Posts

The Australia Institute recently claimed that big government serves everyday Australians while small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack One Nation’s “neoliberal” policies. They completely miss our core belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people creates growth and abundance so Australians can be self-sufficient and independent. It’s not about the size of government, it’s about what government actually does.

The left hates economic independence because self-sufficient Australians don’t rely on the state. That’s why the Australia Institute is pushing destructive measures like an inheritance tax on lifetime savings and a 2% wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income – assets! These taxes hit asset-rich, cash-poor Australians hard; our farmers, truckers, fishers and small business owners, which will force many into bankruptcy.

One Nation firmly rejects both wealth and inheritance taxes. The Albanese Labor government has already embraced these left-wing ideas, pushing capital gains tax changes that crashed housing prices, erased billions in national wealth and trapped young buyers in negative equity.

Labor needs to stop pushing ideology over economics.

Bring on the next election so One Nation can put an end to this socialist agenda once and for all.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Last month, the Australia Institute stated that big government serves the interests of everyday Australians and small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack as ‘neoliberal’ policies that One Nation is promoting. It fails to understand One Nation’s central belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people will grow wealth and abundance for all, reducing the need for government support as people take care of themselves. It fails to understand that it’s not the size of government but what government does that counts. The Australia Institute advocates an inheritance tax to target, in their words, ‘the untaxed compounding of intergenerational wealth’. One Nation calls that wealth that parents build up during a lifetime of hard work ‘people getting ahead’. That’s what it is. It’s what parents do: work hard and pass the benefit to their children. 

The political left hate people becoming self-sufficient, because economic resilience removes subservience to government. The fundamental difference between One Nation and Labor-Greens socialism is economic independence. Small business is in the Australia Institute’s sights, with a proposed two per cent wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income—assets. The losers from this include farmers, truckers, restaurants, fishers, fast food franchisees and childcare workers. These Australians are asset rich and income poor. Paying a $100,000 annual tax would force them out of business. 

One Nation rejects a wealth tax and an inheritance tax. The Albanese Labor government listened to the Australia Institute when they advocated recent capital gains tax changes. The Treasurer needs to stop pushing socialism. Founded on ideology not economics, these changes have caused a housing price crash, wiping billions from our national estate and placing many young Australians who used the five per cent deposit scheme in negative equity. Thanks, Treasurer. Now please stop helping. Enough! Bring on the next election so that One Nation can slay the socialist dragon.

I am extremely concerned that the EPBC Act harms economic growth. Data from the Minerals Council shows average resource project decision times increased from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. This imposes a heavy financial penalty on applicants.

Minister Watt countered that the reforms passed last year (which we opposed) are specifically designed to speed up assessment and approval timeframes, covering housing, energy, and resources, while strengthening environmental protections.

Officials reported that on-time performance for resource projects like coal, gas and oil improved from 67% in 2024–25 to 92% in 2025–26 (up to 11 May). While questions on specific project age metrics were taken on notice, Minister Watt maintained that decision-making timeframes are improving.

I then brought up the budget allocation to introduce AI to the department. Officials explained that a trial of AI is being introduced to help populate referral documentation, assisting them in gathering required conservation information faster to avoid delays during the assessment process.

Poor governance in the Department is costing jobs and prosperity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we started talking about the national environmental standards under the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: I said that there hadn’t been—you asked me to come back and ask all the same questions, so that’s what we will do. 

Senator Watt: Yes—the questions you attempted to ask in corporate. 

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. 

Senator Watt: Sure. We’re ready. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you are! Your website on the new environmental standards under the EPBC does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says a circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April. When will the new standard be made available to senators? 

Senator Watt: I must admit I haven’t checked that website lately, Senator Roberts. I might get someone to do that for me. But, roughly three weeks ago, we commenced a second round of consultation. Ms Kay will give you the details. 

Ms Kay: We’ve only got two national environmental standards open for consultation on our ‘Have your say’ website. The matters of national environmental significance standard was released on 30 April, and our consultation closes on 29 May. The offsets standard was released on 8 May, and consultation for that closes on 9 June. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, as things stand, the EPBC Act is, in my opinion, a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia quoted an increase in average decision times for resource projects of 60 per cent—from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. What steps are you taking to increase your throughput—faster processing? 

Senator Watt: As I mentioned in an earlier section—I don’t think you were here, Senator Roberts—that is one of the key reasons behind the reforms that we passed the parliament last year. It was to speed up the assessment and approval timeframes for projects in Australia, whether they be housing, energy or resources. The other objective, of course, was to strengthen environmental protections. We want to fix that. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, your main steps are revising the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. We’ve done a lot of work internally to speed up the processes. You may have seen that today I announced some really dramatic improvements around housing approvals. We’ve done what we can under the existing law, but, with those reforms that we passed last year, we expect to deliver big improvements around timeframes for decisions. 

Senator ROBERTS: The budgeting—we discussed this slightly before—includes a measure for introducing AI to the department. Will that help in data collection and analysis, or will that be making actual decisions? I think Mr Kaiser said it won’t be making decisions, but perhaps you could explain. 

Senator Watt: Yes. There was a little discussion about this before, Senator Roberts, when you weren’t here, but why don’t we quickly go back over that again. 

Mr Gaddes: I might have a go at that. The EPBC Act has a range of threatened species and ecological communities and other nationally protected matters that proponents are required to gather a whole lot of information about. There’s a range in our conservation planning documents—and they’re quite complex—that proponents need to work through in creating a referral. The AI trial is designed to help people populate their referral documentation. If you have a certain action in a certain area, you put that into the AI tool. It then tells you the sorts of things that you should consider as part of your assessment. Proponents go and do that. It helps them speed up their assessment-documentation-gathering process. We get all the information up front, and they go through the system much faster. 

Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the applicant can provide details and you can tell him or her, based on what their project is, what they need to apply. 

Mr Gaddes: Well, the AI tool does it. It helps them at the front end gather all the information so that we don’t have to stop the clock and ask them to go and gather things through their assessment process. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the increased complexity of the EPBC Act a way of increasing delays for projects? 

Senator Watt: No, and I would argue that we’re reducing the complexity in this act. Not only would I argue that but a range of stakeholders from the business community have also acknowledged that the changes will improve processes as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project—we started discussing this—the whole thing cost the project, across a 3.8 year development application cycle, $25 million a year and almost $100 million total over the four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by procedural failure in your department? 

Senator Watt: I think, when you asked that question earlier, Senator Roberts, I made the point that, again, that one of the objectives of these reforms is to reduce the timeframes for decisions around projects. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a review on the EPBC Act’s effectiveness in two or three years? 

Senator Watt: In five years. It used to be every 10 years; we changed it to every five. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects? 

Senator Watt: We’ll get the relevant officials to answer. 

Mrs Svarcas: We don’t capture the value of the project. I can’t tell you how many there are over a certain value in the system. There is a field in the system, but it’s not mandatory, and it’s not verified. You wanted to know many resources projects we had in the system? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and what the average age of the projects is. 

Mrs Svarcas: We also don’t have the average age of the projects here today, but I can take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you tell whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: What I’m saying is that one of the objectives of the reforms is to improve the timeframes. Those reforms are only just starting to roll out. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t measure the timeframes, how can you determine whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: Ms Svarcas can answer that. 

Mrs Svarcas: What we do report is how long it takes us to go through the approval. For resources projects— coal, gas and oil—I can tell you that in 2024-25, 67 per cent of the project went through the EPBC system on time, within the timeframes. In 2025-26, through to 11 May, that has improved to 92 per cent. We have seen a substantial increase in the performance stats. 

Senator ROBERTS: Percentages are essentially averages, and can hide a lot. Can you tell us the actual details of the projects’ age? 

Mr Gaddes: I think that what Ms Svarcas is trying to say that we collect that information, but we don’t have it in that format before us right now. If you have some questions, we can take them on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What is your expectation for reductions in the figure of average age in the projects in 2.8 years, and will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth, Minister, and the breadwinner jobs that go with mineral projects? Mining drives the economy, mining drives exports, mining drives the standard of living. 

Senator Watt: All I can do is repeat what I’ve been saying. That’s one of the reasons that we passed those reforms. I have to point out that the One Nation party did not support those reforms. 

Senator ROBERTS: Because of the complexities that we think will make it worse. 

Senator Watt: There are many industry groups that don’t agree with you. 

Senator ROBERTS: And there are many who do agree with us. 

Senator Watt: I’ve got the press release from the Property Council and from the Housing Industry Association. I can dig out comments from mining groups. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Minerals Council? 

Senator Watt: I can come back to you with those, if you’d like. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your government aware it’s spent a lot of money—it’s still spending a lot of money— which is inflationary and hurts people as well. They need to pay for welfare, and they need to pay for the caring economy. It comes largely from the mining industry. 

Senator Watt: I think I acknowledged earlier that the mining industry is an important economic industry in this country. It’s not the only one, but it’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: Many people would be hoping those words come true. 

Senator Watt: It’s already a big exporter. It’s a major employer et cetera. One of the objectives of these reforms is to make quicker decisions around mining projects—brace yourself—solar and windfarm projects, housing development and critical minerals, as well as to strengthen environmental protections. 

Senator ROBERTS: There’s another aspect we can talk about. 

Senator Watt: I think your colleague had a go at that earlier. 

Senator ROBERTS: There will be a review in five years? 

Senator Watt: Yes, a review in five years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

The 2026 Chalmers-Albanese budget and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 represent a cynical, ideological attack on everyday Australians under the guise of intergenerational equity. Instead of fostering wealth creation, Labor is driving a strategy of division to fund social engineering and buy votes.

We support the modest tax cuts and the $1,000 deduction placeholder. What we don’t support is the harmful capital gains tax and negative gearing measures.

Labor relies on “poison pills” — packaging toxic tax grabs alongside popular measures to deceive the public.

One Nation is committed to fighting for smaller government, protecting essential services and allowing Australians to keep their hard-earned money and secure their financial future.

Transcript

The 2026 Chalmers-Albanese budget was a victory of ideology over decency. The fundamental ideology of this Labor government is one which ignores wealth creation in favour of wealth redistribution and division, otherwise known as buying votes with other people’s money. This is a deliberate strategy of division or, more accurately, a strategy of ‘divide and conquer’. Implicit in this strategy is a simple maxim: ‘It doesn’t matter how much hate you get from those whose votes you don’t need.’ It’s callous policy, cynical, dishonest and in the end self-defeating, as every communist government in history has found out the hard way. When you take people’s stuff, they stop creating new stuff and the nation descends into poverty—time after time after time. 

Despite the lesson of history, here we are with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, which rakes in $1.38 billion in additional taxation in the first full year, 2027-28. This is a tax grab. This is before the $350 million backdown announced last week. How badly does this government need that money to take the electoral criticism they’ve received over a measure which is 0.2 per cent of budget revenue? 

This bill takes from those who have created wealth to buy votes from those who have not yet created wealth—our young. And yet, according to the Productivity Commission and updated JBWere financial modelling, an estimated $3.5 trillion to $5.4 trillion in assets will pass from Baby Boomers to younger generations through to 2050. The speed of the transfer is increasing. Inheritances have more than doubled since 2002. Wealth passing between generations has risen from roughly $120 billion per year to an expected $500 billion per year in 2045. This government is trying to buy votes amongst young people with money they would have received anyway. That’s the fatal flaw in this bill—the lie, the deceit. It’s these trillions of dollars in inheritance that have become the grand prize of this communist Labor government’s theft. 

Labor wants to steal more of everyone’s money, including from the young, and lock the young out of building assets for later in life. Lock you out! Labor’s intergenerational equity and intergenerational wealth transfer lies will in fact really create intergenerational poverty—a veritable gold mine of money from taxing everyone for Labor and its bureaucrats to use to bankroll Labor’s social engineering and to buy votes from their target demographics, which, for the record, are ABC journalists, university academics, immigrants from any country as long as it’s not a Christian country and union bosses, although only the militant kind. Not only will our young people receive less in the long run, they will receive less in the short term, owing to changes in the capital gains tax. Previously, any capital gain was discounted 50 per cent and then taxed as part of your normal income. This meant young people just starting out did not pay a lot of tax, especially those trading while at uni or TAFE. Not anymore. Now the full value of the profit will be taxed and at a minimum rate of 30 per cent, not your marginal rate. Even worse, more value trades and assets like trading cards or parts of a bitcoin over $500 are now treated the same for compliance purposes as large stocks portfolios. Do you have a $500 Pokemon card? Congratulations! Here’s the compliance you’ll need to meet, including valuations and notifications for a Pokemon card, you evil capitalist you. Off to the re-education camp you go. There will be none of this ‘trying to get ahead’ under this Labor government. The deceit of this government to pretend this bill is about intergenerational wealth when the real impact will be to make it harder for young people to get ahead—that’s why the budget has been called the worst in living memory. Not only were the key measures toxic, the justification for taking those measures was a lie. It doesn’t add wealth and opportunity for young people. It takes it away. Everyone except rusted-on Labor diehards saw straight through it. Our young have seen through it, and baby boomers are furious. They didn’t work their whole lives to create wealth just so the government could come along and take a massive chunk to fund social engineering. 

One Nation’s response to these measures is simple: don’t do it. Let Australians create their own wealth and use that wealth to benefit their children. For many Australians, the bank of mum and dad is in play to help young people get their own home. Assistance from parents has risen from 15 per cent of new mortgages in the 1980s to 40 per cent of new mortgages today. I know when I mention family that a lot of our constituents will be thinking, ‘I don’t have a family, since my parents got divorced and my parents lost their house in the divorce. What do you have to pass on?’ I acknowledge those who are in that position. Your feelings and concerns are real. One Nation understands that, which is why our low-start mortgage will allow your personal superannuation account to provide a large share of your home deposit. This will allow you to get into your own home once you have a job, a work history and proven capacity to repay. 

When it comes to the broader policy environment, including taxation and regulation, the response to Senator Hanson’s amazing speech at the GetUp! press club in Canberra last week carries a warning. Our opponents will spin One Nation’s policies and words so far, so tightly that Pauline Hanson could knit a sweater with them. Our policies do take a moment of serious thought to grasp. On one hand, One Nation policy does contain measures which need to be funded through some level of taxation. We will support and defend Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, aged pensions and the National Disability Insurance Scheme for those who are actually disabled, along with unemployment benefits for those looking for work and sickness benefits for those who legitimately can’t work, amongst other measures. These are what make Australia a civilised society. 

On the other hand, our campaign for smaller government is based on an overarching principle of allowing Australians to keep more of their own money and providing an economic environment that encourages people to get ahead through their own hard work and endeavour. This is not an absolutist argument. It’s one of degree—a balance between a government of decency and a government of waste. The Chalmers-Albanese government has crossed over the line out of decency into waste and hypocrisy and deceit, and, as a result, One Nation ranks are swelling. Labor obviously feel that entrepreneurs are not their demographic. You show that repeatedly. Interestingly, a large number of small-business people coming into One Nation are saying the same thing about the Liberals. ALP arrogance has been on display in the development of these proposals. No open consultation occurred and no white papers. The measures were drawn up behind closed doors and then dumped on the public, vomited onto the public. The committee stage for this bill was a farce engineered to manipulate a favourable report—deceit yet again. 

This Labor government has made a mockery of the committee system across legislation, referrals and Senate estimates to the point where a review is needed to find a way to stop this abuse from ever happening again. The government has been forced to remove some of the worst elements of their tax grab. Great—now remove the rest! 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 includes a provision to limit negative gearing to new properties only. Negative gearing allows someone on a wage or salary to buy a second property, or more, and claim the net cost of that property against their tax. Any net profit is considered taxable income—it’s taxed. Many Australians have used this method to get ahead. It’s most common in retirement, with couples purchasing their retirement home near retirement and then renting it out to help pay it off until they’re ready to move in. Then they rent out their family home to fund their retirement. 

It’s true that this is a concession which tends to be used at higher-income levels. Here are the facts. The top 20 per cent of wage and salary earners own 40 per cent of investment properties and claim 60 per cent of the tax deductions. Before this bill, there was no limit to the number of homes that a person could negatively gear other than the ability of their income to cover the cost. 

One Nation believes—our policy has shown this before today and shows this right now—that a large property portfolio is not something that should be set against a salary. It’s a business, and the person should have a corporate structure which is appropriate for that business. One Nation will limit negative gearing to two properties. This is enough for Australians to invest in real estate and lift themselves up without misusing the tax system. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, though, cancels negative gearing on existing homes entirely, and it allows unlimited negative gearing on new builds. So that older couple I mentioned before, buying their retirement home and renting it out to help pay for it—they can’t negatively gear. Yet a high-income earner can buy up a whole new block of flats and negatively gear that. Where’s the justice? How is that fair? How does that advance intergenerational equity? It doesn’t. It drives intergenerational poverty. 

There are two other measures in this bill. One Nation will support the $5-a-week tax cut. Although $250 a year is nothing towards offsetting the rising cost of living, it’s money better off in workers’ pockets than in the government’s pockets, where it’d be eaten up before it even gets into play in 2027. As a reminder, One Nation policy will put a lot more into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will index the tax thresholds to ensure nobody is forced into a higher tax bracket because they got a pay rise to make up for inflation. That’s the stealth tax. I’ve tried twice to amend Treasury bills, once under the Liberals and once under Labor. Both times, both parties said they loved the idea—but not now. 

One Nation will leave schedule 4 in the bill. That is the no-documentation-required $1,000 for tax deductible expenses. I’m concerned that people who are entitled to more than $1,000 will lazily tick that box to save time, although opposing what is a benefit for the many on the basis of what it could do for the few is the wrong decision. 

One Nation is moving an amendment to remove schedule 1, capital gains tax, and schedule 2, negative gearing, from the bill. If that amendment fails, we will oppose this bill. 

The Labor Party have taken to using a deceitful trick to make it look like One Nation opposed pay rises for workers, which is false. Instead, this is to add a measure to a bill which they know One Nation will not support. In this case, it’s the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes hurting the young and the old. It’s called a poison pill. It’s not their idea; the parties of globalisation around the world are using it to frame conservative parties as hateful of workers when the reverse is true. Tricks destroy trust and kill truth. Prime Minister Albanese gives so much material himself to the Fire the Liar campaign across the nation. Poison pills allow their fake ‘independent’ websites like They Vote For You to lie and say One Nation voted against tax cuts, for instance, when, in fact, the Albanese government wrapped the tax cuts in legislation that could not be supported—it had to be opposed. Labor refuses to put the measures separately. Had they put the measures separately, we would have supported the tax cut, minuscule though it is. Another Labor lie is its claim this bill is tax reform. It’s not. Instead it increases tax complexity, which leads to increased fees for accountants, lawyers and valuers when preparing tax returns for which the people pay. Taxpayers pay even more when doing their return. This is not reform; it’s a rip-off for which you, the people of Australia, pay—including the young. Anyone interested in honest political discussion should treat the OpenAustralia Foundation and their propaganda arm They Vote for You with utter contempt. Their subscribers apparently do, because their most recent report admits a $50,000 loss. It’s not working—perhaps try impartiality and honesty next time—nor is it having any effect. 

The growth of One Nation is proof the public are breaking what has been a lifelong allegiance to the tired old parties—yes, you two—and are instead embracing One Nation policies that will restore wealth and abundance for all Australians. Labor’s dirty tricks and lies will not stop One Nation from voting in the best interests of everyday Australians. We want to make Australia a land of abundance and opportunity again for the old and the young. 

Treasurer Jim Chalmers claims that six out of seven new jobs are in the private sector, yet private sector job share has fallen from 85.2% to 84%, with most growth occurring in taxpayer-funded non-market sectors (health, NDIS, aged care).

Minister Gallagher defended care economy jobs, criticising One Nation for previously labelling these jobs a “Ponzi scheme.” She maintains that the government supports job growth across all sectors.

Labour market productivity has fallen 5% overall under this Labor government – the Reserve Bank linking this to rising inflation. When questioned over this figure, Minister Gallagher responded by pointing to the government’s 15-point productivity package outlined in the budget, covering investment, innovation, red tape reduction, trade, housing, and technology — while criticising the previous coalition government’s productivity record.

In my final question, I pointed out the government’s poor economic performance, citing increased underutilisation, falling real wages and lower productivity – which Minister Gallagher rejected, highlighting positive metrics including higher employment, increased participation rates, a shrinking gender pay gap, falling headline inflation, and annual real wage growth.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday I asked a series of questions on the labour market using ABS data, including this question: 

Treasurer Chalmers stated last week six out of seven jobs created since 2022 were in the private sector. 

Yet over 70 per cent of the jobs created are in the taxpayer funded economy, not the private sector—health, NDIS, aged care and education. Your answer went to the worthiness of those jobs, which One Nation does not dispute. Your answer did not deal with the Treasurer’s misrepresentation. The Treasurer is wrong and misleading. How can six out of seven jobs that your government has created be in the private sector if the share of jobs in the private sector has fallen from 85.2 per cent of the labour market when you came to power down to 84 per cent today, indicating the reverse is true? 

Senator GALLAGHER (Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. My answer to your question yesterday was in response to you calling non-market jobs a Ponzi scheme. That’s how you referred to those jobs. You said aged care, disability care and health workers are effectively masquerading as a Ponzi scheme. That was in your question, so that’s why I responded the way I did. 

Since we came to government, the number of jobs has increased by about 1.3 million jobs to the economy since May 2022. I support completely the Treasurer’s comments around the jobs that are being created in the private sector, and we have seen jobs in the public sector and in the non-market sector as well because there is enormous growth in the care economy, as there should be—people who are working hard to support people’s ageing parents, our youngest citizens people who are sick and unwell. That is going to be a growing part of our economy as well. The point I was trying to make yesterday is: don’t punch down on those workers. Don’t demean those workers by saying they are essentially operating in a Ponzi scheme. 

Senator Hanson interjecting— 

Senator GALLAGHER: Well, Senator Hanson, they weren’t my words; they were your party’s words. The point we were making is that this party will always create jobs. We will always ensure that those jobs are well paid and that those jobs are secure whether they’re in the private sector, the public sector, the market sector or the non-market sector because at the end of the day a job allows you to live a dignified life. That’s what people on this side of the chamber care about. (Time expired) 

Senator ROBERTS: Labour market productivity fell 0.2 per cent in the June quarter, taking the total fall under your government to five per cent. It’s supposed to go up, not down. The Reserve Bank has flagged this problem as likely to cause an increase in inflation. Productivity does not mean working harder. It means working smarter, more efficiently and more easily. Minister, what specifically is your government doing to reverse the fall in labour market productivity? 

Senator GALLAGHER: In the budget—and we discussed this at estimates, I think, in the committee that you attended, Senator Roberts—there is a very extensive productivity package, whether it be in investment, innovation, removing red tape, some of the work that Senator Farrell’s doing in trade, building a single national market, making it easy to engage with government, accelerating approvals, simplifying building regulations, building more homes, modernising energy markets— 

Senator Bragg: You couldn’t make it up! 

Senator GALLAGHER: better recognising skills, unlocking the data and AI opportunity, investing in science and innovation, strengthening the superannuation system, better coordinating government investment and driving ongoing regulatory reform. They are the 15 areas that were contained in the budget around improving productivity. 

Senator Bragg laughs, but, of course, he won’t be on the record saying that the decade of the worst productivity in this country was actually the decade that you were in government, because you didn’t care and you didn’t do anything, including in housing, including in super and including in those other areas I’ve outlined. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Your economic report card is full of red ink: underutilised workers increasing to 1.68 million, real wages falling 1.5 per cent and labour market productivity falling five per cent, due in part to your obsession with net zero and wokeism nobbling the economy, reducing productivity, increasing inflation, running up debt and making working lives harder. Minister, where is your plan to turn this around to keep a roof over workers’ heads and food on their family table? 

Senator GALLAGHER: Employment is up—this is from when we came to government—the participation rate’s up, gender pay gaps are down, the number of women employed full-time is up, industrial disputes are down, headline inflation is down and annual real wage growth is up. If you look at any of those measures, they don’t align with what One Nation seek to portray about our economy. 

And I would note that those opposite, the conservative side of politics that sit over there, absolutely love to talk our economy down, when the data acknowledging that people are doing it tough in an inflationary environment tells a different story. There are more people working now than ever before, and we will continue to invest in those jobs and support those workers with secure jobs into the future. 

The reality is simple: Australians are going backwards under the Albanese government.

Official data reveals growth this decade is the worst in 100 years, yet Labor is pushing ahead with bringing in millions of new arrivals.

Economic growth is negative per person. The economy isn’t growing on its own, so immigration is being used as a Ponzi scheme to artificially inflate the numbers.

Labour productivity is down, fuelled in part by massive public service job growth that drives up inflation for everyone.

While female participation rates are up, male participation rates are down. Growth should be for everyone.

Transcript

The reality is that people are going backwards under the Albanese government. Official data shows growth this decade is the worst in 100 years, and this is when Labor decides to dump a million new arrivals with a million more to come. The minister’s list of economic achievements rely on immigration to stay positive. Economic growth, for instance, is negative per person. Each person’s economic pie is shrinking, not growing. Immigration is the Ponzi scheme that I’m referring to and talking about here. Bringing in new people to artificially inflate the economy, which is now incapable of growing on its own. 

Labour productivity is down in part because of the growth in employment in the Public Service, whose lower productivity contributes to inflation for everyone. Another of Senator Gallagher’s achievements was female participation rates are up—true—and male participation rates are down. You’re supposed to grow the economy for everyone, not pick sides. People are noticing— (Time expired) 

This session is with Treasury’s Fiscal Group, the division tasked with delivering federal budgets, analysing fiscal policy, and ensuring efficient public spending. The group’s core duties span three main areas: budget production, managing financial arrangements and payments between the Commonwealth and States and Territories, and providing spending advice.

In this advisory role, the group guides portfolio ministers on government spending regulations and resource allocation across policy areas, including health, education, labour markets, infrastructure, and defence.

Coming from a business background, I always look for ways to streamline and reduce major costs, especially while everyday Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis. With that in mind, I asked for a complete accounting of the Albanese Labor Government’s net zero policies and measures, including departmental costs, grants, co-investments, spending to date, projections across forward estimates, and contingent or “off-the-books” liabilities (which reports suggest could reach a trillion dollars).

Mr White noted this was a massive query not fully covered by Budget Paper No. 1, so I asked Treasury to take it on notice.

I also asked for the costs since 1 July 2022 (plus forward estimates) of federal agencies or departments duplicating services where constitutional authority rests with the states, particularly in areas like health, education and the environment.

Despite concerns raised by Treasury and Minister Gallagher regarding the scope of the requests and the distinction between federal and state roles, I reiterated that reducing government waste is vital. Given the cost-of-living pressure on Australian households, the focus should be on delivering tax cuts and cutting expenditure rather than raising taxes.

In business, identifying and then cutting unnecessary duplication is a huge opportunity to reduce spending and ease the burden on taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. I asked these questions of the previous group, the Markets Group, and they recommended that I ask you. Could I just check, please, because it seems like you’re perfect for it, that the Fiscal Group is a core division within the Australian Treasury responsible for delivering government budgets, analysing fiscal policy and ensuring efficient public spending.  

Mr White: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: It works to achieve sound fiscal outcomes through structural policy advice, coordinating the federal budget and managing financial transfers to states and territories—correct?  

Mr White: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Key responsibilities—three of them—are budget production; Commonwealth-state relations, managing the timely and accurate payments and financial arrangements between the federal government and the states and territories; and spending advice. It advises portfolio ministers on whole-of-economy government spending regulations and resource allocation across policy areas like health, education, labour market, infrastructure and defence—correct?  

Mr White: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to being in business—companies, small business and large corporations— where we look at our costs, especially our bigger costs, and try to work out ways to improve them, so that’s what I’d like to ask you about. There are two big costs. Could you tell me, please, what are the full costs across the breadth of the Albanese Labor government of net zero measures, net zero policies, including departmental costs, co-investments and grants. Also include a figure for contingent liabilities, including off-the-books matters, which I’ve seen referenced in mainstream media as potentially a trillion-dollar liability. Could you please include spending to date as well as projections across forward estimates. Are you the people?  

Mr White: That’s a very large question.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is a very large cost, in fact.  

Mr White: We don’t have that in front of us. Budget Paper No. 1, page 121, has an appendix B that goes to this, but not in the way you’re asking the question. It has some information about net zero transformation and net zero spending measures, but they’re really new measures, not the whole of the government. Answering that question would take quite some time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr White: We can.  

Ms P Brown: I might just point you towards paragraph 1 on page 124, which provides similar information that is there for this budget but gives the figures in previous budgets, so you can look at those numbers and see the impact over time.  

Mr White: Yes. If we took it on notice, we’d have to work out what we can do. It might not be an easy thing to pull together in that way, but we could look.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Take it on notice. Second, you’re involved in allocating money to the states. Could you please provide the costs since 1 July 2022 of any Commonwealth department or agency which duplicates agencies existing in the territories and the states and for which the constitutional mandate for that power vests with the states, not the Commonwealth. Could you please include data through forward estimates.  

Mr White: That’s possibly an even bigger question than the first one.  

Ms P Brown: I don’t know how we would do it.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a huge opportunity.  

Ms P Brown: What are you specifically after? Is it whether there are similar functions being done at the Commonwealth level as at the state level?  

Senator ROBERTS: The states have responsibility for certain services, and the Commonwealth is duplicating them.  

Mr White: Yes, it’s an interesting question. Essentially, ever since Federation started, there have been certain things where Commonwealth and state governments have done things in similar areas, and we have a lot of that now. We have a whole budget paper, Budget Paper No. 3, federal financial relations, which has $200 billion a year we give to the states. The question of duplication versus cooperation and doing things in different areas for the same sorts of things is an interesting question. Is us giving money to the states to run hospitals duplication or not is kind of a tricky question.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think giving money to the states as part of grants and things like that is a duplication. It’s where you’re doing the same services. It seems to be rife in health, education, environment.  

Senator Gallagher: We have slightly different responsibilities, though. In health, states primarily run the hospital system, but we have responsibility in primary care—GPs, Medicare, aged care, those kinds of things. In education it’s more universities, early education and care; states have public schools. So there are differences. I’m just not sure how we would provide an answer to that on notice in a way that would not take a lot of effort.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, how much is a lot of effort compared to the benefits once we work them out? Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis. The government’s increasing taxes, so why not look at cutting the need for taxes?  

Senator Gallagher: We’re cutting taxes as well. There’s tax reform, which includes tax cuts. But fundamentally, we probably have a disagreement that the Commonwealth duplicates functions of the states. I think the Federation and its roles and responsibilities are pretty well understood, and the architecture of the Commonwealth Public Service reflects that, just as the states’ reflect theirs.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s a huge opportunity to at least have a look at it and investigate it.  

Senator Gallagher: We’re always looking at ways to streamline. We genuinely are. We have no appetite to be in places that the Commonwealth shouldn’t be involved because we have enough in the areas of our responsibility. But I’ll see if there is anything useful that Treasury can provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

… government greed for other people’s money is our biggest threat.

Productivity and prosperity – these are two concepts intimately linked and yet wrongly separated thanks to the over-taxing demands of Treasury.

Productivity is not about taxation.

Taxation is a reward taken by the Treasury from productivity in the private sector.

This has led some ministers to view tax revenue as the chief goal of productivity instead of a reflection of economic success – a catastrophic error that speaks to the financial illiteracy plaguing the Labor government.

The recent Budget saw Labor propose raising taxes on the few remaining productive sectors of the economy. These represent the small corners of investment occupied with people trying to make ends meet in an increasingly unfair system. The result has been … predictable. A flat, weakening investment sector and stagnating housing markets.

Panic has spread. Money has retreated. Productivity has taken a hit it could not afford.

It was only last week that the Treasurer had to be told that his new Capital Gains Taxes threatened future productivity within the business sector and the investment market.

Think about it. When doubling taxes on risky investment returns, the government misses out on the taxes it could have collected when investors transition into home ownership. Which is what most young people say they intend to do with their capital gains… Because of these new taxes, young people will purchase fewer homes. It is just one example of stifling economic growth in favour of short-term tax grabs. And this is without mentioning the reduced productivity of renters already facing price hikes as a result.

Government greed for other people’s money is the biggest threat to productivity.

This government has strongly disincentivised productive risk-takers.

Business owners are punished and over-taxed workers are conditioned to blame their employers for economic hardship. This creates unproductive economic tension.

Instead, the true culprit is the acute failure of government to contain inflation and tighten its own belt. Labor has acquired substantial debts through mismanagement, hubris, panic, and delusion. What did we see in this budget? The Treasurer is still spending money he doesn’t have on things this country doesn’t need.

Meanwhile, businesses are collapsing are record rates. The public sector is growing. Wealth generation is shrinking. This is not productive.

Australia is becoming an incoherent economic mess that rewards a culture of hand-outs – be they corporate or private – instead of offering a hand-up to those who want to succeed.

Here is the truth. We are almost at a trillion dollars in debt, chasing our tail to keep up with interest repayments worth $28 billion per annum. Dead money. The Treasury is in desperate need of productivity while having no idea – whatsoever – about how to nurture productivity in a complex Western democracy full of free people making independent choices about their economic future.

The economy requires incentive, not the punishment.

What is ‘productivity’?

Productivity is cheap, reliable, Australian-sourced energy. It is good roads connecting regional areas with city centres. High speed rail lines and Australian-controlled ports. Refineries guaranteeing fuel supply when the world is in crisis. A competitive construction industry. It is the cutting of petty and unnecessary red tape. It is cutting UN and foreign agency imposed green and blue tape. It is high-speed, reliable internet – everywhere – including along highways and in regional areas. It is the freedom to take risks and earn a reward. It is a reliable nation of stable economic rules to encourage investment.

Productivity means placing trust and respect in businesses – freeing them of unnecessary cost burdens so they can hire staff, reward the hardest workers, and voluntarily pay above minimum wage.

Labor is spending all of its time focused on the minimum wage, because the economy is dying. Low wages are becoming the standard, rather than the baseline, because businesses are giving too much of their capital to the Treasury.

A Treasury that has run out of money and wants to dip into the pockets of Australians who did nothing wrong.

Productivity is not about working harder – it is about working smarter.

The Woke-Left have taken over the economy and built an economic prison rather than a promise.

One Nation wants to free the Australian people so they can be productive – on their own terms – to build a future they want for their children and their children’s children. Also, a nation worth living in for the people alive now, who deserve to enjoy the sacrifices of their ancestors.

To the Prime Minister, I say this, you don’t make the next generation of Australians productive through saddling them with an education debt larger than a housing deposit, selling their jobs to an imported workforce, and then tempting them into home deposit schemes they can never hope to pay off while depreciating the value of their asset. These Australians will never have the financial security to invest their money or take the risk of starting a business that creates productivity. What they are doing is surviving. Not thriving.

One Nation have been presenting policies for productivity for years. Since rising in the polls, these policies have gained traction. The response? Our political opponents are seeking to tear them down. They complain that any drop in revenue is an affront to the status quo of Treasury.

When we offered income splitting to give families a fairer tax policy and the flexibility to raise their own children, we were told this would ‘hurt income tax returns’ and ‘cause women to leave the workforce’. I’m sorry? What about the savings to childcare, which are currently costing the Budget a fortune? What about the humanity of allowing one parent to stay home, if that is what they wish? What about the benefits to the child? The community benefits? The education benefits? One Nation offers economic freedom – and the economists whinge.

When One Nation offered to end bracket creep – Labor, the Coalition, and Greens united to stop us. Then the government tossed a measly $250 at working Australians in compensation. It is … disgusting. It is … dishonest.

When One Nation offered greater freedom to businesses so they can grow and hire more staff, we are told that we are denting corporate tax. One Nation does not want minimum wage to be the anchor dragging down prosperity – we want the private sector to reward merit, pay better wages, and give proper benefits to the hardest workers and brightest staff because the most skilled should rise to the top. Productive societies are merit-driven. Always.

Merit makes money. Hard work makes money. Businesses make money. Government spends money other people have made.

And it should spend that money in a way that encourages productivity – not fantasy obsessions, like a non-existent climate crisis. The green apocalypse made a lot of corporations very rich at the expense of taxpayers. You think we didn’t notice – we did.

Of course, One Nation will retain the minimum award system and seeks to elevate wages above the minimum level through productivity increases.

One Nation understands that productivity has nothing to do with forcing people to work harder. They already work hard. Instead, Australia requires bold changes in regulation to unchain the economy and release its potential.

A smaller government.

This is our message to the Treasurer. If you have to sit around mulling over productivity at a roundtable it means you don’t understand productivity. You have no clue what to do.

Just as you cannot subsidise your way to becoming an energy super-power, you cannot tax your way to productivity.

A One Nation leadership will force – force – the government to tighten its belt, stop wasting money, and cut off parasitic departments and bureaucracies. We will shrink the government to fit the constitution, saving $90 billion a year of waste and duplication, so that we can offer the Australian people lower taxes, less red tape, and more personal flexibility. One Nation wants tax money put to use to build transit lines and infrastructure required to increase productivity – not into wasteful projects that tick a Net Zero box at the UN.

We cannot keep sending billions ($31 billion a year) of dollars offshore and billions more into the hands of domestic fraudsters and criminals.

Cheap, reliable energy. Proper infrastructure. Real wealth. Lower taxes. Less bureaucracy.

That is the formula for productivity.

I will finish with this. And this will hurt. If the Treasury wants productivity, it will have to take a leaf out of the private sector. It will have to take a risk. Take a hit to its balance sheet. Make an investment. It will have to lower taxes and allow the private sector to keep more of it what it earns so that the men and women of Australia can choose what sections of the economy to grow – to pick the best parts to invest in – to cultivate what actually works, not what the government wants to work.

The Australian people have always been financially responsible and economically intelligent. They will dig the government out of this financial hole – only if the government lets them.

The Government is currently spending what will likely amount to $20 billion building and upgrading the Inland Rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane. However, Brisbane is constrained. Its ability to handle additional container traffic is very limited, and the railway connection from Toowoomba to Brisbane is almost at capacity. Widening the line is not possible.

For this reason, One Nation supports extending Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, which has the space to expand to become Australia’s main container Port. This would reduce import and export times and lower the cost per container, ultimately reducing prices for consumers.

I asked the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) where they were with this connection. The answer was – nowhere! How can we grow the economy and provide for the millions of new arrivals the Albanese Government is allowing in without a corresponding increase in our productive capacity?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The current planning for Inland Rail includes consideration of a connection to the Port of Gladstone. Where are we up to on that?  

Mr W Johnson: I think I updated you last time that there were some interested parties, in terms of the Port of Gladstone, in connectivity to Inland Rail and the alignment of Inland Rail as it is. GreenLink, in particular, is the organisation that ARTC continue to have some interaction with. They’re progressing through what design operations and/or funding could look like for that in the future. We remain engaged with GreenLink, as ARTC. Inland Rail remain focused on delivering the project to Parkes, as it is today approved, and the enabling works north of Parkes. They’re not focused around any connection, at this point, with GreenLink.  That’s  what ARTC has been working with.  

Senator ROBERTS: Regarding GreenLink, do they have the finance?  

Mr W Johnson: I’m not sure of the exact status. I’d have to take that on notice, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do they also have the intellectual property, the property feasibility study?  

Mr W Johnson: My understanding is they’re working on both concept designs as well as funding programs, and they’re well advanced in those endeavours.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you working with IPG global?  

Mr W Johnson: No. Sorry, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Port of Gladstone currently does not have a major container-handing function. An application to build one has been delayed for 11 years. What steps have you taken to ensure the Gladstone port is capable of accepting container traffic when the connection is completed? For clarity, it makes no sense to connect Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone if the port can’t handle container traffic.  

Mr W Johnson: There’s no work from ourselves in terms of the Port of Gladstone.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, just as an aside, the Port of Gladstone could be a development of major national significance, with regard to container terminals. Why is there a delay on that?  

Senator McCarthy: I can take your question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I’m deeply concerned with the delay, mainly, in the connection and the approval of Gladstone—the processing for a container-handling application. Going back to the ARTC, if the connection is not built, the Port of Brisbane becomes a primary container port. On notice, can you provide the data you have on the remaining rail spots to bring container trains to the Port of Brisbane, the capacity of the port and the expected volume of container traffic Inland Rail would generate from import and export traffic for the Port of Brisbane.  

Mr W Johnson: Sorry, I’d have to take the details of container movements on notice; I’m happy to do so. We continue some interaction and engagement with the Port of Brisbane around what connectivity would look like in the future, but there are a significant number of products that are domestic bound from both North Queensland and also southern states into Queensland. That is the purpose of the connectivity of the existing and the future inland rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, going back to the previous question, is there any way you can get onto the Gladstone Ports Corporation and ask them to resolve the application immediately?  

Senator McCarthy: I’d have to take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

Think about this scenario: the RBA cuts rates, yet the interest you pay on your mortgage goes up. How could that happen?

The answer is the Australian government’s trillion dollars in debt. If the muppets in Canberra continue to spend and borrow like they have been, adding to the near trillion dollar debt pile, the consequences for Australians will be huge.

The country will lose its credit rating, bond premiums will increase and there will be flow on effects right down to the repayments on your mortgage. Everyone knows you can’t spend more on the credit card than what’s coming in your salary or the house will crumble.

Everyone it seems, except Jim and Albo in Canberra.