Posts

One Nation vs Labor: Putting Money Back in Your Pocket

,

The Labor government introduced legislation to increase the petrol and diesel excise by 16 cents a litre. When combined with GST (a tax on a tax) and retailer margins, everyday Australians will face an extra 32 cents per litre at the pump. This is money going straight into Treasury to fund Labor’s wasteful spending.

This tax hike hits those who can least afford it. While large corporations can pass these costs on to consumers, small and medium businesses lack market power and must absorb the hit directly from their profits. For everyday families, commuting, running errands and simple drives will all become more expensive.

Contrary to claims, reducing the fuel excise is not inflationary. It directly lowers fuel prices, which immediately reduces CPI inflation.

Furthermore, because fuel is a core input across the whole economy (farmers, tradespeople and freight operators), lowering fuel costs relieves inflationary pressure across all goods and services.

When One Nation proposed cutting the fuel excise by 50% and freezing indexation, it was dismissed. Yet, when the government temporarily adopted our measure, it proved to be a resounding success for living costs and inflation. That is why One Nation is calling on the government to freeze the fuel excise and cancel all indexation increases until June 2028.

While Labor is raising taxes to fund its reckless spending, a One Nation government would put a line through these wasteful projects.

We would:

➡️ Terminate all Net Zero spending, including associated departments, grants, and subsidies.

➡️ End funding to the “Aboriginal industry”, replacing it with direct grants to local councils for housing, infrastructure, and community support.

➡️ Scrap Snowy Hydro 2.0, saving taxpayers from a financial sinkhole that could reach $100 billion.

➡️ Cancel the $3.8 billion federal allocation for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop, an insane project projected to cost $216 billion that serves to line the pockets of union bosses.

The Albanese government must stop overtaxing Australians to funnel money to renewables, union mates, and left-wing causes.

One Nation will put money back in your pocket, starting with a freeze on the fuel excise until 2028.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: This week the government is introducing legislation to make a 16c a litre increase to the excise levied on petrol and diesel. When including the GST, which is levied on top of the fuel tax—it’s a tax on a tax—and then adding retailer margins, this will cause petrol to go up around 20c a litre before the weekend. Every litre, 20c—kerching into the Treasury for Labor to waste. This is occurring just when small business and everyday Australians are recovering from the high petrol prices caused as a direct result of the war in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Make no mistake, this is a tax on those who cannot afford it. Large corporations can simply pass this rise on to their customers—meaning you’ll be paying more. Small and medium businesses can’t do that. They have no market power. They are price takers. This tax rise will come straight out of what is left of their profit. Everyday Australians will find their drive to work will be more expensive, as will running around after the children. Even a simple day out, just getting in the car and going out for a drive, will be more expensive. 

I know when One Nation promised a 50 per cent reduction in the fuel excise at the last election, the commentariat called that ‘inflationary’. Then the government copied our policy and suddenly it’s no longer inflationary! Which is correct? It’s not inflationary. Reducing the fuel excise reduces the petrol price, which is directly trapped in the CPI—the consumer price index—calculation. Lower fuel prices means lower inflation. 

There is a second-round effect as well. Fuel is an input cost right through the economy, from the farmer running a cool room or ploughing a field, to the local tradesman, to the truckie who delivers everything we buy. When fuel goes up, everything goes up. When fuel goes down, inflationary pressure is taken out of the economy. Reducing the fuel excise will reduce inflation. It’s that simple. It’s proven. This is why One Nation promised, at the last election, to reduce the fuel excise by 50 per cent and suspend indexation for 12 months, with a review after that. 

Well, the government borrowing our policy for a few months has provided the review we needed to know that the policy is a winner. Everyday Australians have enjoyed the lower cost of living. Inflationary pressures were taken out of the economy for a short time. This is why One Nation are calling on the government to not increase the fuel excise until June 2028, including cancelling all indexation increases, and then review it after the next election, which any incoming government would do anyway. Give hardworking Australians and small businesses two more years of respite from the Albanese government’s high—stubbornly high—inflation. 

Why do the government need to put this tax up? Because they’re wasting our money again, that’s why! This budget included measures that One Nation would have put the red line through. I’ve already spoken about our policy promising to remove all net zero spending, including the department itself, loans, grants and associated boondoggles. We’ve already announced all spending on the Aboriginal industry will be terminated. Instead, One Nation will give grants directly to local government to build the homes and roads and provide maintenance and support to Aboriginal communities. 

We’ve already announced that Snowy Hydro 2.0 will be terminated and taxpayers saved from a financial disaster which may reach $1 trillion for capital costs, interest, maintenance and subsidies for the tiny amount of electricity the project will generate in the period the construction loans are being paid back. The budget set aside $3.8 billion for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has put the cost of this project at $216 billion over a 50-year finance cycle. This is an insane project. Even Victorians don’t want it. It’s there to put money into the pockets of corrupt union bosses and assorted underworld figures, as 60 Minutes clearly showed last night. One Nation would terminate that project. 

We will have more policy announcements in the months ahead. For today’s debate, let me say this: the Albanese government needs to stop overtaxing everyday Australians so it can funnel money to its mates in the unions, to the renewable solar and wind industry, academia and other costly lefty nonsense causes—spending that does not benefit everyday Australians and certainly benefits the Labor Party’s election campaign funds. Labor is making life harder during a severe cost-of-living crisis. One Nation will put more money back in people’s pockets, starting with a freeze on fuel excises until 2028. 

/0 Comments/by

Time to Pull the Plug on Snowy 2.0

,

I asked Minister Gallagher a simple question about the true cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0. Unsurprisingly, I got a response, just not an answer.

Economic analysts like Robert Gottliebsen projects that this project could cost taxpayers over $1 trillion by the time it’s finished. While One Nation believes this figure is far too high, the lack of proper planning, financial analysis, cost control and transparency makes an accurate analysis impossible.

How much will electricity have to cost for taxpayers to get their money back? They don’t know. They are making this up as they go along!

One Nation will:

❌ Close down Snowy 2.0 before it sends the country broke.

❌ Remediate the environmental damage.

❌ Build clean, reliable coal-fired power to slash the cost of living.

A One Nation government will stop this madness, balance the budget and put Australians first.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank You. I take note of Minister Gallagher’s response—it wasn’t an answer—to my question regarding the urgent need to close down Snowy Hydro 2.0 before it sends us broke. Robert Gottliebsen, not a man to be taken lightly, has projected the cost of this project at over $1 trillion after allowing for capital costs, maintenance, transmission line construction and maintenance costs, industrial solar and wind installations necessary to provide the power, and regular renewal of these renewables—because they only last 15 years—from now until the project is finished and paid for, likely in 2060. Then add in the annual subsidies, because Snowy 2.0 will always run at a loss and you’ll be paying for it. How much will the power have to be priced at to get our money back? They don’t know. They’re making this up as they go along. What a metaphor for the whole so-called net zero transition, a transition to poverty! One Nation will close this project down, remediate the environmental damage and replace the generation of power with beautiful, clean coal-fired power, lowering the cost of living for all Australians and helping us balance the budget.

/0 Comments/by

The $5M Vaccine Grant With Zero Accountability

,

I questioned the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on why taxpayers are funding a new $5 million vaccine-adjuvant research centre when Australians still haven’t been given clear answers about the safety of existing adjuvants.

Their written response to my questions confirmed the project was funded simply because peer reviewers ranked it highly, saying that “there are only seven adjuvants used in license vaccines which limits the choice” and the NHMRC’s Centres of Research Excellence aims to “discover novel adjuvants to improve vaccine development.”

That’s not oversight – that’s the NHMRC waving through millions without addressing the real issues.

I asked directly whether concerns about aluminum-based adjuvants or neurological conditions played any role and they couldn’t give me an answer.

I also confirmed that any new vaccine technology developed with Australian taxpayer money WILL NOT be owned by Australians.

This is simply not good enough.

Taxpayers should not be funding research that lines the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies. Any intellectual property generated through these grants must belong to the taxpayers. Handing over valuable IP to entities to monetise at our expense provides zero return to the taxpayers.

This has to stop!

For a billion-dollar grant body, Australians deserve better than vague justifications and no clear outcomes.

Australians deserve accountability that matches the scale of the spending.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could I turn to the National Health and Medical Research Council, please. In 2025, the National Health and Medical Research Council funded the Vaccine Adjuvant Discovery and Development Centre of Research Excellence—CRE—led by Professor Katherine Andrews at Griffith University, with $5 million as part of a $72 million CRE package. This grant focuses on discovering new adjuvants to enhance vaccine efficacy, safety and related purposes. First question: Why do we need new adjuvants? What’s wrong with the existing adjuvants?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We assess grants through a peer review process. Through that process, we utilise experts from around Australia to assess all of the grants that come to us—whether it’s for a centre of research excellence, an investigator grant or an ideas grant. The way that CRE would’ve been assessed would’ve been through that peer review process. Through that peer review process, they would’ve been elevated to the top of that scheme and would’ve been funded on the basis of their peers indicating that this was high-quality research that was likely to have a significant impact on health in Australia. We would take that on board; therefore, if they were ranked accordingly, we would fund them.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the reasons why their peers elevated it to No. 1?  

Prof. Wesselingh: I would have to go back and look at all of the assessments by those peers. Obviously, I don’t have that directly in front of me at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you do that on notice, please? We’d like to know why that research was approved, why we need new adjuvants, and what’s wrong with the existing adjuvants? 

Prof. Wesselingh: I’m very happy to look back at the peer review. But what I can guarantee you is that they would have been regarded as excellent research likely to produce significant impact.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what they are.  

Prof. Wesselingh: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Adjuvants and vaccines are there to enhance the body’s immune response to the antigen. Common adjuvants include aluminium hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate and potassium aluminium sulphate. These have been widely linked to neurological conditions spontaneously occurring after vaccination. Is this program an admission that there might be a level of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism? I guess you wouldn’t know, because you don’t know the—  

Prof. Wesselingh: So you’re asking us if the fact that we funded the CRE is an admission? We, again, funded the CRE on the basis of the scores that the CRE obtained. Those scores would indicate the quality of the science and the likelihood of obtaining high-quality evidence to improve the health of Australians.  

Senator ROBERTS: Right, and you’re going to find the reason anyway, so perhaps you could check if there is any aspect of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism as part of the reasons for developing a new adjuvant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We can certainly look at the arguments that the CRE made and the peer review of that CRE.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If research is successful and you find an effective adjuvant that is not neurotoxic, who will own the intellectual property the taxpayers just funded?  

Prof. Wesselingh: The way our granting system works is that the intellectual property developed by—the people who get the grants from us, which are normally medical research institutes or universities or members of those organisations, own the intellectual property. So the intellectual property would be assigned according to a university’s intellectual property rules or a medical research institute’s rules. I’m not sure, with that CRE, where they were.  

Senator ROBERTS: A $5 million synergy grant was awarded in 2024 to a multi-institutional team, including Monash University, to optimise vaccines for respiratory viruses, like influenza and RSV. This includes evaluating safety profiles to improve protection while minimising risks. If that develops new technology which achieves that objective, who will own that IP?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, the IP would be organised according to the rules developed by the organisations as part of that synergy grant. Synergy grants tend to have a number of organisations from around Australia, so I imagine there are multiple universities and MRIs involved in that synergy grant, and they will have developed an IP policy and the IP will be owned according to that policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: But not by the Australian government?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Not by NHMRC or by the government.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re very concerned about the level of spending in this government. Professor Bette Liu from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance received a $2.79 million investigator grant in 2024 to study adult vaccination programs. This explicitly includes assessing vaccine safety, identifying risks in high-risk groups and informing safer program designs. What was the outcome of that grant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, if I knew the outcomes of all of the grants that I fund—we fund a billion dollars worth of grants every year—I think I’d be pretty good. I can’t tell you the outcome of that grant, but we can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you still think you’re pretty good?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Do I think I’m personally pretty good or the NHMRC is very good?  

Senator ROBERTS: Both! Okay, thank you very much. 

/0 Comments/by

The $3 Billion Senior Squeeze

,

I recently asked questions about the government’s decision to cut the private health insurance rebate for seniors. Senator Green and government officials said that the rebate will now be based solely on income rather than age, aligning support across all cohorts. The government expects to save $3 billion from this measure, which it says will be reinvested into aged care and public hospitals.

It’s estimated that 3.1 million people will be affected, experiencing an average rebate reduction (and effectively a premium increase) of $250. Additionally, it’s predicted that approximately 44,000 people may drop out of private health insurance entirely.

I expressed my concern that forcing seniors into the public system would worsen existing hospital shortages. Amazingly, I was told that the impact on the public system would be minimal (less than 1%) and spread out. It was also highlighted that $24.4 billion was being invested into the public health system, adding that workforce and bed management are ultimately the responsibilities of state and territory governments.

I accused the government of punishing seniors to fund wasteful spending and a “socialist agenda.”

Senator Green rejected this statement, framing the move as a necessary offset to fund record investments in aged care.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I want to talk about the private health insurance rebate being cut. It was announced in the recent budget that the rebate for premiums paid by seniors towards private health insurance would cease; why? Is this a socialist agenda, Minister?

Senator Green: No, it’s not. We did go through this quite lengthily this morning. I don’t plan to add too much to what the minister had to say in response to questions from Senator Ruston, other than to reiterate that, under the proposed changes, all Australians will now receive the same private healthcare support based on their income and not on their age. What we’ve set out is that, through this budget and as a consequence of this decision, we will be investing over $3 billion in delivering more aged care beds, more packages and better care for older Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to get on to some specifics after this next question. Why does the government wish to punish seniors, most of whom have chosen to opt out of the public health system and pay premiums to receive private health treatment, by now wanting to make them pay even more than they currently pay?

Senator Green: I reject that assertion in your question. We are investing a record amount of funding into improving the healthcare system, particularly for aged care and older Australians, and that’s why we’ve made this decision. Of course, as you will stand up in the Senate many times over the next couple of months and decry the spending from our government, we know that it’s important to offset decisions that we have to make. That is why we have said that this decision will benefit older Australians through the aged care system.

Senator ROBERTS: How can you deny that older Australians on private health cover will not be paying more?

Senator Green: We’ve gone through this at length this morning. If you have a question about the impact or the policy decision, I will direct that to the officials. But I can say to you that, through this budget, we are making record investments in healthcare and aged care

Senator ROBERTS: And older Australians will be paying more, which is a point that I’ll get to in a minute, and this is during a cost-of-living crisis. Currently, how many seniors, effectively, will be forced to pay more for private health cover or enter the public system? Do you have any modelling?

Mr Hawkins: As we discussed this morning, 3.1 million people will be affected by the change in the rebate. We also put on record—we talked about this at length this morning—that our modelling would suggest that potentially about 44,000 might drop out of having cover and, therefore, would then no longer engage with the PHI system.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was after. What would be the effect of the extra load being placed on the public health system? Hospitals are already short of beds now.

Mr Hawkins: As I’ve said, our modelling would indicate that it’s a less than one per cent impact on the public health system and, again, as we went through in quite a lot of detail this morning, that would be spread across the system, with not everyone needing to use the system at any one time. Also, we might find that people decide to opt out of PHI but then self-fund any care that they need.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re already critically short of beds in many hospitals due to mass immigration. Post COVID injections, cancer detection has increased dramatically. Cancer deaths have decreased, because of treatment. But the available beds have decreased. This is going to add more strain to the public health system.

Ms Street: An additional $24.4 billion has also been invested into the public health system, bringing it up to $220 billion over the five years. So, yes, there might be some ‘additional’ but, as we’ve said, it would be less than one per cent. We think that estimation is at the higher end, because we do think, potentially, people will self select into private, or they may be people who are less likely to use the services anyway, so a number of factors contribute to that number. So we think this investment and this measure will have a minimal impact on that element.

Senator ROBERTS: What would be the total value of the extra premiums raised by those who choose to stay in the private health system?

Mr Hawkins: We’ve calculated that there will be an average impact of $250 on those who will have their rebate reduced. Everyone was to have access to the rebate, but it’s the size of the rebate that is reducing, and our average calculation is about $250.

Senator ROBERTS: How much does the government plan to save by refusing to rebate premiums for older Australians, or by cutting them back?

Mr Hawkins: By cutting the rebate, we are looking at $3 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the government modelled the extra cost to the public system by absorbing older Australians, who are more likely to require major healthcare in their elder years?

Mr Hawkins: No, we do not have that specific level of modelling. But as I’ve said, we have looked at and modelled what we think the impact would be, and that’s under one per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: What about the chronic shortage of beds, doctors, nurses, specialists and allied health professionals in public hospitals?

Senator Green: That’s veering a little bit into outcome 1, Public hospitals. But I’ve got Caitlin O’Brien from our public hospital team here, if you want to talk about the investment that the government is putting in through the NHRA agreement that we’ve put in place. Do you want to cover that?

Ms O’Brien: As Ms Street has said, an additional $219.6 billion over five years has been invested into the state- and territory-run public hospital system. Your questions in relation to workforce capacity and beds are best directed to state and territory governments who, under the National Health Reform Agreement agreed on 30 January, are very clearly listed as the stewards of their system.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you not have assessed that, though, before making the changes?

Ms Street: As we’ve indicated, we think the ‘additional’ is less than one per cent, and we think that estimation is at the higher end. So, in terms of the fiscal impact, it will depend on the services that people need and the conditions that they’re seeking treatment for.

Senator Green: The officials have made this point but, again, we’re investing almost $25 billion into the hospital system over the next five years.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Clare O’Neill said, reportedly, that the budget is deliberately hitting older people. It’s a tax grab because you’re paying for so much waste in government.

Senator Green: I don’t think that’s what Minister O’Neill would have said. I think you might be verballing her.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going on reports. It is a fact that the budget is also hitting young people. What I’m getting at is that this is a cover for the massive waste within your government spending, and now you’re going to ask older people to share in that.

Senator Green: No. We are making record investments in once-in-a-generation reforms in aged care and healthcare. That includes investing almost $25 billion into public hospitals, funding the states and territories to do the very important work that they do in making sure that the public hospital system is free.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a fact, Minister, that older people will be paying more.

Senator Green: We’ve changed the rebate so that now it’s means tested, so it’s based on income now. We can take you through how that might impact certain cohorts, but we have changed the rebate so that now it is means tested on income.

Senator RUSTON: On a point of clarification, Minister, you just said that you’ve changed the rebate so that it’s means tested on income. Are you suggesting that it’s currently not means tested on income?

Senator Green: No, that’s not what I said.

Senator RUSTON: You just did say that.

Senator Green: I’m not going to go back over the evidence that Senator Gallagher gave to you this morning. What I’m saying to Senator Roberts is that there is a means test for the rebate that is based on income.

Senator RUSTON: Now?

Senator Green: How semantic do you want to get?

Senator RUSTON: You just said that it is now going to be means tested. It has always been means tested.

ACTING CHAIR: I think, as the secretary has said, it is ‘solely’.

Mr Comley: ‘Solely means tested’. In fact, it hasn’t always been means tested.

Senator RUSTON: It was means tested prior to this change.

Mr Comley: I think it was, but it was not means tested on introduction in 2000.

Senator RUSTON: It has been means tested up until now.

/by

Funding Hate: The Shocking Truth About Labor’s Grants

,

How can Tony Burke serve as the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible for our national security, authorise hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in grants to pro-Palestinian activists?

Grant recipients going to groups who have publicly referred to Hezbollah terrorists as “men of God,” supported Intifada, and condemned Australians who stood with the Jewish community after the massacres in Israel.

When I asked how a minister can balance protecting our security on one hand while funding anti-Australian rhetoric on the other, the Labor government refused to answer, instead claiming arts grants weren’t a matter for Home Affairs and are handled at “arm’s length” by independent councils.

Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund individuals who undermine our social cohesion and praise banned terrorist organisations.

Labor can try to hide behind bureaucratic red tape, but I won’t let this drop.

Australians deserve to know exactly where their hard-earned money is going.

— May | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Separately: Minister, I find it confusing that, as Minister for the Arts, Minister Tony Burke authorised hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to known pro-Palestinian activists. These recipients of Australian tax dollars publicly support anti-Australian activities; refer to the terrorists of Hezbollah as ‘men of God’; support Intifada, which is a holy war—the slaughter of non-Muslims; and condemn those Australians who support the Jewish community after the massacre in Israel. Why would he do that?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would suggest that any grants administered under Minister Burke’s portfolio in the arts is not a matter for the Home Affairs portfolio. You would need to take it to—  

Senator ROBERTS: But, Chair, I’m interested in this because he’s also Minister for Home Affairs.  

CHAIR: But the grants you’re talking about are administered under the arts, so if you have a question relating to the grants administered there then you need to ask your questions in that hearing.  

Senator ROBERTS: We will be, but isn’t that hypocrisy? Security and funding terrorists?  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I do think that the chair is correct. There’s a whole other estimates session devoted to arts funding and grants. But I can tell you, in a general sense, that individual decisions about grants are made at arm’s length from the minister. In the arts portfolio there are groups like the Australia Council and other groups that determine who gets what grant. Those decisions are not made by this minister or have been by previous ministers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.  

CHAIR: Thank you for your assistance, Senator Roberts. 

 

/2 Comments/by

One Nation’s Fight to Save the NDIS

,

In March this year, the Senate voted down a One Nation motion moved by Senator Hanson that sought to establish a dedicated inquiry into waste, fraud, and abuse within the NDIS.

The rampant rorting, profiteering and misconduct inside the NDIS is draining resources from Australians with genuine need and pushing the scheme toward collapse.

Billions have been siphoned away, frontline workers pulled out of hospitals and aged care, and essential services are under strain nationwide.

One Nation’s position is very clear – genuinely disabled people deserve an insurance scheme for service. The NDIS is meant to be that scheme.

Only strong oversight and honest accountability will save the NDIS and safeguard taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This isn’t about care—about whether or not people care about the disabled. This is about restoring sound governance. This is so that we can have disabled people getting good care. I will make One Nation’s position very, very clear: disabled people deserve an insurance scheme for service—genuinely disabled people. We also want to stop exploitation of the disabled. That’s right: stop exploitation. 

I’m going to read from the terms of reference of Senator Hanson’s motion: 

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 3 September 2026— 

nothing wrong with that. I will read item (f): 

(f) the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on NDIS participants, including the diversion of resources away from Australians with genuine need; 

I’m going to read that again: 

(f) the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on NDIS participants, including the diversion of resources away from Australians with genuine need. 

I’ll go back to the start of the terms of reference: 

(a) the scale, nature and drivers of waste, fraud and abuse within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS); 

(b) the adequacy of existing safeguards, compliance, auditing, investigative and enforcement mechanisms to detect, prevent and respond to waste, fraud and abuse; 

My responsibility, our responsibility, is to the people of Australia—to the taxpayers of Australia and to the disabled of Australia. The third item in the terms of reference is: 

(c) qualifications of workers under the scheme; 

We know it is being rorted at the moment, with people who are not qualified. The fourth one is: 

(d) the role of National Disability Insurance Agency processes, registered and unregistered providers, intermediaries, participants, nominee arrangements and any other relevant entities or persons in contributing to or preventing waste, fraud and abuse; 

What is wrong with any one of these? Nothing. Nothing is wrong. They’re needed to protect the disabled. The fifth one is: 

(e) the financial impact of waste, fraud and abuse on the sustainability of the NDIS and on taxpayers; 

If we don’t do it, the NDIS will be heading for the largest line item by far on the budget. It’ll go out of existence under its own weight. I’ve already talked about (f). The sixth and seventh ones say: 

(f) the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on NDIS participants, including the diversion of resources away from Australians with genuine need;  

(g) distortionary impacts of increased wages and fees for service under the scheme on the labour market and other industries; 

Nurses and aged care service people are being dragged out of their professions and being put into the NDIS because of the higher wages, the distorted increased wages. This is causing problems for veterans. It is causing problems for people in hospitals and doctors’ clinics. Its causing problems for people in aged care. The eighth one is: 

(h) the impact of the scheme on the housing market and construction costs;  

That’s impacting so many more Australians. There’s a serious impact there. This is about all Australians. This is about understanding the problem, and Senator Hanson has shown yet again that she understands the guts of the problem in the whole context. Who can disagree with any of these? The ninth one is: 

(i) the appropriate scope, powers and priorities of a Royal Commission into waste, fraud and abuse within the NDIS; 

Senator Hanson said it herself just a few moments ago. She’d prefer a royal commission, but this is the first step. The tenth one is: 

(j) any legislative, administrative or governance reforms required to strengthen oversight, restore public confidence and protect the integrity of the NDIS; and 

And restore trust as Senators Bell and Whitten have just spoken about. And the last one is: 

(k) any other related matters. 

This is what it is all about. I can’t see anything there that anyone would object to if they genuinely cared for the disabled, unless they’re rattling the tin to make someone a demon. All of these work to restore trust, service, care and accountability. 

We need to go back to the start of the NDIS scheme. It was a bastard. Julia Gillard as Prime Minister needed a pre-election headline, so she cobbled up the NDIS—minimal research, minimal thought, minimal consideration. Just get that bloody headline. Then the Liberals came into power and they saw a dog with no details. But instead of canning it and sending it back to the states, they saw the vulnerabilities and they tried to stop the rorts. As a result it was overcomplicated, arbitrary and crooks kept stealing. The needy kept getting no service as a result of it being a bastard at birth thanks to the Labor party. I personally think, as a side issue, that the NDIS is best done at the state level because it restores competitive federalism and accountability. I’m in favour of sending it back to the states. 

As I said, it is out of control. As Senator Hanson, Senator Bell and Senator Whitten said, it is out of control. It will soon be the biggest line item on the budget. This is important not only for the disabled where it’s extremely important but also for the taxpayers because of the rorting and the fraud of taxpayer money. The fraud is heading into the billions. In fact, I was told in Senate estimates in an answer to one of my questions that the fraud investigation is stunned with how big the impact of fraud is. It is so big that it will eventually curtail services for people needing genuine care. It will curtail nurses, aged-care workers and other carers. It’s not just affecting disabled who need care. It’s affecting people right across Australia, even the housing market. 

Every Friday I try to do a livestream, and I start with heroes who have been active in our democracy. I want to name two heroes—Drew Pavlou and Pete Zogoulas. They have exposed the rorts. We knew about them. We’ve been raising them, but they started the community with the depth and breadth of the rorts. Ultimately, what happens when we have an abusive government—that’s what this is about. This is an abusive government abusing taxpayer money. There’s no government money. There’s only taxpayer money. There’s an abuse of taxpayer money because very few citizens stand up and hold the government accountable. So Drew Pavlou and Pete Zogoulas deserve commendation for being active participants in democracy. 

For democracy to succeed, we need active participants in democracy. What has happened in this country is we’ve had it too easy, and many citizens have fallen into passive democracy. Then, that falls into apathy, and that falls into tyranny. We saw signs of that tyranny in the way the COVID mismanagement corralled people, stomped on people and suppressed people, making them do some hideous things. And we’ve seen signs of that apathy in the way the Labor government is wanting to bring in and follow through on the former prime minister Scott Morrison’s misinformation and disinformation censorship bill. They destroyed free speech and many other freedoms and basic rights during the COVID response, and now they want to bring in censorship. That’s the essence of human progress: when we have passive democracy, it leads to apathy, and then it leads to tyranny, which, as I’ve just given you some examples, is coming in to this country. Eventually people get sick of the tyranny and they rise up, and we have anarchy. That’s the cycle throughout history: active democracy becomes passive democracy becomes apathy becomes tyranny becomes anarchy. There’s a way to avoid that, which is by having more citizens like Drew Pavlou and Pete Zogoulas. 

We need an inquiry to get the facts. The Greens, being the Greens, introduced talk of an enemy and division. Where’s the enemy? Can you see the enemy, Senator Bell? Where’s the enemy? Why do they do this? They do it because they want to create victims and make those people dependent, and that’s bloody cruel. Victims are in a permanent state of dependence. That’s no way to go through life. I do not see Senator Steele-John as someone in a wheelchair. I respect his ability. I see him as an Australian with plenty to contribute. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but at least he gives that other view. But shame on the Greens for yet again creating victimhood and dependence. It’s cruel. 

We need to clean up the NDIS for the improvement of services to the disabled. Those who really care will support this motion. And the Senate, as Senator Bell has said, is an entirely appropriate place to have this inquiry. The Senate, after all, is the house of review. Let me be very clear: One Nation wants to stop exploitation of the disabled. It wants to give the disabled confidence that they’ll be getting good service, and to do that we need to restore sound responsible governance. 

/by

Government Spending is Fuelling the Fire

,

There is a massive disconnect between the RBA’s projections and the reality facing Australian families.

Reckless government spending is fuelling inflation, and everyday people are paying the price.

In this session with the RBA in December, I questioned Governor Bullock on her claim that inflation expectations are ‘anchored’ at 2.5%. With CPI at the time sitting at 3.8% (now 4.2%), that ‘anchor’ looks like it’s dragging. I asked her who has lost credibility here — the RBA or the government?

There’s a real risk of cutting rates too early because of political influence and outside pressure. While Ms. Bullock insists the Board isn’t being swayed by politics, I’m still sceptical about what really happens behind the scenes.

One of the biggest risks I raised was the threat of a federal credit rating downgrade. If the government can’t show budget discipline and we lose our AAA rating, bank borrowing costs will shoot up.

And if that happens, mortgage rates will go up, even if the RBA doesn’t touch the cash rate and that’s a rate hike due to government incompetence.

Finally, we touched on the data. I pointed out how absurd it is that the ABS classifies someone as ’employed’ if they work just one hour a week.

While the Governor appears to trust the official statistics, these numbers are masking the true level of underemployment. There are far more Australians struggling to find work than the headline figures suggest.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about government spending, but I’ll ask a few questions before getting on to that directly. In October, you said to me that ‘all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2.5 per cent’. I know you went to this with Senator Hume’s question, and you continued that’s ‘what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2.5 per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market’. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations. With the Consumer Price Index headline rate now at 3.8 per cent in the year to October and the trimmed mean up 3.3 per cent, it certainly doesn’t appear that we’re heading to 2.5 per cent anymore. Do you still have no evidence that inflation expectations are above 2.5 per cent?  

Ms Bullock: What we’ve observed is what we usually observe, that the very short-term inflation expectations rise, but at the moment we’re still seeing that the longer term inflation expectations are remaining reasonably anchored. But you raise a very relevant point. It’s a risk and it’s something the board is very focused on. 

Senator ROBERTS: What does it say about the credibility of the Reserve Bank or, more likely, the credibility of government in terms of government spending if inflation rears its head again?  

Ms Bullock: I think credibility is demonstrated by where inflation expectations are. Inflation expectations in the long term remain anchored, which I think says a lot about the credibility of the central bank.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2026, are more families going to be pushed to the brink and paying more on their mortgages because you cut interest rates too early while this government attempted to jawbone and pressure you into doing it?  

Ms Bullock: We’ve never been under any political pressure. The board has done what the board has thought was the right thing to do. We thought we were moderately restrictive. We made a conscious decision not to go up as high as some other countries. Our projections still see inflation coming back down, but obviously we’re alert to the possibility that there might be inflation pressures building, and the board will respond accordingly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you expect under current government strategies and policies to be having to deal with the government again on this?  

Ms Bullock: We take what the government is doing as a given, and that is in our forecasts. 

Senator ROBERTS: I refer to federal budget discipline, to the credit rating and mortgage rates. The banks are implicitly guaranteed by the government’s AAA credit rating, which allows them to borrow cheaply. If the federal government were to suffer a significant credit rating downgrade below its AAA, could that imply higher borrowing costs on the banks and a wider spread between the going mortgage rate and the Reserve Bank cash rate? In other words, could interest rates charged by the banks rise?  

Ms Bullock: The Australian banks aren’t only underpinned by the government, they’re underpinned by the fact that they are very strong, unquestionably strong according to the language. They have strong capital, strong buffers, low arrears rates. They’re rated well because they are very strong financial institutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your clear answers. Nonetheless, if the federal government doesn’t get its spending under control and is given a lower credit rating, what people pay on a mortgage could actually go up without the Reserve Bank raising rates; is that right?  

Ms Bullock: It could possibly tighten financial conditions. Those are the sorts of things that the Monetary Policy Board would take into account in setting the cash rate. Financial conditions can vary for similar cash rates. The cash rate at a particular level now isn’t necessarily the same tightness in financial conditions as the same cash rate in the past. We have to take into account financial conditions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Just a quick question to tidy up my understanding of where you get your figures. The RBA, as I understand it, does a lot of listening right through the community. That’s correct, isn’t it?  

Ms Bullock: We have a very extensive liaison program, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the sources of your inflation rate and the unemployment rate? Is it many factors—ABS, for example? Whom else would be involved?  

Ms Bullock: The inflation rate is the CPI published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The unemployment rate is the same.  

Senator ROBERTS: The unemployment rate is just over 4.4 per cent. How many people does that translate into being unemployed right now in Australia?  

Ms Bullock: I’d have to get back to you on that in terms of the actual numbers.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s just a straight calculation, right, arithmetic?  

Ms Bullock: It depends on the labour force and who’s in the market. I don’t know what the number is. I’ll have to come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: That varies month to month of course. My concern is that the actual number unemployed may be far greater than what is indicated by the unemployment rate. As I understand it, the definition—and I’m looking for guidance here—is that anyone who’s employed or works paid work for one hour or more in a week is counted as employed?  

Ms Bullock: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration of underemployment in your deliberations?  

Ms Bullock: Yes, we consider underemployment. That’s a rate that we calculate. Basically, that captures people who are employed but would like more hours.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your level of confidence in the accuracy of the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate?  

Ms Bullock: We’re pretty confident that the ABS does a very good job of calculating these numbers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is one hour per week employed really employed?  

Ms Bullock: That’s the definition, but there are others. As I said earlier, for what it measures, we’re confident they measure it well. But that’s why we take into account a lot of different indicators, including things like vacancies, job ads and how many people actually have a job but would like more hours. These are all things that we consider as well.  

/by

Beyond Labor and Liberal

,

Premier Malinauskas is wasting taxpayers’ money in the name of woke politics. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is now costing $3.2 billion, yet it has fewer services than the new Tweed Valley Hospital in NSW, which only cost $720 million — in part owing to its grandiose design over actual function.

More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen-powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind — with hydrogen as a backup — could provide baseload power. That is $580 million wasted.

More “woke” can be found in Premier Malinauskas’s decision to legislate an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, despite South Australians voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters; in fact, he has treated them with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. The $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke virtue signaling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes.

For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, then switched back again. Now, voters finally have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger, and more professional than it has been in any previous election.

We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Vote One Nation.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate their vote between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, and then back again. Now, though, finally, voters have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger and more professional than it has been in any previous election. We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Supporting One Nation is not voting against two parties, Liberal and Labor; it’s voting against one—the uniparty. 

Sixty years of their failure have decimated our standard of living and made all except the government class poorer, less happy and less healthy than they were even just 10 years ago—a loss of wealth that’s even worse for Australians under 35, who are the first generation that will have less than their parents. The median income in South Australia, inflation adjusted, has risen from $1,290 per week in 2022 to just $1,300 this year. In other words, wages have gone nowhere under the Malinauskas Labor government. In that same time, the median rental in South Australia has risen from $480 a week to $630 a week. That’s 10 bucks more a week coming in to pay 150 bucks extra in rent. South Australians are going backwards. Great job, Premier! 

When I came to Canberra 10 years ago, I was told a joke that was more of an observation. The Liberal Party, I was told, run Canberra for the benefit of their wealthy owners. The Labor Party run government for the benefit of union bosses. The Nationals run government for the benefit of themselves, and the Greens can’t govern at all. 

To be clear, there are good union officials and there are good unions that are run for the benefit of their members. The Red Union is a great example of an old-fashioned union that just gets on with the business of looking out for its members. One Nation will have to prise South Australia out of the hands of Labor’s union mafia and woke climate change agenda zealots. 

To illustrate this point, let’s compare the new Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital with the recently completed Tweed Valley Hospital, in New South Wales. Tweed has 430 beds. Adelaide has 410 beds—almost the same. Emergency departments and operating theatres are the same. Maternity services are the same, although Adelaide has 70 parental units. Tweed has oncology, renal, mental health and outpatient physical therapy. Adelaide has none of these. Tweed was built in under five years. Adelaide is two years into a build scheduled to finish in 2031—seven years, hopefully. Tweed Valley Hospital cost $730 million. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is at $3.2 billion, and further increases are expected. 

The Adelaide hospital is larger as a building and more grandiose, despite providing fewer services. At $3.2 billion, the Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is what happens when woke is combined with political ego. The Malinauskas government has wasted more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money, which keeps CFMEU union bosses happy—stealing from taxpayers. 

More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind with hydrogen as a backup could provide base-load power—$580 million wasted. Only coal, nuclear and hydro can provide cheap, stable base-load power, and that’s exactly what One Nation will build.  

More woke can be found in the decision of Premier Malinauskas to legislate an Aboriginal voice to parliament despite South Australia voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters in the Voice referendum. In fact, he’s treated voters with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. That’s the difference between One Nation and the Labor Party. We listen to the people. Labor treats you with contempt. In reality, the $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke, virtue signalling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes. The Premier has misread the room badly. 

Far from bringing chaos to parliament, as Ashton Hurn and the Liberals said last night, One Nation, if elected in South Australia, will bring honesty and authenticity, just as we have at a federal level now for nine years—a decade—and just as Pauline Hanson has done for 30 years. We will decide policies through the consideration of facts, not feelings. We will be a woke-free government of real people dedicated to doing what’s right for South Australians. I ask South Australian voters to choose a new path this election. Choose One Nation.  

/1 Comment/by

Your Taxes, Their Blunder: The BOM Mess

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has managed to spend $96 million of your money on a new website including live radar images that is a step backward.

I’ve been hearing from countless Australians who are not happy with the “new and improved” site. It’s harder to navigate, requires more clicks to find basic data and has stripped away the topographical detail that people actually rely on.

If a private company delivered a product this bad after spending nearly $100 million, heads would roll.

I asked the BOM: has anyone been fired, demoted, or even counselled for this failure?

The answer was a lot of nothing really. I did manage to get one win for common sense: The Bureau has committed to keeping the old radar site active until the new one is actually fit for purpose.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Let’s go back to the new weather radar. Implementation of the new weather radar has been a failure. Has anyone been fired for wasting $96 million of taxpayers’ money?

Senator Watt: We went over this at the last estimates hearing. I think you were talking about the change to the bureau’s website rather than a weather radar.

Senator Roberts: The new website.

Senator Watt: Yes. It was explained at the last hearing that the portion of money attributable to the website costs was partly about an overall systems upgrade across the bureau’s meteorology systems in general. So, with that introduction, Dr Minchin might want to—

Senator Roberts: Minister, it has tarnished the reputation of the BOM.

Senator Watt: I understand that.

Senator Roberts: It has made a lot of people unhappy with the BOM’s service, so I’m wondering if anyone’s been counselled, demoted or had a note put on their service record for this failure.

Senator Watt: I’d need to have Dr Minchin answer.

Dr Minchin: Senator, I’m not aware of anyone being fired or demoted on this basis.

Senator Roberts: Chastised?

Dr Minchin: Senator, as I think you may be aware, I joined the bureau about three weeks after the website was launched. My focus as CEO is on moving forward, and, as I said at last hearing, I accepted that the website redesign had not met all users’ needs and that we were working hard with the team on addressing the feedback that we’ve received. We’ve received significant feedback from the Australian community and we are actively working on making releases to the website to improve it to meet people’s expectations. My philosophy on this as CEO is that I have a very committed team, who are working incredibly hard to meet the Australian public’s expectations. That doesn’t mean we get it right all the time, and I’m very confident that the team is totally focused on the task of improving Australians’ access to weather information, including through upgrades to the website as it goes forward.

Senator Roberts: I accept, Dr Minchin, that sometimes it’s not appropriate to chastise until you know the source of the problem, but has anyone been questioned about it? Have you done an investigation into it? It seems to be significant funds, and you’ve got to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. What reassurance can you give us that it won’t happen again?

Dr Minchin: What I can say is I don’t believe the website is a complete failure, and I’ve been public in saying that before. I think what has happened is it’s met 80 to 90 per cent of its intended outcomes and it’s missed the boat on a few key user experiences for some parts of the community, and we are working hard on addressing those. It’s clear the radar is part of the assessment. We moved quickly to adjust the view of the radar to improve that. We’ve made adjustments to the navigation of the website and we have a number of other rollouts happening over the next few months that will improve that. I can absolutely assure you that the team within the bureau are really dedicated to their task and are totally focused on improving the situation so that all Australians can have access to the weather data that they require.

Senator Roberts: Have you required contractors to complete the fixes for free, owing to their failure, or are you throwing more money from taxpayers at the problem? Are you rewarding contractors for failing?

Dr Minchin: You’ve categorised this as a contractor failure. The contractors have done what we asked them to do. What I think is very clear is we did not get all of the user experience testing and did not capture all of the subsequent detail and feedback that we’ve received from the community. So we’re working hard on addressing that. That will inevitably require investment, but that investment was already planned for as part of the website release. We always knew that there would be fixes that would be required. What probably caught the bureau a little bit unawares was the extent of the feedback that we received, but we’re working through that very actively.

Senator Roberts: It was pretty strong. If we look at topography, the colour graduations used to be based on topography, and now the national parks are just all green. Did the people who did the map understand topography?

Dr Minchin: Sorry, Senator, are you referring to the radar map?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I’m sorry.

Dr Minchin: The background to the radar map is a compromise, always, of the features that are of interest for the community—primarily about the townships. We are adjusting that. Just as one example of an upcoming upgrade, we will be bringing that into line with our iPhone and Android app that actually shows a background of the reach of the radars as well. So it will be clear where radar coverage exists and where it does not within the country. That’s an evolving process. I should also highlight that the public can choose their view of what appears on that map through various choices in the settings of the map view.

Senator Roberts: I’m told that the old map, which did show topography colour gradations, is appearing to visitors who search something like ‘weather Brisbane’, rather the new site, but the address is the new site. Have you gone back to using the old site for certain functions?

Dr Minchin: I think what you’re referring to is that there are a number of third-party providers who provide our radar data and other information through their applications. They receive those through our FTP service. They don’t access it directly from the website. In some cases they choose to visualise that data differently to the way that the bureau chooses to do that. I think that’s actually a good thing, meeting different user needs out in the community. They’re still accessing the same information, but it is, as I said, coming through our registered user services, which are not through the website itself.

Senator Roberts: Usability of the website is poor. Users are complaining that it takes multiple clicks to see what used to be available at a glance. What timeframe can you give people for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site?

Dr Minchin: There are ongoing releases happening over the next few months. We accept, as I said, that some users have found aspects of the website difficult and have been providing feedback on that. Another good example is navigation. We’ll be rolling out the ability to navigate by postcode in one of the next releases. We’re continually bringing those updates on board so that, as we get feedback about what is useful to the community to make their experience with the website better, we’re acting on that and we’re rolling that out with regular updates.

Senator Roberts: So what timeframe can you provide for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site, so that people will know?

Dr Minchin: I don’t accept that we’re trying to reach the standard of the old site, because the old site was a problem. It was very difficult to navigate. It was inaccessible to many sectors of the community. Website updates will never finish. As new information and new products come on board, we will continue developing the website. But we are hoping to address most of the major tranches of concern in releases over the next six months.

Senator Roberts: The old radar is still available on the ‘reg’ subdomain, I’m told. Will you give an undertaking that the old site will remain available until the new site can be made to work?

Dr Minchin: We certainly will not be turning off our ‘reg’ capability until we are confident that the Australian community are comfortable with our new radar capability. Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Childcare Costs Out of Control

Report from late January: The price of something will always go up if the government subsidises it. Childcare is another example of this.

Australian families are still struggling to access and afford childcare despite the Albanese government’s promises. Childcare fees have grown more than inflation and wages since subsidies were introduced.

/by