate the measures, which are comprehensive, detailed, consistent and will fix so many of the problems Australia is facing in housing, household wealth, service delivery, social cohesion and the current per capita recession in which Australians are suffering. It’s clear that people criticising the policy have never read it or are lying out of political self-interest. For clarity, there’s no change in backpackers, no change in PALM workers, no change in tourism numbers. All three can increase if the market can sustain more. Labor Minister Watt made this criticism: ‘One Nation policy will destroy the economy and drive the economy into recession.’ The minister is not alone in this deceit. Some Liberal-aligned business leaders and Labor-aligned media have repeated this unfounded fabrication, contrary to the facts.
The Treasury’s Fiscal Impact of New Australians model, FIONA, looks at the lifetime contribution of a new immigrant—the cost and the benefit. A young migrant in the sweet spot of 25 to 35 years of age—someone who assimilates, works his or her whole life and stays out of trouble—will add $198,000 to the economy in their lifetime, increasing GDP and wealth for all, which is why we are not reducing that cohort; we are increasing it. This is our immigration target demographic.
FIONA shows each person arriving under the family program, though, costs the Australian economy $126,000 across their lifetime. FIONA shows a migrant arriving after the age of 50 will never pay back the taxpayers either. In addition, their lifetime value is negative. The current mix of this government’s new arrivals is heavily weighted towards older migrants, family reunions and nonworkers, and there are hundreds of thousands of fake students working in the gig economy, cheating on their tax and sending home as much money as possible. Children of new arrivals or family reunions have a huge lifetime economic cost. The younger the child, the more likely it is that they will have a negative lifetime economic impact. This is why FIONA only puts the average lifetime contribution of all migrants that this government is letting in at $41,000. The more committed, young, educated or skilled workers we let in, the more nonproducers we can screen out. It only takes 20 per cent of all arrivals to be our target young demographic for the total value of arrivals to hit the $41,000 figure. So what do other arrivals contribute? They don’t. They add costs to Australians. Do the maths.
Prime Minister Carney grew Canada’s economy with the same approach One Nation is proposing. He grew it. Canada’s largest banks report that Canadian immigration cuts were easing rental pressures and supporting employment. In Canadian provinces where the immigration cuts were most significant, rents are falling fastest. The banks concluded the immigration slowdown has been great news for Canada’s battlers.
Speaking last night on—of course—the ABC, George Megalogenis said our cut would cause the worst depression since the 1890s. Talk about seeing what you want to see! What utter nonsense—a lie. The data I have just presented shows the reverse will be true. Canada proved the reverse will be true.
As for a supposed labour shortage, One Nation is not changing backpacker numbers. We’re offering skilled visas to genuinely skilled workers in areas we need them, including construction; the care economy, such as nursing and aged care; and rural industry. Let’s be clear; only one per cent of skilled arrivals last year under this government were construction workers, half a per cent were aged-care workers and one per cent were nurses. Our numbers leave plenty of room for more skilled and educated workers where we need them.
Our policy looks after those who are already here. Right now, there are 690,000 Australians out of work—690,000. There are another 1.65 million Australians looking for extra work. Business lobbies should start there—with Australians who want a job. It’s industry’s fault that workforce planning was sacrificed on the altar of high profits and lazy management. The workers are here in Australia. It’s time for industry to get back in the business of training the new generation of apprentices and staff, instead of lazily importing them.
Under One Nation, the cheap-labour gravy train will be over, and Australians can begin to restore Australian productivity and living standards. Together we Australians can restore Australia.
The Albanese government’s reckless May budget is an anchor on our economy, overtaxing productive Australians to fund a woke, bloated public sector and wasteful infrastructure like Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop.
Slapping new taxes on small scale investors, such as Crypto, punishing business owners and fuelling inflation through overspending is stifling wealth creation, driving record small business bankruptcies and pricing young Australians out of the housing market.
To fix this mess, One Nation will rebuild Australia’s real productivity through a clear, common-sense model:
➤ Invest $30 billion annually, backed heavily by eager private finance, into cheap, reliable Australian energy, high-speed regional rail, roads, ports, and fuel security.
➤ Slash petty red tape alongside UN-driven green and blue tape to restore the freedom to take risks and keep what you earn.
➤ Respect private enterprise to generate real, non-taxpayer-funded jobs, while expanding funding to the ACCC and the Administrative Review Tribunal to protect worker rights and maintain fair competition.
One Nation will build real wealth and opportunity for every business and worker across Australia.
Polls confirm what we already know: working Australians trust One Nation to deliver.
Transcript
Taxation is an anchor on productivity growth, reducing wealth creation for all Australians. The Treasurer has produced a budget that overtaxes and undersupports productivity. The social alliance—the Labor Party, the Greens and teals—have never seen a dollar they don’t think belongs to the government to finance their woke UN social agenda. The Treasurer learnt, from the weight of public opinion, that his new capital gains tax threatened future productivity within the business sector and the investment market. He fails to understand that when you take too much of people’s wealth, they stop creating new wealth.
One example is young people using small-dollar investments in things like crypto to grow their home deposit faster and get into the housing market before they get too old to pay off a 30-year loan, which is what most young people said they intend to do with their capital gains. Because of these new taxes, young people will purchase fewer homes. It’s one example of stifling economic growth in favour of short-term tax grabs.
The government has disincentivised productive risk-takers: investors. Business owners are punished, and overtaxed workers are conditioned to blame their employers for economic hardship. This sets workers against workers—more division from a divisive government. Instead, the true culprit is government’s acute failure to contain inflation and tighten its own belt. In fact, the Treasurer is still spending money he doesn’t have on things this country does not need, such as $3.8 billion for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop—billions that, like the billions before, will disappear into the pockets of organised crime and eventually produce a railway from nowhere to nowhere that nobody wants, and, according to Victoria’s Parliamentary Budget Office, will cost over $200 billion. That cost is in addition to the fraud and corruption in Big Build projects. The Commonwealth government is just getting started shovelling money into the Allan government’s black hole.
Meanwhile, businesses are collapsing at record rates, and small business bankruptcies are at record levels. The public sector is bloating; two thirds of full-time equivalent jobs that the Albanese government conjured since 2022 are taxpayer funded through some arm of government, notably the NDIS. For years I’ve said that for every job created in solar and wind—so-called renewables—two jobs are lost in the productive economy. Data now verifies this. That’s not sustainable. No wonder the government refused to support my motion to implement indexation of tax brackets to stop bracket creep. This government needs higher taxes to pay for this level of public service growth. Private enterprise can no longer provide the jobs needed to grow the economy and create new wealth for our huge number of new arrivals.
At some point, this Ponzi scheme will come crashing down and a One Nation government will have to clean up the mess. This is how we’ll do it. Real productivity comes from cheap, reliable, Australian sourced energy. It’s good roads connecting regions with cities. It’s high-speed rail lines and Australian controlled ports. It’s fuel refineries guaranteeing supply when the world is in crisis. It’s a competitive construction industry. It’s cutting petty, unnecessary red tape, and green and blue tape from the UN and foreign agencies. It’s high-speed, reliable internet everywhere, including along highways and in regional areas. It’s the freedom to take risks and earn a reward. It’s a reliable nation of stable economic rules to encourage investment. This will be life under a One Nation government; real, breadwinner jobs and the freedom to keep more of your own money to enjoy life.
Our policies detail how One Nation will invest $30 billion a year in Australia’s infrastructure to drive productivity and increase wealth for everyday Australians without having to work harder. Everyday Australians are working hard enough. Polls show One Nation is the most popular party amongst working Australians. We will fulfil your faith in us. A lot of this infrastructure is private finance, not taxpayers. In working with companies promoting new infrastructure projects, I’m amazed to see how much finance is available for these projects. Merchant banks and investors are jack of so-called solar and wind renewables. They want bricks and mortar investments again. We’ll give it to them.
One Nation knows private sector productivity requires placing trust and respect in businesses, freeing them of unnecessary cost burdens to hire staff, reward the hardest workers and voluntarily pay above the minimum wage. To ensure this does not turn into a corporate free-for-all, we have a system of industrial relations tribunals and competition protections. Our policy is to grow the economy, to create wealth and opportunity for all—businesses and workers. This is why our policy is to expand funding for the ACCC and the Administrative Review Tribunal, to protect workers rights. Polls show, as I said, One Nation is the most popular party among working Australians. We will fulfil your faith in us.
A 2011 legislative drafting mistake caused ASIC to apply indexation incorrectly, leading to inaccurate review and late fee charges.
The Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025 seeks retrospective authorisation, deeming previously collected, incorrect fees legally valid after the fact.
Small businesses and employers end up paying the price for a government mistake.
I feel very uneasy about that and dislike retrospective legislation unless it is truly necessary. We do not support this bill.
Small businesses shouldn’t be penalised for government administrative errors, especially during tough economic times.
Transcript
ASIC collects fees from users registering their business entities, such as companies, as part of its regulatory activities. The review fees act provides ASIC with the power to collect fees in relation to review dates for certain entities. Typically, an annual fee falls due on an entity’s anniversary of registration on ASIC’s register. The review fees regulations prescribe the review fees. Regulation 4 sets out how the fees are applied and calculated, including an indexation mechanism, and schedule 1 sets out dollar amounts that apply to particular entities and circumstances. ASIC identified a technical error during a routine review of its regulations—so full credit to ASIC—which affects how indexation was applied to certain fees.
The affected fees are late fees, tenure upfront fees and special purpose company review fees collected under the review fees regulations. The 2011 amending regulations made amendments to the review fees regulations to increase the base rate for certain review fees and continue the annual indexation of those fees using the increased base rate. In addition, these amendments reinserted the same base fee for some review fees, and other review fees were not amended. The indexation provisions applied for all review fees, which did not reflect the intended policy outcome at the time—poor drafting of legislation—nor does it reflect the intent now. As a result, ASIC applied an indexation methodology which resulted in incorrect amounts of certain review fees being charged.
These amendments validate review fees ASIC has already collected and deem the amount of the review fee to be a certain amount. This ensures any review fees charged from 1 July 2011 are valid and that ASIC was authorised to collect the review fees—authorised retrospectively. I feel very uneasy about that and dislike retrospective legislation unless it is truly necessary. This bill, the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025, is trying to validate a government drafting blunder to make taxpayers liable, even when the government is at fault.
We would not support the payment of late fees as a punitive measure during difficult economic times when the original source of authority is faulty. I think of the small businesses that are impacted. I think of the government agencies that extort fees from many small businesses and other employers. My current view is that we should not support this bill.
During this estimates session with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), I asked questions regarding the scale of visa appeals they are reviewing – and it’s worse than expected.
Migration cases now make up 56% of the entire tribunal workload, with student visas alone accounting for 35%. The backlog is astonishing.
77,938 migration cases, 52,452 student visa cases, and 130,983 cases overall waiting for hearing. Protection visas add another 37,830, and even NDIS reviews are climbing.
The tribunal admitted its receiving around 90,000 applications a year, but is only funded to finalise 60,000, meaning the backlog grows by 30,000 every year.
When asked when this backlog is expected to be cleared, the answer was blunt and honest. On present numbers, they have no reasonable expectation.
The tribunal is drowning. A system meant for genuine review is being overloaded, under-funded and pushed beyond capacity, while taxpayers foot the bill for backlog that grows every single day.
Much of the fault lies with Australian universities, who aggressively market their degrees by promising students a fast track to permanent residency. This is often done through third-party brokers employed by the universities.
How long will the Government let the Tribunal drown before doing its job and and fixing this mess?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I may have heard, on the tail end of what Senator Cash was saying, you going through some categories, so, if I do, forgive me for repeating them. Which is the largest category of applications for review currently before the tribunal? I think you said it’s student visas.
Mr Hawkins: Yes. It’s in the migration case load. I hope you’re going to be wearing a maroon tie tomorrow!
Senator ROBERTS: State of Origin.
Senator CASH: I’ll even agree with that, as a Western Australian!
Senator ROBERTS: I’m supporting coal today!
Mr Hawkins: The highest case load is migration and the student visas within that.
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the proportion of migration and then the proportion of that that’s students?
Mr Hawkins: If I can say, migration is 56 per cent of our total case load. Within that, students represent 35 per cent of our total case load.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of these applications are waiting for hearing?
Mr Hawkins: Waiting for hearing, which is cases on hand—in migration we have 77,938 on hand. We have 52,452 student visas on hand. Across the total tribunal we have 130,983.
Senator ROBERTS: Wow. No wonder you’re ‘aware’. What are the other major categories for review before the tribunal?
Mr Hawkins: Our biggest case loads are working, skilled and investment visas. We have 13,983 on hand. For protection, we have 37,830, which is 29 per cent of our on-hand case load. For NDIS we have 7,136, which represents five per cent of our case load.
Senator ROBERTS: Although that’s only five per cent, I heard you say that you’re worried about that because of the potential for growth.
Mr Hawkins: Only from the sense of the media talk of what reforms are going to happen. As there’s nothing legislated, I can’t comment any further. As I said to Senator Cash, I’m alert but not alarmed.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I get, on notice, a breakdown of all the categories and their numbers?
Mr Hawkins: Of each list that we have?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Hawkins: I can do that for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You’ve given me the total. This question could be difficult: When do you envisage this backlog will be reduced to an acceptable managed workload? What is a well-managed workload?
Mr Hawkins: I guess a manageable case load is what we are funded to achieve. If it’s 100 per cent case load that we want to achieve, we need to have 100 per cent funding. As I explained to Senator Cash before, an issue we have with our funding is that we do actually have a cap in it, which is based on our ability to accommodate members to be able to do that work. At the moment our cap is 345 FTE of members, which is equivalent to about 60,000 finalisations, but we’re receiving about 90,000.
Senator ROBERTS: There are 90,000 coming in, so you’re going backwards 30,000.
Senator CASH: Every year?
Mr Hawkins: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the reason for that?
Mr Hawkins: Because we have a cap on our ability to accommodate members at the moment. As I also explained to Senator Cash, some of the initiatives that the Senate has been able to give us, such as being able to do student visas as a decision on the paper, will give us some flexibility as to how we accommodate our members. We might be able to have a number of members being able to do those types of cases from home because there’s no hearing involved. We have an initiative that every member in the tribunal will do 10 per cent of their case load as a student visa. So we’re trying to make inroads in that way as well.
Senator ROBERTS: When do you expect the backlog to be cleared?
Mr Hawkins: On present numbers, I don’t. I cannot have a reasonable expectation.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, any comments to add?
Senator Green: Is there a question, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The tribunal are saying that they’ve got a workload that is increasing, not decreasing.
Senator Green: I think, as Mr Hawkins alluded to in the comments he made, probably before you entered the room—apologies, Senator Roberts—it’s a demand driven funding model. We’re currently considering applications for additional members because we do acknowledge that more members definitely are required. Applications have been received for additional deputy president and senior member recruitment rounds, and the department can take you through the process for those rounds. As Mr Hawkins has alluded to, the Senate has also made some changes to the way that student visas are being considered so they can be considered on the papers, and there are regulations that are imminent to allow that to happen.
Senator ROBERTS: How many members of the tribunal are there?
Mr Hawkins: We will have 423 members as at 1 July, representing 347.5 FTE.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ll be able to tell us more at supplementary estimates in November?
Mr Hawkins: I certainly will.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s early days. Is there any way of getting a handle on the cost of each review to the taxpayer?
Mr Hawkins: It’s a very complex formula because every matter is different. For example, a social security matter might take a day; a complex tax matter could take two weeks. So it’s very difficult to determine a cost per decision. We could calculate it on an average basis across each decision, and I could share with you a unit cost which shows that this tribunal today is more efficient than it’s ever been.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you do that, please?
Mr Hawkins: Let me just find the appropriate note. This is allowing for CPI adjustment and a weighted cost per unit. In 2025-26, year to date, our unit cost is $2,250.88.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s for a hearing?
Mr Hawkins: Yes. To give you an indication, in 2020-21 it was $3,053, and in 2015-16 it was $2,769.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s coming down?
Mr Hawkins: Yes. Where we have to be most efficient is, again, in that funding model, because we are receiving 91,000 applications a year, but we can’t just do the 60,000 that we’re funded for. At the front end we still have to deal with the 90,000 in some way. There are case management events that take place. There’s outreach with those 90,000 cases. Also, it’s very difficult to calculate unit costs because unit costs might be based on a finalisation, but in fact we’re touching matters, all matters, that come in our front door. Of those 130,000 matters that I mentioned before, there are touchpoints all through that process that we can’t account for until it’s a finalisation, so it’s a very complex calculation.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I won’t ask the tribunal for an opinion but I’ll ask you: is there any work on alternative systems and processes? I’m not suggesting we should do that, but it sounds pretty overwhelming.
Senator Green: I think we’ve taken you through some of the steps that we’re implementing to assist the tribunal with its work. Obviously, merits review is a really important part of responsible and accountable government. Applications that are made, as you know, are made when an applicant disagrees with a reviewable decision; for example, when the government denies someone a visa—or a student visa, in this example. We’re looking at all of the different ways that we can reduce the workload but also provide the tribunal with the resources that they need to be able to make these decisions.
Mr Hawkins: You yourself, Senator, have been facilitating that through the Senate with the reforms that you’ve given us; for example, the decision on the papers. I mentioned before that the parliament has given the president powers to authorise registrars to handle matters more expeditiously. I think Senator Cash before was alluding to what more we can ask for, and perhaps there is space in the decision on the papers area for us to consider into the future, but at the moment we’re going to master the powers that we have.
Senator ROBERTS: So we should know more by the November supplementary estimates. Is this process of using the Administrative Review Tribunal for appeals being exploited by those wishing to stay in Australia who have no right to be here?
Mr Hawkins: That’s not a matter for me to answer.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister?
Senator Green: There are a range of cases and reasons why people make applications. I’ll take that as a comment from you, Senator, rather than a question to me.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/fsKo15CQN9w/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-06 16:28:222026-08-06 16:28:26Australia’s Visa System is Snapping Under the Weight
Labor’s record spending and trillion-dollar debt are smashing living standards — driving inflation, hiking interest rates and leaving Australians worse off.
Families are going backwards while Labor taxes harder and spends faster.
One Nation will shrink government, drive down inflation and put more money back in Aussie pockets.
Transcript
Today, Treasurer Chalmers has taken to social media to claim credit for the 2.6 per cent increase in annual GDP, calling the rise the strongest growth in the Australian economy for three years. Has the Treasurer forgotten he’s been in office for almost four years—meaning the Treasurer took over the economy and made it worse!
Putting that aside, how did the Treasurer create this increase? To haul GDP out of negative territory, the Treasurer has spent like a drunken sailor. Almost all of the increase in employment and economic activity in the last year has come from increased government spending, which has to be paid for with? Higher taxes. In effect, the Treasurer has taxed everyday Australians more, and then spent their money faster than the taxpayers would have. As a result, the money supply has expanded 11 per cent in the last year, and our national debt has now passed $1 trillion.
A funny thing about spending other people’s money: it eventually runs out. Already, the government is looking for ways to raise taxes. Capital gains tax increases and increased taxes on superannuation are on the agenda. Even worse, the government is selling off the silverware. The sale of Defence Force property has already been announced—$3.5 billion in extra cash. What was once a strategic asset, which didn’t add to the money supply, will be cash in the bank for the Treasurer to spend—more solar and wind subsidies; more money to the Taliban. Already this government has given the Taliban $320 million.
Selling off the silverware to keep the GDP out of recession leads straight to even higher inflation than we have now. To counter this inflation, already the Reserve Bank has been forced to increase interest rates. The result will be a loss of spending power for everyday Australians, who will have to spend more of their income on their mortgage or rent. Government spending is approaching 28 per cent of our GDP and is heading to over 30 per cent, which offsets the reductions in private sector spending that have resulted from overregulation and a lack of confidence in this Labor government. In the short term, this approach makes the data look better. In the medium term, inflation spikes, and wage growth goes negative, as it has been for much of the Treasurer’s term. If everyday Australians feel like they’re going backwards and working harder, it’s because they are going backwards—especially if they’re paying off a home or renting. One Nation will solve this vicious cycle of economic decline with our policy to shrink the government to fit the Constitution and to fit our means. One Nation took a policy to the last election to reduce the size of government by $90 billion in our first term. That number, from what we can see from Labor, is now looking much, much bigger than we can save. Our policy will reverse Labor’s deficits, stop Labor’s inflation, cancel Labor’s interest rate rises and leave more money in the pockets of everyday Australians.
