I asked Minister Wong about Labor’s failed promise to return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands.
Before the election, Anthony Albanese was happy to call foreign ownership of our ports a mistake. Now that he’s the PM, he has gone quiet.
When I pushed for a timeframe, Minister Wong couldn’t provide a date, nor a plan. All we got was more “we’re working on it.”
The PM didn’t even raise the Port during his recent trip to China! Is he too scared of retaliation from the Chinese Communist Party?
We have a foreign power (the CCP) controlling our most strategic northern port on a 99-year lease. This was a catastrophic mistake by the Coalition, yet Labor is proving they are too weak to fix it.
Australian assets must be held exclusively by Australians to ensure our national interests are protected.
It is time to put Australians ahead of Beijing’s feelings.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1770862409015-76fa1e54-fc57-4468-8b39-1df0ba3d9245.png6341134Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-02-12 12:31:082026-02-12 13:03:07Foreign Control on Australian Soil: A Big Fail
Foreign governments are acting against Australians right here on our soil—and that’s why One Nation support the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025. This bill finally allows foreign states and their agents to be listed as terrorist organisations when they plan, assist, or advocate attacks against Australia. It’s about protecting Australians from intimidation, bullying, and terrorism.
The bill also creates new offences to stop anyone helping these entities, while allowing legitimate engagement where required. Yes, the reversal of the onus of proof is serious, and we’ll keep scrutinising it—but in this case, it’s justified to prevent deadly acts of terrorism. Australians of all backgrounds deserve protection.
One Nation backs this bill because every Australian deserves protection from terrorism and foreign coercion.
Transcript
One Nation has called out foreign governments and their agents who act against Australian citizens and even against our country right here in Australia. These include China, some Islamic nations and some members of the former Soviet Union. The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 would amend the Criminal Code to enable listing of certain foreign states or foreign state entities as terrorist organisations. Currently, this is not possible with the law, because foreign states or foreign state entities are not able to be listed as terrorist organisations. Two lawyers, including a barrister, and their staff have scrutinised this bill for One Nation, and our senators have considered and discussed the bill. The bill would authorise the Governor-General to list in a regulation foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism. That’s wonderful. The precondition to this occurring is that the minister for the Australian Federal Police, who is the home affairs minister, must believe on reasonable grounds that the foreign state or entity has engaged in, prepared or planned, assisted or fostered the doing of a terrorist act targeted against Australia or, in addition, if the entity has advocated doing a terrorist act that was targeted at Australia. The minister can only act with the agreement of the foreign affairs minister.
Secondly, the bill creates new offences which would criminalise conduct in which these entities engage and criminalise the conduct of persons who would seek to assist or support these activities. Additionally, it provides for appropriate defences for people who the law requires, for example, to engage with a listed entity or engage with an entity for a legitimate purpose. One aspect that has raised some concerns, though, is the reversal of the onus of proof that will apply when some defendants raise certain defences, where the defendant must establish the defence on the balance of probabilities. For example, a defendant may have the onus of establishing that they took all reasonable steps to disassociate themselves from a particular terrorist entity. The reversal of the onus of proof is a major event in legislation and should not be done lightly. Nonetheless, it appears justified here because of the nature of the offending behaviour.
We in One Nation have noticed this increasing trend in Labor-sponsored legislation over the last few years, and that sounds alarm bells to those who are responsible for scrutinising good policy. We’re very concerned about this trend. At times, this is a precursor to control and may reflect today’s Labor’s propensity to control. This reversal of the onus of proof must be carefully scrutinised on each occasion on which it’s raised. On this occasion, the government has justified this approach because of the preventive nature of measures that are being enabled to protect the Australian community from targeted acts of terrorism and the high risks of death or injury associated with such acts of terrorism. This bill’s additional protections are reasonable in the overall circumstances, given that radicalised Islamic extremists perpetrate relatively frequent terror attacks and Chinese Communist Party agents intimidate and bully law-abiding Australian citizens of Chinese dissent here in Australia. One Nation believes that Australian citizens of all backgrounds must be protected. We support this bill.
During this session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, I raised with them that in 2021, the Coalition government abandoned plans to build an all-weather, all-season paved runway in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Minister Watt confirmed that there are currently no plans to build such a runway and noted that Australia continues to rely on a blue ice runway during summer – leaving our bases largely isolated from the outside world for most of the year.
I pointed out that China is expanding its presence in the region, having already established three bases within the Australian Antarctic Territory. I also raised concerns about the recent reduction in the number of planned programs; however officials denied any funding cuts, asserting that Australia is meeting its obligations in Antarctic research despite China’s growing influence.
When questioned about China’s policy of conducting dual-purpose military and civilian research at its stations, the Department responded that military research would breach the Antarctic Treaty. China does not appear to share such concerns.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll be quick. In November 2021, the then coalition government made the poor decision to abandon the proposed construction of an all-weather paved runway near the Davis research centre in Antarctica due to perceived concerns of potential disruption of bird and seal colonies. It was a very poor decision, in my opinion, that missed the opportunity for Australia to advance its claims to usage of their allocated portion of Antarctica under the existing Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959. That will be up for renegotiation in some years hence or sooner if the treaty is challenged. My understanding is that there’s no formal expiry date. My first question is: will this government, the Labor government, reconsider and confirm the building of an all-weather runway to open up the Antarctic to year-round access via an eight-hour flight and replace total reliance on sea access that may take weeks?
Senator Watt: I’m not aware of that being considered. The officials can elaborate if they have info on that.
Ms E Campbell: At the moment, there are no plans for an all-weather runway, but we do have a really strong and capable blue ice runway. We have four-hour flights that go to Antarctica through the summer, and that’s a critical support for our stations and access. It’s at the Wilkins runway, which is about four hours, by tractor train, from Casey Station. I’ve had the pleasure of going on that flight a couple of times. It is a wonderful asset for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that an all-weather runway would radically reduce the operating costs and logistics of accessing Australia’s research stations. It would be the first and only all-weather runway on the continent and provide access to speedy evacuation in medical or other emergencies.
Ms E Campbell: We certainly use the blue ice runway for access to the station.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by blue ice?
Ms E Campbell: It’s a runway set up on the glacier just above Casey Station. We land jets on that runway in the summer months. To your point about ‘cheaper and effective’, my understanding—and it was before my time in this role—is that one of the reasons that the previous government decided not to progress with the all-weather runway was cost.
Senator ROBERTS: In the context of changing geopolitical dynamics, especially when China is expanding its influence in the Southern Ocean and in Antarctica, what else is Australia doing to protect its interests from encroachment in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica?
Ms E Campbell: We’ve got a really strong program in Antarctica. We talked previously about our science voyages and the step-up in our science work in Antarctica. Elements such as inspections, which we’ve talked about, are part of our influence in Antarctica. Going to international meetings, rebuilding our stations—these are all really strong parts. We can certainly provide references to the strategy and action plan. We’ve got a million year ice core where we’re travelling 1,200 kilometres inland with a traverse tractor to drill for ice. We’ve also reestablished the ability to go across our territory and explore new areas, which is really exciting.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that scientific programs have been cut. Why is the supply of critical food and medicine no longer assured? Has the government not heard of the phrase: ‘Use it or lose it’? That’s important for my next question.
Ms E Campbell: I don’t accept that we’ve cut funding. The government has invested more than ever. Funding has gone up.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no cut to scientific funding?
Ms E Campbell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. China is currently the most active national player in the Antarctic, yet Australia has the largest designated proportion of area claimed of the Antarctic continent, at 42 per cent—so over 40 per cent. It is referred to as the Australian Antarctic Territory and, in landmass, is the largest territory of Australia. China has five research bases there, and it’s soon to be six, with three of the bases it’s built within the Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia has only three bases in the territory and a fourth at Macquarie Island. Am I correct so far?
Ms E Campbell: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Chinese research stations have a dual purpose, supporting both military and civil functions. Common sense suggests that this will influence a Chinese call for a recognised claim for a part of the Australian Antarctic Territory, at our expense. Australia must do something soon to reclaim its senior role in Antarctic affairs. Will this government do what the coalition failed to do and build this vital runway to protect our claim to our territory?
Ms E Campbell: I might correct a couple of points of fact. First of all, you said at the beginning that—and I did say it was right—China was the most active player. China is certainly very active in Antarctica, as are many other countries. I think the US would say they have been the most active player, and I think we’re close behind. There’s not evidence that there is a dual-use function of Antarctic stations, and that would be a breach of the treaty. There has been no finding—
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘dual use’?
Ms E Campbell: You talked about dual military and scientific use. That would be a breach of the Antarctic Treaty, and there is no evidence that that has happened.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you think that would bother China?
Ms E Campbell: I think you’re asking my opinion. Under the treaty, that would not be allowed.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’re leaving it to the Chinese?
Ms E Campbell: That’s not what I said.
Mr Sullivan: They’re your words, Senator, not Ms Campbell’s.
Australian universities have their hands out for COVID19 stimulus monies.
When you pay your Vice Chancellors over $1 million and spend taxpayers money on non-core building activity, I say NO.
Transcript
Mr. President, I move the motion as amended.
Senator Ruston.
[Ruston] I seek leave to make a short statement.
[President] Leave is granted for one minute.
[Ruston] The Morrison Government Community Group to support those in need, including international students, universities, together with states and territories of established hardship funds, and other supports. Australia’s universities are autonomous institutions governed by university councils. Reporting of liquidity across the sector as of the 31st of December 2018 showed total cash and investments of $20.3 billion. Universities are eligible for job keeping if they meet the relevant criteria.
Senator Roberts.
[Roberts] I seek leave to make a short statement.
[President] Leave is granted for one minute.
[Roberts] Thank you. One Nation opposes this motion. We are concerned that everyday Australians who are doing it tough right now may have to bail out the universities that have become dependent on foreign students. These universities expose us to significant financial risk when they’ve spent vast amounts of our money on overseas students to create more revenue for them.
So where was their detailed business case in their risk analysis? If government did a utilisation study on these campuses before approving more building, they would find that their existing buildings are underused. And universities should not be in the accommodation business.
James Cook University has just tendered to develop student accommodation at a time when I found 216 vacant rental properties in Town’s Hall today. James Cooke University should give us our money back. We value their research and teaching, but they must act professionally.
If the universities were serious, then they would lead by example and cut the million dollar plus vice chancellor’s salaries. Why won’t they? Because they lack accountability.
