Posts

One Nation’s Fight to Save the NDIS

,

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

I’m going to read that again: 

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

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

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

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

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

(c) qualifications of workers under the scheme; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(k) any other related matters. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/0 Comments/by

Scientific Proof or UN Propaganda?

,

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”

The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.

It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.

To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.

We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.

I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.

— Public Hearing | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.

Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?

Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.

Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.

Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.

Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?

Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.

CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.

CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?

CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—

Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.

CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?

Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.

Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.

CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.

CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?

Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.

Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—

CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.

Ms Scaddan: That is noted.

CHAIR: It’s noted.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Scaddan.

/3 Comments/by

Why No Charges After Four Lives Lost?

,

I asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about a decision that has shocked many Australians — the choice not to lay charges over the 2023 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays.

Four Defence personnel — Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock — lost their lives. Comcare’s investigation identified two serious breaches of law, yet charges weren’t pursued. Media reports suggest that decision is now under review, and Ms Sharp confirmed that she is personally conducting that review. It’s ongoing, with no timeline for completion.

I asked why charges weren’t laid when the evidence pointed to potential offences. Ms Sharp explained the prosecution test: first, is there a prima facie case? Second, are there reasonable prospects of conviction? And third, is it in the public interest? She said the evidence didn’t meet the second test — reasonable prospects of conviction. That’s what’s being reviewed now.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today. I’ve got two sets of questions; they’re both fairly brief. Firstly, I want to go to your decision not to lay any charges in relation to the 2023 Defence Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays. Four Defence Force personnel—Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock—died in the crash off the Queensland coast, as you would be aware. Comcare, the country’s workplace, health and safety investigator, delivered a brief of evidence on an investigation to you where they identified two significant breaches of law— category 1 and category 2 offences. Media reporting indicates that the decision to not lay charges may be under review. Is that accurate? If so, is your review still ongoing, or has it been finalised?  

Ms Sharp: Thank you for your question, and I’d like to thank the committee for its interest in the work of my office. Before I answer your question, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the loss of lives—the loss of Captain Danniel Lyon; Corporal Alexander Naggs; Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent; and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock, known as Phillip Laycock. I also recognise the grief of their families. Your information is correct. The decision that was made not to lay charges in relation to the briefs that were referred from Comcare is under review. That’s a review I am personally conducting, and that review is ongoing.  

Senator ROBERTS: When do you expect it to be finished?  

Ms Sharp: I can’t give you a date for that. I’ll give it the attention it deserves. It’s an important matter and needs to be done thoroughly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did you decide to not lay those charges in the first place, when the federal investigator laid a brief of evidence on your desk that very clearly identified potential offences?  

Ms Sharp: Prosecutions are taken in accordance with the Prosecution policy of the Commonwealth. This is a publicly available document. It outlines the steps that are undertaken to determine whether a prosecution can be laid. The first step is whether there’s a prima facie case: has there been an offence committed? The second step is: are there reasonable prospects of conviction? This involves a thorough analysis of the evidence contained in a particular brief of evidence. It’s only then, if there are reasonable prospects of conviction, that the third stage of the test—whether the proceeding is in the public interest—is considered. In this case, it was determined that there were not reasonable prospects of conviction, based on the evidence contained in the briefs referred by Comcare.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that what you’re reviewing?  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The families want this to go to court. You’d be aware of that, I’d say.  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The workplace investigator says this should go to court. The commission of inquiry has had extensive evidence, and you say, ‘No, we aren’t laying charges.’ Why not? What turned you against it?  

Ms Sharp: As I said, the evidence that was referred in the briefs by Comcare was considered. On the basis of that evidence, there were not reasonable prospects to convict. I understand the family’s desire for this matter to go to court. All of the things that the family have identified are relevant to the public interest. I can say that if there were reasonable prospects, the prosecution of these charges would clearly be in the public interest. But that’s the third stage of the test.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do any of your employees who worked on the referral for this Taipan helicopter crash have any current or previous association with the Department of Defence? You can take that on notice.  

Ms Sharp: Not to my knowledge, but I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you feel you have adequate resources and budget to take on this matter?  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers; it’s refreshing. Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?  

Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.  

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?  

Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?  

Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed? 

Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much. 

/by