Posts

Labor is Tanking Australia’s Living Standards

I asked Finance Minister Katy Gallagher’s about a critical issue affecting every working Australian: falling productivity.

The official numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics don’t lie. Under this Labor government, productivity (GDP per hours worked) has dropped from 100 to 96.9%.

At the same time, Labor brought in 301,000 net overseas arrivals in just one year.

This is what the data tells us:

➡️ Migration only boosts productivity if migrants are more highly skilled than the existing workforce.

➡️ Less than 20% of their 301,000 migrants are classified as skilled arrivals.

➡️ Australia now has a record 2.59 million short-term visa holders (excluding tourists) in the country, which international data proves drags productivity growth down even further.

I asked the Minister a simple, direct question: Has Treasury modelled the damage this massive influx of low-skilled and short-term visa holders is doing to our GDP per capita productivity?

Instead of giving a straight answer, Minister Gallagher dodged, talked about Net Zero, and gave excuses.

Adding millions of people without the skill levels or infrastructure to support them isn’t a productivity strategy. It’s a recipe for lower living standards for everyday Australians.

One Nation has policies that put Australian workers and our national interest first.

— June | Question Time

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and relates to productivity. The measure of productivity I’m using is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics: GDP per hours worked. Under your government, the index measure of productivity has fallen from 100 per cent to 99.6 [96.9] per cent. Net overseas migration in the year to December 2025 was 301,000 people. What change will these 301,000 new permanent arrivals make to our productivity—GDP per hours worked—across the forward estimates? 

Senator Gallagher: I welcome the question on productivity because this budget had productivity right at the centre of the decision-making that we took. As Senator Roberts would know from attending estimates, as he does and has as a representative of his party—he knows, from all the advice that Treasury has provided, that productivity growth in the decade to 2020 was the slowest in 60 years. Get your heads around that as everyone points the finger: the slowest in 60 years was in the decade to 2020. We recognised, when we came to government— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: On a point of order, I asked about productivity falling under your government. 

The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister is answering your question, but I will continue to listen carefully, and, if she isn’t, I’ll direct her to your question.  

Senator Gallagher: I was explaining the evidence that Treasury has provided, through various committee proceedings that I’ve been at and that Senator Roberts has been at, that the productivity challenge that Australia has right now is similar to many advanced economies and that we had seen slowing productivity growth in the decade to 2020. We revised back the productivity growth assumptions in our budget on the advice of Treasury. Those had been hiding behind the myth of their numbers in their budget. We adjusted it based on advice from Treasury, and this budget has a range of measures that go right to the heart of driving productivity improvements, which, I would think, all of us in this chamber could agree is a good thing. Whether it be some of the regulatory reform work that I’m doing; removing some of the barriers to trade, which Senator Farrell’s at the heart of; building a single national market; accelerating approvals with the work that Minister Watt’s leading in the environment and the work that Minister O’Neil is doing in housing; the work with the states and territories looking at how we use data and AI—all of these big challenges that economies like Australia are grappling with, we are dealing with in this budget. I’m not sure—the clock ran out. 

The PRESIDENT: Sorry, Minister. Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: OEC data shows productivity improvement only occurs if the migrants have a higher skill level than Australia has as a whole—in other words, quality, not quantity—otherwise, productivity falls. Minister, does the low rate of skilled migration—less than 20 per cent of your 301,000 migrants—mean that productivity in Australia across the forward estimates will continue to fall?  

Senator Gallagher: I know that One Nation and those parties on the right would like to blame every challenge to this country on migrants. We don’t. On this side, we don’t take that view. The productivity challenge is real. It’s real in our economy. It’s real in many, many economies around the world. The measures needed to improve productivity involve governments tackling serious challenges that have been ignored for too long, like—and I know you disagree with this, Senator Roberts—the transition to net zero. I know you don’t like it, but energy is a big part of seizing the— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I don’t want to know about the globe. This is a point of order on relevance. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, why are you on your feet? 

Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. The minister is being relevant to your question, and I’ll continue to listen carefully. 

Senator Gallagher: Migrants have made a very significant investment into our economy and have brought additional benefits. We value them and the contribution they make. We’re dealing with the migration challenges. The net overseas migration has come down 45 per cent, and we’ve got a range of productivity measures in place. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: International data shows that, the more short-term migrants a country has, the less the productivity growth. Under your government, Australia has 2.59 million short-term visa holders—excluding tourists, of course. Minister, have you modelled the effect on gross domestic product per capita productivity from having so many short-term visa holders in your visa mix? 

Senator Gallagher: Treasury does a range of modelling and a range of analysis that feeds into our budget papers. Obviously, the numbers through net overseas migration inform other numbers that run throughout the budget papers. Again, we value the work and contribution of migrants and what they bring to this country. The productivity challenge is a substantial one. Senator Roberts, I would think that, on the issues that we’ve focused on in this budget, you would agree with many of them and you would agree that these are areas that governments and parliaments should be focusing on to drive productivity, because we know that, when we’re improving productivity, we’re improving the life of every single citizen, and we are focused on that. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance again, President. I asked about per capita GDP productivity from so many short-term visa holders. That’s all I asked about. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, and the minister is being relevant, Senator Roberts. 

/0 Comments/by

71% Visas Granted Without Points Test

,

When you can’t get through the front door — go through New Zealand

The Albanese Government has turned New Zealand into a back door for Australian citizenship. Under Labor’s 2023 changes, anyone who gets NZ citizenship, even if they weren’t born there, can come to Australia on a 444 visa, stay indefinitely, and become an Australia citizen after four years without ever becoming a permanent resident or passing our points test.

When I pressed the department on how many people become permanent residents without passing the points test, they took the question on notice. The response is staggering.

Only 29% of permanent visas granted in 2025-26 to 31 March 2026, were points-tested. That means 71% of people gaining permanent residency, and eventually citizenship, never sat the points test at all.

Even New Zealand’s Foreign Minister has warned his country is being used as a stepping stone. Yet when I raised these concerns, the Minister tried to spin migration numbers to mislead Australians, ignoring the truth that Morrison raised immigration after COVID, and Albanese then drove it two records high, followed by a slight dip he now claims is a “cut”. He fails to mention the latest year is another record.

Australians deserve honesty. This government created a back-door pathway that undermines our citizenship standards and disrespects migrants who did the right thing, followed the rules, and passed the points test.

The Minister needs to stop playing games with the numbers and start serving the Australian people.

One Nation will immediately deny permanent residency and citizenship to anyone who fails the points test.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are about the citizenship back door between New Zealand and Australia. Changes made by the Albanese government in July 2023 allowed New Zealand citizens who have lived here for four years to become Australian citizens without having to first become permanent residents. Is that correct?  

Mr Layton: Technically, that is correct. The 444 visa is categorised as a temporary visa. The 444 visa holders have, since that time, become eligible for citizenship.  

Senator ROBERTS: And a New Zealand citizen can come here without a visa and automatically qualify for a subclass 444 visa—that’s correct?  

Mr Layton: No, that’s not correct. The 444 visa is applied, upon arrival, to a New Zealander. So they obtain that when they arrive in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Basically that’s the same as a permanent visa? Mr Willard: It’s a temporary visa, the 444.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it effectively a permanent visa—they can stay?  

Mr Willard: They can stay indefinitely, but it’s classified as a temporary visa.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know why that’s the case, but let’s leave that. They can stay indefinitely. They arrive and get a 444 visa to stay indefinitely. Then, after four years, they can get citizenship without getting a permanent visa—straight from subclass 444 to citizenship. Is that correct? Mr Layton: Technically, that’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Then aren’t we really just relying on New Zealand having the same standards for citizenship as Australia?  

Ms Foster: This was a government policy decision. We are responsible for giving effect to it.  

Senator Watt: It’s worth recognising that many if not most of those New Zealand citizens who are gaining Australian citizenship have spent many years in Australia working and paying taxes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I recognise that. I’ll go on. Do they in New Zealand, though—you may become a citizen in New Zealand if you’ve been there five years, can hold a conversation in English and are of good character proven with a police check. Summary offences don’t take away your good character. That’s the bar these people are using to become Australian citizens. Yes, some Kiwis are here for 20 years. It’s annoying that they don’t become citizens, but there are certain loopholes. There are certain benefits of not becoming citizens. I’m talking about people who use this as an easy entry. It is why New Zealand is now the No. 1 source of Australian citizens in the two-year period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025. Isn’t it an easy back door? Someone who’s come to New Zealand can come straight here.  

Ms Foster: Again, I think you’re asking us for an opinion. We can give you facts about the system, but we can’t comment on assertions of that nature.  

Senator ROBERTS: They can do that, can’t they? I’m not asking for your opinion. They can do that. Ms Foster: Technically, someone can, as the officers have said, come to Australia on a 444 visa, and, after four years, they can apply for citizenship.  

Mr Sharp: They would have had to have met the time threshold in New Zealand to acquire New Zealand citizenship as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: But that’s at a very low threshold, a low bar. In that period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025, 48 per cent of New Zealanders who are now Australian citizens were not born in New Zealand. They came into New Zealand from overseas. That’s a backdoor entry to Australian citizenship with a much lower bar because they had to meet the threshold for New Zealand, which is lower than Australian citizenship. That’s a much lower bar than people moving here directly and following the rules in Australia to citizenship, including passing what is called our 100-point test with at least a score of 65. This New Zealand back door is way easier than getting 65 on the 100-point test. For clarity, children don’t generally need to pass citizenship tests. Can you clarify that rule by age please. What’s the age threshold?  

Mr Willard: It’s 18.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you understand the position that offering this pathway to people from foreign countries to come in through the back door in New Zealand without passing the points test is a slap in the face for those who have come here fairly, waited, worked, studied and done the right thing but can’t get citizenship because this government wrote in a backdoor way for no obvious reason? Can you understand that?  

Ms Foster: We can’t comment on opinions of that nature.  

Senator Watt: I have to say, I think it’s pretty insulting to a lot of New Zealand citizens who become Australian citizens to talk about them coming through a back door.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about people who come into New Zealand, meet the lower threshold in New Zealand and come here. That’s who I’m talking about, Senator Watt. I’m surprised you can’t work that out. If this was about working with our neighbour New Zealand, why wasn’t there a provision for the pathway to be open only to New Zealand-born people rather than a deliberately set up back door to let in people that couldn’t pass a points test? What was the reason for that?  

Mr Layton: The policy and the parameters around that are a matter for government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Watt: I’m trying to remember the reason the government made that change in our first term. My recollection is that it was partly in recognition that, because of a change that had been made by the Howard government, there was a very large number of New Zealand citizens who had lived in Australia and worked, paid taxes and contributed to the community in a range of ways but, despite having lived here for such a very long time, were unable to get Australian citizenship, because of rules the Howard government imposed. That, in our view, was not fair. I remember that being at least one of the motivations for changing the policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no problem with that. What I’m talking about is people who come to New Zealand, quickly meet the lower threshold for citizenship there and come here and automatically get citizenship.  

Senator Watt: I’m not sure that people who, as you say, move to New Zealand and then move to Australia are necessarily of ‘low standard’. That’s what you’re implying in your question.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would also suggest that the New Zealand citizenship process is not a matter for Home Affairs.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s about using that threshold for people who are new to New Zealand. How many citizenships have been awarded to people who haven’t passed the points test under any circumstances?  

Mr Layton: Sorry, the points test?  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian citizenship points test.  

Ms Sharp: The points test is one way somebody can gain a permanent residency in Australia, but not every person who gains permanent residency in Australia comes in as a points tested migrant.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many do?  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: They fall in love with someone!  

Senator ROBERTS: How many come in without passing the points test?  

Mr Willard: I would have to take that on notice. I would note that there are also employer sponsored migrants. There are many different types of permanent residents.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. According to an article: It has also prompted New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters to flag concerns his country is being used as a stepping stone by migrants wanting to come to Australia, and that the trend will further accelerate under an easing of its own migration rules which will grant residency in just 18 months for some workers. Those numbers, combined with the recent rise in New Zealanders moving to Australia, have raised doubts about Australia’s ability to meet a planned slowdown in migration— He doubts whether you’re going to slow down— as well as concerns it is robbing New Zealand of both its professional and low-skilled workforce.  

Senator Watt: For starters, migration numbers in Australia have significantly fallen over the last couple of years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Compared to when? What’s the baseline?  

Senator Watt: Compared to the surge that we saw after COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: You mean the surge in 2023-24?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please let the minister finish.  

Senator Watt: Yes. That was the surge that happened after COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your surge, where you went from 500,000 to 750,000.  

Senator Watt: No, the surge that followed COVID.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have been very orderly throughout today, and you are usually pretty good at not interjecting. I would ask that you maintain that order and allow the minister to respond, please.  

Senator Watt: Here are a couple of other facts about this situation. I think we’ve already heard that the process that now applies still requires someone who has moved to New Zealand and gained New Zealand citizenship to have that for five years—so they spend five years in New Zealand and then four years in Australia. If you want to characterise that as a back door, that’s a pretty slow back door. Second, you’ve been asking questions about the points test. Any person who wants to get Australian citizenship still needs to meet the character and identification requirements and pass the security tests as well. As I said earlier, I think it’s a bit insulting to be suggesting these people are running through a back door and are of low standard. That’s what you’re suggesting.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: There’s a bloody long garden path leading to that back door.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve worked and lived in New Zealand, turning around a business there for 12 months. They’re wonderful people. But Winston Peters is concerned that their immigration system is being used for quick entry into New Zealand to go to Australia.  

Senator Watt: That’s a question for New Zealand to address.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s also a question for Australia to address, and that’s what I’m doing on behalf of the taxpayers. Minister, I agree with you on one point: mass immigration was started by John Howard’s government. It was pretty much doubled since then in Scott Morrison’s government, and then you tripled it in the early days of 2023-24. Senator Watt: What’s NOM stand for?  

Ms Foster: Net overseas migration.  

Senator Watt: Actually, net overseas migration has fallen by 45 per cent over the last 12 or 18 months. I can get you the exact timeframe.  

Senator ROBERTS: You had two very high years, a low year and now a very high year again.  

Senator Watt: Yes, after COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re playing with numbers.  

Senator Watt: It’s another one of those ones. We’re never going to convince you.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, have you got a question?  

Senator ROBERTS: I go by the data.  

Senator Watt: During COVID, migration crashed. After COVID—  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct.  

Senator Watt: lots of people came home. Migration rose. We have now reduced NOM by about 45 per cent by—  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s misleading, Minister, because—  

Senator Watt: No; it’s actually called facts.  

Senator ROBERTS: it increased dramatically under Morrison to re-establish what he thought were the right numbers of migration. Then you almost doubled it, then you decreased it slightly, and now you’re doubling it again.  

Senator Watt: So we should have told all those Australians who wanted to come home after COVID that they weren’t allowed home?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, not at all. I’m talking about immigrant—  

CHAIR: Can I interject for a second here—  

Senator ROBERTS: Mass immigration—mass immigration.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am not hearing any questions from you. Can I take it you have finished this line of questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, you can. 

/2 Comments/by

30,000 Fake Degrees Stripped

,

These questions are directed at the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) where I wanted to get clear answers on the scale of misconduct within our vocational education and training (VET) sector, and to find out exactly what is being done to shut down rogue Registered Training Organisations (RTOs).

As of late 2025, ASQA had cancelled 16 critically non-compliant providers, issued notices of intent to cancel credentials to over 36,600 individuals, and ultimately stripped more than 30,000 people of improperly issued qualifications.

My primary focus remains on criminal accountability for blatant scams, such as RTOs selling qualifications for cash. To ensure these operators face justice, ASQA is actively sharing intelligence with the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, including the ATO, ASIC, and the ACIC, and passing critical financial details to law enforcement.

We must ensure these rogue operators cannot simply close up shop and re-enter the market under a different name.

At the same time, any student caught purchasing fake credentials must be deported.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Good evening. My question is pretty brief. I understand that, by the end of 2025, ASQA deregistered 11 critically non-compliant registered training organisations and 31,000 qualifications they had issued, affecting 25,000 people. Is this accurate? Is it the latest data?  

Ms Rice: The latest data is that, as at 31 December 2025, we have cancelled 16 critically non-compliant providers. We have issued notices of intent to cancel qualifications and/or statements of attainment to more than 36,600 individuals. Of that figure, we have cancelled the qualifications and/or statements of attainment of just over 30,000 individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thirty thousand people. How many qualifications? Roughly 37,000?  

Ms Rice: Sorry, no. It is 36,600. We’ve issued a notice of intent to individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is in addition to the 30,000 you’ve cancelled?  

Ms Rice: No, sorry. It is a subset. It is 36,600. Of that 36,600, just over 30,000 we have actually cancelled. That is as at 31 December 2025.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your enforcement team investigated 189 serious matters involving 154 providers with 74 per cent relating to serious fraud. Wouldn’t they all be committing fraud? They are handing over a certificate that they knew was improperly issued and kept the money the student paid for the tuition. Shouldn’t they all have been charged with fraud?  

Ms Rice: Those are investigations on foot. The current data in relation to that is we have, I believe, 201 serious matters currently under investigation relating to 136 providers. The difference in there is because we also have serious matters under investigation in relation to non-RTOs or individuals or joint investigations with other partner agencies or law enforcement. I guess it is pre-emptive. We certainly have concerns about fraud in relation to all of those matters, but they are all at various stages of investigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t categorise them yet?  

Ms Rice: No. That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: So I’m on the right track. I can see the cancellations in the CRICOS panel.  

Ms Rice: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where are the charges for fraud on the owners, managers and administrators of these companies? 

Ms Rice: That’s a good question, Senator. We have undertaken a number of civil and criminal prosecutions or worked certainly with the CDPP. We don’t bring those matters ourselves.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t run them yourselves?  

Ms Rice: No. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions does. We provide a brief around some of those matters. In many of these cases, we have certainly made adverse findings from a fit and proper person perspective as part of the investigations. That is certainly relevant in order to, again, work with other partner agencies on the implications of that. It is also important in terms of preventing their re-entry into the VET sector. But it remains an ongoing program of work in relation to the individuals associated with this work.  

Senator ROBERTS: Once it is completed, the names will come out?  

Ms Rice: Typically, there will be names associated with the cancellation decisions that we’ve—  

Senator ROBERTS: I mean the officers of companies—administrators, managers—will be exposed?  

Ms Rice: That’s right. We work closely with ASIC and other regulators from that perspective, including the ATO.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Some of the RTOs were running obvious scams. One sold the qualifications for cash. How many others were dealing in cash? Was any of this reported to the ATO for tax fraud?  

Ms Rice: Certainly in all of the matters we have dealt with in this space, we have shared our intelligence and information with our Fraud Fusion partners, which includes the tax office.  

Senator ROBERTS: What partners did you call them?  

Ms Rice: The Fraud Fusion Taskforce partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What is to stop these people opening up another RTO ad running the same thing but this time different, having learned how not to get caught?  

Ms Rice: Well, Senator, we are certainly very alert to the risk of individuals re-entering the market. That is where we have been particularly focused on including the reforms to the fit and proper person requirements so that we can be alert to individuals as much as entities seeking—  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you track individuals?  

Ms Rice: Yes, we do. We’ve also been uplifting our focus of assessment on market entrants. It remains a significant area of focus for us. We’re also alert to it, though, as I mentioned earlier, in relation to the change of ownership of RTOs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Did you seize any money from the fraudulent RTOs as proceeds of crime?  

Ms Rice: No, Senator. That would be for law enforcement.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what I expected. Did you report it to the police?  

Ms Rice: Again, I guess we have certainly informed our Fraud Fusion partners about—  

Senator ROBERTS: Who are they?  

Ms Rice: There’s 22, I think, Fraud Fusion partners. It certainly includes the ATO, ASIC, the ACIC, NDIA and our portfolio department in DEWR. I can certainly provide you with the—  

Senator ROBERTS: So basically, other government departments?  

Ms Rice: That’s right. I can certainly provide you on notice with the list of members and the terms of reference for the taskforce.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Why not the police? That would put these criminals behind bars.  

Ms Rice: Well, certainly in some cases, Senator, we’ve worked with state law enforcement in relation to some of those matters. If it would assist, Senator, I’m happy to come back to you on notice with some more of the specifics from that perspective.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question. Has the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 that was passed last year made it easier to deal with rogue RTOs, or is it too early to tell?  

Ms Rice: It’s a good question, Senator. I think it is part of a suite of integrity measures. Together with the other measures, it has certainly helped to ensure greater alignment between the two pieces of legislation that we deal with the most in the ESOS Act and the NVR Act. It has certainly ensured consistency between those two acts from an integrity perspective. So we’re working through the implementation of that and certainly supportive of those changes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Chair, I want to put it on the record that for the second time today I’m going to compliment someone for the answers they’ve put—prompt, clear and concise. Thank you so much.  

Ms Rice: Thank you, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s good to see someone on top.

/1 Comment/by

Labor’s “Suicidal Empathy” on ISIS Brides

,

One Nation supports the private Senator’s Bill that was introduced in March by Senator Duniam.

This Bill finally forces transparency and accountability around the return of individuals linked to terrorism.

The Bill makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of people who’ve engaged in terrorism-related conduct unless both key ministers sign off in writing.

This legislation exposes Labor’s role in repatriating women who travelled to ISIS territory as committed participants in a violent extremist organisation responsible for severe harm and human rights abuses.

Their return was quietly brokered through intermediaries, even though some had openly urged attacks on Australia and its allies. A true case of suicidal empathy.

To these female terrorists, One Nation says this: you got what you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They’re the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I’ll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named ‘ISIS brides’ inspires this legislation. The term ‘ISIS brides’ is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to ‘breed the cubs of the caliphate’ and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they’re Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we’re supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they’ve committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That’s what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It’s called suicidal empathy. Let’s quote one of Minister Burke’s ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: ‘Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.’ That’s charming—really charming. It’s suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that’s telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate? As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia.’ And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

/1 Comment/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

Is the Refugee Program Changing Australia?

, ,

The Australian government is using the UN refugee visa program to intentionally bring radical Islam into the country.

25,000 migrants arrived under the UN refugee program last year, the vast majority coming from Muslim countries. Applications from Christian refugees in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Syrian Alawites, were excluded.

The president of the Australian National Imams Council, Shadi Alsuleiman (and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram) released a video in which he promises that “Islam will enter every home in Australia.”

Australians have a legitimate reason to fear the current government’s immigration policies.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today. 

His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia’—and he doesn’t mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.  

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by

The Death of the Quarter-Acre Block

,

What we are witnessing under this Labor government is nothing short of a deliberate assault on the Australian dream.

Labor is systematically killing off the traditional quarter-acre block and removing the option of home ownership from everyday Australians.

Labor want to make us all equal by making everyone poor, destroying the independence that owning a home provides, so that every citizen is forced to rely entirely on the state, or global corporations.

Labor’s “Help to Buy” and low-deposit schemes are complete traps and push up housing prices. These schemes don’t let young people get ahead. Instead, they limit how far they can get ahead. Under “Help to Buy,” you become a slave to the government in your own home.

If you renovate, the bureaucrats pocket a percentage of your equity — for doing absolutely nothing. You can’t refinance, you can’t use your equity to start a small business, and you can’t help your children buy their own home.

Unlike Labor, One Nation has a fully thought-out suite of policies to restore the Australian dream.

👉 https://www.onenation.org.au/immigration

Transcript

I thank Senator Bragg for introducing the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, which One Nation supports. 

There’s an urgent need for this bill, which restores the Senate’s right to scrutinise regulations issued under a bill. In recent years, more and more provisions which would previously have been included in the bill—hard coded, if you like—are now provided for in regulations which are written by bureaucrats for the benefit of bureaucrats, ministers, donors and mates. These are regulations that, in many cases, are beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny. They avoid parliament. We are increasingly seeing not government but dictatorship—a collectivist agenda informed by communist ideology and deployed with complete contempt for the parliamentary process and the large majority of Australians who did not vote Labor or Greens.

The Liberal Party had form on this, yet Labor have normalised it. The Albanese Labor government is in the process of removing the option of homeownership from the reach of everyday Australians. Young people will simply not be able to own their own home or use that home in the way that most in this chamber have been able to. Let me explain.

One Nation opposed the Help to Buy scheme because the scheme ensures that people will, most likely, never fully own their own home—never. In the many, many years that this scheme makes you a slave to the government, in your own home, the government does nothing for you. For example, with any renovations you make, the government benefits from what you pay. Installing a new kitchen for $20,000 means you get only $12,000 in capital appreciation and the government pockets $8,000 in additional equity for doing nothing. If you spend $21,000, you’ll first need to get the government’s permission to modify your own home. You can’t use any equity you do accumulate to refinance and free money up for buying a business, for instance. That’s expressly forbidden. Say your children get into trouble or need a hand to buy their own home. You can’t help them. There is no part refinancing. You’re trapped. If you want to buy the government out, then you have to pay them back in five per cent lots.

Why? Well, the government knows prices appreciate. Taking a loan to pay all of the equity off in one go costs the government money. They miss out on the capital appreciation during the period you’re paying that loan off. Say you want to use your home as security for a personal loan: no. There are no secured loans against one’s own home. They’re expressly prohibited. That’s why we did not support the scheme. We are proud we didn’t support it, because it’s a trap. It’s not about letting our young get ahead; it’s about limiting the amount they can get ahead by. That’s what Labor is doing. As usual, communists make every person equal by making everyone poor. This scheme is a tax dressed up as a helping hand, a solution to the exemption of family homes from the capital gains tax. Nobody stands between this Labor government and the money they want to give away to other people in electoral bribes—sorry, ‘promises’.

One Nation opposes the Albanese government’s low-deposit homeownership scheme, which allows borrowers to get a home loan with a five per cent deposit—or, if they are single parents, two per cent. The government underwrites the mortgage so the bank does not wear the risk. You’ll notice a pattern here: this government is every bit as friendly with Australia’s rapacious banking sector as the Liberals were. Under the low-deposit scheme, the home can’t be valued at more than $1.5 million, and there’s no limit on the income of the applicant or the number of mortgages issued. Don’t you just love this scheme! It should be called the ‘making it easier for high-income earners to buy a house in urban Labor electorates’ scheme. 

No wonder the government’s support in recent opinion polls is strongest amongst those earning more than $100,000. It’s the party of the workers no more. The party of the rich is a better description of Labor. No wonder the Liberals have lost market share. Labor is stealing their voters.

One Nation is now the party of the worker and the party of small-business owners who use their home as security to grow their business. Our opposition to the low-deposit scheme has been proven to be the right decision. House prices in capital cities went up by between eight per cent and 10 per cent in the year to January 2026, adding $100,000 to the average Sydney home price. That’s $100,000 more that people will have to borrow to get their home. Thanks, Labor!

The additional demand for homes from these schemes forced the price up and made affording the mortgage harder. A low deposit is no help if you can’t afford the repayments on 95 per cent or 98 per cent of a $1-million-plus mortgage. They’ve done this and destroyed hopes. The combined average price for a home in our capital cities is now $1.14 million.

One Nation policy is to allow first home owners to top up the first home owners’ grant with secured equity from the person’s own superannuation account. We will allow low-income earners to buy with a five per cent deposit against a government guarantee on the mortgage. Why won’t this force up home prices? It will be because of the thing the Albanese government refuses to do: stopping mass immigration.

A One Nation government will deport around 200,000 people who are here illegally and will have a moratorium on new arrivals for three years, creating negative immigration. As Australians engage with the housing scheme, they will find there will be a home available to purchase without the price of homes being pushed up. One Nation policies have been thought through. One policy complements another, and every Australian will benefit. Our policies come in suites—s-u-i-t-e-s—unlike this Labor government, which continues to throw money at problems it never solves because it never thinks things through. They want to look good, not do good. It’s shallow and hurting young people.

Yesterday, the Reserve Bank put up interest rates by 0.25 per cent, which would not have happened if government policies had not driven up house prices by eight to 10 per cent in the last year. Every mortgage holder in Australia is now facing higher repayments because of the Albanese government’s inability to manage government policy. Senator Bragg is right that this bill is necessary to provide scrutiny and to try and elevate the standard of government in this country.

Can I say to the Labor government: for the love of Australia, please, please stop trying to help. You’re making it worse, especially for young people. Let people get about their business, keep more of their own money and more easily pay for their homes themselves. Stop bringing in millions of new arrivals—millions of new arrivals—all of whom need a home in which to live. Stop forcing people out of their homes with the evil land tax, as Labor are doing in Victoria, so that your mates running union super funds can buy up the homes. Every new scheme makes things worse for young Australians. That’s why we don’t support your idiot ideas—your dishonest, ludicrous ideas. Where else should the accountability be forced on the government?

Foreign corporations used to pay 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor has cut that tax to 15 per cent. It’s been halved; you’ve looked after your corporate mates from overseas. Labor makes it easy for its mates, globalist foreign wealth funds, to rip more money out of Australia and to rip more money off Australians. You lower the tax, and the tax will come out of the people instead. Let’s be clear. This Labor government said to foreign corporate landlords like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State—with interlocking ownership, they are in reality BlackRock Inc. Labor said to BlackRock Inc., ‘We’ll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.’ Australians: forget the Australian dream of owning your own home.

Labor’s dream is that you live in a shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock Inc forever whilst those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. Labor has just cut it in half. That’s what ‘build to rent’ means. Whenever you hear ‘build to rent’ from Labor, remember renting forever to a foreign corporate landlord. They will build homes for sure, but Australians will never ever own them. It’s ‘build to rent’ forever. Part of the United Nations and World Economic Forum’s agenda is global control of people and wealth transfer from the people to global wealth funds like BlackRock Inc. This Labor government is helping that along by giving these foreign corporations a big tax cut to incentivise foreign corporations to buy Australian homes.

The bill did not reduce the tax for Australian owners; it brought foreign owners’ tax rate down to the same level as Australian investors. That’s the most telling part of all. This bill only changed the tax treatment of foreign predatory multinational corporations. Is Labor the party for Australia, or is it the party for foreign corporations? Build to rent answers that question. Clearly Labor is for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street—BlackRock Inc. That’s why Labor’s policies on mass immigration and housing are designed to destroy homeownership for all young families. Instead, One Nation is for Australians owning their own home. On all this, I told you so for years. I initiated the mass immigration and housing debates four to five years ago and have hammered both.

Only One Nation’s housing policy covers all aspects: supply, demand, construction cost and finance. I’m going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from Senator Bragg’s dissenting report on the build to rent bill. I hope you don’t mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what’s wrong with the Labor Party. The following passages are taken from the dissenting report following the committee inquiry into the Labor Party’s build-to-rent scheme: Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, ‘mum and dad’ investors, not institutions. That is appropriate. This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers.

Dr Murray— a witness in the inquiry— was critical of the Bill’s attempted perversion of our tax arrangements: ‘It’s not clear to me why local investors shouldn’t be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don’t see that there’s a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It’s not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement.’ That’s similar to One Nation’s housing policy. Here’s another quote from Senator Bragg: At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (‘ASFA’) suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation’s landlords, and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a ‘hobby activity’. Really? Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund? A hobby activity—come on! Senator Bragg continues: This is the view of a vested interest— that Labor is cuddling up to— Most Australians would not agree with this proposal. Another witness observed that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia, not from the usual suspects, the Liberal Party, but from the Labor Party, the former party of the workers, headed by Prime Minister Albanese.

A witness said: … pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition. What we’re seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice. There’s just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what’s coming … Hence the need for Senator Bragg’s bill. His dissenting report said: The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia’s housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership: ‘… with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose … All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes.’ Personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a safe and productive society, I say. Senator Bragg continues: Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre— Really? Fund managers? Foreigners? How very corporate of the Labor Party! Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market.

Dr Murray warned the committee: I find it interesting because we’ve already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What’s even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We’ve got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we’re now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they’re already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill. It seems Prime Minister Albanese is not only best friends with billionaires like Larry Fink from BlackRock and Bill Gates from ‘Vaccines R Us’ but also best mates with the Islamist Abu Dhabi regime. The dissenting report said: Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market. Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office (‘the GAO’), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing. 

Prime Minister Albanese’s housing schemes will lead to foreclosures and misery. This is not an unintended outcome; it’s the point of it. Communists detest homeownership. It provides people with independence from the government, and that’s the opposite of the fundamental purpose of the Labor government, which is to make people reliant on the government. Senator Bragg continues: This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting.

There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly. While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australia is into it.

One Nation is dedicated to all Australians being able to own their own home and to use that home as they see fit. (Time expired) 

/2 Comments/by

Scrap Net-Zero, Not Health Rebates

, , ,

One Nation strongly opposes the Albanese government’s plan to remove the private health insurance rebate for older Australians (65+).

Removing these rebates will ultimately cost taxpayers billions more than it will save and will put immense strain on the public hospital system.

One Nation rejects the government’s “intergenerational fairness” narrative. It is nothing more than a diversion.

The true causes of financial hardship for Australian people are immigration, net-zero policies, inflation and high living costs.

Rather than cutting health rebates for the elderly, we should stop mass migration and abandon all net-zero targets, which will help ALL Australians.

Transcript

I thank Senator Ruston for this motion, which One Nation supports. Currently, all Australians get a rebate on their contributions to private health insurance. For the people under 65, it is 24.1 per cent, for those 65-69 years of age it is 28.1 per cent and for those over 70 it is 32.2 per cent. These are adjusted for income. Minister Butler described the system as ‘not fair between generations’. The government has announced the additional amount paid to our elderly will be removed, making everyone equal. How very communist and how self-defeating. The rebate is higher the older you get, because the cost to the taxpayer of a person moving from private to public care is higher the older they get. The extra payment encourages older Australians to stay in the private health system and save the taxpayers from having to carry the full cost of their health care. 

Across forward estimates, this measure will cost taxpayers—including young people—billions more than it saves, and it will put more pressure on public hospitals already dealing with bed block and long waiting times. Our young people will not always be young. A measure that helps more than three million older Australians today will help younger Australians tomorrow. 

The Albanese government is promoting division in order to set one age group against another. How dishonest! Classic communism! This is the politics of envy, designed to cover up the real reasons young people are struggling, which are immigration, net zero, grocery prices, energy prices, inflation—destroying industry, making lives harder and robbing our young of the opportunity to own their own homes, to enjoy the life that my generation enjoys. To pitch to younger voters, start there. Introduce negative immigration until housing and infrastructure catches up, reducing house prices. Terminate this net zero madness and let business get on with creating breadwinner jobs that provide a future for our young. 

Intergenerational wealth transfer is a term that is a furphy, a lie, a dishonest diversion. Labor is crippling the young. In reality, this is an excuse from Labor to increase taxes on people with assets who, after a lifetime of work, are the older generations. Remember, today’s young adults are the future older people. This aims to hit all Australians, including the young. You will eventually get hit. This is a lie that is masquerading to steal more taxes. One Nation will unwind this petty, dishonest, counterproductive measure. We are one nation, one community and One Nation will not set one Australian against another.  

/2 Comments/by

One Nation Leading Where Others Follow

,

The Liberal-National coalition and Labor are playing a desperate game of catch-up.

For years, they’ve ignored the real issues — energy, housing and mass immigration crisis, which started under John Howard and has exploded under the Albanese government. Now, they’re copying One Nation’s homework.

They drop the right buzzwords and borrow our rhetoric because they’re terrified of the polls, yet they still lack the data and the backbone to actually do good instead of just trying to look good.

People see through the “fluffy and vague” policies of other parties.

One Nation aren’t here to play status quo politics; we’re here to put Australia First.

It’s time to hold these politicians accountable and return the power to where it belongs: with the people.

/1 Comment/by

More People, More Demand

,

RBA Governor Bullock: “Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing.”

– Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand that household inflation expectations have a big impact on inflation itself. At the economic roundtable, Treasurer Chalmers said: Real wages are growing at their strongest rate in five years, inflation has a two in front of it and interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. People are still talking about high grocery bills and inflation in insurance premiums and all kinds of insurance. What does that do to people’s expectations of inflation?  

Ms Bullock: Well, all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2½ per cent. 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 2½ per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have a quick question before I go to a separate topic. What does having 4.5 million visa holders, non-citizens, in the country do to demand for houses and to the price of houses?  

Ms Bullock: Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing you have.

/by