The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 gives government ministers total discretion to suspend senior public servants (like department heads and commissioners) for up to 12 months with full pay, simply by claiming it’s in the department’s “best interest,” rather than using clear, objective performance standards (KPIs).
Public servants are already too politicised and will now be too intimidated to offer honest, independent advice out of fear of ministerial retaliation.
The poor legal phrasing in the bill, specifically the phrase “The minister may give a direction in writing,” leaves loopholes and creates potential for legal abuse.
The Albanese Labor government promised an open and transparent government, yet this legislation will further entrench cover-ups, hide accountability, and abuse ministerial control.
One Nation opposed this bill.
Australians deserve better!
— March | Senate Speech
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Four years of cost overruns, four years of secret government, four years of slackness, four years of another managed decline of Australia. There has been misappropriation of money and they’ve done nothing—just covered it up. Transparency was the promise; cover-up is the actuality. Why? Now, as the solution, we see the Labor Party bringing in potential abuse of ministerial powers with an opportunity, if the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is passed, to have possible control over the department heads, commissioners and others in senior positions without transparency or accountability. The performance standard under this legislation is not a discretionary instrument with specific grounds for dismissal against standard criteria—that is, KPIs. That’s not the case. With this bill, it’s purely at the discretion of the minister.
We already have a Public Service that’s been highly politicised. We are now entrenching that and giving the public servants more to fear from ministers if they don’t do what they’re told. Under the ‘uniparty’ ministers, department heads no longer give frank and fearless independent advice. That hasn’t been the case for decades because department heads and senior public servants are now part of the political process. They’re enmeshed in the process. They cannot give frank and fearless advice. Do you want any examples? Have a look at the energy systems in this country, where they’re destroying the best electricity grid in the world and making it second rate, taking us from the lowest electricity prices in the world to now the highest in the world.
The legislation—I think this appears four times in the legislation—says, ‘The minister may give a direction in writing.’ It does not say the minister may give a direction that must be in writing. Lawyers, as we know, have lots of incentives to argue about a word such as ‘may’. At best, this is sloppy. It’s just not good enough. If a minister suspends a senior public servant, they’re suspended on full pay, which may be extended to 12 months suspension. The minister doesn’t have to give specific reasons; they just need to say it’s in the department’s best interests—that’s it. It’s 12 months paid suspension because it’s in the department’s best interests. This means that the minister can hold a threat over Public Service heads, giving them control over department heads, complete control, creating a poor system that destroys accountability and transparency—two words that are vital for effective governance. But in this Labor government, under Anthony Albanese, accountability is hidden. It’s not possible, and transparency is non-existent.
If governments want to be good governments, they should want transparency and accountability, because it makes them stronger. I know with Senator Pauline Hanson we are all held accountable and we have to be transparent, because we want to be, but if we weren’t she would make sure we are. The same can’t be said about the Albanese Labor government. So I am in two minds about this bill. It has severe shortcomings due to sloppiness. I think that’s all I need to say.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/68aP1TPWLkA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-01 15:37:432026-09-01 15:37:47Canberra’s New Loyalty Test
One Nation opposes the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 which implements the United Nations Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty. This bill represents an unnecessary surrender of Australian sovereignty, creates excessive bureaucracy and risks global food security and medical research.
This bill mandates strict notification and database requirements for collecting marine DNA. This will discourage expensive deep-sea medical research, protect pharmaceutical companies and impose unprecedented criminal penalties for collecting ocean compounds.
It also allows the UN to declare specially managed ocean areas, aligning with the UN’s “30×30” target (conserving 30% of oceans by 2030).
Despite clauses protecting commercial fisheries, the bill threatens the global seafood supply (up to 11 billion tonnes annually) without viable substitutes.
Further, it requires mandatory assessments for activities that may cause environmental harm. This is vague, bureaucratic overreach that fails to address actual ocean issues, such as third-world plastic pollution forming major ocean garbage patches.
It also establishes a large enforcement apparatus (inspectors, permits, audits), committing Australian taxpayer funds without a capped limit. This is literally giving a “blank cheque” to the UN.
One Nation will always protect taxpayers from unquantified financial burdens, safeguard global food security, and resist the transfer of regulatory power to international bodies.
Australia first!
— March | Senate Speech
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Here comes yet another UN power grab for control over Australian sovereignty. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 implements Australia’s obligations under the agreement made under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Nobody at the UN, it seems, thought maybe a shorter name would suffice. It’s called BBNJ for short—BB, biodiversity bill, and NJ, areas beyond national jurisdiction. The bill addresses three core parts of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, MGR; area based management tools, ABMDs—the UN’s full of acronyms, isn’t it—and environmental impact assessments, EIAs. Exemptions apply to activities in Antarctica, which maintains Australia’s rights in that region. Of the main provisions of the bill, the first relates to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This establishes a notification based regime for Australian entities collecting or utilising marine genetic resources. Entities must submit pre-collection, post-collection and utilisation notices to the minister. The minister may issue collection or utilisation certificates. Then again, the minister may not. This could actually lock up nature’s own undersea pharmacy and protect the pharmaceutical industry. Remember, natural products can’t be patented. They’re a threat to the pharmaceutical industry. The provision in this bill which requires genetic material, including DNA sequences, to be made publicly available in a regulated repository and database may act to stop companies spending the money to conduct this research, either in entirety or via avoidance behaviour. The regulations do allow some scope for protection of intellectual property, although, given the cost of deep-sea exploration, there is a real risk of this bill reducing the deployment of nature’s remedies hidden in the ocean depths.
Noncompliance triggers civil and criminal penalties. While previous UN agreements have made the same requirement—criminal penalties on Australians—these have been in areas where such penalties are appropriate—terrorism, genocide, slavery, and suchlike. This is the first agreement that extends the UN’s powers to cover criminal penalties for an action which one would not immediately consider illegal, like taking DNA from a marine creature, looking for a compound that could cure human disease.
The second aspect relates to area based management tools, ABMTs, and specially managed areas. This creates a framework to recognise international area based management tools—for example, marine protected areas—decided by a UN conference of the parties. The minister must declare the area a specially managed area and determine a special management plan within 120 days, consistent with the area based management tools. Plans may include permitting regimes or prohibitions. Offences apply for contravening the plans.
The explanatory memorandum and the hype around this agreement show great lengths have been taken to carve out commercial fishing from the agreement. Regional fisheries management organisations, like the ones that manage tuna across the world’s oceans, remain fully in charge of quotas, gear rules, seasons, and enforcement. The agreement contains a strong non-undermining clause, article 5.2, that says the whole treaty ‘shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that does not undermine’ existing fisheries bodies and rules. This was a key demand from fishing nations during negotiations, and it is repeated throughout the text when it comes to area based management tools, although there is a provision which takes precedence, which is marine protected areas on the high seas. The UN conference of the parties can propose and adopt area based management tools to protect vulnerable ecosystems, such as undersea mountains, hydrothermal vents, migration corridors and so on. How much of the ocean can be carved out in this manner depends on the exclusion zone around each of these and on the definition of things like migration corridors. Expect a significant percentage of the world’s ocean to be caught in environmental exemptions—probably 30 per cent, a figure I’ll explain in a minute.
I appreciate there are checks and balances in this process, yet we have seen the zeal with which anything United Nations is embraced by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens and the teals. Does anyone really think the uniparty is going to say no to the United Nations once these powers have been granted? The UN has already decimated Australia’s fishing industry under these same environmental rules. Now they’ll do the same thing to ocean fishing, which, according to the UN’s own Food and Agriculture Organization, yields 11 billion tonnes of fish—of food, and protein—annually. Eleven billion tonnes of food to feed the world’s hungry may be at risk, and One Nation would argue it is at risk. Australia’s aquaculture industry, fish grown in farms, is only 100,000 tonnes per annum, according to ABARES, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. This doesn’t include wild-caught fish. What country has the ability to produce billions of tonnes of protein to replace the billions of tonnes of fish at risk from this agreement? Australia is an entire continent, and we can only manage thousands, not billions, of tonnes of aquaculture. Even the measly 40,000 tonnes coming out of Tasmania’s fish farming in Macquarie Harbour is under attack right now for being too much, too intensive, too damaging, according to the Greens, who support this bill, so go figure. What will people eat in Greens land? It’s not the first time I’ve asked them that question, and I still haven’t heard their answer. As Australia cannot change an international agreement, all One Nation can do is oppose this bill, and we will.
The third aspect is the environmental impact assessment regime. This introduces a mandatory environmental impact assessment process for activities within Australian jurisdiction that may cause substantial pollution or harmful changes in the environment. Note the use of the word ‘may’, which is bureaucrat speak for anything they want it to mean—include anything. Every stage of the project is subject to individual licensing, scrutiny, reporting and review. The United Nations’ recipe for everything is more bureaucracy, more licences, more power and more control taken to New York to make things worse—and, if not New York, Geneva.
How will this legislation solve the major problem actually threatening large areas of our oceans—the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, covering 1.6 million square kilometres; the south Pacific garbage patch; the north Atlantic garbage patch; the south Atlantic garbage patch; and the Indian Ocean garbage patch? How? It won’t. Can anyone show me where in this legislation these abominations, these embarrassments to civilisation will be fixed through this legislation? You can’t, Minister, because the source of this pollution is third-world countries chucking their rubbish into rivers, which travels out to sea and gathers in the gyres between permanent ocean currents. Those will not be covered by the international agreement this legislation introduces, because nobody wants to take on the countries doing it. You won’t take them on.
Australia did it, though. We banned the export of our waste to third-world countries, who were taking out anything of value from the rubbish and then using their rivers as waste disposal facilities—putting their rubbish, our rubbish, into their rivers and then into the ocean. We did that without a United Nations agreement. We took out the dumping of rubbish and the exporting of our rubbish. We banned the exporting of our rubbish. We did that because it was the right thing to do. And, for the record, One Nation supported that legislation. Here’s the catch, though. Under this agreement, if the United Nations wanted to solve the rubbish handling across nations whose populations exceed three billion, Australia would have to pay for it. That’s the point of this bill. We undertake to pay whatever our share of whatever they spend becomes.
The fourth area is compliance, enforcement and administration. Australia appoints inspectors for monitoring, investigation, civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. This includes information notices, audits and protections against self-incrimination. Australia authorises grants, payments and financial arrangements to meet the BBNJ obligations, including capacity building and technology transfer. When I said ‘more bureaucracy’, I wasn’t joking. This is an insane level of new bureaucracy that we will be paying for.
And here’s our next objection: the bill creates the heads of power for the government to make appropriations for the purposes of paying our share of this whole new bureaucracy yet doesn’t say how much. You do not say how much. It can’t, because the UN hasn’t set their cost yet. Whatever that outcome becomes, we pay our share of that. This legislation is a blank cheque to the bloody United Nations. One Nation will not sign blank cheques. This is taxpayer money. Taxpayers are under extreme cost-of-living pressure and housing prices. This is taxpayers’ money, and we have an obligation to make sure it’s being spent properly. When you can’t fulfil that obligation, we don’t want to spend it. There’s no reason why the spending can’t be put in a separate bill when the cost is known. Then again, financial responsibility goes out the door when it’s the United Nations asking or the World Health Organization, which is part of the UN, or the Asian Development Bank or the World Bank or any other globalist entity so beloved by the uniparty. Finally, let me share with the Senate One Nation’s overarching objection to this and similar legislation. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted in December 2022 at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Conference of the Parties 15. This framework, which Australia has signed, includes 23 targets for 2030—that’s just four years away. Target 3, called the 30-30 target, requires members to conserve and manage at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, coastal marine areas and oceans by 2030 through creating protected areas, taking area based conservation measures and recognising Indigenous territories.
That’s exactly what this bill does. For all the nice words—the fraudulent wording—around protecting fishing, this bill will give the United Nations, in their own words, the right to lock up 30 per cent of the world’s oceans from fishing. In so doing, the world’s hungry will lose billions of tonnes of food, of protein and of good nutrition. That’s what you’re all voting for. One Nation opposes this bill.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/KCZZyVMQAO8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 15:25:562026-08-26 15:25:58One Nation Says NO to the UN Ocean Rules
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Uk6AbbFJ_vw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 09:30:272026-08-20 10:02:48Time to Pull the Plug on Snowy 2.0
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.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/1wA_nVhnx9Q/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-09 16:30:322026-07-09 16:30:36Funding Hate: The Shocking Truth About Labor’s Grants
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/N-nhiy6DlHc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-09 16:23:362026-07-10 10:17:40One Nation’s Fight to Save the NDIS
During Estimates in May, I questioned the AFP on their treatment of Ben Roberts-Smith.
While we welcome the investigation into media leaks, the AFP still refuses to explain the so-called ‘operational decision’ to arrest him on a Sydney tarmac in front of his two daughters, rather than in Brisbane.
After more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars spent investigating alleged war crimes, the AFP has not secured a single conviction. It’s hard to reconcile that extraordinary expenditure with an outcome that has delivered nothing but reputational damage and prolonged uncertainty for one of the nation’s most decorated soldiers.
The handling of this case raises serious questions about priorities, accountability, and whether such extraordinary resources have been justified by results.
This government needs to ask itself why it sends Australians to war if it then spends hundreds of millions tearing them down when they come home.
Transcript
CHAIR: I understand Senator Roberts has got a couple of follow-up questions from the statement. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your statement. It’s very clear and comprehensive. I’m very pleased to see that you’re going to investigate the source of the leak to the media, because it’s not fair that one of our most decorated warriors is being subjected to a trial by media. We can’t hold you responsible for that, so we’d like to see the results of the investigation. Thank you. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone—well, before I get onto that, midway through the second page, you say: The reason to arrest the individual in Sydney and not Brisbane was an operational decision … What do you mean by ‘operational decision’?
Ms Barrett: It was based on operational factors. I said it was ‘an operational decision that was determined after discussing with relevant partners’.
Senator ROBERTS: So an operational decision in terms of getting the assets in the right place to do the arrest?
Ms Barrett: I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.
Mr McCartney : If you go to the front of the commissioner’s statement, she makes it fairly clear that we need to be careful with our language. This matter is before court, and we’re at risk, if we talk more about these issues—
Senator ROBERTS: I respect that, yes.
Mr McCartney : If we talk more about these issues and information is ventilated through this committee, we run the risk of potential impact on a fair trial. There were a range of operational matters, like the commissioner’s discussed, but, taking into account that balance and trying to be helpful to the committee, we’re going to err on the side of caution and say that these operational matters may be relevant to the court case so we’ll decline on answering that one.
Ms Barrett: We’ve really tried to provide as much information as we can—
Senator ROBERTS: And, as I said, it’s been comprehensive.
Ms Barrett: in the statement, to be as helpful as we can. As I said at the outset, we understand that of course it’s of significant interest to the public, but we need to balance that with ensuring that there’s a fair trial.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got safety to consider as well. Okay, now I understand what operational decision means. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to affect the arrest?
Ms Barrett: Are you asking me specifically or the AFP?
Senator ROBERTS: The AFP.
Ms Barrett: Again, I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.
Mr McCartney : In the division of responsibilities, the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to prosecute charges and offences. Once those charges have been affected by operational agencies, such as the AFP, or as OSI did in this case—they were aware of the location being in New South Wales and Sydney. In terms of being aware of the exact location at the airport, I will take that one on notice and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my final question, Minister. The commissioner has clarified some misrepresentations in the media, which is appreciated. Perhaps you could clarify another comment in the media that so far your predecessor government, the Morrison government, and your government have spent, supposedly, $300 million or more on prosecuting these investigations. So far you’ve got two men charged, as I understand it, and no-one convicted.
Ms Barrett: Sorry I missed that last bit.
Senator ROBERTS: No-one has been convicted yet. I don’t think anyone’s gone to court yet, have they?
Ms Barrett: There are two matters before court.
Senator ROBERTS: Before the court, yes, but I don’t think they’ve actually started trying them. This is a question to the minister. Is this action to justify more funding?
Senator Watt: Is what action to justify more funding?
Senator ROBERTS: The arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith?
Senator Watt: That’s a very big statement to make, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to clarify this because the commissioner has done a very good job in clarifying media misrepresentation.
Senator Watt: I’m not sure about you, Senator Roberts, but I and our government have full confidence in our police forces to make good decisions when they’re deciding who to charge and why. I’d be very concerned if you’re suggesting otherwise.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not suggesting the AFP.
Senator Watt: We don’t interfere with the decisions of the AFP as to who they charge and for what. That is an independent decision, as it should be.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, you’ve answered my question. I’ll just say again, Commissioner, thank you for your summary—excellent. Thanks, CHAIR, for your indulgence.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/9RupEOq51gg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-09 11:31:102026-07-09 11:31:14An ‘Operational Decision’ or a Media Stunt?
I seemed to have upset my colleagues when I questioned why more than half a million dollars was being spent on a grant exploring “Indigenous connections to outer space” and whether Aboriginal people “cared for other planets.”
How do such projects help Australians who are living in tents, skipping meals, or struggling to pay rent?
While people are hurting, the Labor government is spending $1 billion a year on grants like this.
Taxpayers deserve to know why.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Moving on, Dr Lara Daley at the University of Newcastle received a grant of $528,491 over three years, including salary and project costs to study: ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge in Australian space policy, using songlines and creation stories, aiming to broaden understandings of outer space by identifying and supporting Aboriginal connections between space and life on Earth to develop culturally respectful and environmentally responsible space exploration.’ How would Aboriginal environmental management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management that includes Aboriginal management of the environment?
Prof. Shergold: My answer to this and other questions I suspect are going to be identical. I can do no more than describe the peer-review processes that are being used and hopefully make it clear why it would be entirely inappropriate for me or the board to step in on particular projects on which we would have far less expertise than the assessors to overturn decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Shergold. That doesn’t give the taxpayers much confidence. How would Aboriginal management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management full stop? Does the ARC expect Elon Musk to encounter an Indigenous population on Mars for which we should prepare? According to her bio, Dr Daley’s research is grounded in herself as, inter alia, ‘a white, non-Indigenous person on unceded Aboriginal country specialising in human and more-than-human research, including outer space as being already known, cared for and inhabited through Indigenous ontologies. Did Aboriginals inhabit other planets?
CHAIR: The scope of estimates is very broad, but it is contained to the operations and expenditure of departments and agencies, and I—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, one more question.
CHAIR: Okay.
Senator ROBERTS: I wonder: did Aboriginals care for other planets in the solar system? You appear to be trying to extend Aboriginal mythology to other planets in the solar system. How far out—Pluto, Saturn, to infinity and beyond, as Buzz Lightyear said in Toy Story?
Senator FARUQI: My God. Read some books, Malcolm!
Senator ROBERTS: Australians are living in tents, struggling to buy food. Hundreds of thousands of people are struggling. Tens of thousands are living under bridges and in cars, and this is what you spend your $1 billion a year on. Unidentified speaker: Is there a question, Chair?
Senator FARUQI: Chair, please put us out of our misery.
CHAIR: Malcolm Roberts, please take a moment. Senators, I appreciate all the feelings at the table, but it is important that senators are able to be heard in silence as they ask their questions, as it is important for witnesses to be heard in silence and not spoken over. I will be enforcing this on both counts. Senator Roberts, you have the call to keep asking your question. Senators, regardless of what you think of it, please allow him to do so in silence.
Senator ROBERTS: With Australians struggling, why is this what you spend your $1 billion a year on? Taxpayers would be saying, ‘Shame on you.’
Senator Walsh: Was that for the professor or for me?
Senator ROBERTS: Both.
Senator Walsh: I’ll go first, Senator Roberts, and say that you are a politician and that you are expressing your political views right now—
Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of many constituents, yes.
Senator Walsh: and what we did is we removed politics from the processes that the ARC uses, because we believe in peer review of research not political review of research. The ARC’s process is rigorous. It is independent. As Professor Shergold has said, it is based on a strong network of peer reviewers. That is the decision of the government. We based that decision after an independent review of the ARC Act. Our reforms came into force from 1 July 2024, and we established an independent and expert ARC board to be responsible for the approval of grants, fellowships and the like. Professor Shergold and his team are discharging their obligations under the legislation to assess grant applications through these processes—through the panel, through peer review. They are discharging their obligations appropriately, and the government undermines efforts to undermine the trust in the Australian Research Council.
Prof. Shergold: You are quite right to be directing the question to me. It isn’t a ministerial decision. It is in very large measure a decision for me and the board of the ARC. You’re quite right. The reality is, as I said, that we had about 1,000 grants that were approved last year. It is inevitable that there will be 10 or 20 of those that will become highly controversial for the reasons you’ve suggested. I suppose my view is—and it’s not giving any view on any particular research—that the fact that becomes controversial is not a bad thing. The whole purpose of research is to look for new paradigms, to interpret in new ways, to provoke and, to be honest with you, to raise hackles on existence. It is the way in which we continue to improve what we do economically, socially and environmentally and have debates about culture within Australia. I can’t, like you, sit down and say, ‘I think that looks like a really good piece of research to me, and that one looks a bit whacky.’ I’ve got to be dependent upon the experts that I use. My task, as I’ve said, is to make sure that they are doing it with integrity. I want to make sure, to see, that there are no conflicts of interest. I want to look at the outcomes of that research, to make sure that all universities are getting agreement that Indigenous scholars—not just on Indigenous issues, incidentally, but Indigenous scholars in all areas—are getting fair access. That’s what I’m looking at when I look at the 4,000 grant applications we receive and the thousands of decisions we make. It’s making sure that, in all ways, the peer review process is working and, with the board, looking at ways in which it can be improved all the time.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/KfQtjTs2vls/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-09 09:15:062026-07-09 09:16:25Tents vs. Space Programs
I seemed to upset my colleagues when I questioned why the Australian Research Council is spending close to a billion dollars a year on grants that taxpayers would struggle to see any value in.
ARC leadership repeatedly hid behind “peer review processes”, refusing to justify cost-benefit while signing off on a $889,275 grant for an Arab/Muslim Australian social movements study, and another $322,213 grant that produced a commercial sold book Coming of Age in War on Terror.
While I respect independent review processes, the real issue is being ignored.
How is this supposedly “world-class system” allowing taxpayer money to be poured into niche ideological research with no demonstrated benefit to the people footing the bill?
The problem isn’t that research exists – it’s why taxpayers are being forced to fund it.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing tonight. Good evening. I have here grant reference FT220100427 for beneficiary Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, covering the period from 2022 to 2027, with a grant amount $802,000, since increased to $889,275. The purpose of this very large grant—inter alia—is: Arab/Muslim Australian Social Movements since the 1970s: a hidden history … aims to recover previously untapped oral histories and rare archival collections of Arab/Muslim Australian activists … Who have struggled against external systems and internal conflicts to build a socially just future … include a greater understanding of the transformative activism of communities whose movement work is often relegated to the margins. This is what you’re spending taxpayer money on. What is the cost benefit of this study sufficient to justify an almost $900,000 price tag?
Senator FARUQI: Why do you hate Muslims, Malcolm?
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t; we have some in this party.
Prof. Shergold: Let me answer that question and I’m happy to do so because the key change to the ARC legislation, as you will be aware, is that, at this stage—in most instances, not all—it is the ARC and board which make the decision on grants and not the minister. So the minister is clearly at arm’s length. Now, what do you do if you’re on a board and you are trying to make sure that you use public funds for the best purposes available for projects that are deemed by universities to be in the national interest? If you look at the number of applications that come forward, you’ll start to understand what a challenge it is. I think last year—I’m looking for the numbers—there was something about 4,000 applications.
Senator ROBERTS: Is this getting to the answer of my question?
Prof. Shergold: I am going to get there, because I want you to share my pain. We’ve got 4,000 applications and about, give or take, 25 per cent are accepted. It is quite unrealistic and very bad governance to imagine I and the board members sit down and look at 4,000 applications, even as well as presented as you’ve just done with this one, and say yes or no. How do you do it? You try and make sure you have the very best world-class system, which is a peer-review process. The role of myself, the role of the board, isn’t to go through and second-guess those expert peer reviewers in the decisions they make. My role—an important one; I feel a burden of responsibility—is to make sure that the processes that are being used are best practice in peer review and are done with honesty.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a cost benefit?
Prof. Shergold: This was a proposal that came forward out of about was about 1,200, give or take, that were accepted last year.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t tell me—
Prof. Shergold: What I can tell you is we are using the best peer-review processes that we have available. It was thought by members of college of experts and then by disciplinary experts that this would be an important and innovative and, no doubt, provocative piece of research.
Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me the cost benefit.
Prof. Shergold: Well, I tell you what I can do. I can tell you the cost benefit as assessed of the ARC grants overall, which we had undertaken a few years ago—
Senator ROBERTS: Is that for this grant?
Prof. Shergold: which gave a return on all our grants of about I think $3.20 on the dollar, something like that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on. This isn’t your first grant to the doctor. There was also grant DP110101249 titled ‘Youth in the digital age: Being young and Muslim in Australia’ for $322,213 covering 2018 to 2021. Now my question is: why didn’t you use the correct name of the project, which was: ‘”Trust, Politics, and Fear: ‘Generation 9/11’ Muslim and Non-Muslim youth compared”‘?
Prof. Shergold: Well, it wasn’t my piece of research.
Senator ROBERTS: This grant allowed the doctor to write a book titled Coming of Age in the War on Terror, published by Allen and Unwin. Why are you funding this person to write a book which she sold commercially and for which the doctor most likely received payment? Did she?
Prof. Shergold: I have no idea—
Senator ROBERTS: That is what bothers me.
Prof. Shergold: if she received payment from that. But I am delighted overall when pieces of research that we fund end up in books or articles. I think that was a good use of money.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is socialising costs and privatising profits. Why is the Australian Research Council allowed to use taxpayer money to provide a commercial benefit to their friends in academia—paid to write the book, paid to sell the book? This seems to be a great scam going on here for academia.
Prof. Shergold: Well, in answering the question, and you were frustrated at the delay, the one thing I did show is how this is a best-practice peer-review process, and to identify that as a scam is probably stretching it somewhat.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is the ARC allowed to do this—socialise costs and privatise benefits?
Senator Walsh: The ARC’s role in the process is through its independent and expert board to use the process of peer review that Professor Shergold spoke about to be responsible for the approval of grants and fellowships and so on. That’s the ARC’s role and they rely on independent peer review to discharge their obligations. I think you’re asking questions about academics then publishing books after they have conducted research which may be funded by the ARC or may be supported in other ways. I think that publishing opportunity is just a part of higher education; it is standard procedure.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you have been funding this person continuously since 2018. Dr Randa Abdel Fattah is a radical Islamic activist who just participated in the figurative ‘burning down’ of the Adelaide Writers Festival. Is this grant nothing more than the ARC funding Islamic activism?
Prof. Shergold: I won’t repeat the process which the minister has described well. I will say we have a college of experts carefully selected who do a first assessment. We then have detailed assessments from over 20,000 assessors from Australia and around the world that then assess each of those pieces of research. And roughly about 25 per cent of them manage to make the cut. I wish I could fund more. There are many more good projects you could, but that’s the truth. There is a process. I can’t possibly step in and start to overrule decisions of that process on the basis that I don’t like particularly the political advocacy that someone does. I’ve got to make sure on your behalf that that process is being used as well as it possibly can be to make sure that decisions are being made fairly, honestly, transparently and in the national interest.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re nice words. But I’d leave this to the taxpayers to decide. The doctor has now organised an alternative event to the Adelaide Writers Festival, which, by all reports, is designed to exclude people of a certain faith or belief. Minister, I keep on hearing about social cohesion and yet this grant has gone to a person who is attacking social cohesion to advance Islamic propaganda. Why is your grants program encouraging social conflict?
Senator Walsh: There are a lot of incorrect premises there about the role of the ARC and the grants process and the investigation that was undertaken by Macquarie University. Essentially, Professor Shergold has already gone through that process. To go over it again, briefly, the minister wrote to the ARC and, I think, to Professor Shergold and asked the ARC to look into this particular grant to the doctor and make sure that the grant was being appropriately used. The way that works is that it’s the university that receives the grant that is then tasked with doing the investigation. Macquarie University appointed academic experts to conduct the review. The review investigated whether the grant funding was being used for its intended purpose. During that process, the funding was suspended. The process concluded and the grant was reinstated. It was reinstated, as I understand it, because there was no evidence that there was an inappropriate acquittal of public funds. So that’s the process.
Prof. Shergold: The only thing I would add is that, of course, we will continue to review this grant, just as we review all the other grants.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister. Just moving on then—
Senator FARUQI: Chair, may I raise a point of order?
CHAIR: Yes.
Senator FARUQI: Senator Roberts is making completely unfounded and false allegations about a very respected academic and researcher. I would really like you to ask him to withdraw those or stop that line of questioning.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to move on, Chair.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to wait for me to respond to the point of order before you can direct the committee to move on. I take your point, Senator Faruqi, but I don’t believe there has been a breach of the standing orders from what I can observe. But I would just remind all senators, as we continue through this session, to do so respectfully of the witnesses and topics we’re dealing with and of each other at the table. Senator Roberts, you still have the call.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/A2nhx_uQMiY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-19 16:25:202026-03-19 16:25:30Beyond Labor and Liberal
