Critics like Senator Hume and Minister Watt are either misinformed or playing politics with One Nation’s seven-page immigration policy. To be clear: our policy keeps intake numbers completely unchanged for backpackers, PALM workers and the tourism sector.
Citing from the Treasury’s FIONA model, young, working-age migrants aged 25–35 contribute positively to the economy while older migrants, family reunion programs and non-working arrivals create a net financial cost.
Our policy aims to prioritise productive workers while screening out non-producers.
Canada is proof that immigration cuts ease rental pressures and benefits local workers. We will still permits genuinely skilled workers in critical areas like construction, nursing, aged care and rural industries.
Businesses should stop relying on imported labour rather than training the 690,000 unemployed and 1.65 million underemployed Australians. Our policy will end the “cheap-labour gravy train” and boost domestic living standards.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Liberal Senator Hume described One Nation’s immigration policy as ‘a headline number and a few slogans’. I have the policy here. It’s seven pages of details and facts. It took months of research to source the numbers and formulate the measures, which are comprehensive, detailed, consistent and will fix so many of the problems Australia is facing in housing, household wealth, service delivery, social cohesion and the current per capita recession in which Australians are suffering. It’s clear that people criticising the policy have never read it or are lying out of political self-interest. For clarity, there’s no change in backpackers, no change in PALM workers, no change in tourism numbers. All three can increase if the market can sustain more. Labor Minister Watt made this criticism: ‘One Nation policy will destroy the economy and drive the economy into recession.’ The minister is not alone in this deceit. Some Liberal-aligned business leaders and Labor-aligned media have repeated this unfounded fabrication, contrary to the facts.
The Treasury’s Fiscal Impact of New Australians model, FIONA, looks at the lifetime contribution of a new immigrant—the cost and the benefit. A young migrant in the sweet spot of 25 to 35 years of age—someone who assimilates, works his or her whole life and stays out of trouble—will add $198,000 to the economy in their lifetime, increasing GDP and wealth for all, which is why we are not reducing that cohort; we are increasing it. This is our immigration target demographic.
FIONA shows each person arriving under the family program, though, costs the Australian economy $126,000 across their lifetime. FIONA shows a migrant arriving after the age of 50 will never pay back the taxpayers either. In addition, their lifetime value is negative. The current mix of this government’s new arrivals is heavily weighted towards older migrants, family reunions and nonworkers, and there are hundreds of thousands of fake students working in the gig economy, cheating on their tax and sending home as much money as possible. Children of new arrivals or family reunions have a huge lifetime economic cost. The younger the child, the more likely it is that they will have a negative lifetime economic impact. This is why FIONA only puts the average lifetime contribution of all migrants that this government is letting in at $41,000. The more committed, young, educated or skilled workers we let in, the more nonproducers we can screen out. It only takes 20 per cent of all arrivals to be our target young demographic for the total value of arrivals to hit the $41,000 figure. So what do other arrivals contribute? They don’t. They add costs to Australians. Do the maths.
Prime Minister Carney grew Canada’s economy with the same approach One Nation is proposing. He grew it. Canada’s largest banks report that Canadian immigration cuts were easing rental pressures and supporting employment. In Canadian provinces where the immigration cuts were most significant, rents are falling fastest. The banks concluded the immigration slowdown has been great news for Canada’s battlers.
Speaking last night on—of course—the ABC, George Megalogenis said our cut would cause the worst depression since the 1890s. Talk about seeing what you want to see! What utter nonsense—a lie. The data I have just presented shows the reverse will be true. Canada proved the reverse will be true.
As for a supposed labour shortage, One Nation is not changing backpacker numbers. We’re offering skilled visas to genuinely skilled workers in areas we need them, including construction; the care economy, such as nursing and aged care; and rural industry. Let’s be clear; only one per cent of skilled arrivals last year under this government were construction workers, half a per cent were aged-care workers and one per cent were nurses. Our numbers leave plenty of room for more skilled and educated workers where we need them.
Our policy looks after those who are already here. Right now, there are 690,000 Australians out of work—690,000. There are another 1.65 million Australians looking for extra work. Business lobbies should start there—with Australians who want a job. It’s industry’s fault that workforce planning was sacrificed on the altar of high profits and lazy management. The workers are here in Australia. It’s time for industry to get back in the business of training the new generation of apprentices and staff, instead of lazily importing them.
Under One Nation, the cheap-labour gravy train will be over, and Australians can begin to restore Australian productivity and living standards. Together we Australians can restore Australia.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/UHP5wN925nE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-30 13:20:082026-09-30 13:20:11Misinformed or Playing Politics?
One Nation are committed to a net-negative migration plan during the first three years of a One Nation administration.
We will slash over 750,000 temporary visas.
Because of how broken the current system is, a period of adjustment is necessary.
Every day Aussies are having to grapple with the consequences of mass migration. Consequences that the career politicians running the country are entirely insulated from.
One Nation are determined to end mass migration.
There is only one party in Australia with credibility on this issue.
One Nation is proud of its comprehensive, detailed seven-page immigration policy, designed to fix the daily challenges facing everyday Australians.
While critics, particularly from the Uniparty, dismiss our policy, we recognise that their opposition is either politically motivated or stems from an ignorance of the facts.
And let’s be clear, backpacker, PALM and tourism numbers will remain unchanged under our policy.
Backed by Treasury’s FIONA model, it shows that while prime working age migrants (aged 25 to 35) yield a positive lifetime contribution of $198,000 per person, family reunions, older migrants and non-working arrivals create a net financial COST of $126,000 per person to taxpayers. Our policy seeks to increase young, skilled workers in critical areas like construction, nursing and aged care, while screening out non-producers to maximise overall economic value.
Our policy almost mirrors Canada’s successful approach, where recent immigration slowdowns have already eased rental pressures and supported workers. Australia currently has 690,000 unemployed and 1 million underemployed citizens who deserve to be prioritised and trained first.
One Nation will always put Australians first!
Transcript
Liberal Senator Hume described One Nation’s immigration policy as ‘a headline number and a few slogans’. I have the policy here. It’s seven pages of details and facts. It took months of research to source the numbers and formulate the measures, which are comprehensive, detailed, consistent and will fix so many of the problems Australia is facing in housing, household wealth, service delivery, social cohesion and the current per capita recession in which Australians are suffering. It’s clear that people criticising the policy have never read it or are lying out of political self-interest. For clarity, there’s no change in backpackers, no change in PALM workers, no change in tourism numbers. All three can increase if the market can sustain more. Labor Minister Watt made this criticism: ‘One Nation policy will destroy the economy and drive the economy into recession.’ The minister is not alone in this deceit. Some Liberal-aligned business leaders and Labor-aligned media have repeated this unfounded fabrication, contrary to the facts.
The Treasury’s Fiscal Impact of New Australians model, FIONA, looks at the lifetime contribution of a new immigrant—the cost and the benefit. A young migrant in the sweet spot of 25 to 35 years of age—someone who assimilates, works his or her whole life and stays out of trouble—will add $198,000 to the economy in their lifetime, increasing GDP and wealth for all, which is why we are not reducing that cohort; we are increasing it. This is our immigration target demographic.
FIONA shows each person arriving under the family program, though, costs the Australian economy $126,000 across their lifetime. FIONA shows a migrant arriving after the age of 50 will never pay back the taxpayers either. In addition, their lifetime value is negative. The current mix of this government’s new arrivals is heavily weighted towards older migrants, family reunions and nonworkers, and there are hundreds of thousands of fake students working in the gig economy, cheating on their tax and sending home as much money as possible. Children of new arrivals or family reunions have a huge lifetime economic cost. The younger the child, the more likely it is that they will have a negative lifetime economic impact. This is why FIONA only puts the average lifetime contribution of all migrants that this government is letting in at $41,000. The more committed, young, educated or skilled workers we let in, the more nonproducers we can screen out. It only takes 20 per cent of all arrivals to be our target young demographic for the total value of arrivals to hit the $41,000 figure. So what do other arrivals contribute? They don’t. They add costs to Australians. Do the maths.
Prime Minister Carney grew Canada’s economy with the same approach One Nation is proposing. He grew it. Canada’s largest banks report that Canadian immigration cuts were easing rental pressures and supporting employment. In Canadian provinces where the immigration cuts were most significant, rents are falling fastest. The banks concluded the immigration slowdown has been great news for Canada’s battlers.
Speaking last night on—of course—the ABC, George Megalogenis said our cut would cause the worst depression since the 1890s. Talk about seeing what you want to see! What utter nonsense—a lie. The data I have just presented shows the reverse will be true. Canada proved the reverse will be true.
As for a supposed labour shortage, One Nation is not changing backpacker numbers. We’re offering skilled visas to genuinely skilled workers in areas we need them, including construction; the care economy, such as nursing and aged care; and rural industry. Let’s be clear; only one per cent of skilled arrivals last year under this government were construction workers, half a per cent were aged-care workers and one per cent were nurses. Our numbers leave plenty of room for more skilled and educated workers where we need them.
Our policy looks after those who are already here. Right now, there are 690,000 Australians out of work—690,000. There are another 1.65 million Australians looking for extra work. Business lobbies should start there—with Australians who want a job. It’s industry’s fault that workforce planning was sacrificed on the altar of high profits and lazy management. The workers are here in Australia. It’s time for industry to get back in the business of training the new generation of apprentices and staff, instead of lazily importing them.
Under One Nation, the cheap-labour gravy train will be over, and Australians can begin to restore Australian productivity and living standards. Together we Australians can restore Australia.
Australians’ safety must come before the rights of people who chose to join terrorist organisations.
The Albanese Government keeps insisting it gave “zero assistance” to repatriate ISIS-linked individuals. Yet, the evidence shows ministerial meetings, advocacy coordination, passport help, DNA testing, citizenship paperwork and a $100 million-funded NGO quietly managing the logistics.
These women entered declared terrorist zones, joined listed organisations, and in some cases, allegedly participated in the enslavement of Yazidi women — offences carrying penalties of up to 25 years. Two have been charged. Why not the rest?
One Nation has moved the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill to stop further returns, including 13 men still in custody overseas. Our bill is constitutional, targeted and designed for one purpose. Keeping Australians Safe.
If Labor won’t draw the line on terrorism, One Nation will.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I move the motion: The need to put the safety of all Australians ahead of the rights of people who chose to join or support terrorist organisations
Australia is now hosting people who left our shores to fight for ISIS or other Islamic terrorist organisations against Australia and against our allies in Syria. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria was overthrown in that war. Syria fell into the hands of Islamic group HTS, which recently reformed into a more moderate government. Guess what? They don’t want these women. Syrian authorities are treating them as foreign nationals awaiting deportation. In early 2026, when a group of Australian ISIS combatants tried to leave the al-Roj refugee camp, Syrian officials briefly turned them back because they wanted explicit confirmation that Australia would accept them upon arrival. The new Syrian government is clearly smarter than this Albanese Labor government.
What offences did these women commit in travelling to an area designated as a zone of terrorist activity? Firstly, under section 119.2 of the Criminal Code, it’s an offence for an Australian citizen to intentionally enter or remain in an area, specifically the al-Raqqa province in Syria. Simply being physically present within these ISIS controlled borders without an approved excuse is a crime carrying a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.
Secondly, under section 102.3 of the Criminal Code, it’s a criminal offence to intentionally join a listed terrorist organisation. The definition of membership extends beyond combatants to include individuals who swear allegiance, provide support or willingly integrate into the group’s societal structure. The penalty is up to 10 years imprisonment.
Thirdly, enslavement offences under section 268.10 of the Criminal Code include the reduction of a person to a status of slavery, including purchasing, owning, using or trading human beings. The Australian Federal Police allege that some of these women were complicit in the purchase and domestic enslavement of captured Yazidi women. The penalty is up to 25 years imprisonment per charge, amongst the harshest penalties in Australian law, and rightly so.
While charges have been laid against two, One Nation is asking, ‘Why not the others?’ Home affairs minister Tony Burke and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have consistently claimed the government provided ‘absolutely zero assistance’ to bring these women back to Australia. This is not accurate. The evidence indicating that Minister Burke’s office and federal departments helped or cleared paths for the women includes handwritten notes of Department of Home Affairs secretary Stephanie Foster revealing that Minister Burke held undisclosed meetings with the Save the Children fund, who were responsible for bringing these women back to Australia. During these discussions, Minister Burke reportedly thanked the advocacy group for keeping their repatriation plans quiet and out of the media. The minister explicitly noted that the government ‘doesn’t want to be perceived to have been paying to have them smuggled out’. Paying? The minister is referring to the $100 million that Save the Children has received in federal government funding in the last three years.
Minister Burke coordinated with Dr Jamal Rifi, a prominent Western Sydney Islamic community leader, who served as the key facilitator managing the ground logistics for their return to Australia. The federal government actively processed the legal paperwork required for international travel, which the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism described as being ‘utterly disingenuous’ to deny as being of assistance. Minister Burke conceded that the Department of Home Affairs assisted with passports, identity verification, DNA testing and citizenship documentation for the children born overseas. When the women applied for travel documents, the government chose not to implement long-term temporary exclusion orders, even though their circumstances perfectly met the criteria for that order.
The return of foreign Islamic fighters is not over. There are 13 men in captivity in Iraq who could be returned with the same assistance Minister Burke gave these women. Not on One Nation’s watch. Australia needs protection from Islamic terrorism, and we need protection from politicians facilitating Islamic terrorists’ return to Australia. This is why One Nation will tomorrow move to introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, a bill the Greens call unconstitutional. What absolute rubbish! Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey has said One Nation’s bill is structured to navigate constitutional hurdles, because our bill was carefully written to comply with High Court rulings on this topic, and we believe it is constitutional. Our bill strengthens Australia’s ability to prevent the return to Australia of persons who have served with, participated in the activities of or materially supported terrorist organisations, to protect our Australian community. I ask the Senate to take this sensible measure to protect Australians from people who have actively fought in foreign lands against Australia and against our allies, to fulfil government’s and parliament’s primary role, to keep Australians safe.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/aOrCNmazHeg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 16:14:422026-08-26 16:14:46One Nation Draws the Line on Terrorism
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.
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?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/oXxezrA2pN8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-13 16:03:442026-08-13 16:03:4671% Visas Granted Without Points Test
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.
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.
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
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.
