Black market tobacco and vaping in Australia is a real problem. I raised concerns that, while seizures have increased by 38%, there’s no clear data showing whether that’s actually making a dent in the total illicit market.
Even the department couldn’t tell me how much illegal tobacco is getting through compared to what’s being stopped. They admitted that assessment is still pending in a report from the Illicit Tobacco and E‑cigarette Commissioner.
I asked for clarity on illegal vape consumption, noting that import figures alone don’t tell the story, especially when some products are being made domestically. Again, the answer was that they don’t know how many illegal vapes are actually being used across the country, only how many have been intercepted at the border.
I raised serious concerns about the criminal activity tied to this black market — violence, intimidation and organised crime. Yet no-one present could provide figures on how many violent incidents are linked to illegal tobacco and vaping. I was told that that information sits with law enforcement agencies, not the commissioner.
On the financial side, I asked how much revenue Australians are losing due to illegal tobacco. While officials highlighted that billions in evasion have been prevented through seizures, they still couldn’t provide a clear figure for total revenue lost. I pointed out that estimates suggest the cost could be as high as $8–9 billion annually, which underscores just how massive this black market has become.
What we’re dealing with here is a large, organised criminal enterprise, often driven from overseas, and that we need proper data on the size of the market and the broader social costs. Without that, we’re flying blind.
Finally, I asked Minister Watt directly on whether its excessively high tobacco taxes are driving ordinary Australians into the illegal market by making legal products unaffordable.
True to form, Minister Watt flatly rejected that connection, yet offered no evidence to support that position. I pointed out to him that this approach risks empowering organised crime while reducing government revenue, placing greater burdens on taxpayers.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reynolds, a constituent says: ‘If the seizures have increased by 38 per cent, what has been the proportion of the total growth in the illicit tobacco market? Has it grown by more than 38 per cent? How do we know that?’ Compliments to you for the seizure, but how do we know if that has had a big impact?
Mr Reynolds: It’s a reasonable assessment that there has been an increase in the amount of illicit tobacco coming into the country. But I’m not in a position to tell you what the delta is. The amount that we get on the border to the amount that is coming into the country is not a figure that I have for you.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t have it?
Mr Reynolds: What I’d offer is this: the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner is working through an assessment of what that delta is, and that will be provided in a report to the government.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, when do we expect that report?
Ms Foster: The commissioner gave evidence earlier that she was just finalising the report at that moment.
Senator ROBERTS: So we should see that soon? Will that report contain an assessment or an estimate of the total illicit tobacco market size?
Ms Shuhyta: It will.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s good. How many illegal vapes were consumed in Australia in the last 12 months? I say ‘consumed’ because I understand some are being made here. Importation figures are less relevant than they are for tobacco; is that correct?
Mr Reynolds: I can tell you we allowed 1.2 million legal vapes into Australia and we intercepted six million illegal vapes on the border coming into the country. But I’m not in a position to tell you how many illegal vapes were consumed in Australia during the financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many acts of violence were committed in Australia that were directly related to illegal tobacco and vapes? I’m talking about murders, fire bombings, assaults and similar acts or threats of violence. We know from tobacconists that they’ve been threatened. Some have been shut down.
Mr Reynolds: I think that’s really a question for, potentially, the Australian Federal Police—or the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission may have an answer to that question for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there someone from the AFP who could answer that—or perhaps the commissioner could.
Ms Foster: The AFP is appearing later this evening.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the commissioner have any idea of that? You’re in charge of coordinating stopping this.
Ms Shuhyta: I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to get them on notice?
Ms Shuhyta: I will do my best to work with law enforcement.
Ms Foster: I think the question is best directed to the law enforcement agencies rather than the ITEC commissioner. They will be here later.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t the ITEC commissioner overseeing and coordinating everything?
Ms Foster: She’s coordinating the response, but, where there is a specific function like law enforcement, those questions are best directed to the specific agency.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, how much government revenue has illegal tobacco taken out of the budget?
Mr Reynolds: I don’t have that figure. That may be an inclusion in the ITEC commissioner’s report to the government. What I can tell you is that we have prevented $4.4 billion worth of evasion by intercepting 2.5 billion cigarettes and over 400 tonnes of loose tobacco on the border.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. Those figures and the number of cigarette sticks you’ve intercepted are pretty impressive, but my understanding is that the government has lost about $8 billion or $9 billion a year on excise due to illegal tobacco coming into the country. We need to understand the size of the overall market, because it’s huge. We also have to understand the costs of the crimes being committed. We’ve got criminal gangs working from overseas, as I’m sure you’re aware, who are taking over tobacco trade in this country.
Mr Reynolds: Indeed. The ITEC commissioner has already given evidence that that report will be provided to government; that’s yet to be forthcoming.
Senator ROBERTS: I must compliment you on your evidence; you’re very direct, which is good. Minister, do you consider the government’s very high tobacco duty is the reason otherwise law-abiding citizens are prepared to buy illegal tobacco for generally a third of the legal price?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Any reasons?
Senator Watt: There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that argument.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re joking?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is this office designed to make it look like you’re doing something to solve a problem your greedy tax grab created—and your predecessor’s?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: No data, just meetings—empowering organised crime, decreasing revenue that taxpayers have to make up, and you just say ‘no’.
Senator Watt: You asked me a question, and I said ‘no’.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you: are you ignoring the data to just put in meetings, empowering organised crime and decreasing the revenue to the government?
The UN’s dire financial situation could save Australia a fortune.
The United Nations is in a state of ‘imminent financial collapse’.
Apparently.
Their decline is moving at a glacial pace. Nations are drip-feeding them cash while the UN negotiates for structural change to how they handle money. Essentially, they want to keep more of it. No thanks.
Since its establishment in 1945, justified with a view to ‘maintain international peace, security, and develop friendly relations among states’, I believe the project has become an expensive failure that inflicts genuine harm on the world.
Far from solving the endemic social and economic problems besieging third-world nations, the presence of the UN – and its credit card – has turned misery and corruption into a sustainable industry further weaponised in the hands of powerful nations that govern themselves in contradiction to everything the UN claims to stand for.
Besides, if the goal is to gather all the nations together to ‘talk about things’ in a neutral space – they can hold a conference, like everyone else.
This is the modern world. We no longer require an Earth-sized bureaucracy to babysit dialogue.
Why is the UN in trouble?
The UN’s recent claims of economic strife come as a direct result of America protesting against its aggressive anti-capitalist, anti-democratic goals and dubious projects. In response, the US has withheld funds and exited key UN bodies.
President Donald Trump successfully sold the point to the American people that they should not pay for the comfort of those seeking the demise of the US hegemony.
That said, much like the fabricated Climate Crisis, the deadline for this UN economic disaster is poorly defined and frequently used as a donation rallying call.
Which is a shame, because the UN can’t collapse fast enough.
We may never be able to convince the ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ Coalition to pull out of the Paris Agreement or unsubscribe from the overreach of the World Health Organisation. If it were to fall apart on its own, the work would be done for us. Freedom is freedom, and we’re not about to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Still, there does seem to be some truth to the UN’s economic strife.
Everywhere you go, the global bureaucracy is shaking its charity tin next to politicians’ ears.
Unfortunately, an emotionally and morally weak Labor Party – along with a skittish Opposition – govern Australia. They are likely to reach into the pockets of Australian taxpayers to save this ideological failure that somehow dragged itself into our century.
To be clear: Australia must not save the UN.
Let it die. Let it rot.
Allow global politics to heal.
Is the UN really going bust?
Back in October of 2025, Secretary-General António Guterres penned letters to member states complaining about ‘the worst cash crisis in nearly a decade’. A month later, just over 70% of nations had coughed up their dues. The United States, which is unfairly carrying the burden of cost, owes something along the lines of $4 billion. President Donald Trump has little interest in giving them another cent. In response to the collapse of finances, the UN has threatened to shut down their headquarters in New York. Given New York is under communist occupation, it’s unlikely to bother anyone of significance.
Unfortunately, the UN still enjoys five-star travel, first-class flights, buildings occupying the most expensive real estate in European cities, and armies of bureaucrats that would make Stalin weep with envy.
This monstrosity is a long way from ‘tightening its belt’ and even further from dying.
It is sending out desperate cries for help to keep the status quo rather than presenting its financers – us – with a slimmed-down program of essential services. At no point has it tried to show us where genuine benefit can be found or assessed itself for situations where it poured a fortune of money into a situation only to make it worse. Despot nations don’t stop their genocides because the UN frowns in their direction. Indeed, we have seen crimes against humanity rewarded with some of the highest positions of power.
Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, told Fox News Digital, ‘The UN elected Beijing’s and Tehran’s loyal agents as “human rights experts” – without a ballot, without shame. These regimes persecute minorities, jail anyone who speaks freely, and rule through fear and censorship. The committee that once drafted the UN’s anti-racism convention has now been captured by those who embody racism, repression, and the silencing of truth. It’s an inversion of human rights – and a stain on the United Nations itself.’
And more to the point, the UN does not believe it did anything wrong. This isn’t even its first moral catastrophe.
Do we need the UN?
If we are going to be completely honest, Australia and all of its Western allies would be significantly better off if the UN were to collapse completely.
Economically, socially, democratically, regionally, militarily – we stand to benefit.
Not only is the UN an expense, it has allowed third-world, communist, and despotic states to band together under the protection of a few like-minded states to wield very real global power they never would have achieved on their own.
Why does Hamas have influence on the streets of Sydney? It is absurd. And yet the thread of causality can be followed straight to the UN’s mass migration demand that forced nations like Australia to open its borders to individuals whose views and loyalty remain seated in foreign regimes that, in their free time, chant ‘death to the West’. And we can’t send them back, even if they swear allegiance to international terror groups or threaten to behead Australians in broad daylight. Far from repenting and offering to help Australia regain control of its national security, the UN actively restricts and obstructs our democratic efforts to protect innocent Australians. This is not okay.
UN rulings, policies, and programs have directly disadvantaged Australia, and we have no ability to stop them.
And contrary to what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in his recent pitch to place Australia on the UN Security Council, Australia has never had less influence as a middle power.
The organisation designed to hold world peace by stopping the influence of socialists, communists, fascists, and criminals has become a proxy for their goals.
China’s complex debt-trapping across the third-world, and other networks of influence, leave many of these nations voting as obedient blocs or the West’s most dangerous economic and cultural advisories. Meanwhile, members of other international alliances – Shanghai Cooperation Organisation etc – have already sworn to defy UN rulings. As some of their members hold veto power at the UN, these orbiting structures that circle the UN override its decisions without anyone noticing.
For example, if a nation decides slavery or child marriage is acceptable in defiance of the UN, the veto nation prevents the UN from acting against it. In return, that nation – almost always despotic – promises the votes and support of nations in other alliances. It’s like a disease holding the world’s tyrannies together that no one wants to talk about because they’re frightened Western power will evaporate if the curtain is pulled away.
Donald Trump has effectively asked why the West pays roughly 80% of the UN’s operational costs for the privilege of losing its strategic grip?
Have human rights advanced as a result of the UN – or does the organisation stand around and watch the Caliphate of Islamic terror creeping through African nations where Christians are tortured and executed?
It is not controversial to say that human rights are declining.
Part of the problem is that the UN spend all their time ‘monitoring’ like they ‘monitored’ the Rwanda genocide. Like they would monitor an attack on Australia or Taiwan. Always monitoring. The UN presents themselves as powerless, passive observers after tugging on all the strings.
When the fluffy language of ‘peace, nature, and aid’ are stripped back to the cold mechanics of the UN, it becomes a despotic, wasteful, dangerous, and bloated machine housing our rivals who watch our collapse while drinking champagne we paid for.
Australia receives no benefit from its membership – only punishment.
And if it were to collapse, every Western ally would find their hold over world power significantly strengthened. Trade, culture, and the threads of the Enlightenment would once again form the spine of power. Influence would hold on its merits, not shadowy backroom handshakes.
As for the money… It is difficult to feel sorry for the UN.
It has not occurred to the UN that the member states it’s trying to fleece might have more money for their bureaucracy if the UN hadn’t forced first-world countries into trillions of dollars of ‘climate expenditure’ which has eaten away their treasuries.
You can have Net Zero or a gravy train. Not both. And the UN might end up being a casualty of its own greedy policies.
Indeed, Trump coyly shrugged, indicating he didn’t know the US had slipped behind on its payments … then questioned if other nations could solve the problem ‘very quickly’ via paying their share. It is the same lesson he dished out to Nato.
It was then that the US Secretary of State, Macro Rubio, cocked an eyebrow and asked, ‘What is the purpose of the UN?’ Bewildered journalists stared back dumbly.
‘The UN is supposed to be a place where you can peaceably resolve global conflict … right now you have [Iran] who unlawfully, criminally, and illegally taking possession of an international waterway.’
Looks like the US might want something tangible for the tens of billions they’ve poured into the UN over the years.
Donald Trump was far harsher a year or so ago when he spoke from their own podium:
‘Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should – too often – it is actually creating new problems for us to solve. The best example is the number one political issue of our time: the crisis of uncontrolled migration. It’s uncontrolled. Your countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders.’
And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.
The US has since withdrawn from 31 UN agencies to ‘end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities’.
Australian politicians are still begging at the door, trying to get in.
Something tells me Trump will watch the financial collapse of the UN with a smile and it may go down in history as one of his greatest victories over the undemocratic institutions that have manipulated, impoverished, and damaged Western nations.
They have created a class war between nations and a true global ‘democracy’ free to oppress without the safeguards of a constitution, bill of rights, or benevolent monarch. The UN is merely one of many national ‘collectives’ of negotiating blocs where individual leaders, who often came to power without real elections, shape the future of a world where no citizen has a say over the direction of global politics. In short, terrifying.
What does the UN cost the nations of the world?
Its core bureaucracy operates on a (slimmed down) budget of $3.5 billion while ‘everything with a UN tag on it across the world’ sits between $66-75 billion depending on the year. This is an estimate. The true cost is largely unknown.
Then there is the other question … what costs did the UN’s existence create to domestic budgets?
Those are costs so terrifying and vast, they have settled around Australia like a heavy sea fog clinging to the coast. Since 1950, AI estimates the UN has cost global budgets $150 trillion in UN-inspired projects or direct funds. How much of this money benefitted the taxpayers who had it taken from them? I would go so far as to say the UN is the chief culprit in Australia’s present state of economic anguish. It is certainly the reason our business landscape was torn apart during Covid hysteria and our rainforests are being blown up for wind turbines and solar panels.
Generations of Prime Ministers were either scammed, pressured, enticed, lured, or tricked into adopting UN policy goals that have thoroughly screwed Australia.
Worse? They’re not even sorry about it.
Too many of these political leaders continue to protect the UN as some international moral touchstone and would throw money at its collapsing infrastructure knowing full well that cash forms a slush fund for despots, dictators, and terrorists in the third-world.
As we speak, Western money – in the billions – is being poured into Islamic terror states or regions under occupation. Afghanistan, under control of the Taliban, not only receives humanitarian aid while it abuses women and girls with ever more disgusting policies, Azerbaijan invited a Taliban contingent to COP26, COP27, COP28, and COP29 to hunt around for hundreds of millions in ‘climate finance’. In Gaza, UN-branded aid workers were confirmed as either taking part or assisting in hostage-taking and terror activities while unknown amounts of aid either kept terrorists alive or helped furnish their armouries. Yemen, Syria, and Iran all have similar problems with 80-90% of aid hitting the bank accounts of terrorists.
These regimes are effectively farming their own people for poverty to cash in on Western aid. They have no incentive to fix their countries. Indeed, the UN actively encourages them to make the situation worse.
Politicians with an ideological commitment to multilateralism wrap the UN in virtue to protect a narrative of global governance that is just as fake and cynical as the climate apocalypse.
They will stand before voters and preach ‘world peace’ while money they donate from the Treasury lines some violent thug’s palace with gold and our own citizens sleep on the street.
Australian taxpayers subsidise foreign terrorists while hosting Royal Commissions into terrorist acts that are themselves prevented from reaching the truth by the UN ‘social cohesion’ guidelines that ensure people remain peaceful while they are picked off by ‘lone wolves’ with ‘no motive’. Many of these politicians expect to exit politics and personally benefit from the UN platter of job offers. Protecting the UN is in personal interest – a paddock where politicians graze for a few years to fatten their bank balances.
The hypocrisy of the UN goes on… At the height of the ‘climate panic’, reports released showed UN officials spending tens of millions flying around the world first class while staying in five-star hotels. Employees and bureaucrats were living the high life on money that was meant to be spent on ‘world peace’.
In 2017, it was even reported that World Health Organisation staff broke the rules with their combined travel costs exceeding some of their disease budgets. In another corner of the UN, one former head spent half a million on travel.
As always, the people most concerned about the ‘climate crisis’ are least concerned about their so-called ‘carbon footprint’. It’s no wonder no one says anything about the superyachts or private jets arriving for conferences. This behaviour has been normalised.
When the UN Secretary-General says, ‘We simply must find a lasting solution for recurring liquidity problems!’
My reply would be: ‘Shut it down – forever. Problem solved.’
How government greed turned citizens into criminals …
As a government, if you wish to stop a destructive public behaviour – you punish it. This can be through fines, incarceration, or economic coercion (taxes).
If you want to turn a public behaviour into a permanent cash-cow that props up the Budget – you tax it carefully.
Somehow, uniparty greed has found a way to implement a ‘worst of both worlds’ policy surrounding tobacco and nicotine products which has turned smoking into a criminal underworld gold mine.
Between 2010 and 2026, tobacco excise has increased in the order of 490% and returned half the revenue in real terms. People didn’t quit. If anything, there is evidence of Australia’s 30-year trend of decreasing smoking being reversed.
After reaching its lowest level with Millennials, smoking has become ‘cool’ again for Gen Z and Gen Alpha. Excessive taxation has destroyed all the good public health work done in this field.
Economically, this is not only a concern for the estimated $11 billion lost excise tax for tobacco.
It also involves the loss of general revenue associated with the full cost of tobacco which previously paid wages, kept stores open, and was re-invested in local communities.
Tens of billions is now being given to the black market where it funds violent crime. This tears apart Australian suburbs and has a follow-on health and economic impact that lowers the quality of life for everyone, not only those directly involved in illegal tobacco. Everything from personal safety to house prices are being affected.
Police have warned that this money, often funneled into crypto, has also been used to expand drug trafficking, firearms offences, worker exploitations, and property damage through activities such as coordinated firebombing.
Worse, if that is possible, the quality and safety of illegal tobacco and vapes is a matter of acute concern. Australians are now exposed to a considerably more dangerous product that was once strictly regulated for safety. And it’s dirt cheap. We are hearing reports of those who gave up smoking previously falling back into the habit because it’s only $10… As for kids, how likely is it that illegal traders are checking them for ID?
Every single feature of the system has been undermined.
It’s clear to me that public health, citizen choice, and the Treasury are in conflict.
And yet they should share the goal of a profitable, legal, regulated industry.
Our current incoherent approach to nicotine products is often referred to as ‘thoroughly broken’ by those trying to petition the government to act.
As Professor Ron Borland said, ‘We are worse off in every conceivable way.’
Tobacco isn’t quite Australia’s re-run of American Prohibition. However, it does share similarities. As with Prohibition, the first question we have to answer is: Should smoking tobacco (and other nicotine products) be legal?
Like alcohol, if the answer is ‘yes’, then any civil penalty or pseudo ban (vaping doctor certificates), should be discontinued.
The second question is: Do we consider smoking tobacco a health risk that costs the state money and which the state actively seeks to discontinue in the long-term?
If ‘yes’ – and this is what we were told for decades through school programs and public advertising campaigns – then the government cannot expect to use taxation on tobacco as a permanent feature in their Budget spreadsheet.
As Clive Bates said, ‘If you push it too hard – the taxes are too regressive, too brutal – then people will defect from the system and they will move to illicit trade and illicit suppliers will come in because there are enormous economic gains to be made.’
The Treasurer must have a replacement plan for tobacco revenue that does not entail continuously raising excise to the point criminals take over distribution.
Experts have suggested alternatives, such as using public information campaigns and alternate products, to wean society off tobacco long-term rather than smacking Australians with tax hikes on an addiction exasperated by economic stress.
To that point, there may never come a time when tobacco and nicotine products exit public use.
As with alcohol, they require a legally and economically stable environment that protects as many people as possible, dissuades new users, and yet does not create opportunities for crime. The most effective measure so far involved banning smoking from bars, clubs, restaurants, and residential balconies which turned it into a social inconvenience rather than a cost burden.
And here sits the heart of the problem.
Tobacco was a huge part of society until earlier suspicions of health risks were confirmed in the 1960s. Community anger and government complicity in a public health catastrophe created a lot of guilt and revenge.
Those days are almost gone. People who choose to smoke today do so knowing the risks and great lengths have been taken to contain those risks to the individual smoker. And so the conversation becomes one about public health costs similar to obesity. How is it fair, it’s said, that the public pay for the self-inflicted health problems of smokers? The numbers strongly suggest that this was never the case. Revenue on tobacco is widely held to cover the health bill. Until now.
The situation today reveals a growing smoking population with a more dangerous product and decreased revenue that doesn’t cover the cost of health, let alone the huge cost of policing the illicit trade. Economic arguments for the current excise level do not hold up to reality.
Scroll through the crime releases…
Permanent surveillance and enforcement on hundreds of tobacco shops. Thousands of online ad takedown orders. Monitoring nation-wide criminal distribution networks. Raiding shipping deliveries. Prosecuting and incarcerating those responsible. Storing and destroying the product. It’s an open-ended revenue drain. And then you have to include illegal vapes, of which the market is in the billions.
If you’re wondering how much policing this costs, the answer is, ‘we don’t know’. No full-cost figure is published. It’s estimated in the hundreds of millions just for policing itself at a state and federal level, while the government admits to investing approximately $350 million specifically for the ‘fight against illicit tobacco and vapes’.
Whatever the number is, it came out of your pocket.
The Australian Federal Police reported that 2.66 billion illegal cigarettes, 510 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco, and 7.5 million vapes have been seized since 2016. Operation PRINTWALL saw the Australian Border Force intercept 998.5 tonnes of tobacco.
Just this year 20 million illegal vapes worth $1 billion were seized by the Australian Border Force since 2024. The Therapeutic Goods Administration removed another 2.2 million valued at $110.5 million in the same period. They also reported a 300-fold increase in requests to remove online ads for illegal vaping products.
These are not victories so much as temperature readings offering a glimpse at a thriving market.
We must sit down and soberly confront the truth.
Government informs the public that tobacco costs the taxpayer money through the healthcare system, and yet it desperately wants Australians to keep buying tobacco and funding the Treasury. When vapes entered the market, and people began to organically switch products due to health, convenience, and cost – government all-but banned the product. A cynic may say this had little to do with health and a lot to do with an absence of lucrative excise tax. The Treasury saw tobacco revenue evaporating and instead of taking the public health victory – they panicked. This raises serious questions about the government’s motives and ability to solve the current problem.
Listening at length to experts in the industry, it seems clear that we require a carefully timed approach.
The legal market must be restored before law enforcement can come down on the black market.
To do this in the wrong order risks wasting money and encouraging citizens to protect a criminal underworld to facilitate their smoking habit. This would entrench the behaviour we’re trying to resolve. As one expert said, in some communities, illegal tobacco sellers have reached a ‘Robin Hood’ status actively supported by locals. A path back to legal markets must be seamless as it would in any competitive business environment.
The suggestions that I have heard from a variety of people from within the industry include:
Setting the tobacco excise at a level that keeps cigarettes competitive against black market alternatives.
Removing the ban on vapes and adding the same location restrictions as smoking.
Considering an excise on vapes to recoup some lost revenue.
Ensuring that the tobacco and vape products on offer include a wide variety to ensure maximum customer return from the black market to legal channel.
And then…
Severe and serious penalties for black market traders and the criminal gangs involved.
Mandatory sentencing to simplify the process of cleaning up crime.
Reporting channels to allow people to alert police to continued criminal activity.
And as I have said publicly in front of the Panel of Harm Reduction Experts at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the solution will not be simple.
The cost of living is very high and will naturally lead otherwise law-abiding citizens toward illicit markets – in general. They don’t want to break the law. Any solution must deal with lifestyle measures right across our economy.
People are suffering and nicotine products are part of their lives.
All measures must be enacted with a least-harm approach to Australians who were pushed toward the black market due to government-enforced economic pressures.
And we absolutely must support the legal businesses who wish to help rebuild the market – this will include protecting these shops and owners from crime gangs. For example, insurers say it has become almost impossible to find cover for tobacconists after arson attacks…
Once the legal and government approach is fixed – the criminal infrastructure will have to be dismantled – rapidly – or it will adopt a new product such as alcohol – which is experiencing an almost identical problem.
Make no mistake, excessive alcohol excise has already started to push people toward extremely dangerous black market product. This is even more concerning than illegal tobacco.
No one can solve a public health problem for a product owned and distributed by the criminal underworld.
What we are witnessing under this Labor government is nothing short of a deliberate assault on the Australian dream.
Labor is systematically killing off the traditional quarter-acre block and removing the option of home ownership from everyday Australians.
Labor want to make us all equal by making everyone poor, destroying the independence that owning a home provides, so that every citizen is forced to rely entirely on the state, or global corporations.
Labor’s “Help to Buy” and low-deposit schemes are complete traps and push up housing prices. These schemes don’t let young people get ahead. Instead, they limit how far they can get ahead. Under “Help to Buy,” you become a slave to the government in your own home.
If you renovate, the bureaucrats pocket a percentage of your equity — for doing absolutely nothing. You can’t refinance, you can’t use your equity to start a small business, and you can’t help your children buy their own home.
Unlike Labor, One Nation has a fully thought-out suite of policies to restore the Australian dream.
I thank Senator Bragg for introducing the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, which One Nation supports.
There’s an urgent need for this bill, which restores the Senate’s right to scrutinise regulations issued under a bill. In recent years, more and more provisions which would previously have been included in the bill—hard coded, if you like—are now provided for in regulations which are written by bureaucrats for the benefit of bureaucrats, ministers, donors and mates. These are regulations that, in many cases, are beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny. They avoid parliament. We are increasingly seeing not government but dictatorship—a collectivist agenda informed by communist ideology and deployed with complete contempt for the parliamentary process and the large majority of Australians who did not vote Labor or Greens.
The Liberal Party had form on this, yet Labor have normalised it. The Albanese Labor government is in the process of removing the option of homeownership from the reach of everyday Australians. Young people will simply not be able to own their own home or use that home in the way that most in this chamber have been able to. Let me explain.
One Nation opposed the Help to Buy scheme because the scheme ensures that people will, most likely, never fully own their own home—never. In the many, many years that this scheme makes you a slave to the government, in your own home, the government does nothing for you. For example, with any renovations you make, the government benefits from what you pay. Installing a new kitchen for $20,000 means you get only $12,000 in capital appreciation and the government pockets $8,000 in additional equity for doing nothing. If you spend $21,000, you’ll first need to get the government’s permission to modify your own home. You can’t use any equity you do accumulate to refinance and free money up for buying a business, for instance. That’s expressly forbidden. Say your children get into trouble or need a hand to buy their own home. You can’t help them. There is no part refinancing. You’re trapped. If you want to buy the government out, then you have to pay them back in five per cent lots.
Why? Well, the government knows prices appreciate. Taking a loan to pay all of the equity off in one go costs the government money. They miss out on the capital appreciation during the period you’re paying that loan off. Say you want to use your home as security for a personal loan: no. There are no secured loans against one’s own home. They’re expressly prohibited. That’s why we did not support the scheme. We are proud we didn’t support it, because it’s a trap. It’s not about letting our young get ahead; it’s about limiting the amount they can get ahead by. That’s what Labor is doing. As usual, communists make every person equal by making everyone poor. This scheme is a tax dressed up as a helping hand, a solution to the exemption of family homes from the capital gains tax. Nobody stands between this Labor government and the money they want to give away to other people in electoral bribes—sorry, ‘promises’.
One Nation opposes the Albanese government’s low-deposit homeownership scheme, which allows borrowers to get a home loan with a five per cent deposit—or, if they are single parents, two per cent. The government underwrites the mortgage so the bank does not wear the risk. You’ll notice a pattern here: this government is every bit as friendly with Australia’s rapacious banking sector as the Liberals were. Under the low-deposit scheme, the home can’t be valued at more than $1.5 million, and there’s no limit on the income of the applicant or the number of mortgages issued. Don’t you just love this scheme! It should be called the ‘making it easier for high-income earners to buy a house in urban Labor electorates’ scheme.
No wonder the government’s support in recent opinion polls is strongest amongst those earning more than $100,000. It’s the party of the workers no more. The party of the rich is a better description of Labor. No wonder the Liberals have lost market share. Labor is stealing their voters.
One Nation is now the party of the worker and the party of small-business owners who use their home as security to grow their business. Our opposition to the low-deposit scheme has been proven to be the right decision. House prices in capital cities went up by between eight per cent and 10 per cent in the year to January 2026, adding $100,000 to the average Sydney home price. That’s $100,000 more that people will have to borrow to get their home. Thanks, Labor!
The additional demand for homes from these schemes forced the price up and made affording the mortgage harder. A low deposit is no help if you can’t afford the repayments on 95 per cent or 98 per cent of a $1-million-plus mortgage. They’ve done this and destroyed hopes. The combined average price for a home in our capital cities is now $1.14 million.
One Nation policy is to allow first home owners to top up the first home owners’ grant with secured equity from the person’s own superannuation account. We will allow low-income earners to buy with a five per cent deposit against a government guarantee on the mortgage. Why won’t this force up home prices? It will be because of the thing the Albanese government refuses to do: stopping mass immigration.
A One Nation government will deport around 200,000 people who are here illegally and will have a moratorium on new arrivals for three years, creating negative immigration. As Australians engage with the housing scheme, they will find there will be a home available to purchase without the price of homes being pushed up. One Nation policies have been thought through. One policy complements another, and every Australian will benefit. Our policies come in suites—s-u-i-t-e-s—unlike this Labor government, which continues to throw money at problems it never solves because it never thinks things through. They want to look good, not do good. It’s shallow and hurting young people.
Yesterday, the Reserve Bank put up interest rates by 0.25 per cent, which would not have happened if government policies had not driven up house prices by eight to 10 per cent in the last year. Every mortgage holder in Australia is now facing higher repayments because of the Albanese government’s inability to manage government policy. Senator Bragg is right that this bill is necessary to provide scrutiny and to try and elevate the standard of government in this country.
Can I say to the Labor government: for the love of Australia, please, please stop trying to help. You’re making it worse, especially for young people. Let people get about their business, keep more of their own money and more easily pay for their homes themselves. Stop bringing in millions of new arrivals—millions of new arrivals—all of whom need a home in which to live. Stop forcing people out of their homes with the evil land tax, as Labor are doing in Victoria, so that your mates running union super funds can buy up the homes. Every new scheme makes things worse for young Australians. That’s why we don’t support your idiot ideas—your dishonest, ludicrous ideas. Where else should the accountability be forced on the government?
Foreign corporations used to pay 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor has cut that tax to 15 per cent. It’s been halved; you’ve looked after your corporate mates from overseas. Labor makes it easy for its mates, globalist foreign wealth funds, to rip more money out of Australia and to rip more money off Australians. You lower the tax, and the tax will come out of the people instead. Let’s be clear. This Labor government said to foreign corporate landlords like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State—with interlocking ownership, they are in reality BlackRock Inc. Labor said to BlackRock Inc., ‘We’ll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.’ Australians: forget the Australian dream of owning your own home.
Labor’s dream is that you live in a shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock Inc forever whilst those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. Labor has just cut it in half. That’s what ‘build to rent’ means. Whenever you hear ‘build to rent’ from Labor, remember renting forever to a foreign corporate landlord. They will build homes for sure, but Australians will never ever own them. It’s ‘build to rent’ forever. Part of the United Nations and World Economic Forum’s agenda is global control of people and wealth transfer from the people to global wealth funds like BlackRock Inc. This Labor government is helping that along by giving these foreign corporations a big tax cut to incentivise foreign corporations to buy Australian homes.
The bill did not reduce the tax for Australian owners; it brought foreign owners’ tax rate down to the same level as Australian investors. That’s the most telling part of all. This bill only changed the tax treatment of foreign predatory multinational corporations. Is Labor the party for Australia, or is it the party for foreign corporations? Build to rent answers that question. Clearly Labor is for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street—BlackRock Inc. That’s why Labor’s policies on mass immigration and housing are designed to destroy homeownership for all young families. Instead, One Nation is for Australians owning their own home. On all this, I told you so for years. I initiated the mass immigration and housing debates four to five years ago and have hammered both.
Only One Nation’s housing policy covers all aspects: supply, demand, construction cost and finance. I’m going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from Senator Bragg’s dissenting report on the build to rent bill. I hope you don’t mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what’s wrong with the Labor Party. The following passages are taken from the dissenting report following the committee inquiry into the Labor Party’s build-to-rent scheme: Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, ‘mum and dad’ investors, not institutions. That is appropriate. This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers.
Dr Murray— a witness in the inquiry— was critical of the Bill’s attempted perversion of our tax arrangements: ‘It’s not clear to me why local investors shouldn’t be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don’t see that there’s a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It’s not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement.’ That’s similar to One Nation’s housing policy. Here’s another quote from Senator Bragg: At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (‘ASFA’) suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation’s landlords, and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a ‘hobby activity’. Really? Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund? A hobby activity—come on! Senator Bragg continues: This is the view of a vested interest— that Labor is cuddling up to— Most Australians would not agree with this proposal. Another witness observed that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia, not from the usual suspects, the Liberal Party, but from the Labor Party, the former party of the workers, headed by Prime Minister Albanese.
A witness said: … pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition. What we’re seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice. There’s just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what’s coming … Hence the need for Senator Bragg’s bill. His dissenting report said: The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia’s housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership: ‘… with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose … All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes.’ Personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a safe and productive society, I say. Senator Bragg continues: Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre— Really? Fund managers? Foreigners? How very corporate of the Labor Party! Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market.
Dr Murray warned the committee: I find it interesting because we’ve already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What’s even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We’ve got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we’re now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they’re already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill. It seems Prime Minister Albanese is not only best friends with billionaires like Larry Fink from BlackRock and Bill Gates from ‘Vaccines R Us’ but also best mates with the Islamist Abu Dhabi regime. The dissenting report said: Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market. Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office (‘the GAO’), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing.
Prime Minister Albanese’s housing schemes will lead to foreclosures and misery. This is not an unintended outcome; it’s the point of it. Communists detest homeownership. It provides people with independence from the government, and that’s the opposite of the fundamental purpose of the Labor government, which is to make people reliant on the government. Senator Bragg continues: This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting.
There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly. While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australia is into it.
One Nation is dedicated to all Australians being able to own their own home and to use that home as they see fit. (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/RSXFntS1zoc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-28 08:58:022026-06-03 10:58:51The Death of the Quarter-Acre Block
No, Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper’.
We’ve heard it before. A cataclysmic policy or international agreement disguised as performative, symbolic, or ‘a piece of paper’.
Anthony Albanese used this underhanded trick during the Voice to Parliament when he claimed the Uluru Statement from the Heart was ‘on an A4 bit of paper – that’s it!’ as if the Prime Minister had somehow forgotten the legislative burden of a parallel race-based Parliament and its entourage of discriminatory instructions, untold billions of cost, and the destruction of ‘equal citizenship’ – forever. To call it ‘a bit of paper’ was a lie.
This point does not need to be laboured. State-based Treaties enacted in defiance of the referendum result have demonstrated the true civic and economic cost.
Which brings us to an even more egregious violation of the truth – this time from the Coalition’s leadership team of Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan.
On a special episode of Sky News Australia, Taylor was asked by a voter (Brett) why the Coalition doesn’t get out of the Paris Agreement if they are serious about ending the Net Zero agenda.
‘We will get rid of Net Zero – we are not proposing to get out of the Paris Agreement because, frankly, it’s not going to change anything we do.’
When One Nation National Executive Director Lee Hanson asked Nationals Leader Matt Canavan to ‘please explain’, he said:
‘Net Zero is not in the Paris Agreement at all. We signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Net Zero didn’t come along until years later … it’s just a piece of paper.’
Significantly worse, when pressed again by Andrew Bolt, Canavan added:
‘We don’t have time for side quests … we don’t have time for symbolic gestures … keep in mind, it’s very important to make the point that Net Zero is not enshrined in the Paris Agreement.’
Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…
There are slight variations in wording, so let us look at the definition of ‘Net Zero’ as laid out in the IPCC glossary:
Unless Taylor and Canavan wish to challenge the IPCC and our international partners on the definition of Net Zero, let us put to rest the misleading idea that it does not appear in the Paris Agreement.
It does.
According to Onassis, Farhana Yamin is credited with ‘getting the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 into the 2015 Paris Agreement’ and was a key IPCC architect. She later joined Extinction Rebellion. Even Wikipedia says, ‘Net Zero was basic to the goals of the Paris Agreement’ with the IPCC’s follow-up to Paris, the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5*C, popularising Net Zero as a short-hand for the phrase already used in the original document.
This is not in dispute by anyone except, perhaps, the Coalition, who are afraid that admitting the Paris Agreement’s role in tying Australia to Net Zero weakens their political chances against One Nation.
As Canavan rightly said on First Edition eight months ago, ‘I think we should sort this issue out – that would be ideal. I think we should have a debate in the joint party room about our position on Net Zero emissions. The Liberal and National party room has never debated Net Zero emissions despite it being perhaps the most radical socialist plan ever envisioned for the Australian economy.’
If they wish to be honest with the Australian people, whose trust they are attempting to rebuild, they might try admitting that the Paris Agreement exists to codify and coerce the global acceptance of Net Zero into domestic legislation.
And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.
Far from being ‘symbolic’ or ‘just a piece of paper’, its reach extends so deep into our Treasury and economic system that the Coalition simply lacks the moral fortitude and political ability to claw back control of our energy system and sovereignty.
Paris is not ‘a gesture’, it is the scaffolding that keeps a near-unknowable compliance cost hanging over the Treasury. The Coalition cannot meet its promise to end Net Zero without pulling out of Paris, and it is our opinion that they know this.
The sheer economic burden of ‘Paris’ is the largest silent line item in the Budget, and that does not include the stealth tax it takes from businesses and private citizens as a ‘green cost’ on power bills, additional requirements, or straight-out costs.
What is the Paris Agreement?
It is a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 195 parties at the United Nations Climate Conference (Cop21) in Paris, 2015. According to its official webpage, it requires economic and social transformation which works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. This includes a pledge to reduce ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ regarding greenhouse emissions, and to report on them. Developed nations are ‘encouraged’ to – and do – provide ‘climate finance’ to developing nations. It ‘encourages’ the uptake of green technologies.
Australia then went ahead and formalised this. The Paris Agreement is responsible, directly, and continues to underpin many things, including…
The Climate Change Act 2022, which legislates reduction targets and Net Zero goals. This document holds us, legally, to the Paris Agreement’s statements. This alone includes tens of billions in climate money and references Powering Australia, Rewiring the Nation, and Household Energy Upgrade Fund along with the Powering the Regions Fund, Hydrogen Headstart Program, National Reconstruction Fund, National Electric Vehicle Strategy, Critical Minerals Strategy, APS Net Zero 2030, National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, Disaster Ready Fund, Australia’s Strategy for Nation, Australian Carbon Credit Units, Safeguard Mechanism, Australian Sustainable Finance Strategy (Sovereign Green Bonds), Net Zero Economy Authority, and the Native Positive Plan. Net Zero Authority which was setup ‘to promote the orderly and positive economic transformation associated with achieving Net Zero emissions’ and its Net Zero Economy Agency and Advisory Board.
And then we have an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of government agencies involved with/tied to the Paris Agreement: Department of Climate Change, AEMO, Clean Energy Regulator, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Clean Energy Innovation Fund, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, The Climate Change Authority, BOM, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – Net Zero Agency.
A hell of a lot of ‘symbolic gestures’, I think you’d agree.
And this does not include any of the state initiatives, the reporting structures, the additional international agreements attached to Paris, or any of the small legal requirements placed upon business.
As I am certain Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan are aware, ‘pulling out of Paris’ means admitting to the extent of its influence.
This is not a piece of paper that can be torn up. Nor is our greatest concern, as Canavan suggested, ‘creating international tension’.
‘We shouldn’t just go around ripping up international agreements for no benefit to our own country … all it would do is create friction with other countries.’ – Canavan
The truth is – no one knows how much the Paris Agreement has cost this country.
There is no ledger or register, and certainly no way of assessing the loss of income and rise of costs due to the influence of Paris on our energy, infrastructure, mining, transport, agriculture, and private sectors.
The taxpayer cost since the Paris Agreement was signed sits at more than $100 billion with the total cost to the public and private sector expected to top $1 trillion by 2050.
An expensive bit of paper…
This is only an estimate assuming the industrial projects succeed. The cost blow-out of Snowy 2.0 and litany of failed or abandoned green projects (such as the Sun Cable), show how easy it is for a Budget to understate the true delivered cost.
And we should note, none of these costings include the replacement of short-lived renewable energy or the recycling/disposal cost. Both of which are assumed to be huge. Nor does it take into account the additional costs of things like … upgrading the entire continent for EV chargers and all the infrastructure that goes along with it or paying out the countless Indigenous land claims that might take place along the regional routes of energy networks.
Despite living in an acute financial crisis with Australians facing homelessness or levels of poverty not seen since their great-grandparents, the Paris Agreement – through our domestic legislation – compels us to gift billions of dollars in ‘climate aid’ to developing nations. We cannot afford this and the only reason we do it is a piece of paper. Australia is giving billions of dollars to the Pacific for a climate crisis that does not exist while the same nations take money from China, the world’s largest polluter, in exchange for resources and military perks. At least Beijing gets something meaningful in return.
These foreign aid groups tied to Paris include, Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership, REnew Pacific, Pacific Resilience Facility, Australian Humanitarian Partnership Disaster READY Program, Climate and Oceans Support Program in the Pacific, Weather Ready Pacific, Pacific Insurance and Climate Adaptation Programme, Climate Finance Access Network, Kiwa Initiative, Pacific Blue Carbon Program, Governance for Resilient Development, SPREP Core Funding, and whatever that AFL team and stadium come under…
This takes place while Australian farmers cannot secure insurance for flood or fire, are stuck with dirt roads and sub-quality energy, and cannot build something as simple as a dam or fence without excessive interference and added costs.
And yet we gift these things – and more – to other nations with the money our poor farmers give to the Treasury.
It’s easy to see why Donald Trump made pulling out of Paris a priority. The US received no punishment for doing so and has enjoyed a significant trade and economic boom since. They have already saved billions while not receiving any tariffs or sanctions. The worst you could say is they lost the prestige of ‘climate leadership’ but with the world’s worst emitter – China – crowned as a leader, who wants that title?
Why pull out of Paris? Why indeed.
‘I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off. The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.’ – Trump
Don’t worry. Shortly after ditching ‘Net Zero 2050’, the Coalition are now getting rid of ‘Net Zero’ entirely without unpicking any of the Net Zero infrastructure and still reporting this non-change in line with the Paris agreement.
At this point, the Coalition appear to be climate cult alcoholics, pledging to attend AA meetings to keep the voters happy and then catching up at the pub. That’s okay, because they’re in the meetings. The pub is ‘just a place’. It doesn’t mean anything. Some people don’t drink at the pub. Refusing to pull out of Paris is a failure of grand old Australian tradition of the ‘Pub Test’.
This week, we have watched the Coalition rightly mock the Prime Minister for ‘changing his position’ on tax policy within the Budget – and yet how is this different to Canavan’s statements?
On June 14, Canavan posted the result of a vote from the NSW Young National Metropolitan Branch that read:
57 Paris Agreement
That Conference call on The Nationals to advocate for the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to: a) restore national control over emissions targets and energy policy, and; b) ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, food, and manufactured goods for the Australian people.
Canavan’s post discussed Net Zero and Paris as if they were intrinsically linked.
In a Courier Mail article where Canavan admits ‘we never conducted a full cost-benefit analysis of adopting Net Zero’ he adds ‘Trump is at least doing what he says and has pulled out of the Paris Agreement’.
In a post from 2025, Canavan said to a man who runs a food distribution company, ‘Hopefully he encourages more business people to say what they really think, including if they think we should get out of the Paris Agreement SCAM.’
Is it a piece of paper or a scam?
‘Australia should leave the Paris Agreement. Ever since we signed up to Net Zero, we have had soaring prices, skyrocketing interest rates, and witnessed most other nations completely ignoring their commitments.’
Perhaps we should finish with Canavan’s words.
‘Now that the world’s biggest economy [the US] has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, it is just common sense – and a matter of time – that everyone else does too.’ And ‘There is no reason Australia should remain in Paris when China, India, Indonesia, and now the US, are not.’
Quite so, Matt, we completely agree.
It is a shame you ‘changed your position’ after moving from a spirited backbencher to co-leader in an opposition dominated by the Liberal Moderates who have made their commitment to both Net Zero and the Paris Agreement quite clear.
We cannot know if this is a genuine change of heart or a political concession to a Coalition partner hunting down Teal seats at the expense of the nation. (A doomed and dishonest venture by the Moderates who will never win back Blue Ribbon seats while misleading the taxpayer about Climate Change politics.)
However, it seems obvious a Coalition government, without One Nation to keep it honest, has no intention of ending Net Zero – not in the legislative ways that matter.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Image-2-1.jpg?fit=2048%2C1510&ssl=115102048Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-22 05:38:242026-05-22 05:38:33The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement
In our Budget Reply, we had so much to say about saving this country that Senator Hanson ran out of time to deliver it all.
One Nation is offering a fundamentally different direction for Australia — one rooted in proven, common-sense economic principles.
➡️ Cheap, Reliable Energy: Ditching the “green” agenda to invest in coal and nuclear.
➡️ Real Wealth: Backing the local industries that actually build this nation.
➡️ Lower Taxes: Putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Australian families.
➡️Less Bureaucracy: Listening to engineers and physicists, not climate bureaucrats.
Transcript
For all the talk about this budget, many issues are all too familiar. Revenue is up from $773 billion to $815 billion. Expenses are up from $812 billion to $833 billion. Gross interest payments are at $27 billion, rising to $40 billion over the forward estimates. Budget deficits are forecast to balloon by another $100 billion over the next four years. Interest-bearing debt will climb another $300 billion to $1.3 trillion. Businesses are collapsing at record rates—almost 50,000 insolvencies since Labor took office. Productivity is stuck at six-decade lows. Eight out of 10 new jobs are now created by government because the private sector has become so disillusioned. Business confidence and domestic investment have fallen to 1990s recession lows. Our inflation remains the highest in the developed world.
Australian families have endured 15 interest rate hikes, pushing more than one million households into extreme mortgage stress. GDP per capita has fallen in 10 of the last 13 quarters, and 337,000 households can no longer pay their energy bills—double the level of five years ago—as power prices continue to surge.
Labor will introduce the working Australians tax offset. It’s less than $5 a week in relief and doesn’t kick in until next year, an election year. The government wants you to be grateful for 68c a day off your tax. That tax offset will be completely rubbed out by bracket creep. Bracket creep means working Australians will pay more in tax because of inflation. The government profits from higher inflation. It’s a stealth tax, a trap for the next election and an advertising slogan for 2028. They used the same trap in their election advertising in 2022. If anyone dares to refuse passing a useless, less than $5 tax cut, they will be accused of not supporting tax cuts. While Australians will receive just $2.6 billion back in the one-off WATO, they’ll pay tens of billions more in taxes because of bracket creep.
One Nation tried to end bracket creep by indexing income tax thresholds to inflation, ending the stealthy tax increases. Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens refused to support it. Instead of the measly $250, ending bracket creep would put thousands of dollars a year back in working Australians’ pockets. We don’t need Labor to protect Australians; we need to protect Australians from Labor.
The tax changes in this budget, including on discretionary trusts, will suppress investor appetite and speculative capital, forcing these businesses to set up in jurisdictions with no impediments. Capital will always, always follow to where it is most loved.
This budget reveals a political culture that relies evermore heavily on centralised bureaucracy, dependency on the state and short-term intervention. That is the Labor way. Forget the spin about intergenerational equity; it’s being used as an excuse to break election promises. True equity does not punish those who worked hard, took risks, built businesses and paid their taxes. It does not resent aspiration or success. Real intergenerational equity means giving young Australians the same opportunities their parents had—the chance to own a home, raise a family, start a business and get ahead through hard work. Young people are not struggling because older generations succeeded. They are falling behind because governments have chosen subsidies and wealth redistribution over allowing free enterprise to flourish.
On the forward estimates, our total liabilities will exceed $1.9 trillion—a burden to be repaid by our children and grandchildren. That is not equity. That is hypocrisy. Changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will further dampen economic activity, push rents higher and reduce housing supply. As a self-proclaimed scholar of Paul Keating, the Treasurer might have reflected on what happened in 1985 when these same policies were tried and had to be reversed two years later.
Housing is a national crisis only since Labor took office, and I say ‘crisis’. More than 40 per cent of the cost of building a new home is government taxes and unnecessary compliance costs. One Nation will take a different approach. We will slash the GST to zero on building materials for homes up to a value of $1 million for the next five years. Rapid population growth without matching supply is a recipe for declining living standards. This is not about blaming migrants. It’s about recognising limits. But this government has no interest in reducing migration, for all the talk. It expects to increase visa application fees from $4.7 billion today to $7.1 billion by 2029-30. Elevated migration is a money spinner. Canada cut migration sharply from 2024 and has now enjoyed 18 straight months of falling rents and easing house prices, something we have strongly advocated for.
We will introduce income splitting for every family with at least one dependent child. A single earner on $120,000 with a stay-at-home partner would be around $9½ thousand a year better off. We will exempt insurance from the GST, and we urge the states to drop stamp duty on it as well. Affordable insurance ultimately reduces burdens on taxpayers. We will allow aged pensioners and veterans to work as much as they want without losing any of their pensions or health card benefits.
For more than a decade, One Nation has consistently argued that Australia must strengthen domestic resilience, including strategic fuel reserves, reliable energy systems, food and water security, and sovereign industrial capabilities supported by true nation-building infrastructure. The current liquid fuel crisis has not only exposed our domestic unpreparedness but signalled to adversaries how vulnerable we would be in a conflict. Building a strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is still not enough to build resilience and liquid fuel independence. The total cost of not having sufficient supplies will always outweigh the net cost of having them in a crisis.
One Nation will cut the red, green and black tape that is strangling projects and fast-track major approvals, especially energy, to a maximum of six months. We will ditch net zero, exit the Paris Agreement and axe the climate change department, saving $30 billion in the process. We will back coal and gas and support bringing nuclear power to bring down prices, restore reliability and guarantee national energy security. Next week, I will introduce a bold new gas policy that underwrites our vast sovereign resource assets for decades to come. It will provide real equity investment and genuine skin in the game, where our healthy dividend will help pay down the debt racked up by successive governments.
We have listened extensively, and we will work with industry, not against it, in genuine partnership. We will bring back our mining and resources industries, the bedrock that funds schools, hospitals, roads and defence. A strong nation leverages its natural advantages. It does not demonise them. One Nation will swiftly move to get rid of impediments in an increasingly competitive global environment and restore our status as a nation that rolls out the red carpet in resources rather than roll it up. We are backing the Capricorn steel project, to connect coal in Queensland’s Bowen Basin to iron ore in Western Australia’s Pilbara region with a rail line that will open northern Australia to development. The project is strongly backed by Australian investors and is aimed at making Australia a major global supplier of high-quality steel. It will require the Inland Rail project, now abandoned by Labor, to be completed and extended to the more suitable Port of Gladstone, in Queensland. It will be the foundation for a national rail circuit that effectively circumnavigates the Australian continent, providing freight efficiencies and improved defence logistics. These are no longer abstract debates. They are national security imperatives.
In agriculture, we will ban the further sale of controlling interests in freehold farmland to foreign investors and limit the sale of leasehold farmland to a maximum of 25 years. We will ban foreign ownership of water and return balance to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. One Nation strongly supports the modern hybrid Bradfield scheme to improve water security, open new areas to farming and improve food security and exports. We will build new dams and water infrastructure, reintroduce drought payments and re-establish a federal government backed rural lending fund to protect farmers through other natural disasters.
Importantly, we will restore accountability. Australians work hard for their money, and they deserve a government that shows the same discipline. Successive governments have failed to tackle a culture where people in charge of creating multiple white elephants pay no price for their commercial illiteracy. Snowy 2.0, which has blown out 21 times—to $42 billion—is but one egregious example. One Nation will ensure past, present and emerging failures will no longer be transaction free for those responsible.
We will abolish divisive cultural departments and race based programs that divide Australians by skin colour or ancestry. Every Australian will be treated as equal under one flag and one culture. Help will be given on the basis of genuine need, not race. No more special privileges—equal rights for all, and special rights for none. There will be no more taxpayer-funded welcome to country rituals. Unity builds strength; division destroys it.
Our Defence Force must focus on operational readiness, capability and deterrence, not morale-sapping identity politics. One Nation will restore pride in wearing the uniform and give them the latest equipment to carry out their duties. We won’t sell off our historic sites of symbolic significance to cover irresponsible spending.
Australians are not asking for miracles. They are simply asking for a country that works again. One Nation continues to attract practical Australians with real world experience—people from finance, investment, trade, engineering, farming, small business, building, energy, manufacturing and defence. These are men and women who have built things, employed people and delivered results outside the Canberra bubble. Australia does not need more career politicians serving vested interests. One Nation believes the government is there to serve you. This budget only goes to prove yet again that this government believes you are there to serve it.
In closing, Australia stands at a crossroads. For too long, Labor’s failed experiment of reckless spending, crippling regulation, net zero ideology and wealth redistribution has driven businesses to the wall. It’s crushed living standards, saddled our children with debt and stolen the Australian dream from an entire generation. A nation loses hope when it loses vision. Australia now has near a trillion dollars in debt and nothing to show for it. One Nation will break the green, red and black tape that has tied us down. We will work with the natural strengths of the assets on our balance sheet. We have iron ore, coal, gas, cattle, rain, cotton, gold, copper, oil and so much more. Australia should be a powerhouse, but the major parties lack the management skills for us reach our potential. It is perverse that a government and an opposition believe they can change the weather, and are prepared to waste ultimately hundreds of billions to do it, while they mock the idea of a version of the Bradfield scheme that would open the massive potential for irrigation of the rich but dry soils of the western districts. It is perverse that a government and an opposition that came up with the biggest construction fiasco on earth, the $42 billion Snowy Hydro 2.0, cannot complete the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane, which would open up the intermodal efficiencies and commercial potential of the inland corridor.
We are covering the land with windmills and solar panels and, in turn, delivering— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, are you seeking the call?
Senator Hanson: I seek leave to finish my speech.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted? Leave has not been granted, Senator Hanson.
Senator Hanson: I seek leave to table my speech.
Leave granted.
“We are covering our land with windmills and solar panels and in turn delivering the dearest and most precarious electricity grid our nation has ever had, when we had the cheapest coal fired power and sitting on one of the greatest coal resources in the globe.
One Nation does not care about major party sneers. We care about handing our children a better opportunity than was handed to us by our parents, currently it is the other way around.
One Nation will reallocate the resources from the fool’s errand of Australia changing the weather to invest in coal fired power, nuclear, irrigation, freight, rail, ports and roads. We will work with businesses as partners in these projects.
One Nation will listen to civil engineers, nuclear physicists, and research scientists in medicine instead of climate change bureaucrats. These assets on our nations balance sheet allows us to pay for expenses on the Profit and Loss. These assets build a nation that can repay its debts. One Nation is offering a fundamentally different direction -one rooted in proven, common sense economic principles. We’ll lower taxes on working families, slash regulation that strangles enterprise, deliver abundant and affordable energy, and back the industries that actually create real wealth and opportunity.
We will never pretend we know better than you how to run your own lives. That is why we are determined to hand power back to the Australian people where it belongs.
We will reward hard work and aspiration, restore fiscal discipline, and put Australian families and businesses first once again.
One Nation’s word is our bond – and we have three decades of unwavering policy consistency to prove it.
We hope to earn your trust to implement the bold change Australia desperately needs.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-21-215100.jpg?fit=676%2C336&ssl=1336676Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-22 05:32:242026-05-22 05:32:36Budget Reply: One Nation’s Blueprint to Put Australians First
Labor and the Liberals have abandoned their founding visions.
Today’s modern Labor Party has traded its commitment to the working class and the family for radical gender ideology, social engineering and control over children, undermining parental rights and effectively claiming ownership of our children.
And the Liberal Party has abandoned the middle class to serve wealthy corporate “puppet-masters” and big-money interests.
There is a stark divide between corporate success and the struggle of everyday Australians.
Data shows corporate profits have soared while the share of GDP going to wages has plummeted.
Real wages have stagnated since 1980, while the costs of education, healthcare, and housing have increased by 300% to 400%.
The “net zero” transition is causing skyrocketing power bills and economic suicide.
One Nation is the only party capable of restoring Australia’s prosperity.
Our plan includes: ▶️ Slashing government spending by at least $90 billion a year. ▶️ Putting $30 billion back into the pockets of Australians. ▶️ Investing $20 billion annually in wealth-growing projects.
One Nation calls for a return to patriotism, family values and economic fairness for the often “forgotten” middle and working class Aussies.
Transcript
Tonight I deliver One Nation’s eulogy for the status quo that had dominated Australian politics since 1949 and that passed away during the break. 1949 was the year Labor prime minister Ben Chifley delivered the famous ‘Light on the hill’ speech and Robert Menzies was elected as the first Liberal Party prime minister. Both were men of vision, both had the courage of their convictions and both were driven by a deep love for our beautiful country. This may cause offence amongst the 2026 rabble pretending to still be Labor, yet I must point out the ‘light on the hill’ metaphor Ben Chifley used as a regular churchgoer is almost a direct quote from the Gospel of Matthew 5:13-16. This is the famous ‘salt and light’ passage from Jesus’s ‘Sermon on the mount’, where he said inter alia: ‘You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candlestick, and it gives light to all that are in the house.’ And it’s true that Chifley’s speech was rooted in the trauma of the Great Depression, with this line: If the movement can make someone more comfortable, give to some father or mother a greater feeling of security for their children, a feeling that if a depression comes there will be work, that the government is striving its hardest to do its best, then the Labor movement will be completely justified.
How times have changed. The Labor Party now refuses to even say ‘mother’ or ‘father’, let alone build them into their policies. Indeed, Labor ministers refuse to define what a woman is. Today’s Labor Party uses gender ideology to subvert the concept of man and woman. It refuses to back families as the fundamental building block of society. It undermines family. To those on the government benches, ‘uterus owners’ and ‘prostate owners’ now stand as references to women and men, with ‘birthing parents’ and ‘ejaculators’ serving as references to mothers and fathers.
The Labor Party has used transgenderism to establish the principle that the state owns your child, and refusing the state’s instruction to transition your child will result in the termination of parental rights. Parents should understand that children are no longer, as Ben Chifley said, theirs; rather, they are the state’s. Last week Jacinta Allan, the Premier of Victoria, confirmed this new Labor principle in the extraordinary defence of child castration, which she still insists on calling ‘gender-affirming care’.
Mass immigration eliminated job security for most unionists and forced unions to become more and more militant in response to the cost of economic growth. We stopped building wealth. Instead, the fight is over a greater share of the same pie, an inevitably futile task. It’s a game the wealthy have won and the working class have lost, because the Labor Party falsely pretends that it’s in the worker’s corner when it’s not. Corporate profits as a share of gross domestic product have risen from 17 per cent in 1975 to 65 per cent in 2020. The share of gross domestic product for wages and salaries has fallen from 25 per cent in 1975 to 17 per cent today. Corporate profits keep going up. The income share of the middle class, who are still paying everyone’s social security, just keeps going down.
It’s impossible to look at this data and see a pattern which apportions blame only to the Liberal Party’s periods in office. Both parties are to blame and equally so. The status quo has done over Australian workers, and the polling for One Nation clearly shows workers, tradies and small business are sick of it. Ben Chifley spoke of comfort as a core Labor Party value, and I ask Australia’s working class: where’s your comfort? You’re not only being attacked as colonisers and being degendered and disrespected in Labor’s social policy; your financial position has gone backwards.
The cronyism and corruption inherent in the net zero transition—the lie—designed as it is to subvert energy generation to the weather, has run riot and rampant through the economy. Business insolvencies are at a record high. Householders are terrified of opening their power bills, and bills are set to rise at five times the inflation rate this financial year, as the cynical energy subsidies the Albanese Labor Government uses to bribe voters and cover up the problem are removed to reduce Labor’s growing budget deficit. Inflation is out of control because of that deficit. And yet you’re responsible for the deficit and the inflation which has resulted from your bribes, dishonesty and pathetic financial mismanagement. It’s taken 75 years for the inspirational vision reflected in the ‘Light on the hill’—a vision of family, comfort and, yes, happiness—to degenerate into an imbroglio of self-interest, moral degeneracy, cronyism, cynicism and, in places, outright corruption. The status quo died because it failed Australia’s working class. It’s no accident that, in the latest polls, people earning over $100,000 a year still support Labor ahead of anyone else. Labor’s new culture of social engineering and division on ethnic grounds has support from those whose incomes insulate them from the damage these policies are doing. Indeed, this moral virtue signalling has replaced the light on the hill. Sit tibi terra levis: may the earth be light to you.
The Liberal Party is as culpable in this attack on the middle class. In Menzies’s speech—which, to give it its correct title, was the ‘Forgotten people’ speech—he spoke of ‘salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on’. He said: These are, in the political and economic sense, the middle class. They are for the most part unorganized and unselfconscious. They are envied by those whose social benefits are largely obtained by taxing them. They are not rich enough to have individual power. They are taken for granted by each political party in turn. Menzies’s success was to put the middle class at the fore, recognising that a strong middle class would power the economy and provide a tax base for those who were not able to provide for themselves. His words in 1944 took him into government in 1949, and he went on to become Australia’s longest-serving prime minister for 18 years.
That was then. The year is not 1949; it’s now 2026, and the modern Liberals no longer owe their allegiance to the middle class. Instead, they owe their allegiance to the wealthy interests who pay the bills and set the agenda. Those rivers of gold have enabled the Liberals to outspend the Labor Party during every election cycle since 2007. The Liberal Party puppetmasters are prepared to surrender the country to the Labor Party rather than see opposition leader Peter Dutton—someone who was asking for a modicum of independence and was eliminated. Those same forces are now defending their latest marionette, an opposition leader who’s so weak that one has to ask: just how much are these people paying?
One Nation has no puppetmasters. We offer government decision-making based on facts and data, applying principles of fairness and patriotism. I will return to One Nation’s plan for the post-status quo Australia in a moment. Menzies was again correct when he said: The communist has always hated what he calls the “bourgeoisie”, because he sees clearly the existence of one has kept British countries from revolution, while the substantial absence of one in feudal France at the end of the eighteenth century and in Tsarist Russia at the end of the last war made revolution easy and indeed inevitable. What he did not realise is that the modern Liberal Party and the modern Labor Party are acting in unison to destroy the middle class, albeit for different reasons.
The Liberals want more money for their corporate owners, who do not understand the meaning of a fair share for all. Labor wants to bring about a revolution in society to mirror their Prime Minister’s communist ideology, which is destroying the pillars of Australian society: family and the middle class. Not surprisingly, then, the middle class is shrinking, even as the overall share of wages and salaries in the economy is shrinking. Australia’s median wage has gone backwards by eight per cent under this Labor government, although this is not just on them. Since 1980, the median Australian wage in real terms, adjusted for inflation, has not increased. Nothing. Zero. In that same time, education expenses have gone up 300 per cent, health care up 300 per cent and housing up 400 per cent. If it feels like you’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because you are. The Liberal-Labor status quo has screwed Australia rotten.
One Nation support has grown rapidly in the last eight months, which is proof that courage is contagious. For 30 years, One Nation has been confined to a cage built to contain our threat to the status quo, a cage that was plastered with a huge sign falsely declaring the contents racist. And, for 30 years, the narrative was successfully maintained because a host of dishonest, self-interested politicians, media and talking heads all benefited financially from maintaining the status quo.
One Nation will return $30 billion a year into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will shrink the government to fit the Constitution, reducing government spending by $90 billion a year and putting the budget into surplus in our first year. We will invest $20 billion a year in infrastructure, which the private sector will legally match, to build projects that grow wealth for everyday Australians, not foreign corporate profits. We’ve showcased these. These fully costed plans were taken to the electorate last May. We have the details. We know how we will do this, and we know that it can be done. The Australian people have clearly decided it’s time to ignore the insults and instead vote with their heads and with their hearts. Australians want our country back. One Nation is the only party that can achieve that and, indeed, the only party that wants to achieve that.
While I am a Queensland Senator, the political battle taking place in Farrer is fascinating.
Usually, a by-election triggered by a resigning party leader is something of a walkover. A safe seat. A perfunctory vote. Little more than a formality and shuffling of candidates into pre-ordained positions of uniparty power.
Farrer is something this country hasn’t seen in a long time.
A battle for conservatism.
With a real choice.
The uniparty stranglehold is weakening, and the people of Farrer have an opportunity to be a part of history.
Former Liberal Leader Sussan Ley hastened the collapse of the Liberal Party, overseeing two Coalition break-ups during her short tenure. These were not minor tiffs. They were ideological breaking points where metropolitan wets came to blows with the regional National Party leadership. The LNP have become a coalition of opposing forces, tearing each other apart and united by little except an ever-decreasing whiff of nostalgia for a Menzies brand that has long since been colonised by One Nation.
How can those at war with each other possibly lead the fight against Labor?
As I say at the beginning of every speech, One Nation are the true opposition.
On the ground in Farrer, you will find very little love for the Liberals or Sussan Ley. Farrer was left unheard during Ley’s extended Listening Tour. On the campaign trail, the message is clear. They want something different. They want real leadership. They want someone who stands for their community on a local level and who is also capable of engaging in critical federal and international conversations that have real-world impacts. A person who knows the economic structure holding up regional Australia and has lived experience to bring to Canberra.
The choice of Raissa Butkowski, a community lawyer and Albury City Councillor, shows the Liberals attempting to replace Ley with something familiar – a foot half-in, half-out of the regional and town voting blocs without ever quite committing to the big issues. This is formulaic from the Liberals, a tad cynical in clinical adherence to sheer numbers, and the lukewarm response in the polls is entirely deserved. The people are not identity blocs to be wooed and enticed. They are a single electorate that deserves coherent and steadfast representation.
Prior polling and previous election results are useless. This is a new world, and Farrer is a fight between One Nation and the Climate-200-backed Independent.
It is a sort-of Litmus test for the future Teal vs Conservative rivalry in the leafy suburbs of Australia’s capital cities where those raised as blue ribbon conservatives have been temporarily captured by the luxury belief in apocalyptic virtue. Are those conservatives starting to wake up? I think so.
The Liberals believe conservatism can be saved from the clutches of Tealism (and its kin) by pretending that standing half-an-inch from Albanese is the ‘sensible centre’. Laughable.
One Nation suspects that what Australians really hunger for is a revival of true conservatism, the type of honest, grassroots adoration for Australia, its people and its assets, which built the country – from convict chains to skyscrapers. People want a break from radical, dangerous politics that ‘progresses’ the country toward the cliff-edge of socialist ruin. Voters are exhausted by virtue-chasing, global salvation narratives, and the burden of taxes that come with it. They don’t want to sleep with one eye open, wondering what their MPs are drafting in Canberra while they rest.
And what does this Independent, Michelle Milthorpe, offer?
No one is really quite sure, and that is the problem.
Who wants a mystery in a time of crisis and uncertainty?
The wishy-washy noncommittal politics of the green-left, Climate 200-funded collective is deliberate. It is convenient to never outright align with damaging climate change policy or Net Zero goals.
We can ask questions and make guesses as to what any future vote from Milthorpe might look like based on who supported her campaign, who she hired to help her (a former Teal campaign manager), and which political activist groups choose to engage with her message (GetUp!).
On that, it has been reported GetUp! raised $400,000 on an ‘anti-Pauline’ campaign for Farrer, with plans to spend over $600,000, which seems an extraordinary amount of money to use bombarding the people of Farrer. One Nation doesn’t drown voters in propaganda. Funds from GetUp!’s 100,000 members is apparently being spent telling the people of Farrer how to vote. How disgusting it is to treat Farrer as though it were a vending machine where, with enough money, the preferred product might fall out the bottom for collection.
We could also note that Ms Milthorpe has been on the campaign trail with independent David Pocock, whose website states his support of accelerating climate action along with a portfolio of fringe climate policies. Just because Ms Milthorpe won’t praise batteries or EVs does not mean she won’t be friendly to climate legislation that punishes reliable energy or farming activities.
It is certainly interesting that Ms Milthorpe has been defensive about those who draw ideological connections between her and the Teals due to Climate 200. Association with the ‘Teals’ used to be considered a vote-winning perk, however, in the regional seat of Farrer, where there are plenty of frustrated farmers who have had enough of Climate Change policy ruining their livelihoods, perhaps we can finally say that the shine is wearing off the climate narrative…
While an Independent can avoid questions about how they might vote on critical legislative issues, such as the future of Australia’s oil reserves, opening new refineries, and creating dubious agricultural trade deals with the European Union, One Nation is proud to declare its positions. Transparency is our duty, not an electoral inconvenience.
One Nation, regardless of whether it is a by-election, state campaign, or federal election, will never hide its position on the issues that matter to voters. We wish to be judged in the light so that our elected representatives can serve their electorates honestly and in good faith.
By-elections should not be a competition between parties to add another seat into their collection as if curating jewels in a crown. This is about good governance for the people who have, for far too long, been treated by major parties and independents as an inconvenience to be overcome on the way to Canberra.
How will Michelle Milthorpe vote on the hundreds of critical bills that will wash through Parliament under Albanese’s watch?
Who knows.
You can look One Nation’s David Farley in the eye and he will give you a direct answer. That is what we stand on as a party.
And so I continue to watch the Farrer by-election with great interest to see if the successes of the South Australian state election will continue over the border in New South Wales.
Are the people ready to rid themselves of damaging Net Zero legislation and the anti-agricultural mindset that has held our regions back? Regional Australians are already fiercely pro-environment, of course they are, they want to protect the land they live in and call home. Most have had enough of being lectured to by faux environmental movements who clog up city streets with their protests while never setting foot on the land. The people of Farrer know where the nation’s food comes from, and they know what must be done to protect the region.
David Farley is a man who will fight for Farrer, in the paddock, on the streets, and in Canberra.
Authorised by Malcolm Roberts, Brisbane.
The battle for Farrer – and conservatism by Senator Malcolm Roberts
The Liberal-National coalition and Labor are playing a desperate game of catch-up.
For years, they’ve ignored the real issues — energy, housing and mass immigration crisis, which started under John Howard and has exploded under the Albanese government. Now, they’re copying One Nation’s homework.
They drop the right buzzwords and borrow our rhetoric because they’re terrified of the polls, yet they still lack the data and the backbone to actually do good instead of just trying to look good.
People see through the “fluffy and vague” policies of other parties.
One Nation aren’t here to play status quo politics; we’re here to put Australia First.
It’s time to hold these politicians accountable and return the power to where it belongs: with the people.
During this session with Housing Australia, I call out the lack of transparency and the questionable math behind the home deposit guarantee schemes.
I asked Mr Langford why it took nine weeks to get an answer to a simple question: how many borrowers have exited the scheme? They finally admitted that of the 185,000 guarantees issued since the scheme was launched, over 45,000 have already been discharged.
I’m highly sceptical of their reported “success” rates. They previously claimed that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000. The actual arrears rate on bank loans is around 1% – 227 times higher than the claimed arrears rate of 0.0044%. Therefore, it’s statistically impossible!
My point is simple: they don’t actually track people once they exit the scheme, so they’re essentially flying blind when it comes to the data.
Despite Minister Ayres’ attempts to paint every exit as a “success story,” the data proves it’s not that simple.
As at the end of December 2025: ❌ 0.3% or 336 of borrowers are 90+ days in arrears, ❌ 0 .8% or 1000 are currently under hardship arrangements and ❌ 347 are in early-stage arrears (30–90 days).
While they boast that many are ahead on payments, I’m concerned about the “cliff” ahead.
When I asked for modelling on what happens to these 95% mortgages if interest rates rise three more times this year, they admitted they have no modelling for that scenario.
Ms Jarman has committed to providing me with a copy of the information guide for first-home buyers. I want to see for myself if it properly warns Australians about the massive risks of a 95% mortgage in a rising-rate environment.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
CHAIR: I’m going to rotate the call. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again today, Mr Langford. You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. That should be a number you have to hand very easily. You haven’t answered it in the nine weeks since the hearing. Why not?
Mr Langford: I’ll ask my colleague Ms Jarman, who has just come to the table, if we have that information to hand. As to the delays, we apologise. There may have been some delay if we didn’t have that information to hand.
Ms Jarman: Sorry, Senator—can you repeat exactly what information you’re after?
Senator ROBERTS: You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two per cent and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. I’d like the number, please.
Ms Jarman: Yes, we do have the number that have exited. Of the 185,000 guarantees that have been issued since the launch of the scheme, 45,837 of those have discharged.
Senator ROBERTS: You told me at the last hearing that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000 guarantees issued. The actual arrears rate on banks’ loan books is around one per cent. That’s 227 times higher than your claimed arrears rate of 0.0044 per cent. Do you accept that your number is almost statistically impossible and only appears good because you don’t actually track the people who exit the scheme? Once they’re gone, they’re gone.
Senator Ayres: Exiting is good.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t track them once they’re gone.
Senator Ayres: These are people who have bought a home—
Senator ROBERTS: Don’t try and change the topic. I’m asking the question. I want to know—
Senator Ayres: under the scheme, then sold their home and moved on to their next home. That is the foot on the ladder that the scheme is designed to provide.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister Ayres, at the last hearing, you said—
Senator Ayres: That’s what it’s for.
Senator ROBERTS: that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance. Do you know that that’s false?
Senator Ayres: What do you mean?
Senator ROBERTS: ‘People who are facing hardship can’t refinance,’ you said. That’s false.
Senator Ayres: I said that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what you said.
Senator Ayres: I don’t know what context I said that in. You’re moving—
Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on—
Senator Ayres: from one proposition, demonstrably not the case—
Senator ROBERTS: And you’re changing my proposition. I’m trying to get on with it.
Senator Ayres: which is that it’s a bad outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you running from this, Minister Ayres?
Senator Ayres: No. I’m running to this. I’m running to this. This is a good outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: You changed my first proposition.
Senator Ayres: This is a good outcome. I’m sorry if you’re confused about it. This is a good outcome for young Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re misleading.
Senator Ayres: Buying a home, selling a home, buying a new one—this is a good outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on your latest percentages for in advance, on schedule, in arrears and hardship?
Ms Jarman: I can do that. As at the end of December, 0.3 per cent of the portfolio were 90 days plus in arrears, 0.8 per cent were under hardship arrangements, 26 per cent of the portfolio were on schedule with payments and 73 per cent were in advance of their repayment schedule.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you also have the actual numbers each of these percentages represent?
Ms Jarman: I do.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them please?
Ms Jarman: Sure. We had 33,134 on schedule, 93,104 in advance, 336 ninety days in arrears and 1,000 in hardship. There is another category, for completeness. If you’re adding up to the total number of guarantees, in arrears of 30 to 90 days—so early arrears—there are another 347 customers there.
Senator ROBERTS: How many total guarantees are those percentages of—is it less than the 250,000?
Ms Jarman: The 250,000 is the number of Australians supported under the scheme. We’ve only ever issued 185,000 guarantees, but only 127,000 of those are active in the book at the moment. The rest of those have already discharged out of the scheme.
Mr Rimmer: I gave evidence earlier in the day that the 0.3 per cent 90-day arrears rate is better than the other relevant arrears.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I heard that.
Senator Ayres: I also should have said, Senator, again for the sake of completeness, that people exit the scheme if they sell their home. They also exit the scheme when they hit the 80 per cent loan-to-value ratio. That is, they come in at five per cent and make repayments that pay the 15 per cent gap over time, and then they’re considered to have exited the scheme. That’s also a good thing.
Senator ROBERTS: How many five per cent mortgages that you got first home buyers into do you expect a default if interest rates are raised three times this year?
Senator Ayres: Your One Nation colleague asked the same questions about an hour and three-quarters ago.
Senator ROBERTS: He actually said ‘if we are entering a cycle’. I want to know what would happen with three interest rate rises.
Mr Langford: I don’t believe we have modelling for that proposition that you’re putting forward.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you, as the administrator of the five per cent deposit guarantee, provide first home buyers with any warnings about the risk of a 95 per cent mortgage?
Ms Jarman: Yes, we do. As part of the application process, we’ve got an information guide. That guide clearly outlines what the guarantee is and how the guarantee is there to protect the lender and not the borrower. It also outlines the obligations of the borrower in terms of repayment of the mortgage and the circumstances in which the borrower is still liable.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have a copy of that on notice, please?
