The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is an embarrassment and another example of this government’s hypocrisy and deceit. Before the 2025 federal election, Labor condemned the Coalition over the RoboDebt scandal, using it as a key issue to win votes. Many Australians believed Labor would fix the injustice. However, this new bill seeks to retroactively validate the same flawed income calculation method that caused the RoboDebt problem in the first place—something Labor previously opposed.
The bill proposes offering small compensation payments—up to $600—to people who were wrongly charged thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. Once someone accepts this payment, they lose the right to claim anything further. This is a deceptive tactic to avoid paying full compensation and to silence victims. The scheme is only open for 12 months, and is designed to quietly close the door on proper justice for those affected.
The bill lacks transparency and detail, with much of its implementation left to future decisions by the minister, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny. Advocacy groups like Anglicare Australia and the Australian Council of Social Service have raised concerns, saying the bill doesn’t properly address the harm caused. Instead of correcting past wrongs, the government is validating them.
This is not just a failure to act—it’s a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility and cheat vulnerable Australians out of what they’re rightfully owed.
Transcript
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is an embarrassment and example of the Labor government’s hypocrisy and deceit. Before and during the last federal election, Labor used the robodebt scandal—and it was a scandal—as an election weapon to electorally gut the previous coalition government. It worked, and Labor won the election based on the incompetence of the coalition and on what Labor highlighted as the coalition’s cruel betrayal of robodebt victims.
So what do we have here? Labor wants to pass this bill to retrospectively validate the unlawful income apportionment method that underpinned the robodebt rip-off. You pretended to oppose it, and now you want to invalidate it—the injustice, deceit and betrayal. To make matters worse, persons ripped off to the extent of thousands of dollars are being offered puny payments to a maximum of $600 when actually owed $15,000 or more. That’s not justice; that’s theft. Labor is inducing people to take $600 now so people go away and to ensure they never become able to reasonably claim what the government legally owes them. You’re conning these people. They’re already in misery, and now you’re conning them.
Applications for the scheme will only be open for 12 months. Accepting a resolution payment will discharge the Commonwealth from any further liability. That ends it. In other words, the compensation scheme is completely inadequate. Worse, it’s deceptive, deliberately dishonest. Many robodebt victims likely voted for Labor to get justice on robodebt. That’s what you promised them. Those same people will now never get close to what they’re owed. The government is blatantly cheating robodebt victims out of thousands of dollars—in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars.
This is not just an uncaring government, and on this issue its approach is not just lazily getting around paying lawful entitlements. No; this government is working hard to rip off innocent, vulnerable taxpayers. These faulty assessments extend back to September 2003—22 years. Instead of paying back exactly what each victim of the unlawful robodebt calculations is owed, the government is trying to introduce retrospective legislation to make what was unlawful then now lawful. And you wonder why we’re upset. This sneaky new bill is making what was illegal legal—the very reverse of your promise before the election. It will try to validate debts which were unlawful when they tried to collect them. I will say that again, in fact. This bill will try to validate debts which were unlawful when they tried to collect them.
With potentially millions of unlawful debts to deal with, the government is using this bill to welch on its debts to innocent Australians who are victims of government dishonesty. There’s been little consultation with this bill, and it shows. There is little detail about how the scheme should work, and in some areas detail is totally missing. Instead, much of the detail is left to the minister’s use of future legislative instruments to bypass parliament, to bypass scrutiny. Now there’s Labor’s catchcry: ‘bypass scrutiny’—two words that tell us all about Labor in government at the moment. It is the complete opposite of transparency—bypass scrutiny.
The government has not justified why it considers it necessary to rely on retrospective validation of the previously found unlawful means of calculation. The intention is clear: the government wishes to validate previous decisions that were made on an unlawful basis. You want to validate what you were supposed to fix. The rip-off that you were going to fix you are now validating, quietly cementing in place the Liberals’ violations that before the election Labor screamed about. Anglicare Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service and even the Commonwealth Ombudsman have indicated their concerns that the bill does not address cases where income apportionment wrongly resulted in debts and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. This bill is an example of the government trying to cover up and weasel out of responsibility for the damage caused to innocent Australians who have been victims of the incompetence of governments, both the coalition and Labor.
On this issue, the coalition in government was incompetent, negligent and uncaring. People died because of this—suicide. Labor in government, though, is deceitful, deliberately dishonest. Only One Nation has the integrity to restore sound, honest and caring government. Only One Nation cares about the Australian people. Only One Nation puts our country, Australia, first. One Nation will always act to protect the interests of Australians, and we’ll oppose this pathetically woeful bill, this dishonest, deliberately deceitful Labor bill.
In Senate Estimates, I raised the issue of transparency in government appointments. The Minister has made transparency one of the key drivers for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and I wanted to put that principle into practice. I asked the questions Australians deserve answers to—starting with the basics: what is the total remuneration package for this position? Mr Kaiser confirmed it’s approximately $930,000 per year, inclusive of superannuation, on a five-year contract.
I explored Mr Kaiser’s background. He previously served as Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet under Labor Premier Steven Miles. Before that, Mr Kaiser was State Secretary of the Queensland Labor Party and even a member of parliament for Labor. These are facts that matter because they speak to the culture of appointments in government. When the Prime Minister praises Mr Kaiser’s experience in delivering large-scale projects and managing energy infrastructure, Australians should know the full story behind that experience.
Finally, I asked why the government still hasn’t released its “jobs-for-mates” review, which was handed to them in 2023. This review was supposed to end the very culture that raises questions about appointments like this one.
I’ll keep pushing for answers because accountability matters. Australians deserve a public service that is impartial, frank, and fearless—not one that looks like a revolving door for political insiders.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this morning. Minister, firstly, congratulations to you. It’s a challenging appointment; Anthony Albanese must trust you quite a bit. Mr Kaiser, congratulations on your appointment to run the department.
Mr Kaiser: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to focus on the third driver of the minister’s drivers to the department, which is more transparency. What’s your total remuneration package for heading the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water?
Mr Kaiser: Approximately $930,000 per annum.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that in total, or does it include super and allowances? Is that everything in your package?
Mr Kaiser: That’s inclusive of super.
Senator ROBERTS:So your gross salary package is $930,000.
Mr Kaiser: Approximately.
Senator ROBERTS: How long is your contract for?
Mr Kaiser: Five years.
Senator ROBERTS: What was your last job?
Mr Kaiser: I was one of what we call directors-general. I was Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet.
Senator ROBERTS: And the premier was Steven Miles?
Mr Kaiser: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Which party was he in?
Mr Kaiser: The Labor Party.
Senator ROBERTS: He was unceremoniously tossed out of government by the Queensland voters, and it’s the federal Labor government now appointing you.
Mr Kaiser: I think my career CV is a matter of record. I was employed by the Queensland government until 24 October 2004, and I commenced work with the Commonwealth government as the secretary of this department on 14 July 2025.
Senator ROBERTS: At one stage, you were state secretary for the Queensland Labor Party; is that correct?
Mr Kaiser: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: And were you a member of the parliament for the Labor Party?
Mr Kaiser: I was a member of the Queensland parliament for a brief period of time, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What role did you have that earnt the Prime Minister’s praise? I can see that he has been very glowing in his praise: ‘Mr Kaiser’s experience includes delivering on large scale projects, administering complex regulatory regimes and leading the Queensland government’s policies on planning and infrastructure.’ What role did you have on climate and energy plans?
Mr Kaiser: As a Queensland public servant?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Kaiser: I headed the infrastructure department that had overall responsibility for the program management of the infrastructure that was publicly funded in Queensland and aspects of private sector infrastructure; that certainly included energy infrastructure, for example. I was the director-general of the local government department; I had a lot of interactions between local governments and energy providers and also those developing renewable energy projects. I’m trying to think of other touch points. Obviously, as the Director-General of the—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your being so forthcoming. Did that include any of the pumped hydro storage systems?
Senator Watt: Chair, can I just get a ruling? I think these are questions that go to matters in the Queensland government, and I would have thought today is more about asking questions about what’s happening in the federal government. So can we just get some guidance on whether these questions are in order?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll deal with that. I understand the point that you’re making, minister. I think it’s relevant to the qualifications of the department’s secretary for the purposes of corporate affairs. So, unless it strays very much further into the Queensland government, I think these questions are in order for now.
Mr Kaiser: In terms of the pumped hydro projects being worked on in Queensland at the time while I was a public servant, it was certainly Queensland government policy that pumped hydro projects be developed in Queensland and, as a public servant, I played my legitimate role in assisting the government to fulfil its policy objectives.
Senator ROBERTS: Did that include Borumba and Pioneer-Burdekin?
Mr Kaiser: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Kaiser, how many of the projects that you oversaw have been turned around by the latest government, the new government?
Mr Kaiser: I can’t answer that. As a public servant, I worked diligently to fulfil the policy objectives of the government that I worked for and not a subsequent government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why hasn’t the government released its jobs-for-mates review into Public Service appointments? Senator Gallagher said back in 2023, ‘This review is all about putting an end to the jobs- for-mates culture.’ It was handed to your government in 2023, yet you still keep it secret; why haven’t you commented on it?
Senator Watt: I don’t know about that. That’s not a matter involving this department, but the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Finance are happening over the course of the week.
Mr Kaiser: Senator, if I may, it would seem to me that your questions go to my political background. There is no doubt and it’s a matter of record that I have political involvement in my background. I can assure senators, my ministers and the Australian people that I’ve had no involvement in politics—I’ve held no political role—for 16 years. When I was involved in politics, the public servants whom I admired the most were the ones who provided frank, fearless and impartial advice, and that’s a value I hold dear now as I exercise my responsibility as a public servant.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll have to share the call. If you have further questions, please let me know. Senator Dean Smith.
One Nation backed Senator Kovacic’s call for action on CFMEU corruption, criticising Labor for failing to deliver on its promise to clean up the union. Fifteen months after pledging reform, the government has instead seen its own anti-corruption appointee sacked over bribery allegations.
Meanwhile, violence and criminal influence within the CFMEU remain. Recent media reports reveal bikies and gangsters still hold significant power inside the union. Labor made this possible by abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) in 2022—no surprise, given the CFMEU is one of Labor’s biggest campaign donors.
On top of corruption, Australia faces its largest wage theft scandal: over $1 billion allegedly stolen from coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. Thousands of workers have lost entitlements and protections, with some owed more than $200,000.
CFMEU bosses colluded with labour hire firms and mine owners, stripping miners of rights while regulators looked the other way. The union’s influence even extends to boards controlling insurance and leave schemes, creating deep conflicts of interest.
Transcript
Firstly, One Nation wants to thank Senator Kovacic for her matter of public importance. I will quote it:
The Prime Minister promised to tackle CFMEU corruption, yet 15 months later one of the very people hired to stamp it out has been sacked over allegations of bribery and corruption, demonstrating that Labor’s mismanagement is only protecting the problem, not fixing it
One Nation agrees, because we support workers. We are the workers’ party today. Labor has had many conflicts of interest in its dealings with the CFMEU over many, many years. It abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission oversight in 2022. Labor gave the CFMEU free rein to just go for it. Channel 9’s 60Minutes program on Sunday showed that violence is continuing as usual from union bosses involved in the CFMEU despite the administrator. Here are some quotes. ‘The people who were running it are still running it, not the administrator.’ ‘The CFMEU remains a harbouring ground for criminals and thugs.’ ‘They are untouchable.’ ‘Bikies and gangsters still have a strong reach into the CFMEU and they thrive within the CFMEU.’ Thugs have a stronger position now within the CFMEU than before the administrator was appointed.’
The CFMEU is a major donor to Labor’s election campaigns. Now consider Australia’s largest wage theft case, with casual coalminers in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley losing their entitlements, losing their pay and being grossly underpaid. I want to thank Stuart Bonds from the Hunter for raising it back in 2019. We’ve been pursuing it ever since. That’s because I have been a coalface miner. There are 5,000 to 10,000 victims of the CFMEU in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, individual miners owed as much as $211,000, some more than $40,000 per year. It’s more than $1 billion in wage theft, with workers stripped of protections, workers’ compensation bypassed, coalminers insurance out, safety complaints not followed through and workers stripped of entitlements, long service leave and leave in general.
There is a web of conflicts, with the boards of Coal Mines Insurance, Coal LSL and Coal Services all having 50 per cent members directors of the CFMEU. It gives them access to miners’ contact details. All of this was due to collusion of the CFMEU union bosses at the time, maintained now by the mining and energy union, in collusion with the world’s largest labour hire firms and large foreign mine owners, which the Fair Work Commission endorsed and approved. Now the Fair Work Ombudsman is saying that it will assess whether or not it is wage theft against the new enterprise agreements that were passed as a wage scam, with the CFMEU leading the way. It’s disgraceful!
Right now, the Prime Minister has the authority and sole discretion to decide how many advisers each senator receives—an authority he’s used to punish those who challenge him.
Advisers are vital for researching and scrutinising legislation, engaging with constituents, and holding the government accountable. Cutting staff for senators who oppose him does not pass the pub test. It’s not just unfair—it’s undemocratic. What is the Prime Minister afraid of? Is it scrutiny, truth, or the rise of One Nation? His actions show he fears accountability and seeks to silence those who stand up to him.
The staffing decisions reveal a disturbing pattern. Senators who vote with Labor—David Pocock, Tammy Tyrrell, Lidia Thorpe, Jacqui Lambie—kept all their advisers. Those who challenge Labor—Senator Ralph Babet and One Nation senators—had their staff cut in half. Senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor, had no advisers before or after the election. Queensland, which I proudly represent, has ten times Tasmania’s population and a vastly larger economy, yet Tasmanian senators receive more than double the staff. This inequity across states is blatant and raises serious concerns about bias, discrimination and political bastardry. The Prime Minister’s refusal to meet with Senator Hanson and me together, his lack of consultation, and his disregard for administrative law and workplace safety standards show a pattern of vindictive, chaotic governance.
This bill is a practical, fair solution supported by Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation. It sets minimum standards for staffing while preserving the Prime Minister’s discretion to allocate more. It ensures that support for senators is not subject to political whim.
Previous Liberal PMs treated all senators fairly—PM Albanese does not. He promised transparency and fairness, but his actions betray those values.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this bill to restore fairness, integrity and justice to allocation of staff in crossbench senators’ offices, to protect accountability in parliament and to guard democracy. The Prime Minister currently has the authority and sole discretion to determine the number of parliamentary advisers to crossbench senators.
Here’s how he allocated staff in the previous parliament, and then after the recent election. Firstly, the crossbench senators who largely vote with Labor. David Pocock had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Tammy Tyrrell had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Lidia Thorpe had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Jacqui Lambie had three advisers before the election—three! After the election, it was unchanged—three advisers.
Secondly, let’s move on to the crossbench senators who often oppose Labor in the Senate. Senator Ralph Babet had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was cut in half, to one adviser—one! One Nation senators had two advisers each before the election. After the election, on average, it was cut in half, to one adviser each—one!
Thirdly, crossbench senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor in the last term, embarrassing the Prime Minister and the Labor Party, had zero advisers before the election—nil! After the election, she had zero advisers—nil, none!
Next, consider this: the Prime Minister sacked both of my advisers. He bypassed me, their employer. The parliamentary adviser’s duty, the personal adviser, is to assist senators with researching proposed legislation, assist senators in writing speeches, advise on parliamentary tactics, help prepare questions for Senate estimates hearings, be the first point of contact for community groups, and deputise for the senator in meetings when the senator is engaged in the chamber or elsewhere in the state. The Prime Minister radically gutted the staffing of those senators who hold the Labor Party accountable. This does not pass the pub test, nor any test for fairness, integrity or justice.
When the Prime Minister cuts the staffing of those senators who take positions opposing his, he has an obvious conflict of interest. The incentive for the Prime Minister is to cut the resources of his political opponents, seeking to take political advantage and to cut us off at the legs. Reducing the number of support staff for a senator effectively reduces the ability of a senator to function on behalf of the electorate and provide an effective opposition, a foundation of our Westminster system of democratic government. This is an abuse of taxpayer funds and of the nation’s top political office—that of Prime Minister—to cripple senators with the courage to hold the Prime Minister’s government accountable and to reward those senators who support the Prime Minister’s agenda. This Prime Minister seems to forget that parliament does not serve him. He serves the people through the democratically elected parliament.
The state I proudly represent, Queensland, has 5.7 million people. Tasmania has 575,000. The state I represent has around 10 times the number of constituents as Tasmania. Queensland is 25 times larger in area that Tasmania. Queensland has more diverse regions and climates and a much larger and more diverse economy. Queensland’s gross state product is 12 times larger than Tasmania’s. Yet the Prime Minister allocates more than twice the number of advisers to each Tasmanian crossbench senator than to each Queensland crossbench senator. Senator Whitten’s state of Western Australia has an area almost 40 times that of Tasmania. He has to get around that. The state of New South Wales has a population 14 times that of Tasmania’s. The disparity between our states and the Australian Capital Territory, with its tiny population, are even more striking than with Tasmania.
This treatment of different Senate offices is inequitable and raises issues of bias, discrimination and political bastardry. This clearly shows the Prime Minister to be incapable of fairness and clearly displays his vindictiveness, incompetence and biased behaviour. Is he aiming to cripple One Nation after we received a huge increase in votes, doubled our members in parliament and came close to having a total of seven senators elected? One of our candidates for the House of Representatives achieved two-party preferred status and came close to being elected. Is the Prime Minister afraid of One Nation’s rise? Perhaps the Prime Minister is sensitive to criticism or to being held accountable. He reportedly found $886,000 of taxpayer money to splash on refurbishing the new Greens party room, his partners in the government’s communist coalition. By the way, the journalist who exposed this news was banned from parliament for a week. Of what is the Prime Minister afraid?
Further, after his gutting of our staff, the Prime Minister and his chief of staff refused to meet with Senator Hanson and me together. He insisted that he and his chief of staff would meet with only one of us. In my subsequent meeting with the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, I raised three main issues: the unfairness of the Prime Minister’s staffing allocation; that the Prime Minister’s actions breached recognised processes expected under administrative law provisions; and that the Prime Minister was imposing needless stress on staff who are already working hard in the taxpayers’ interest.
Let’s next consider the process the Prime Minister chose to follow. On 23 June 2025, Prime Minister Albanese notified Senator Pauline Hanson of his decision to slash half the parliamentary staff allocation for each One Nation senator, from two each to one each. In doing this, he had exercised a discretion authorised under sections 4(1), 11(3) and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, the MOPS Act. In determining these allocations of parliamentary advisers and implementing these notices of allocation, the Prime Minister breached important provisions of administrative law, which is defined in common law as decisions from courts, including the High Court. The breaches include that he gave no reasons for his decision; he had not consulted or sought input from any One Nation senator; he did not act in good faith; he did not act with a proper purpose; he had not considered relevant matters; he had not acted on reasonable grounds, given that One Nation had doubled its number of senators from two to four, with no increase in personal staff offered; he did not act based on supporting evidence; and he had not provided procedural fairness to affected persons, including personal parliamentary staff and senators.
Senators and affected staff were given no opportunity to put their case to the Prime Minister before he made his decision to slash staff allocations. He or his office ordered the employment of my staff to be terminated before my staff were made aware—the only senator’s office in which that occurred. I was given 12 minutes notice to respond to a communications deadline late on a Friday evening, and I worked that night until 10.30 pm and did not check my emails—12 minutes notice to respond! The Prime Minister had not properly considered the merits of the decision. He has still not indicated that he had evaluated all relevant evidence. He had not acted reasonably or fairly, as senators were not allocated staff on the basis of need. Nor were senators treated evenly. Some senators had savage cuts made to their staff, while others had no cuts made at all. The Prime Minister did not inform senators that he had made a decision that affected them. Some senators found out via the media.
Our Australian courts have clearly recognised that the exercise of administrative discretion, including the decision to reduce support for selected senators, must follow the procedural principles set out in Australian case law. The Prime Minister did not follow these principles. The process he stumbled through appears to be different for every crossbench senator.
The decision also flies in the face of the recent Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet review of health risks to parliamentary staffers from workplace stress and excessive work demands that lead to workplace health and safety issues. A Parliamentary Workplace Support Service review into the resourcing of parliamentary staff concluded:
Staffing levels overall are not adequate to meet all the parliamentary and electorate work demands placed on staff in some offices.
This translates to the fact that personal staff are overworked and translates further to a workplace health and safety issue.
The way in which the Prime Minister slashed some senators’ staffing and caused staff to be brutalised shows he does not care about workers. If the Prime Minister supports a fully functioning parliament and democracy and supports accountability, then he should ensure that members and senators are provided with reasonable resources, including qualified and professional advisers as personal staff. After securing re-election based on promises of transparency, the Prime Minister appears to have abused his position, disrespected Australian law and courts and jeopardised democracy for his political advantage. The Prime Minister shows he is incapable of fairness and competence. He will be more able and likely to hide with a reduced opposition. That hurts Australia. It hurts democracy. This is clearly a further example of the Prime Minister seeking control over democratic processes.
I remind everyone that always beneath control there is fear. Why is he afraid of democratic scrutiny? Why is he afraid of losing the control that he covets? Why is the Prime Minister afraid of me? I’m not a big bloke. Is he afraid of my work as a crossbench minor party senator? Is he afraid of my passion for exposing the truth and serving constituents? Is he afraid of my teamwork with my staff, making us more effective as a team? Is that why he dismantled my team and stressed them needlessly? Is he, with just one year’s experience in the real world, afraid of my diverse practical experience, including underground coalface miner, vineyard labourer, engineer, mine and project manager, executive leadership consultant, and board director? Is he afraid of One Nation rising, or does he still have blind prejudice towards One Nation, as revealed in his adjournment speech of May 1998? Last week during question time in the House of Representatives, why did he try to ridicule me, a small-party crossbench senator? Doesn’t he realise that name-calling and labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest or the fearful and are signs of fear?
Before the election, the Prime Minister promised transparency and fairness. His actions show why I take note of people’s actions, not their words. What’s important is what we can do, not who we can be. In other words, what we do matters; our title matters not.
This new bill’s co-sponsors include Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation—indicating a unity of support. Under this new bill, the government retains over 520 staff and access to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of departmental staff. The bill provides fair allocation of staff to government, opposition, Greens, other parties and crossbench senators. This bill is well considered, well written and fair. The bill offers career progression for crossbench staff. It nominates only minimum standards. The Prime Minister still has the freedom to allocate more and to exercise his discretion.
We are all tired of partisan politics that threaten to destroy our country and our democracy. This bill will ensure that support for senators and for Australian democracy is not subject to the whims of a recalcitrant prime minister who puts his own needs ahead of the effective operation of this chamber. Both preceding Liberal prime ministers allocated equal numbers of personal advisers to each crossbench senator, showing that they both saw merit in fairness and in democracy. Prime Minister Albanese hides from, buries, prevents and kills democracy.
One Nation welcomes the spirit with which many diverse senators approached this issue’s resolution in a united way. This bill is a sensible, practical and responsible solution to digging the Prime Minister out of the ridiculous and embarrassing hole he has dug for himself. All One Nation senators support this bill. I encourage all senators to support this bill. I say to all Australians: the ABC, and the media generally, won’t report this issue, so, if you’re concerned about the Prime Minister’s abuse of power and taxpayer money, please share it and spread it. Bringing back and restoring our country starts with the people driving parliamentary accountability.
During a session with Ms. Darlene Perks from Coal LSL, I inquired about the case of Mr. James Joseph, who is currently in a significant dispute with Coal LSL regarding payment of his long service leave entitlements.
Ms. Perks stated that Coal LSL would not take any action until they received notification from the employer via a levy form. She said that disputes arising from the failure to provide correct information should be directed to the Fair Work Commission for resolution. Ms. Perks explained that employers often make errors on certain forms, which then require adjustment. She added that if an employee is no longer employed, levy payments would cease.
I asked about the risks that were alluded to in a recent ANAO audit and was told that the concerns related to errors in financial statements and the valuation of unlisted trusts, which are quite complex.
When I questioned why the management of billion-dollar government funds is in private hands, I was told it would be taken on notice and answered at a later time.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Perks and everyone from Coal LSL. Mr James Joseph was injured on BHP’s Mount Arthur coal mine on 7 June 2023. Are you familiar with James Joseph?
Ms Perks: We are familiar with James Joseph, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Coal LSL have confirmed with Mr Joseph that they were not informed of his workers comp status, which was approved in May 2024 following a six-month delay. Mr Joseph’s correct workers compensation status seems not to have been reported to Coal LSL by BHP or the insurer, Coal Mines Insurance. The board of directors of Coal Mines Insurance, I understand, has 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors and 50 per cent coal owners.
Ms Perks: I’ll answer the last part. The shareholding of Coal Services, which I think you were just referring to—
Senator ROBERTS: Coal Mines Insurance.
Ms Perks: Yes. It is not an organisation we have any relationship with in our jurisdiction, but I can confirm that the shareholding is as you have reflected—the Minerals Council and the CFMEU.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the composition of the board? Fifty-fifty?
Ms Perks: Our board?
Senator ROBERTS: The Coal Mines Insurance board.
Ms Perks: I can confirm that, but I think they do have independent directors.
Senator ROBERTS: What about your board?
Ms Perks: The legislative framework hasn’t changed in all the hearings we’ve had. Our board has six directors who are appointed by the responsible minister—three directors nominated by employee companies or bodies and three directors nominated by union organisations. They are minister appointed.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for correcting that. It’s fifty-fifty again?
Ms Perks: Our director composition?
Senator ROBERTS: Your board composition.
Ms Perks: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-fifty employers and union—okay. What is being done to rectify this particular case, and is this a common occurrence—that is, an employee is medically terminated whilst on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or their insurer? This seems, by the way, very familiar. It is similar to the mistreatment of Mr Simon Turner by BHP and his employer at the time, the labour hire firm, Chandler Macleod. What’s being done to resolve this, and is it common?
Ms Perks: The scenario we’re talking of is termination. I tried to explain this in a couple of hearings over the years as well, but I appreciate there are a lot of new members, and I’ll explain the process again. Our GM of Legal, Michael Dowzer might be able to add to the process. The employer will advise us through their monthly levy returns a termination code for the employee. One of the reasons for termination can be ill health. Others would be redundancy or cessation. That process hasn’t changed. That is the legislative arena that we operate within. Nothing has changed from the explanations over the years with regard to how we collect the data, how the employer advises us and how we then verify the data through the relationships and interactions with the employers.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that one of the problems that Coal LSL was encountering—a lack of verification of the data? I’m not saying you didn’t do this here. It’s common then for someone’s employment to be terminated while still being on workers comp?
Ms Perks: I can’t talk to the commonality of that with regard to the data. As I said, the reason for cessation will be advised to us by the employer.
Senator ROBERTS: But sometimes the employer won’t notify you.
Ms Perks: They will notify us of a reason for termination.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, but sometimes they won’t notify you that he has actually been terminated.
Ms Perks: Would you like to add to that, Michael?
Mr Dowzer: The notification comes through our levy form, and they identify when employment has ceased and the cessation code which indicates the reason for termination. That is a report from the employer. If subsequently there is an issue in relation to that, we’ll engage with both the employee and the employer to seek to understand that issue, but, ultimately, it’s to be resolved between the employer and the employee.
Senator ROBERTS: The question was: is it a common occurrence that an employee is medically terminated while on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or the insurer?
Mr Dowzer: What we are notified of is the cessation of the employment. There’s no requirement to notify us in relation to any other details in the employment relationship.
Senator ROBERTS: So, in your experience of checking up, it’s not really common that you’re not notified?
Ms Perks: The way I’d answer that is in relation to complaints. Your question is: is it a common occurrence? No, we don’t have volumes of complaints which would illustrate a systemic issue in the common occurrence of employers advising us of termination codes which an employee doesn’t agree with. I know there are a couple of cases, and, certainly, we’ve had a lot of conversations around those. But I wouldn’t say it’s a systemic issue that has been understood through volumes of complaints for the scenarios that you’re talking about.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of governance issues at the moment. We sorted them out, hopefully, after the review. What are the implications when this occurs—for example, an impact to levy payments, because the employer is no longer paying, super payments and internal workloads of Coal LSL to investigate and resolve such matters? Does that put a burden on you?
Ms Perks: In the scenario where it’s found that an employer has advised us of a termination code that an employee disagrees with, certainly the resource from the team would be to engage with the employer, engage with the employee, assess the information et cetera. If that is unresolved, then we would be advising the employee to take it to the Fair Work Commission, because we’d be classifying it as an industrial relations dispute, which is out of our jurisdiction.
Senator ROBERTS: If the companies fail to notify Coal LSL within a reasonable period, what would normally come of it? For example, there was a six-month failure to inform you in Mr Joseph’s case. What happened there when BHP didn’t inform you for six months?
Ms Perks: I’ll talk about the obligation under the collection act, where the employer has an obligation to submit a monthly levy return. That is a statutory obligation. In regard to correcting or working through a disagreement or a dispute in information that we’ve received, that would be a process which isn’t time bound in our statutory frameworks. But the employer has an obligation to inform us monthly of employees’ service and any other critical information, such as terminations and eligible wages.
Senator ROBERTS: If this is proved to have occurred through a registered organisation, what intervention, penalty or enforcement would Coal LSL apply under its constitution to deter recurrence? Is there any?
Mr Dowzer: The key obligation is to submit a monthly levy return with correct information. We are reliant on that information in terms of being able to conduct any further inquiries. If an issue is brought to our attention by an employee, we will engage with the employer and seek to get the employer and the employee to resolve that issue and communicate the outcome to us. We don’t have any power to adjudicate on that dispute.
Senator ROBERTS: So there are no consequences for the employer?
Mr Dowzer: If there’s an incorrect levy return then there could be consequences, but that is a factual matter which we would not have evidence of.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please advise why Mr Joseph’s Coal LSL number looks to only exist from September 2022 onwards, as per his Coal LSL commencement letter, recently provided to him under a freedom of information request? What is the specific reason for the delay in creating his Coal LSL member number?
Ms Perks: I think we’d have to take that one on notice and have a look at the timeframe of his records and provide a response on that review.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph has been provided information under FOI, freedom of information, that shows Coal LSL levies were paid by BHP to Coal LSL in as early as July 2022. However, his welcome member letter was produced in September 2022. Why was that?
Ms Perks: We’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?
Mr Dowzer: When the levy return identifies a new employee, we will take that information and effectively create a record for that employee. Our obligation is to keep records—
Senator ROBERTS: And then you get an identification number out of that?
Mr Dowzer: There is an identification number which would be created at that point at which the employee is first put on a levy return.
Senator ROBERTS: So it wouldn’t be possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?
Mr Dowzer: The first time that a new employee is properly identified on a levy return would be the point at which we would commence a record for that employee.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph requested all company audits provided by BHP to Coal LSL for the entire period of his employment, from 2011 to 2024. I don’t think he was continually employed at Mount Arthur for that period; I think he was involved in other divisions of the company, including in Western Australia. Why was he only provided with two years, considering that Coal LSL are reviewing his open recognition of prior service application for periods that fall within this freedom of information date range, 2011 to 2024?
Ms Perks: Can I take that one on notice as well? I do know the FOI case. I can’t answer without going back to the reasoning as to why that information was provided and some wasn’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms Perks: I know that the team work within the jurisdictions of FOI, so we’ll take that one on notice and provide a reasoning.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine, Ms Perks. The December 2023 Coal LSL BHP external audit report indicates potential discrepancies in reimbursement amounts claimed by BHP. Has the investigation into this matter been completed? This is two years later.
Ms Perks: That’s their audit report? I’d say it’s quite common, through the process of that audit work, for employers to have adjustments in reimbursement claims or levies. It’s through that audit process that the reimbursement, if it’s overclaimed or overpaid, would be rectified, and similarly the levy payment would be rectified. I won’t answer without being able to check with the team that that has been closed out, but I’d be very confident, with an audit report dated December 2023, that an action from the audit report submission would be closed out, as our administrative processes would—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Perhaps you could take this next item on notice, then. Was this, in fact, found to be a confirmed finding—that is, BHP claiming illegitimate reimbursements? If so, how significant were the findings of this discrepancy?
Ms Perks: ‘Illegitimate’ is a strong word. Again, if I take us back to the process of the employer, it is a selfreporting scheme. The employers, through the submission of monthly levy returns and then the reimbursement claim process, will be calculating based on our guidance of how to calculate levy payments and also how to claim the reimbursement under the reimbursement rules. It is very common that employers get it wrong. It’s a complex administrative process. So it is quite common that, through the external audit function that we rely on for the assurance of the correctness of levies paid and reimbursement claims, there will be a—
Senator ROBERTS: An adjustment?
Ms Perks: An adjustment. I wouldn’t typically classify that as illegitimate or deliberate actions. We would typically see that as human error on the employer’s side, and the audit process provides the assurance to then get the adjustments correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is this a disclosable matter? If it is, was it disclosed in the Coal LSL annual report for financial year 2023-24?
Ms Perks: No, that’s not a disclosable matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is it true that BHP did not pay any Coal LSL monthly levies from any of their owned entities to the Commonwealth Coal LSL fund in the period between November 2015 and November 2016?
Ms Perks: I will take that on notice, but I would be very surprised to find that they hadn’t paid levies. I would be very confident in saying they have paid the levies, but we will take that on notice to answer your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Something in my mind is reminding me that that might have been proven in the Iron Mountain document. Can you recall that? I can’t.
Ms Perks: I’m not familiar with that document.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you also tell me what was done about it, please.
Ms Perks: If it wasn’t paid?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Ms Perks: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that approach consistent with the Coal LSL constitution at the time, and were any penalties applied? Could you tell us that as well, please.
Ms Perks: If an employer hasn’t paid a levy in line with their obligations under the collection act, the lever that we have available is to charge an additional levy. It’s an interest calculation. That is the lever that we’d have available to us.
Senator ROBERTS: So we have got some penalty provisions?
Ms Perks: We do have some penalty provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: BHP and Coal Mines Insurance previously refused to acknowledge Mr Joseph as a black coal industry covered employee, challenging him on this as recently as July 2024, yet Coal LSL have received levies from Mr Joseph since July 2022. Can you explain how and why this would occur, from Coal LSL’s perspective. I’ve got my thoughts on it. Ms Perks: Other than taking it on notice—
Mr Dowzer: My position on that is that, for the purpose of compliance with our scheme, the inclusion of an employee on a levy return is a statement by the employee in relation to eligibility under our scheme. As to matters relating to other issues of employment, we do not have visibility on them and wouldn’t have a view on them.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m guessing there’s still probably some confusion. Mr Joseph was on what some people call a staff payroll, which is an admin job, a managerial job or a supervisory job, compared with, say, a coalminer at the front line, who would be on an hourly rate.
Mr Dowzer: I would make the distinction that coverage under any industrial arrangements is, in some cases, a different assessment to eligibility under our scheme, so it’s really not appropriate for us to be commenting on those interpretation questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just wondering whether that’s where some of the confusion comes from. He wouldn’t have been on the supervisory staff or administrative staff. He wouldn’t have been on the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. He would’ve been on the staff award, for example. Does the Coal LSL levy apply to the accident pay component of employee wages when on workers compensation?
Mr Dowzer: The issue of an employee on workers compensation is dependent upon the nature of the workers compensation arrangement between the employer and the employee. So, if the employee remains employed by the employer, then that is leviable eligible wages. If employment has ceased, then the obligation under our scheme is on the employer. There is no obligation on an insurer under our scheme. There is no leviable eligible wages if employment has ceased.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if the insurer is paying workers compensation but the employee has been terminated, there’s no obligation on BHP?
Mr Dowzer: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: And there’s no obligation on the insurer to pay either. Is that what you’re saying?
Mr Dowzer: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Should an employee on workers comp in the black coal mining industry who is medically terminated and who remains on workers comp continue to accrue Coal LSL leave if they remain incapacitated due to their injuries and condition whilst they continue receiving workers compensation wages? You’ve just answered that question. This gets complex, doesn’t it?
CHAIR: How are you going there, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: I probably need another five minutes—maybe less, because we’re going to change topic pretty soon, and then it should go quickly. In previous estimates, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has stated there is a list of around 80 entities who may have been paying levies in error. Has this investigation now concluded?
Ms Perks: Paying levies in error?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you remember that?
Ms Perks: Yes. That investigation has concluded. There were 28 employers who were paying levy in error, and 25 of the 28 employers have been refunded that levy amount. The three remaining, for different reasons, still need to be transacted. We’re waiting on the employer to provide information so that we can refund that amount.
Senator ROBERTS: So they overpaid.
Ms Perks: They incorrectly paid into the scheme.
Senator ROBERTS: Too much. Were any of the entities coal services or coalmining services? They wouldn’t have been, would they? They don’t employ coalminers.
Ms Perks: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the list include any BHP owned entities?
Ms Perks: No.
Senator ROBERTS: I will change topics, you’ll be pleased to know. I will move on to the audit. The report of the most recent audit of Coal LSL conducted by the Australian National Audit Office flagged ‘higher risk related to both valuation of investments and the valuation of provision for reimbursements’. What is the real meaning of these two findings of risk in regard to the effective operations of and the integrity of the scheme? What are the risks and who is at risk of exposure?
Ms Perks: Mr Windever will answer that question.
Mr Windever: The external audit focuses on areas of high risk on our balance sheet, and these particularly will be in areas of our provision for reimbursements, which is a piece of analysis that is covered by our actuary, but also our investments, as you pointed out. To be specific, they’re higher areas of risk of misstatement of our financial statements. I’ll speak to the first one.
Senator ROBERTS: Not financial risk, just a risk of error in your statements?
Mr Windever: In the financial statements—that’s correct. If we talk about the first one, the provision for reimbursements, that analysis is conducted by our actuary. It’s considered to be an area of higher risk, rather than a high risk, for the organisation, just by the very nature of the modelling, the estimations, the assumptions and the judgements that go into that. It’s an inherently high-risk area and one that’s a recurring area of higher risk, if you like, in our audit reports in previous times. It’s not a new finding for us. The second finding around investments is around the valuation of our unlisted trusts. Simply, the reason why this continues to be a high-risk area is the nature of those investments. Unlisted trusts are considered to be more complex from a valuation standpoint compared to other forms of assets. Certainly, there’s a portion of our portfolio that is illiquid assets. They are also, from an auditing standpoint, more complex to assess from a valuation standpoint. That’s why the valuation for investments is also considered a high-risk area. Again, it’s something that we’ve seen in previous audits. It’s not a new set of findings for us.
Senator ROBERTS: So it doesn’t affect the integrity of the scheme; it’s got more to do with assessing the size of the investments, the rates of payout and the rates of income.
Mr Windever: That’s correct. It’s so that we can stand behind the accuracy of the financial statements. Again, these two areas are focused on our balance sheet in particular.
Senator ROBERTS: You said there’s no real risk to your entity—Coal LSL.
Mr Windever: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s not going to be much fallout if the risks crystallize.
Mr Windever: They’re considered to be high-risk areas, but, each year, as we work through the audits—we had a successful passing again of this audit of our financial statements. We’re satisfied with that outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the next part of this. The funds arrive in the accounts of the scheme from compulsory levies upon the relevant employers, right? The funds held by the fund are now in excess of $2 billion. What happens to the excess income generated from the scheme after leave entitlements are paid out?
Mr Windever: You’re correct about the size of the fund. It’s $2.6 billion now. We measure the health of that in terms of a fund surplus or a fund coverage ratio. That’s how I would answer that question, if you like. It remains on the balance sheet, but we have some goals that we work towards around the coverage of assets over our liabilities, and we manage to those goals accordingly. That’s how I’d answer that one.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. Emmett J in the Federal Court in 1998 emphasised that—and I acknowledge that that’s some 27 years ago—there was a lack of control of the corporation by the government and a lack of accountability to the government. Was Coal LSL a government entity at that time?
Ms Perks: In 1998? Yes. It was in 1992 that the entity was established under the administration act.
Senator ROBERTS: What change of governance, if any, has occurred within Coal LSL since then to tighten that up?
Ms Perks: Since 1998? That’s a very big question. I can talk about what we’ve done since I’ve been in the organisations, and we’ve had a lot of conversations around that. I can—
Senator ROBERTS: Governance was a particularly hot issue.
Ms Perks: I can talk to that specifically. Since 1998—I wouldn’t answer that question.
Senator ROBERTS: I hear what you’re saying. Given that the fund was originally set up as a stopgap measure to build up a money chest, if you like, to cover an estimated shortfall of funds to cover long service leave claims, can your office comment on the purpose for which it’s satisfied for the fund to continue generating millions of dollars per year after the original purpose was met a quarter of a century ago. Why is it still continuing?
Ms Perks: It’s a very good policy question. I can talk with passion about the value of the scheme, and I’m the first one to talk about the value of portable long service leave and what it has done for the industry and employees in the industry. What I would say is—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me for cutting you off. I didn’t mean that. You don’t need to convince me of that portability. That’s fine. What I’m getting to is that my understanding—I think it’s correct—is that there was a fund created because there was a shortfall in funds. Now, you’ve a massive service in funds. Why is the fund still in existence?
Ms Perks: That would be a question for government. I think you’re referring to the first reading speech or the explanatory memorandum in 1992, which talked about why the fund was being created. The payroll levy was set at five per cent at that point in time to get the fund back into—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m comfortable with all of that.
Ms Perks: What I would say, though, is that it wasn’t legislated. There was nothing in the legislation in 1992 to legislate a winding up of the fund. Yes, it’s in the first reading speech as—well, is it an intention? I won’t comment. It’s definitely in the first reading speech, but that didn’t translate into the legislation when the fund and the corporation were established.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking about the original coalmine insurance fund. I’m a bit hazy on this, but I understand that there was a stopgap measure of an increase in funds to cover a shortfall due to excessive payouts and not enough revenue coming in. It was probably one of the boom-and-bust years, so they instituted an additional levy as a temporary stopgap. It’s now well past that, and they’ve got a massive $2.6 billion in funds. You don’t need it anymore. Why is it still going?
Ms Perks: Why is the fund still going?
Senator ROBERTS: The extra fund.
Ms Perks: No, the additional payroll levy that you’re talking about was removed in 2008 from memory. The payroll levy was set, and then there was an additional component added, which made it a levy of five per cent. That was in place from 1992 through to—I think it was 2005, from memory. When the fund got back into a neutral position, that’s when that additional levy component was removed. Our levy has been at 2.7 per cent for many years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at—not the original fund, the stopgap fund. So that has been removed?
Ms Perks: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So this is wrong. Thank you. Minister, a question for you—why is a private company run by the NSW Minerals Council, the Queensland Resources Council and the Mining and Energy Union managing billions of dollars contributed compulsorily by employers on behalf of the federal government?
Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice, Senator Roberts and see what I can provide you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Before you came into the chair, a lot of the problems in the coal sector came from entities that have 50 per cent Minerals Council or 50 per cent Queensland Resources Council and 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors. There seems to be a very tight cluster of organisations—Coal Mines Insurance, Coal LSL, Coal Services. There’s another entity in there too that I’ve forgotten.
CHAIR: I think the minister’s taken that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m just trying to give her some background. That’s it; thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/0FmTFIoGWGg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-21 11:59:582025-10-21 12:00:07Coal LSL Under the Microscope – Again
Recently in Parliament, Prime Minister Albanese tried to ridicule me, saying “Senator Roberts thinks that build to rent is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda”‘ before calling it ‘a conspiracy theory. It reminded me of Gandhi’s quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
After One Nation doubled our Senate representation, it seems the PM has moved from ignoring to ridiculing — and in doing so, he engaged in misinformation.
Let’s be clear: the WEF’s push to end single-family homeownership is real. Their “you’ll own nothing and be happy” slogan isn’t a conspiracy—it’s a stated goal. The Albanese government’s nature-positive plan borrows heavily from WEF’s SUB (sustainable urban policy), after meeting with the new WEF co-chair Larry Fink of BlackRock.
Everyday Australians—especially our hardworking farmers—are being ignored while billionaires get the PM’s attention. No wonder he was booed at the Bendigo bush summit and chased out of town by farmers on tractors.
Labor is no longer the party of the worker. It’s the party of predatory billionaires destroying our country for profit, power and control. We’re going to need more tractors.
Transcript
There’s a quote from Gandhi which reads: ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.’ I was reminded of that quote last Thursday when Prime Minister Albanese said of me in the House of Representatives: ‘Senator Roberts thinks that build to rent is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda’—cue the spooky music— before calling this ‘a conspiracy theory’. Now, I can understand, after One Nation doubled our senators in the last election, why the Prime Minister would feel the need to move from ignore to ridicule. In trying to engage in ridicule, the Prime Minister only managed to engage in misinformation.
The truth is the World Economic Forum opinion leader, who originated their mission statement ‘You’ll own nothing and be happy’, is the same person who used the stage at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos to call for an end to single-family homeownership. Danish politician Ida Auken advanced his idea as part of the West’s sustainable urban policy, or SUB—as in subhuman. SUB is where the Albanese government took the name and many elements of its nature-positive plan, after meeting with the new World Economic Forum co-chair, BlackRock’s Larry Fink. Our Prime Minister should really be better informed on WEF’s evil agenda—or perhaps he is informed.
One thing’s clear: the world’s predatory billionaires have no trouble getting time with our Prime Minister. The people who can’t are everyday Australians, including our hardworking farmers who put food on our table and who we need more than ever to feed the millions of new Labor arrivals—our farmers who contributed $72 billion in exports last year to feed and clothe the world. No wonder the Prime Minister was booed and heckled while on stage at last week’s Bendigo bush summit and then filmed being chased out of town in the company of farmers on tractors.
Labor is no longer the party of the worker. It’s the party of predatory billionaires destroying our country for profit, power and control. We’re going to need more tractors.
One Nation voted against the Government’s HECS bill because it’s a con job that’s going to leave students, graduates and taxpayers worse off in the long run.
The government has outright lied. The effective debt cut is just 2% taking into account previous indexation – indexation that was made worse because the government caused the inflation crisis. This Bill does nothing to fix the broken University sector.
Here’s what One Nation would do for students:
Publish graduate salary data: Universities should disclose average graduate salaries at one, five, and ten years post-graduation to help students make informed decisions about their degrees.
Cut fees for courses: One Nation proposes reducing fees for subjects that rely heavily on outdated prerecorded lectures and frequent group assignments.
Enforce English standards: Universities should strictly enforce English proficiency for international students to ensure fair group work and protect domestic students’ academic outcomes.
Fix HECS indexation timing: The government should apply withheld HECS repayments before indexation to prevent students from being unfairly charged interest on money already paid.
Increase university accountability: Universities must be held responsible for the quality and outcomes of the degrees they offer, especially when public funds are involved.
All of these things must be fixed or HECS debts will be racked up again and graduates will be back to where they started.
Transcript
The Albanese Labor government is selling students a con job. This isn’t a HECS refund; it’s taking students back to where they started, before the government caused the inflation crisis. I will say that again: this isn’t a HECS refund; it’s just taking students backwards to where they started before the government caused the inflation crisis.
On the original HECS indexation rates, HECS debts would have been indexed 23 per cent since COVID, or 2020. Accounting for recent cuts, this figure is still 18 per cent. While Labor keeps posting TikToks saying, ‘You’re getting a 20 per cent cut,’ the reality is you’re only getting a two per cent discount on the 2020 balance, at best. The Albanese government’s student debt reduction is fiscally irresponsible, lazy and vote-buying and does nothing to address underlying issues in university education.
These changes are reported to cost $16 billion in forgiven debt, which adds to roughly $3 billion in forgiveness from changes to indexation rates in relation to high COVID inflation that came into effect in December 2024. This $19 billion goes onto the national debt, on which all taxpayers pay a far higher amount of interest than HECS debt indexation. Those who’ve got university degrees and those who haven’t all pay. Taxpayers, who are more likely than not going to be people with degrees, are going to have to pay back that national debt and then some. It’s just shifting the debt from your HECS account to the tax you’ll have to pay in the future.
When it comes to HECS debt, many young people have signed up to take on a huge amount of debt, often for degrees that failed to deliver on the university’s promise of a high-paying job in the future. That is what universities promise. Standards of tertiary education have continued to deteriorate. Indoctrination has become more important than education, and promised job prospects have failed to materialise for many students.
Meanwhile, the universities and their extravagantly paid vice-chancellors are laughing all the way to the bank. In 2020, the heads of 16 of Australia’s 41 universities each earned more than $1 million a year, more than the head of the world’s best university, Oxford. A number of Australia’s universities generate more than $2 billion a year in revenue. The universities face no accountability for the quality of teaching they pump out. Under the HECS system, the government pays the university upfront, while the student pays the debt back to government for rest of their life.
Tertiary education has turned into an extremely lucrative government guaranteed cash cow, with students holding the debt for degrees that fail to deliver quality teaching or the promise of a good, stable job. Many courses are being delivered with prerecorded lectures that are many years old. Delivering degrees is getting cheaper, so course fees should be getting cheaper too, but they’re not. One Nation would cut the fees for subjects that use repeated prerecorded lectures and large numbers of group assignments.
The increasing use of group assignments so that universities can pay for fewer assessors per course is another real issue. In these group assignments, students are frequently grouped with foreign international students, on whom universities rely for even more income. English standards are not being strictly enforced, so Australian students find themselves having to do the entire group’s work or watch their grades suffer as a group result. One Nation will strictly enforce English standards for international students so that universities aren’t sacrificing Australian educations to increase profit from international students, to the detriment of Australian students. Our universities should be focused on delivering a good education for Australian students first. That’s the first priority.
There are still big problems with the way HECS debts are indexed, though. Employers withhold extra tax from HECS debtors on every pay under the pay as you go withholding scheme. While extra tax has been withheld every pay cycle, the extra tax paid is only deducted from the study debts once the person’s tax return has been lodged. The earliest someone can do this is 1 July. HECS debts, however, are indexed earlier, on the larger balance, before the payment on 1 June. This means that, despite the student paying extra tax for their HECS all through the year and the government holding that money for HECS at the time, the indexation rate is applied to the larger balance, without that withheld tax being applied, which would reduce the interest added on top of at indexation. This is grossly and inherently unfair and deceptive. If the government is holding someone’s money for HECS repayments, that money should be applied to the balance before indexation is applied. To do otherwise, which is what the government’s doing, is theft. Nothing in this bill fixes this unfair situation. We’ve raised this issue of theft before, and still the government continues to steal from students.
Finally, One Nation believes universities should be made accountable for the degrees they deliver. One Nation believes universities should publish the average salaries of graduates from their degrees one year, five years and 10 years after graduation so that future students know what they’re signing up for. Is doing the degree going to be worth the debt? This could be done per university and per individual course, anonymously and in aggregate, giving everyone clear data on what future job prospects they can expect, without divulging identities. This is possible already. Simply link the unique student identifier and their course with the student’s tax file number and their salary reported to the Taxation Office.
In summary, the government’s HECS bill is a con job. It only returns balances back to where they were right before COVID arrived. That’s all. The debt is just transferred to the national debt, which taxpayers, like uni graduates, will have to eventually pay down with higher taxes. This bill does nothing to make sure Australian university students get an education that’s actually worthwhile. It does nothing. One Nation will vote against this bill because we do not want a con job reduction. We want a better life for university students, and this bill does not do that. We want a life that doesn’t mean a forever debt for a degree that never lives up to its promises. One Nation wants students to get education and value.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/XHX8QsKwUYg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-31 18:41:412025-07-31 18:41:49HECS Relief Should Mean Real Change, Not Just Headlines
Just in case anyone in the Labor Party still believes they are the good guys, have a look at this political interference and discrimination. The Prime Minister directly and personally has taken the jobs of the two advisers who worked tirelessly on my re-election campaign. This is my speech in the Senate last night.
After One Nation’s strongest federal election result ever, Senator Pauline Hanson declared: “This is not the end of an election; this is the start of a movement.” And the people are responding—membership is surging, and support is rising. Yet this election wasn’t easy. Conservative micro-parties fought One Nation harder than they fought the left. Calls for a coalition sounded good—but in practice, it was chaos. Australia doesn’t have years to waste on political experiments.
One Nation has stood firm for 28 years—through media attacks, legal battles, and political sabotage. Every challenge has made us stronger, more united, and more determined to take back government for everyday Australians. Meanwhile, real issues are being ignored. Bendigo Bank is closing 10 branches—5 of them the last in their towns. Queenstown, Tasmania, will lose its only bank. Locals will have to drive 2.5 hours over icy roads just to access basic banking. The Albanese government ignored a 15-month Senate inquiry into regional bank closures. 14 months overdue. No response. No action. Just silence while communities are left behind.
And now, the PM is targeting my office—cancelling my advisers’ positions in a disgraceful breach of parliamentary convention. This is not democracy. This is control. One Nation will not be silenced. We will not back down. We are the only party with the courage, unity, and vision to restore Australia’s prosperity—for all Australians. This is just the beginning.
Transcript
Change is coming. Following One Nation’s best ever federal election result in May, our party leader Senator Pauline Hanson declared on national TV, ‘This is not the end of an election; this is the start of a movement.’ The public have already responded, with party membership surging and their post-election poll support increasing. This was a trying election, though. Micro-parties on the conservative side fought One Nation harder than they fought our political opponents on the communist left. So many called for a coalition of conservative parties, an idea that sounds great in theory yet created an unworkable Frankenstein, setting our movement back years to allow the organisation and recalibration needed to merge disparate political positions, if indeed it were possible at all.
Australia does not have years to lose. The lights are going off in this parliamentary term. One more term from Labor or the globalist Liberals and Australia will be past the point of no return. One Nation has been here for 28 years. Our party’s character has been forged in success and in failure, and in legal warfare, media bastardry, lies and party infiltration—even prison charges that were trumped up and ultimately struck down. Every development has made us stronger, more determined, more organised and readier than ever to take the government benches from those who do not govern in the best interests of Australia. Only One Nation has the strength of conviction, the unity of purpose and the courage necessary to restore abundance and opportunity to all Australians. Only One Nation represents the entire Australian people.
Let me give you an example that 12 Tasmanian senators ignored—none of whom are One Nation senators, which is why I’m having to raise this. There’s a new crisis in regional banking services because Bendigo Bank is now closing 10 branches and 28 agencies. Five of the branches are the last banks in their towns. For those communities, that is devastating.
This is happening because Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has ignored the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into bank closures in regional Australia. The government was supposed to respond within 90 days. It’s been 14 months, and the government has simply ignored it. The inquiry lasted 15 months and held 13 public hearings, with locals in town after town testifying that the banks were lying when they claimed people didn’t need branches anymore. The report observed:
When banks close their branches in regional areas, the impact on individuals and communities can be devastating and far-reaching, especially when it is the last bank in town.
This is what Queenstown in Tasmania is facing when it loses its Bendigo Bank branch in September. This is not only the last bank in town; it’s the last bank on the entire West Coast of Tasmania. The locals will have no choice and will be forced to drive 2½ hours over icy mountain roads to the next closest bank, in Burnie. On Tuesday night the West Coast Council passed a unanimous motion calling on the Albanese government to respond to the Senate inquiry—to respond!
There’s no doubt that, had the government responded to the report and its powerful recommendations, it’s unlikely Bendigo Bank would be closing these branches. It’s a scandal for this government to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on an inquiry into rural banking services and then ignore the outcome because it might interfere with the banks’ cashless society agenda. I call on all senators to join me in demanding that the government take the Senate inquiry outcome seriously and fully implement all its recommendations.
I now make note of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s disgraceful attempt to sabotage my office over the last few weeks. The Prime Minister cancelled the positions of my two advisers and then this week arranged their notices of dismissal. I am their employer. They don’t work for you, Mr Prime Minister; they work for me. How dare you terminate my staff? What gives you the right to select my team? Using parliamentary staffing allocations to take all the staff of an Independent or crossbench senator breaks a convention, a trust, going back a hundred years. Denying me and Senator Whitten, Senator Stacey and Senator Payman any advisers at all is a disgraceful act.
One Nation has always welcomed policy debates and contests in the court of public opinion. This prime minister, though, would rather shut the opposition up than debate his rancid, divisive, wasteful policies with the one party prepared to provide real opposition, better policies and a real vision to restore Australia’s abundance—a vision that looks after the Australian people, instead of Labor Party donors, unions and globalist powers. What a bloody disgrace! This is not over.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/EBxVRyUzQJk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-24 08:26:092025-07-24 11:48:31Labor’s Dirty Power Play: PM Personally Axes One Nation Advisers in Attack on Democracy
Aussies are sleeping in cars and tents while Labor floods our nation.
Housing costs EXPLODING, services overwhelmed.
Labor has LOST CONTROL of our borders.
Chief Economist, IPA – Adam Creighton says: The Prime Minister did say earlier this year that the rate of immigration would fall to 260,000 net overseas migration. Well, we’re on track at the current rate for this calendar year of 590,000.
And the figure for the financial year that just ended was supposed to be 335,000 net overseas migration. We don’t even have the figures yet for June, but it’s already 27% out of 90,000 more than than the forecast of 335.
So I mean it really is out of control.
Taken from a post by Institute of Public Affairs @TheIPA on X.
Will Albanese question Xi Jinping about the CCP’s alleged human organ trade?
There’s an Act recently passed by the US House of Reps and currently awaiting approval by the Senate called H.R. 1503 Stop Forced Organ Harvesting.
‘To combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs.’
It seems globalisation has opened Western democracies to more than ‘trade’.
The suspected existence of international organ harvesting is a grisly reminder of the moral variance across borders.
This Act specifically aims to ‘hold accountable persons implicated, including members of the Chinese Communist Party’.
Unlike Australia’s vague foreign interference laws, the US did not shy away from naming the culprit.
The Act was introduced by Representative Chris Smith, who said of the measure:
‘Mr Speaker, every year under General Secretary Xi Jinping and his Chinese Communist Party, tens of thousands of young women and men – average age 28 – are murdered in cold blood to steal their internal organs for profit or to be transplanted into communist party cadres – members and leaders.
‘These crimes against humanity are unimaginably cruel and painful.
‘Between two and six internal organs per victim are extracted. It is murder masquerading as medicine.
‘Ethnic groups targeted included Uyghurs, who suffer from Xi Jinping’s ongoing genocide, and the Falun Gong, whose peaceful meditation and exercise practices and exceptional good health makes their organs highly desirable.’
This is the narrative of a horror film, and yet it is a real-world scenario carried out by the communist regime our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has gushed over meeting. He behaves as though shaking the hand of the CCP and climbing deeper into their economic sphere is a ‘good thing’ for Australia.
It is not.
Especially not at the expense of our US relationship.
Australian Senators may bicker over the finer details of international human rights, however, selling human beings into an organ-harvesting trade is universally condemned as an abomination against all moral and ethical standards.
‘In June of 1998 – 27 years ago – I chaired my first hearing on forced organ harvesting in China. A Chinese security officer testified that he and other security agents were executing patients with the doctors right there with ambulances ready to harvest their organs after the bullets were fired … at another hearing in 2022, we learned that some of the organs are stolen from victims who are still alive. One doctor testified how he had performed one such surgery on a victim of a botched execution and discovered, as he began cutting, that the victim was in a state of shock – not dead yet – and a live vivisection on a living human was being performed.’
If, as is claimed by our well-informed American counterparts, ‘state-sponsored forced organ harvesting is big business for Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party which shows absolutely no signs of abating’ – what responsibility do Australian politicians have to ensure the 1.4 million people of Chinese ancestry within Australia are safe from this trade?
Politicians are aware that CCP influence reaches into Australia, with the communist regime spying on migrants via a network of Chinese chat apps and peers. They exert pressure on Australians of Chinese ancestry by threatening members of their family who remain in China. It’s a level of control that endangers both migrants and the wider Australian population.
On July 14, Sky News Australia published comments warning that Beijing might be weaponising expatriates to ‘interfere in domestic elections’.
‘Senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Dr John Lee, said the People’s Republic of China had spent ‘enormous efforts’ influencing and interfering with Australian domestic politics to advance its interests.’
He added, ‘…it creates problematic structural problems for social cohesion in Australian society and politics.’
It was also recently published that Foreign Minister Penny Wong had been made aware of anonymous letters sent to Australians ‘offering a reward for information on the whereabouts of an Australian-based Hong Kong dissident’.
Ms Wong said, ‘The Australian government does not accept other governments interfering with our citizens, making anybody feel unsafe.’
Will Anthony Albanese bring this incident up with Xi Jinping on his trip?
Probably not.
Will he ask for the Port of Darwin to be peacefully returned to Australian hands?
He has already said that he will not.
Will he give Xi Jinping an earful over the live-fire exercises off our coast which disrupted commercial air traffic followed by a bit of casual circumnavigation of our borders?
Again, no, he will not.
Mr Albanese is a coward when it comes to diplomacy.
Socialist-leaning parties, such as Labor and the Greens, have a fascination with China’s dictatorial leadership. This leads them to turn a blind eye over repeated violations of international human rights laws and even the CCP’s utter disregard of environmental laws.
The CCP embodies everything these ‘humanitarian’ Australian political movements claim to be against. Their undying support and, in the case of the Prime Minister, diplomatic infatuation, remain a mystery to sensible people.
We cannot trust our international bureaucracies either. In 2021, the Office of the High Commissioner for the United Nations Human Rights said they were ‘alarmed’ by credible allegations of CCP organ harvesting.
Then, a few years later, the UN Human Rights Council elected China to serve its sixth term.
‘Diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ on an international level generally means ‘including’ ‘diverse’ approaches to morality, legality, and humanity.
This is far from the only dubious appointment by the UN. It’s time Australia asks whether we wish to have any part of this organisation as it collapses into a depraved quagmire of quasi-religious environmental propaganda, anti-capitalist dogma, and the empowerment of the world’s most ruthless and dangerous regimes while dragging nations such as Australia through the mud over trivial matters.
As an Australian Senator, I have many people come up to me at public events and ask for help.
Usually, they want me to combat the rise of brutal left-wing policy – a task that I’m dedicated to. They tell me heartbreaking stories about their lives that have been stolen by ill-conceived government directions and the general mismanagement of the Australian economy.
There are others, particularly migrants, who come to me wishing to raise awareness about the horrors of their homeland.
In particular, the hidden crimes of the Chinese Communist Party whose reach extends across our borders and into the Australian community.
For over 20 years, the world has been aware of the CCP’s disgusting underworld of human trafficking for black market organs.
However, because the CCP’s cheque book is vast, politicians have taken the money and sold the economic relationship back to the Australian people as a net benefit.
Since then, Australia has lost sovereignty over its manufacturing, energy, food, and communications network. Our natural beauty – beaches, oceans, forests, and farmland – are to be cut down and smothered with short-lived, CCP-built ‘renewable’ technology.
Cheap, substandard goods constructed with slave-like labour continues to out-compete our domestic retail landscape.
Is this the future we want for our children and their children?
Trade relationships have to be about more than just money.
They are about the future we create, the independence we hold, the stability of our civilisation, and the quality of our culture.
Pacific nations will no longer be able to come knocking at Australia’s door for assistance when a tariff from China can cripple our economy.
By sacrificing our economic independence to China, America will be the only entity policing freedom of navigation and trade routes in the Asia Pacific region.
And if Mr Albanese continues his antagonistic approach to America, we may no longer have that guarantee of safety either.
Murder masquerading as medicine by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Will Albanese question Xi Jinping about the CCP’s alleged human organ trade?
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Panda.jpg?fit=719%2C960&ssl=1960719Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-17 17:14:152025-07-17 17:14:22Murder Masquerading as Medicine
