Posts

The Price Tag of the Suburban Rail Loop

The Victorian Premier puts the cost of Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) East between $30 billion and $34.5 billion, whilst the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates the combined cost for both the East and North stages at a staggering $132 billion once loans are repaid by 2084.

When I broke down the numbers based on the business case’s projected traffic (calculating that recovering a total projected cost of $132 billion over 50 years would equate to a ticket price of about $30 a trip or $300 weekly), officials conceded that no urban railway in Australia covers its capital costs from fares, relying instead on heavy taxpayer subsidies.

Shocked at these massive capital costs, I asked what happens if the expensive North stage is dropped and how this project can be justified when it will perpetually drain taxpayer funds.

I contrasted this with the termination of the Inland Rail project, questioning how the government could funnel money into a project like the Suburban Rail Loop while ignoring the accountability of Victoria’s broader infrastructure budget.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions go to the Victorian Suburban Rail Loop. The Victorian Premier has put the project costs for Suburban Rail Loop East at between $30 billion and $34.5 billion. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has put the cost of both stages at $84 billion for the East and $132 billion for the North, by the time that the loans are paid back in 2084. This includes the full cost of construction, interest and operation. Do you agree or dispute the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office figure?  

Mr L Wood: I don’t dispute the PBO figure. When we’re looking at it from an Australian government investment perspective, we look at it from a capital cost point of view, and the total project cost that we’re using is $34.5 billion. That is the total project cost that we’re operating under for SRL East. The Australian government hasn’t committed to SRL North.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. Following the completion of all stages of the Suburban Rail Loop between Werribee and Cheltenham, the business case puts the traffic at 400,000 trips a day, when averaged across a year. This works out at seven billion trips in the first 50 years. Recovering the $216-billion cost from seven billion trips equals a ticket cost of about $30 a trip, or $300 for a weekly, in 2026 dollars. How is this project financially feasible without billions of dollars in subsidies every year?  

Mr Betts: Because, like every suburban train system in Australia, we rely on taxpayer subsidies to make the farebox affordable. There isn’t an urban railway in Australia that washes its own face by recovering revenue and making a profit.  

Senator ROBERTS: These are staggering figures though, Mr Betts.  

Mr Betts: If you look at the Sydney or Brisbane network, the level of taxpayer subsidization—I don’t have the figure in front me—would be 60 or 70 per cent. As things such as free fares are instituted, that proportion goes up. It’s fairly commonplace.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the typical fare in Sydney? Averaged out, this is $30 a trip.  

Mr Betts: It would be $30 a trip if you were to recover the entire cost of the project through what people pay at the farebox, but there’s no railway in Australia that does that.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my point, though. This is a pretty hefty capital cost and, at $30 a trip, it’s a very hefty allocation of that capital over the years. I accept that we don’t have many unsubsidised suburban rail networks, but this is huge. It’s staggering, and I’m surprised that you’re not falling out of your CHAIR.  

Mr Betts: It’s a big project, but then so are the metro projects in Sydney, which normally don’t cover their capital costs from farebox revenue, nor has any railway done since the 19th century.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it $30 a trip in Sydney too? Is that what the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for?  

Mr Betts: Taxpayers are already paying a very significant proportion of the cost of running that railway.  

Senator ROBERTS: So let’s add more, a huge amount more. Are you aware of this, Minister?  

Senator McCarthy: I don’t travel the Sydney or Melbourne lines.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re a minister in the government of Australia.  

Senator McCarthy: May I answer, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Senator McCarthy: I don’t travel those lines, and I don’t know the cost of doing so, but I am listening here to Mr Betts.  

Senator ROBERTS: The second stage, the North stage, which includes the airport link, is much more expensive. If the North stage is not built because of cost, what effect will that have on the ticket revenue on the smaller first stage? How much of the $84 billion will taxpayers lose by 2084 or, as you say, $35 billion; how much?  

Mr L Wood: The $34.5 billion is the capital cost to build SRL East. That will be completed by 2035, and that’s underway now. SRL North would be a future decision of government if it were to choose to invest in that.  

Senator ROBERTS: If SRL North does not go ahead, what would be the impact on East?  

Mr Betts: We’ve looked at the economics and associated benefits of Suburban Rail Loop East, and that project continues to offer benefits even if the northern stage is not ultimately built.  

Senator ROBERTS: At what cost? Minister, how can you terminate a real infrastructure project, such as Inland Rail, and give the money to a project like the Suburban Rail Loop, which, even if it’s finished at all, will never pay for itself and will always be a blackhole for taxpayers’ money? How can you do that?  

Senator McCarthy: In terms of funding, the minister has made the decision and has made it based on advice from the department, so I’ll refer that to the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: So what is that advice? What I want to know is how they’re going to do it.  

CHAIR: I’m sorry, Senator. I heard clearly this morning, when we were speaking about Inland Rail, that a certain amount of money—$1.8 billion—would go to existing rail infrastructure, but I hadn’t heard that all the rest of Inland Rail money was going to a suburban rail loop.  

Senator McKENZIE: I expect that the department did not advise the estimates—  

CHAIR: I’m sorry, Senator. You just touched on this and I’m trying to clear it up for you.  

Mr Betts: I’ll have a go at giving you an answer. Unlike the Inland Rail project, the Suburban Rail Loop project was subject to a business case, which was independently reviewed by Infrastructure Australia. That evaluation is on the website. The Commonwealth government’s contribution to Suburban Rail Loop, even allowing for the $3.6 billion, is a capped contribution—  

Senator McKENZIE: So was the two.  

Mr Betts: whereas the budget for inland rail, established by the previous government and handed to the current government, is a third of the cost of building that project, and that would be sheeted home entirely to the Australian taxpayer.  

Senator ROBERTS: In other words, there’s nothing to see here. Snowy 2.0, Inland Rail, all missed. Minister, will you suspend funding for the Suburban Rail Loop, until you find where the missing $15 billion from Victoria’s Big Build went, or are you happy to fund criminals ripping off the taxpayers?  

Senator McKENZIE: You’re copying my questions.  

Senator McCarthy: Senator, isn’t it my understanding that you did not support the Inland Rail?  

Senator ROBERTS: Not where it was, but we’re supporting it now and we have been supporting it. Pay more attention, Minister, because we have been vigorously supporting it and we’ve been connecting it to the east-west northern line.  

Senator McKENZIE: Yes.  

Senator McCarthy: They’re having a good laugh there, Senator McKENZIE, but we know what your previous Leader of the Nationals thought about all of that as well. But I’ll take your question on notice, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you answer it now?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice, Senator. 

/0 Comments/by

EPBC Overhaul: The Price of Bureaucratic Delay

I am extremely concerned that the EPBC Act harms economic growth. Data from the Minerals Council shows average resource project decision times increased from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. This imposes a heavy financial penalty on applicants.

Minister Watt countered that the reforms passed last year (which we opposed) are specifically designed to speed up assessment and approval timeframes, covering housing, energy, and resources, while strengthening environmental protections.

Officials reported that on-time performance for resource projects like coal, gas and oil improved from 67% in 2024–25 to 92% in 2025–26 (up to 11 May). While questions on specific project age metrics were taken on notice, Minister Watt maintained that decision-making timeframes are improving.

I then brought up the budget allocation to introduce AI to the department. Officials explained that a trial of AI is being introduced to help populate referral documentation, assisting them in gathering required conservation information faster to avoid delays during the assessment process.

Poor governance in the Department is costing jobs and prosperity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we started talking about the national environmental standards under the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: I said that there hadn’t been—you asked me to come back and ask all the same questions, so that’s what we will do. 

Senator Watt: Yes—the questions you attempted to ask in corporate. 

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. 

Senator Watt: Sure. We’re ready. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you are! Your website on the new environmental standards under the EPBC does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says a circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April. When will the new standard be made available to senators? 

Senator Watt: I must admit I haven’t checked that website lately, Senator Roberts. I might get someone to do that for me. But, roughly three weeks ago, we commenced a second round of consultation. Ms Kay will give you the details. 

Ms Kay: We’ve only got two national environmental standards open for consultation on our ‘Have your say’ website. The matters of national environmental significance standard was released on 30 April, and our consultation closes on 29 May. The offsets standard was released on 8 May, and consultation for that closes on 9 June. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, as things stand, the EPBC Act is, in my opinion, a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia quoted an increase in average decision times for resource projects of 60 per cent—from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. What steps are you taking to increase your throughput—faster processing? 

Senator Watt: As I mentioned in an earlier section—I don’t think you were here, Senator Roberts—that is one of the key reasons behind the reforms that we passed the parliament last year. It was to speed up the assessment and approval timeframes for projects in Australia, whether they be housing, energy or resources. The other objective, of course, was to strengthen environmental protections. We want to fix that. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, your main steps are revising the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. We’ve done a lot of work internally to speed up the processes. You may have seen that today I announced some really dramatic improvements around housing approvals. We’ve done what we can under the existing law, but, with those reforms that we passed last year, we expect to deliver big improvements around timeframes for decisions. 

Senator ROBERTS: The budgeting—we discussed this slightly before—includes a measure for introducing AI to the department. Will that help in data collection and analysis, or will that be making actual decisions? I think Mr Kaiser said it won’t be making decisions, but perhaps you could explain. 

Senator Watt: Yes. There was a little discussion about this before, Senator Roberts, when you weren’t here, but why don’t we quickly go back over that again. 

Mr Gaddes: I might have a go at that. The EPBC Act has a range of threatened species and ecological communities and other nationally protected matters that proponents are required to gather a whole lot of information about. There’s a range in our conservation planning documents—and they’re quite complex—that proponents need to work through in creating a referral. The AI trial is designed to help people populate their referral documentation. If you have a certain action in a certain area, you put that into the AI tool. It then tells you the sorts of things that you should consider as part of your assessment. Proponents go and do that. It helps them speed up their assessment-documentation-gathering process. We get all the information up front, and they go through the system much faster. 

Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the applicant can provide details and you can tell him or her, based on what their project is, what they need to apply. 

Mr Gaddes: Well, the AI tool does it. It helps them at the front end gather all the information so that we don’t have to stop the clock and ask them to go and gather things through their assessment process. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the increased complexity of the EPBC Act a way of increasing delays for projects? 

Senator Watt: No, and I would argue that we’re reducing the complexity in this act. Not only would I argue that but a range of stakeholders from the business community have also acknowledged that the changes will improve processes as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project—we started discussing this—the whole thing cost the project, across a 3.8 year development application cycle, $25 million a year and almost $100 million total over the four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by procedural failure in your department? 

Senator Watt: I think, when you asked that question earlier, Senator Roberts, I made the point that, again, that one of the objectives of these reforms is to reduce the timeframes for decisions around projects. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a review on the EPBC Act’s effectiveness in two or three years? 

Senator Watt: In five years. It used to be every 10 years; we changed it to every five. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects? 

Senator Watt: We’ll get the relevant officials to answer. 

Mrs Svarcas: We don’t capture the value of the project. I can’t tell you how many there are over a certain value in the system. There is a field in the system, but it’s not mandatory, and it’s not verified. You wanted to know many resources projects we had in the system? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and what the average age of the projects is. 

Mrs Svarcas: We also don’t have the average age of the projects here today, but I can take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you tell whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: What I’m saying is that one of the objectives of the reforms is to improve the timeframes. Those reforms are only just starting to roll out. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t measure the timeframes, how can you determine whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: Ms Svarcas can answer that. 

Mrs Svarcas: What we do report is how long it takes us to go through the approval. For resources projects— coal, gas and oil—I can tell you that in 2024-25, 67 per cent of the project went through the EPBC system on time, within the timeframes. In 2025-26, through to 11 May, that has improved to 92 per cent. We have seen a substantial increase in the performance stats. 

Senator ROBERTS: Percentages are essentially averages, and can hide a lot. Can you tell us the actual details of the projects’ age? 

Mr Gaddes: I think that what Ms Svarcas is trying to say that we collect that information, but we don’t have it in that format before us right now. If you have some questions, we can take them on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What is your expectation for reductions in the figure of average age in the projects in 2.8 years, and will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth, Minister, and the breadwinner jobs that go with mineral projects? Mining drives the economy, mining drives exports, mining drives the standard of living. 

Senator Watt: All I can do is repeat what I’ve been saying. That’s one of the reasons that we passed those reforms. I have to point out that the One Nation party did not support those reforms. 

Senator ROBERTS: Because of the complexities that we think will make it worse. 

Senator Watt: There are many industry groups that don’t agree with you. 

Senator ROBERTS: And there are many who do agree with us. 

Senator Watt: I’ve got the press release from the Property Council and from the Housing Industry Association. I can dig out comments from mining groups. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Minerals Council? 

Senator Watt: I can come back to you with those, if you’d like. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your government aware it’s spent a lot of money—it’s still spending a lot of money— which is inflationary and hurts people as well. They need to pay for welfare, and they need to pay for the caring economy. It comes largely from the mining industry. 

Senator Watt: I think I acknowledged earlier that the mining industry is an important economic industry in this country. It’s not the only one, but it’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: Many people would be hoping those words come true. 

Senator Watt: It’s already a big exporter. It’s a major employer et cetera. One of the objectives of these reforms is to make quicker decisions around mining projects—brace yourself—solar and windfarm projects, housing development and critical minerals, as well as to strengthen environmental protections. 

Senator ROBERTS: There’s another aspect we can talk about. 

Senator Watt: I think your colleague had a go at that earlier. 

Senator ROBERTS: There will be a review in five years? 

Senator Watt: Yes, a review in five years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/0 Comments/by

Why Cancel Inland Rail?

I questioned Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) and Inland Rail officials regarding the cancellation of the Inland Rail project, specifically the lack of consultation and the government’s refusal to consider private sector alternatives.

ARTC officials admitted they were only formally notified of the cancellation right before the federal budget, having previously worked on scope changes rather than plans to shut down the project.

Inland Rail was projected to take 200,000 truck movements off the roads. I asked Minister McCarthy whether the cancellation increased safety risks and who would pay for the higher maintenance costs for local roads, not to mention the massive hit to national productivity, noting that ARTC admitted they never even modelled the productivity loss.

Despite viable private proposals, including a $14.4 billion costed freight route presented by IPG and interest from Everald Crompton’s group to build the line using private capital, Minister McCarthy could only take questions on notice rather than explain why the government cancelled the project instead of putting it out to tender.

The government’s decision to scrap this vital project without proper consultation or modelling is a blow to Australian productivity and safety – and a wasted opportunity for a privately funded nation building infrastructure project.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. When did the ARTC know the Inland Rail project was being cancelled, and were you consulted?  

Mr W Johnson: We knew at the same time as final decisions were made, obviously, within the government. As I just mentioned, the week before budget there were some discussions around what potentially might take place. Then, the day before budget, that was formalised, and we were provided information.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you knew after the decision had been made. You weren’t consulted?  

Mr W Johnson: We’ve been providing input and working with the department now for months in terms of how we actually go about the types of things that need consideration on the program and what type of scope relaxations we could undertake with all the environmental approvals, some of which we couldn’t undertake, to hold the conditions. So this hasn’t been just a point in time. There’s been a lot of evaluation. We were formally advised, as were most people, at the point of the budget conclusions.  

Senator ROBERTS: When did you first start looking at scope changes and modifications?  

Mr W Johnson: I think it’s been an ongoing process. Clearly, through the course of the back end of last year into this year, we’ve been looking at what can happen around that. Inland Rail have been running a number of scenarios with all the types of approval conditions on them about how they might go about that. Months.  

Senator ROBERTS: When was the first time you started discussing options to shut it down?  

Mr W Johnson: That wasn’t discussed. We talked about—  

Senator ROBERTS: You talked about changes to keep it alive.  

Mr W Johnson: That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you weren’t really consulted, or you didn’t work on the closing.  

Mr W Johnson: I wouldn’t put it quite like that. I think in those scenarios we also were realistic, at a cost benefit, on what type of pressures we might be under, which drove our first pieces of work.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have the ARTC or Inland Rail incurred any sunk costs in the cancellation of Inland Rail? Could you please itemise them.  

Ms McDougall: The consolidation south of Parkes and the preservation of the corridor north of Parkes—if I deal with south of Parkes first, there is no impact to the ongoing construction projects that we are continuing to deliver south of Parkes.  

Senator ROBERTS: They connect with the west and the south?  

Ms McDougall: Yes, when they reach Parkes. The preservation of the rail corridor north of Parkes—we have a project development agreement with the Commonwealth and with ARTC in which it specifies that we can obtain environmental approvals and property acquisition works. That was the ‘least regrets’ work recommended by Dr Schott. We have got significant contracts to support the least regrets preservation of the rail corridor works on foot at the moment. There are no immediate steps to cancel or break those contracts. We are working closely with the Commonwealth and with the relevant state agencies to assess the different ways that we can preserve the corridor, so we will continue working with the Commonwealth to assess the contract status of each of those contracts.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you want to preserve the corridor as an asset?  

Ms McDougall: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s have some answers to specific questions on where the assets will go. You purchased significant amounts of rail track from Whyalla. This is high-quality rail. I’m concerned it may not be reassigned to other rail works. What physical assets does the ARTC have under your control relating to Inland Rail, and how will these assets be sold, stored and reassigned, including, but not limited to, track?  

Mr W Johnson: I’ll go to Fiona in the first instance, and I’ll talk about what the endeavours will be in the future.  

Ms McDougall: We’re still assessing what preservation of the corridor means for the works north of Parkes. I can’t comment on the rail.  

Mr W Johnson: Both the steel sleeper specifications and the turnout specifications are pretty standardised ARTC standards. If there is inventory that’s been purchased ahead for use within further construction, then there might be an opportunity to see what reuse looks like. We’ll work through that in coming months with Inland Rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re still getting to grips with the assets.  

Mr W Johnson: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this Inland Rail project would have taken 200,000 truck movements off the roads. Have you just made motorists less safe and increased road maintenance spending for state and local government?  

Senator McCarthy: No, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who’s going to pay for the extra road maintenance that Inland Rail would have taken off the road?  

Senator McCarthy: We’ve not made it unsafe. That is my response to your question there.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the extra maintenance?  

Senator McCarthy: I can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are significant costs for the highways in killing Inland Rail.  

Mr W Johnson: Inland Rail was a long-term program. There are also initiatives under way nationally today within the rail freight sector, clearly through the National Transport Commission and the harmonisation agenda, which is all about the alignment, synergies and efficiencies of the railways nationally. There are our own activities that are already underway with the joint program of network investment with our shareholders, which is building the resilience of the existing network. We’ve already got existing improvement programs underway around performance. We have significantly adjusted what we’ve been doing in terms of our linkage to the ports and intermodal precincts nationally to go about rail freight increase—mode share change to rail. That endeavour maintains. And with the most recent announcement from our shareholders, the Australian government, in terms of continuing the investment and additive nature of that that go to the aims to both improve the existing network and maintain that growth trajectory we’re on, we foresee that we’ll be able to actually achieve some of this growth from road to rail still.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is a decision which will reduce productivity through congested freight routes. Have you modelled the hit Australia’s productivity and prosperity just took with this decision to cancel Inland Rail?  

Mr W Johnson: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, IPG is a significant Australian freight company. It’s provided One Nation with the costing for the construction of Inland Rail from Narromine to the Port of Gladstone, privately, along the forestry route, then from Wandoan to Banana to Gladstone. An intermodal at Dalby will take the Brisbane and Toowoomba air freight. This has been costed at $14.4 billion, using a single track with passing loops. These people know what they’re doing. If this company is interested in building the line in return for operation rights, why didn’t you put the project out to tender instead of cancelling it?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Everald Crompton is also in town representing a group of transport companies wanting to talk about building the line using private money. Minister, will you meet with proponents, or will Ms King meet with proponents of a private build? And, more generally, will you consider private equity building the line?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take the question on notice and get back to you. 

/0 Comments/by

Guarding Australia’s Sporting Investments

,

The Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026 replaces the costly, time-consuming parliamentary bill requirement for designating protected major sporting events with a simpler legislative instrument (regulation) issued by the minister. It simply reduces red tape and cost.

The instrument remains disallowable, meaning the Senate can still debate and vote it down if necessary.

The act protects the massive financial investments of major events like the Olympics, Commonwealth Games and FIFA World Cups by preventing unauthorised commercial association or false sponsorship claims, while still allowing businesses to broadcast events legally.

One Nation supports the bill to reduce red tape, protect event investments and secure infrastructure and tourism benefits for Australia.

Taxpayer funding for these events delivers a strong return on investment through increased tourism, tax revenue and future sports infrastructure. Because One Nation strongly supports youth sports, we recognise that venues must be built and major events will provide the financial means to make that happen.

One Nation will also protect girls and women, who are being told to play against biological males pretending to be women —fake women. Let’s be clear: a One Nation sports minister would refuse to grant event protection under this act to any major sporting event that permits biological males to compete in female sports categories. Mixed-competition sports are acceptable, but inclusion of transgender women in female divisions is unfair, unsafe, and harmful to women’s rights and opportunities.

Transcript

The Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014 prevents the unauthorised commercial use, often called ‘ambush marketing’, of protected major sporting events and images associated with those events. Previously, designating an event required a bill, which cost taxpayers’ money to draft and process through the parliament. Under this bill before the Senate today, the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026, this is being changed to a simpler system. The minister will issue a legislative instrument, a regulation. That’s it; that’s all the bill does—it reduces red tape and cost. The instrument will still be disallowable. In the unlikely event that there’s controversy around designating an event, the Senate can still debate the instrument and, if necessary, vote it down, as we would with a bill. 

The act serves to protect the financial interests of events which cost millions to stage, without impacting the rights of Australians. To answer a constituent’s question that came through my electorate office, a hotel can advertise ‘watch the Olympics on our big screen’, provided it’s sourcing the feed from a broadcaster who’s paid the rights. You can’t claim to be a sponsor or make a video, printed media or signage which a reasonable person would assume meant you had paid to be a sponsor. That’s fair enough. 

One Nation supports this measure. If someone wants to risk hundreds of millions of dollars to stage a sporting event, some level of protection is necessary—or nobody will do it. These are major events: the FIFA football world cup co-hosted by Australia and New Zealand in 2023, the International Cricket Council’s T20 men’s world cup in 2022 and, of course, the Commonwealth and Olympic games. Sensible taxpayer funding for these events can be justified on the basis of the taxation return from those attending and the increased tourism revenue for years afterwards, and for the facilities built for the future. One Nation strongly supports children playing sport, and that means someone has to build the venues. It’s these major events which do that, and this is why they need protection. 

I’ll discuss who else needs protection: girls and women, who are being told to play against biological males pretending to be women—fake women. I’ve chosen my words carefully. Some sports—mixed doubles in the tennis, for instance—allow men and women to compete against each other. That’s not what I’m talking about. My concern goes to men pretending to be women and playing against women and girls. Whether the sport is a contact sport or a test of skill, such as weightlifting, makes no difference. It is wrong. It is totally wrong. It’s dangerous. Girls and women are being harmed. They’re losing their opportunity to win fair and square and losing to men who are not being fair. It’s an attack on women’s rights, and I personally do not understand the mental gymnastics needed for a feminist to support men beating—and I do mean beating—women or anyone else, for that matter, in a sporting contest. This tarnishes the event and future events and guts female competitors and possible future female competitors. 

Let me make One Nation’s policy very clear. If your major sporting event involved even one sport which allowed biological males to compete as fake females in our country, a One Nation minister for sport would not issue your event with protection under this act. To organisers who do not protect women and girls playing a sport: we will not protect you. 

/0 Comments/by

History Remembers the Builders

Following my questions to Minister Farrell regarding the Great Australian Infrastructure project (GAIN) and despite giving him advance notice of the topic, the Minister was still unable to provide an update on its progress.

To be clear, I wasn’t asking for project approval; I simply wanted a commitment to advancing it expeditiously. For a minister who claims that advance notice helps him check status, he clearly ignored it entirely.

Infrastructure should be bipartisan. These are Australia’s projects, not One Nation’s, and history remembers who builds, not who plays politics.

I urge the Labor government to take the win, advance this work and grow our productive capacity to deliver wealth and opportunity for all Australians.

And the best part? These projects require no significant taxpayer investment.

International banks want to fund Australian infrastructure, but trust has been broken by major government project failures like Inland Rail, Snowy Hydro 2.0, and Adani.

While construction money is ready, funding for business cases is stuck. Project backers only want a small amount of government financial commitment in the middle stages to prove the government is serious, especially since private investors already paid for the early stages.

With our population surging, our GDP is being sliced thinner and thinner and Australians are feeling it. A responsible government’s duty is to grow the pie through essential infrastructure like roads, rail, ports, pipelines, processing of our minerals into steel for domestic use and export, creating strong breadwinner jobs.

Update: Following this question, Minister Farrell followed up with NAIF. They contacted the project sponsor and the project is now moving forward. Thank you, Minister Farrell!

Transcript

Despite me providing the minister with not only a notice of my question last Thursday but also the actual question, he was unable to provide an update on the progress of the project. I was not asking for the project to be approved. I was merely asking for the minister to commit to ensuring the project was advanced expeditiously. Despite the minister saying advance notice gave him time to determine the status of the project, he clearly had not done so. 

I’m stunned. Infrastructure should be bipartisan. One Nation is not trying to take credit for the 12 projects we’re working on with proponents. They’re not our projects; they’re Australia’s projects. History will not remember the politics of the project; it will remember which government built it. To the Prime Minister I say: take the win, advance the project, grow Australia’s productive capacity and deliver wealth and opportunity to all Australians—those who were here first and those who have come since. 

These projects do not require any significant taxpayer investment. International merchant banks have seen through the net zero scam and are now desperate to finance actual, proper productive infrastructure. Australia is a prime destination for international capital, which has realised successive Liberal and Labor governments have neglected infrastructure for so long. There is a plethora of opportunities here. 

While the financing is available for construction, it’s not available for business cases. There’s a simple reason for that: international capital does not trust the Australian government any longer. After fiascos like Inland Rail, Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the Adani mine, who would trust us? Proponents want to see government skin in the game before committing their own money. This may be as little as millions for middle-stage development. All of these projects have already had private funding for early-stage development. 

Australia is bringing in so many people our GDP is being sliced into smaller and smaller slices, and the public are feeling it. Any responsible government has a duty to grow the pie and increase GDP to maintain our standard of living. The way to do that is roads, rail, port, pipelines and internet backbones. It includes tertiary processing of Australian minerals, coal and iron ore into steel for domestic use and export, taking advantage of our resources to undercut foreign steel and create breadwinner jobs—union jobs. I look forward to Minister Farrell updating himself on this project before we return in September. (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Essential Infrastructure Belongs in Public Hands

,

Infrastructure of national significance such as power transmission lines, substations and water systems should remain in the hands of the government, on behalf of the people, which will prevent corporate monopolies and price gouging. While power generation can be privately owned, it needs long-term supply price controls.

Privatisation of water in South Australia in 1996 failed and was brought back under government control in 2012. Not only was it poorly maintained, water went from being amongst the cheapest to the dearest. Similarly, Western Australia privatised water in 1996 and likewise, was brought back under government control in 2019. The Western Australian government discovered that managing complex private contracts was actually costing more than doing the work themselves. This saved taxpayers $5 million a year.

Rather than learning from the costly mistakes of other states, Victoria is pushing ahead with plans to lease VicWater assets to the highest bidder. The result? Victorians will face higher water bills only to inherit degraded infrastructure when its handed back.

Privatisation leads to monopolies, profit maximisation and price gouging. By contrast, I generally support the free market because it gives consumers choice, driving accountability, efficiency, and productivity.

Given Australia’s small population and vast size, duplicate critical infrastructure cannot exist, meaning private ownership inherently creates unregulated monopolies that maximise profit through gouging.

The Solution? Competitive Federalism. State-owned critical infrastructure avoids private monopolies because it operates within a system of “competitive federalism.” Citizens have freedom of movement between states, creating a “marketplace in governance” where states must remain accountable, efficient, and responsive to citizens, driving positive policy reforms across the country.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I thank Senator McKim for moving this motion, which One Nation supports. It’s One Nation policy that infrastructure of national significance should remain in the hands of the government on behalf of the people—not under government control but on behalf of the people. This includes power transmission lines and substations. Power stations can be privately owned and operated under a long-term supply price, which prevents price gouging in times of power scarcity, which happens all the time with weather-dependent solar and wind power. It’s a travesty that the business model for Snowy 2.0 hydro seeks to justify the $42 billion price tag using a projection for power prices which suggests they too expect a profit from price gouging. AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, is frequently forced to intervene in the market at $600 per megawatt hour, which is a staggeringly high price, because new gas-firming plants are not being required to accept a feed-in tariff. If it existed, it would be $60 to $80 per megawatt hour. Consumers are paying peak pricing which is 10 times the price they would pay if we built our baseload power stations with sensible supply contracts—fact. 

Privatising infrastructure of national significance has failed. South Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2012. This was after the operator failed to maintain a sewage treatment works and Adelaide endured months of what was called the ‘big pong’. Adelaide water went from being amongst our country’s cheapest to our country’s dearest. Western Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2019. The outcome in Western Australia was interesting. Perhaps Premier Carroll could pay attention there. During 25 years, the Western Australian government realised that managing complex private contracts was actually costing more than doing the work themselves. Moving Western Australian water back to government ownership saved taxpayers $5 million a year. Now Victoria is the latest bankrupt state selling off the silverware—VicWater. The plan is called Project Nerva and circumvents the Victorian constitution through leasing the $18 billion in assets of VicWater to the highest bidder. Victorians will pay more for their water and receive back an asset in a worse state than when it was leased. Such is privatisation. It leads to a monopoly, which leads to profit maximisation, which leads to gouging. I generally support the free market because it gives consumers choice, and choice leads to accountability, and choice leads to efficiency and productivity. Given Australia’s small population, though, and huge area, we cannot support two sets of critical infrastructure for roads, water and electricity. We cannot place monopoly power in corporate hands, where profit maximisation is the goal and leads to gouging. 

What of government monopolies? Our forefathers, the founding fathers of our Constitution, thought of that and came up with a solution—actually, they borrowed it from the American constitution. The solution is embedded in our Constitution. States provide infrastructure and critical services. That comes under competitive federalism. One state competes with another state. That’s a marketplace in governance. There is choice. If South Australia is stuffing things up, South Australians can move to New South Wales or Queensland. It doesn’t matter what it is. Whether it’s education, infrastructure, water, electricity, roads—whatever it is, there is no monopoly, because the states have competition under competitive federalism. That provides a marketplace in governance, which leads to choice. If you don’t like the state you’re in, you can move to another state. Freedom of movement leads to accountability. So state ownership of critical infrastructure is part of a marketplace solution. 

There’s not enough time to tell you about Sir Joh, but Sir Joh abolished death duties in Queensland, and people moved to Queensland so that they could leave their children more money. That led to other states doing the same. Warren Buffett, the most successful investor ever, said his ideal investment is the sole drawbridge on a wide river. When you put it in private hands, infrastructure becomes a mechanism for gouging. We must protect national infrastructure and national services like water. They’re key resources.

/1 Comment/by

Where Are the Dams?

,

During recent Estimates hearings, I questioned officials from the National Water Grid (NWG) and Minister Murray Watt on critical water infrastructure and supply issues amid Australia’s surging population and rising demand.

I asked for an update on the Paradise Dam works, noting that the Crisafulli government is still evaluating the business case. I also asked questions regarding the Urannah irrigation project, highlighting that the detailed business case was withdrawn by the proponent and the Queensland government in late 2022.

Citing Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data showing a 12.9% rise in water demand (including a 6% increase in household water and a 14% jump for food production), I enquired on how the government plans to meet this massive resource pressure. I pointed out that this surge equals the volume of a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months, asking where the infrastructure is to support record immigration levels.

While Minister Watt argued that the federal government funds regional water infrastructure, efficiency programs and buybacks, he maintained that state governments hold primary responsibility for drinking water supply.

I questioned the actual yield of the $210 million WISER program (Water Infrastructure for Sustainable and Efficient Regions) and asked why cancelled initiatives like the Hughenden irrigation project (HIPCo) remain active on the NWG’s website rather than being moved to a history page. These questions were taken on notice.

— May | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: First, could you update us on the Paradise Dam works. When we last spoke, you indicated that the Crisafulli government was still evaluating the business case and had not made a request for funding. Has there been any change to this?  

Mr Southwell: No, we don’t have a business case from the Queensland government. I don’t believe the Queensland government has a business case from Sunwater either.  

Senator ROBERTS: I also asked about the reason the project sponsor had pulled out of what is a project of national significance, the Urannah irrigation project. Mr Darrough took that on notice. It wasn’t, however, placed on notice. I’m trying to understand why the sponsor pulled out before asking the Crisafulli government why they aren’t proceeding with this project. Can you give me a simple rundown, please?  

Mr Darrough: Pardon me, Senator, can you repeat the question about the question on notice. The response was provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Mr Darrough took that on notice’, is what I said.  

Mr Darrough: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: It wasn’t, however, placed on notice.  

Mr Southwell: We did table a response.  

Mr Darrough: The Urannah Water Scheme detailed business case is publicly available on the Queensland government website. I provided a link for that as well. On the environmental impact statement material, the Queensland Office of the Coordinator-General published the terms of reference for the EIS on 31 March 2021, and it records that the EIS process was withdrawn in December 2022. This is a matter between the proponent and the Queensland government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do any of the projects in your project list include recycling sewage and/or grey water and directing the output into drinking water, including into a storage dam from which drinking water is drawn?  

Mr Darrough: I would suggest that the answer is no, but I will take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d be particularly interested in South-East Queensland.  

Mr Darrough: I don’t have the—  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m just saying. What is your target for water consumption per person, per day? How much water do you actually have to provide to keep water up to people, stock, station, irrigation, more people, more food and industry. We’ve got record immigration. What’s your target per person, per day?  

Mr Darrough: That’s not a question for National Water Grid.  

Mr Southwell: We don’t have a specific target from the National Water Grid Fund.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, remember that most of the responsibility for providing water, especially drinking water, if that’s your focus, rests with state and local governments. We have a role in funding some of that infrastructure.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just remind you of this from your website: ‘The National Water Grid Investment Framework ensures funding decisions guide long-term, responsible investment in water infrastructure. It also helps the government plan for future challenges, including climate change, population growth and rising demand for water in farming.’ According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, water demand in Australia rose by 12.9 per cent from 2022-23 to 2023-24. A rapidly increasing population creates demand for more household water, up six per cent in that period. Also, from demand for food, water use is up 14 per cent. In actual terms, that represents another 1,965 gigalitres. In one year, that’s a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months. Where are these Warragamba dams coming from? Where are the plans for more water to meet the needs of the last million new arrivals, let alone the one million more due by 2028?  

Senator Watt: I know that it would be your party’s policy to link all of these issues to migration. You just talked about the increasing demand for water for food production. That’s not necessarily about feeding the Australian population. You would remember, I’m sure, that the vast majority of food produced in Australia is exported. The demand for water is also partly about supporting the trade and businesses of farmers who produce the food.  

Senator ROBERTS: Senator, I know you want to weasel out of it, but the fact is that immigration is up, food production is up, for whatever reason.  

Senator Watt: Immigration is actually coming down under our government.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s up compared to three years ago. It’s up compared to five years ago.  

Senator Watt: It’s coming down under our government. I know you don’t accept that, but it’s coming down.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s 750,000 for each of the last three years.  

Senator Watt: That’s not correct. We can produce the figures that show—  

Senator ROBERTS: Three years ago it was 750—  

Senator Watt: This is not really the committee to get into this—  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. Where are the future Warragamba—you’ve got a water crisis cabinet.  

Senator Watt: But net overseas migration is falling.  

Senator HENDERSON: It’s at a record high.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got a water crisis coming; what are you doing about it?  

CHAIR: Senators, I think there’s a bit of talking over each other. We’re getting to the end of the evening. Let’s do this as clinically as possible: question then answer.  

Senator Watt: In general terms, from a federal government perspective, what we are doing to meet the demand for water across the country is helping fund certain infrastructure projects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Which ones?  

Senator Watt: The projects that the National Water Grid has funded, which we’ve said we’ll come back to you on notice about. There are many of them. We are encouraging water efficiency and investing in water efficiency, including on farms. We are funding voluntary water buybacks. There are a range of activities that we are funding. But when it comes to restrictions on water consumption, that is generally determined by state and local governments or the owners of that infrastructure.  

Senator ROBERTS: When is the next Warragamba Dam coming? Where is it? We need a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months. Where are they? They’re not there.  

Senator Watt: That would generally be a matter for states.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got your WISER program, water infrastructure for sustainable and efficient regions, which sounds nice. Let’s describe it: plugging leaks, building local pipelines and improving recycling facilities—$210 million in total. How much will this water add up to, from the WISER program? Will it be a Warragamba Dam every 18 months?  

Mr Darrough: I need to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question on this bracket: your website still lists projects that have been killed off by the Albanese government, including the Hughenden irrigation project, HIPCo. Why are cancelled projects not removed or moved to a history page? Is it to give the impression the National Water Grid is actually expanding when it’s not?  

Senator Watt: There were no announcements made about that project in the budget.  

Senator ROBERTS: Previously?  

Senator Watt: Not that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you check? Take that on notice?  

Senator Watt: Sure. 

/1 Comment/by

The 1,535 Page Dodge

,

During this Senate estimates, I confronted officials over their “dodge” of my earlier question regarding M1 motorway works between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Instead of a brief summary, they dumped a staggering 1,535 pages of unindexed data on my office, effectively telling my staff, who have already been halved by resourcing cuts, to dig through it themselves while conveniently handing spreadsheets directly to other senators.

Minister Chisholm tried to defend this bureaucratic brush-off as “too much information,” however I pointed out that “burying answers is not transparency”.

I went on to request a real, functional summary of all federal funding for M1 roadworks and the officials finally put the data on the record. Mr Brummitt walked through a comprehensive list of projects spanning current commitments, planning phases, and completed upgrades.

In total, the Australian government’s commitment is $2.2 billion to M1 projects since 2019. While I’m glad we finally got the numbers, it shouldn’t take a grilling in estimates just to get a straightforward summary. Transparency matters!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here again. It seems like only yesterday, doesn’t it?  

CHAIR: It’s their pleasure.  

Senator ROBERTS: In February estimates, I asked a question regarding the extent of works on the M1 motorway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Mr Bourne replied that there were a lot of projects on the M1 and offered to take the question on notice. Your answer on notice, SQ-26, said that the information on M1 projects can be found in documents tabled by the secretary on 9 February 2026. These are the first few pages of the documents. There are 1,535 pages, covering all of your projects, some of them going back to grants awarded in 2014—12 years ago. I interpret this answer to be you telling my staff to find the answer themselves amongst the 1,535 pages of data. You provided another senator with a spreadsheet electronically. Do you dispute my interpretation?  

Mr Bourne: Senator, that document holds all the information in relation to the question that you asked.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister & Cabinet document on the correct behaviour of estimates witnesses and the privileges committee rulings over the years all require a witness to provide a full and accurate answer. Minister, how is this any sort of answer, let alone a full and accurate one? I asked for a summary.  

Senator Chisholm: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think Mr Bourne said it was full and accurate information. It might have been more information than you needed; that is the suggestion. I feel as though it’s a bit critical to be disappointed at receiving too much information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, you’ve cut our staff in half. We have only limited staff. We can’t go through 1,535 pages. It’s organised by state, not by project. We wanted the M1 project. The M1 project is not even named. You gave Senator Canavan a spreadsheet but not us. Burying the answer in 1,535 pages is not an answer, not a summary. So, I repeat my question. You can take it on notice. Please provide a summary of all roadworks funded at any point in their project life cycle, in whole or part, by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts on the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. 

Mr Bourne: I’ll just ask my colleague Mr Brummitt to take you through that.  

Mr Brummitt: I’ll run through the projects in order. The M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, is in progress, with an Australian government commitment of $50 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was that 50 or 15?  

Mr Brummitt: Fifty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Mr Brummitt: The M1 Pacific Motorway exit 45 north is in planning. That’s a $10 million commitment. That was a budget commitment, a new project. The construction funding for the M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, exit 45, is a $10 million commitment, with a total project cost of $20 million. For the construction funding for the M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, which has not commenced construction yet, there is an Australian government commitment of $450 million, with a total project cost of $900 million. The M1 Pacific Motorway Varsity Lakes to Tugun was completed in 2025, with an Australian government commitment of $750 million and a total project cost of $1.5 billion. For the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, exits 41 and 49, completed in 2025, there was an Australian government commitment of $117 million, with a total project cost of $234 million. For the M1 Pacific Motorway Eight Mile Plains to Daisy Hill, completed in 2025, there was a $510 million Australian government commitment and a $750 million total project cost. The M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, exit 45, completed in 2022, had a $7.3 million Australian government commitment, with a $14.6 million total project cost. The M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes upgrade, was closed and the project was completed in 2020. We’re going back a little bit there, but I wanted to be as comprehensive as I could for you, Senator. That was a $194 million Australian government commitment, with a $217 million total project cost. Another one completed a while ago, in 2020, was the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade, the Gateway Motorway/Pacific Motorway merge, with a $111.5 million Australian government commitment and a $189 million total project cost. Also, under the SEQ growth/Brisbane 2032 business case development program there are three planning projects in progress. That’s planning for the Pacific Motorway Worongary interchange improvement, which is a $1 million Australian government commitment, with a total project cost of $2.9 million. This is the project I mentioned earlier, and I’ll explain. For the Pacific Motorway exit 45 north business case, there was a $750 million contribution from the Australian government and a total project cost of $1.5 million. Then what was announced at budget was $10 million, which was additional funding for detailed design and pre-construction work to get that project really shovel ready and well prepared. The final one under that program is the Pacific Motorway, Logan motorway to Nerang, planning for smart motorways, also still in progress, and that was a $700,000 Australian government commitment and a total project cost of $1.5 million. Since 2019, that’s a total Australian government commitment to projects on the M1 of $2.2 billion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Was that available last time? 

Mr Bourne: I think I did offer to go through those with you last time, but you asked us to take that on notice. 

/by

Restoring Helium to the Critical Minerals List

,

The Albanese government removed helium from Australia’s Critical Minerals List in December 2023, allowing the country’s only helium plant in Darwin to close.

Australia now relies entirely on imports from Qatar, the US, Algeria, and Russia —nations tied to current global conflicts.

Helium is irreplaceable and vital for critical domestic sectors, including healthcare (MRI machine cooling), technology (semiconductors, electronics, and quantum computing), data centres, and defence.

This government is mismanaging the economy and harming key industries.

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I thank Senator Tyrrell for this motion, which One Nation supports. My comments go to the connection between helium and the quality of living in Australia. Helium was included on Australia’s Critical Minerals List until this Labor government removed it in December 2023, the same month the government allowed our only helium plant to close. Not only did the government not do anything to save the Darwin plant; taking helium off the Critical Minerals List cleared the way. Now we import our helium from Qatar, the US, Algeria and Russia, three of whom are caught in the current war. 

Helium is unique, meaning no other gas can replace it. It’s needed in health care. Every MRI machine in Australia requires liquid helium to cool its superconducting magnets. Without it MRIs can’t operate, disrupting diagnostics for cancer, neurological conditions and more. Running out is not an option; Australians will suffer. It is needed in semiconductors, electronics and quantum computing. Helium is essential for cooling, purging and atmosphere control in chip fabrication, which is a rapidly growing Australian industry that generates things this government hates: non-government jobs and financial independence. It is needed in data centres. The government is forcing more people into the digital economy, then it’s taking away the gas that cools the data centres. What could go wrong? Helium is also needed in defence applications, the other thing this government doesn’t want. 

All the Albanese government can offer the Australian people is no petrol, no diesel, no fertiliser, no houses, falling wages, falling per-capita growth, falling wealth, falling productivity and falling prosperity. They have managed to freeze the economy at a complete standstill—no helium is needed now. One Nation will make the Critical Minerals List great again and produce everything on the list here in Australia. We have the minerals. One Nation loves this country, and we want everyone who’s here to have a life of wealth, security and abundance. 

/by

When the Trucks Stop, Australia Stops

,

Government is failing to maintain the internationally mandated 90-day fuel stockpile, currently holding less than 30 days of reserves.

Senator Ayres is misrepresenting statistics, claiming “115% capacity” when it actually means only 26 days of supply. A deliberate deflection of accountability.

Depleted fuel reserves put the nation’s daily transport, defense, mining, and agriculture sectors at severe risk, threatening to grind the country to a halt and fuel inflation.

Australia needs long term fuel security – not short term band-aid fixes.

For decades Senator Hanson has suggested a pipeline to convert domestic natural gas into liquid fuels (diesel and petrol) for major cities.

The United States has dropped net zero and the Paris agreement and is now producing more hydrocarbon fuels. Why? Because they are essential for human life as we know it.

One Nation calls for an immediate parliamentary inquiry to reveal the truth, address price volatility, and secure Australia’s fuel supply chain.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: This matter is urgent for three reasons. Firstly, the truth is not coming out. We want it out. It has to come out immediately before more people die. Secondly, fuel security—the people are getting ripped off at the bowser because of fuel volatility in prices and supply. I want to correct the record here, and I also want to point out, yet again, how urgent this is. 

This is from Senator Hanson, Leader of One Nation, from a Hansard from 2021: 

“I rise to speak on the Fuel Security Bill 2021. When I came into the Senate in 2016 I raised the importance of fuel security for all Australians.“

For a decade, she has been on about it, and I have been hearing her for that full decade and before. She goes on to say: 

“This and previous governments have continually failed to meet the internationally mandated 90 days stockpile of fuel for the people of this nation. That means this government has put at risk—“

that was the Morrison government, but you’re doing the same now— 

“the fuel security of our daily transport needs—” 

daily transport needs of the people watching this at home— 

“our defence, our aviation industry, our mining and our commuter needs. Without this internationally mandated 90-day stockpile of fuel, Australia risks coming to a grinding halt. My concerns were echoed by Senator Jim Molan when he entered the parliament in … 2017.“

Not only has she done that, but she’s advocated for a pipeline across the country to bring some of the world’s largest gas reserves to the east coast cities of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney and get fuel from gas to liquid fuel, diesel and petrol, conversion. And what have you done? Nothing 

What Senator Ayres did, through you, Chair, on Monday, when I asked this question and started this talk about fuel security—which we must discuss—is try to conflate it by saying he had 115 per cent, 120 per cent, 150 per cent. Forget the arithmetic; he was misleading, because, when we went and did our research, we found out he had 115 per cent of 24 days, which is about 26 days. We realised he was misleading the people of Australia and misleading the representatives in this chamber, because he was saying we had 115 per cent of reserves when we had less than 30 per cent of reserves, according to the International Energy Agency. Then, when he was caught out by my question on Monday, what did he do? He focused entirely on Angus Taylor, who has nothing to do with this at the moment. 

This is what the government try to do. They try to deflect, denigrate and mislead, and they try to hide it. That’s why we need this, if I follow Senator McKenzie’s call—I’ll read clause (b). It calls on the government to take ‘urgent action to avoid a fuel crisis that will add to Australia’s already existing, home-grown inflation pressures’. Fuel stocks are low. We are not arguing they are low under Mr Taylor as the energy minister. That’s for another day. We want to sort the problem out now. We need truth, we need security, and we need absolute facts out in the open. That’s why we need this inquiry. We can’t get the answer by asking the minister, Chris Bowen, or Senator Wong. 

Volatility of fuel prices is cut by having reserves at 90 days. That is a fact. The people of Australia will pay through the neck. The other thing is security. The whole country stops when we run out of diesel—farms, mines, transport. Every single thing in this country relies upon transport indirectly or directly, and, when the trucks stop, Australia stops. You should know that from listening to Glenn Sterle, a truckie himself. This is about security. It’s also about long-term security, getting a pipeline across the country, as Senator Hanson has requested and suggested for decades now, to convert our gas fuels into liquid fuels, diesel and petrol in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. We also note that the United States has dropped net zero and the Paris agreement and is now producing more hydrocarbon fuels. Why? Because they are essential for human life as we know it. 

/by