The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill is yet another bill to fix yet another Labor-Liberal ‘uniparty’ immigration failure. It aims to fix the fallout from the High Court’s NZYQ decision, which enabled the release of serious criminal non-citizens into the community – murderers, armed robbers, paedophiles and even a contract killer.
This bill authorises deportation to Nauru—at a staggering cost of around $1M per person – and removes legal protections like natural justice for those being deported.
Tens of thousands of Australians marched nationwide to demand safer borders and an end to mass immigration. These protests weren’t about race or religion – they were about numbers, infrastructure strain and public safety. We want people who contribute to Australia’s society and economy, who assimilate into our way of life and help build national unity—not those that wish to divide the country.
Government’s job is simple: protect life, property, and freedom. Stop interfering—just keep Australians safe and free.
This march was just the beginning. It’s time to reclaim Australia.
Transcript
Here’s yet another bill to fix yet another Labor-Liberal ‘uniparty’ immigration failure. Australian lives are endangered as a result. This is one reason, just one of many, why people marched, in their tens of thousands—across Australia, from north to west to south—on Sunday. And then we have the Labor-Greens communist coalition smearing and denigrating everyday Australians for doing so.
The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 has come about as a result of the poor planning and forethought by the Labor government, and, previously to that, by the coalition when in government, allowing unregulated, unsuitable, dangerous immigrants into Australia without adequate screening as to suitability to enter Australia—murderers, armed robbers, paedophiles and a contract killer.
The current visa process, which has seen mass immigration into Australia of excessive, unsuitable migrants, is a clear policy failure by the Albanese Labor government. People have failed to be accepted as genuine refugees and been denied protection visas after multiple assessments, and the government has found that there are difficulties in deporting those people. We told them that. The coalition told them that. Many of these criminals have re-offended in the community—again, murderers, armed robbers, paedophiles and a contract killer.
Around 280 people—the criminals released as a result of the High Court decision in NZYQ—will be deported under these provisions at a rough cost of $1 million per head. That’s how much we’re supposed to be paying to Nauru. The Australian government has entered into a 30-year contract with the government of Nauru to accept deportees from Australia who are not allowed to remain in Australia. How about we don’t bring in these people in the first place and focus on prevention and protection of our country? It’s been speculated that about 1,000 people may be deported to Nauru over 30 years at a cost to Australia in excess of $1 billion. How about we don’t let in these people in the first place?
This bill is intended to fix this incredibly expensive mistake by the uni-party, which failed the Australian people by allowing criminals, rapists, murders and paedophiles to enter this country. They failed to properly check the criminal histories and cultural suitability of would-be immigrants to Australia. That’s what the people were on the streets about last Sunday, across Australia.
Australians are entitled to be safe from the activities of those who are criminals, the scum of society, who wish to bring their ideas of hate and acceptance of violence into our mostly safe Australian society. The Greens, whose behaviour and beliefs fall well short of acceptable standards, would welcome these poisonous people into our country. Australians want these criminal non-citizens gone. We demand that all immigrants have in-depth checks done as to their history and suitability to enter Australia. The existing processing system has failed us repeatedly. We have not been kept safe. We’ve been exposed to violent criminals.
What has the Albanese government done to date? It has lied to us about the number of unfiltered migrants entering Australia, with mass immigration continuing to occur. Last year’s estimates of net immigration were, in reality, exceeded by around 200,000 people. So the forecasted numbers were not only extraordinarily high; they were exceeded by 200,000. In previous years, the excess was 280,000. We have had more than half a million people coming into this country in net migration in years. What has Mr Albanese done? He promised that the next year they would be cut. They were increased. Then he promised again that they would be cut. They were increased.
The existence of this deportation option now means that, at last, there’s a real prospect of the removal from Australia of those released criminals, and it may allow the government to rearrest and detain those people released into the community after the decision in NZYQ. All this hinges on the contract with Nauru and the passing of legislation contained in this bill. It’s not enough, but it is welcome. I support this bill, which will go further in protecting innocent Australians from the failed immigration policies of the Albanese government and, historically, the coalition.
I want to go back to the protests to give people a voice in Australia. People are uneasy across Australia with mass immigration—not with migrants, but with mass immigration. The protests are not about religion, skin colour or past nationality. They’re about mass immigration. It’s about the numbers swamping our country, housing and homelessness. There’s record homelessness in my state of Queensland, from Cairns in the north to Coolangatta in the south. In every major provincial city in between there is record homelessness. It’s about swamping the infrastructure, traffic and services like education and hospitals. It’s also about mass immigration because mass immigration doesn’t adequately filter people. So it’s about the quality of people.
We want people who contribute to our society and our economy, who are productive from the moment their feet hit the shores of this country, not sending PBS drugs home or signing up for welfare. Most importantly of all, for the spirit of the country, the culture of the country, the cohesion of the country and the unity across the country, we want them to assimilate into Australia, not to change Australia but to be changed by Australia. We want people to fit into the country. That’s why we’ve got to stop this multicultural rubbish. Multiculturalism prevents assimilation. It ensures the past culture they’ve come from continues, and then we have a fractured country. I talked yesterday about this.
Government has three roles. That’s it. They are to protect life, protect property, protect freedom. Stay the hell out of people’s lives but give them a secure environment in which to live and a free environment. We need to restore Australia. Last Sunday was the first step in that. To people across the country, thank you so much for standing up. Thank you so much for reclaiming Australia. We want more. The Australian people need more.
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.
It’s “rumoured” the Labor government are planning to bring hundreds of thousands of Indian workers into Australia on top of the current mass migration crisis.
After days of coverage, this “rumour” has not confirmed nor denied.
Across Australia, construction companies are collapsing due to rising costs. The Treasurer must know that this massive construction plan will drive up the price of building materials even further because of demand.
The result?
More Australian businesses destroyed. More Australian jobs lost.
Transcript
Homelessness in my birthplace, India, is a national scandal. Close to two million people are living on the streets—children, women and the elderly—vulnerable to violence and disease.
Why would the government be discussing bringing hundreds of thousands of Indian labourers and tradesmen here to build one million new homes, financed with a United Arab Emirates loan? Is it a loan or will these be build to rent?
How about India borrows the $500 billion and builds housing in their country, getting their children, women and elderly off the streets? The Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal, told us about this plan and Indian mainstream media confirmed it. After days of coverage, this government has neither confirmed nor denied it. One would think that’s a concession. If you are not planning this, say so. If you are planning it, then admit it and answer our questions, starting with the fact that hundreds of thousands of Indian migrants have to sleep somewhere. Is that what the spare bedroom tax was for—billeting these new migrant workers? If not, then the first two years will be spent building homes for these imported workers who will, no doubt, never leave them. Where does that get us? Are these 200,000 workers on top of the 2.9 million new visa holders the government has let in since 2022 or are they extras?
It’s been four years now, and I understand that less than 10,000 of the 2.9 million you’ve let in are qualified construction workers. That’s 0.3 per cent building houses for the 99.7 per cent. Where are your plans to provide land, building inspectors and trade qualification checks to make sure these homes are built to standard? All over our country construction companies are going broke due to rising costs. The Treasurer must know that this massive construction plan will cause runaway demand inflation in building materials, forcing more of our builders to the wall. All you’ll do is destroy Australian companies and take jobs from Australians. Why do you hate our country?
Punished for prosperity, persecuted for productivity
Desperation has taken over the Treasury.
Jim Chalmers is staring down a trillion-dollar black hole which is threatening to consume the bedrock of Labor’s leadership strategy – soft-core socialism.
Thanks to poor choices, reckless spending, self-indulgent policy, and attempts to buy voter loyalty with last-minute election promises – the wealth of Australia has been spent.
There’s nothing left.
It’s all gone.
Government addiction to public money has become a threat to the savings of sensible Australians who did everything right.
And that’s not all.
Barely three years into Albanese’s ‘era’ as Prime Minister, the government hasn’t only run out of other people’s money – it’s run out of other people’s homes.
With 1,544 migrants coming into the country every day, Australians are being squeezed out of the housing market by deliberate government policy designed to cook the Treasury books with migration numbers – fabricating economic growth to disguise a financial crisis.
Wrecking the housing market is cruel and it’s leading to equally cruel policy thought-bubbles designed to kick innocent, hard-working people out of their family homes to ‘make way’ for new arrivals.
Introducing … the ‘Bedroom Tax’.
Essentially, instead of being entitled to the property you worked hard to earn – the government thinks you’re entitled to the living space it deems appropriate for your family size. If you’re single – get into that shoebox! It’s one step from a coffin.
Without any attempt to disguise the motivation of this tax behind ‘productivity’ or ‘environmental concerns’, this particular potential tax is expressly designed to pressure people financially into abandoning their homes.
And this time, it’s not solely directed at conservative-leaning retirees ‘downsizing’. This tax comes after struggling young Aussies trying to start a family or work from home.
If you have what the government perceives as ‘extra’ bedrooms, those will be taxed.
The government knows this is a cost-of-living crisis and that any tax will tip a renter or owner over the edge. The point is to weaponise poverty against living space.
It doesn’t matter if that room is an office, a bedroom for relatives, or a room set aside for a future child. The government wants that space right now.
Let me preface this by saying that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Australians be forced to bargain for the rooms in their home. Private property is exactly that. Private. Australians are under no obligation to justify the space they have chosen to live in. It is not the Treasurer’s business how many rooms a person has or what those rooms contain.
If you find yourself negotiating over bedrooms – you have come to live under a communist dictatorship.
One Nation will never, ever, accept this sort of infringement into the living space of people who should be commended for doing everything possible to carve out a comfortable life for themselves and their families. This is the first-world, after all. Or it used to be.
Nor should anyone feel guilty for having room to breathe.
That is an aspiration.
It is an achievement.
Not a sin.
The Bedroom Tax is an outrageous and toxic proposition, which is why the Labor government have not floated it directly.
Using the cover of the ‘Productivity Roundtable’ (a tax-spawning Petri dish of ‘industry leaders’), various university academics and ‘economists’ have come out of the woodwork to publish their tax wish lists in the media.
It is common practice for a weak government to allow these entities in the press to do the bulk of the dirty work when it comes to introducing new taxes. They let the bad ideas float around and normalise until the outrage dies down into discussion. Which is where the danger starts. Discussion quickly becomes a negotiation and, if not stopped early, the government picks up these ideas – claims they have ‘community support’ – and then implements them without having to own-up to their creation.
That is not good enough.
Socialism by stealth is not a productive future for Australia.
Which is why I confronted the Senate this week seeking answers on the topic of the Bedroom Tax.
If, as some have claimed, this is ‘just a conspiracy theory’ – why did the Labor government refuse to rule out a Bedroom Tax?
Surely that would be straightforward…
It is not difficult to say the words, ‘We will not tax your spare bedrooms.’
Easy? No. What we saw in the Senate was a masterclass of avoidance where Senator Gallagher ‘uh’d’ and ‘um’d’ her way through replies that did everything except reject the tax.
I asked the Senator if the government would ‘force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty – a tax – if they don’t’ and added:
‘Why did the Roundtable even consider this monstrous idea and will the Labor Party rule it?’
Senator Gallagher replied:
‘Thank you – uh – President, I thank Senator Roberts – uh – for the question. Uh – there was a pretty wide discussion on – uh – tax in Australia’s tax system. I did not attend all of those sessions – uh – and I was not at a session where that was raised – uh – Senator Roberts – uh – there was discussion around housing as you would expect and – um – you know, different views being put around the table – uh – I think that – the – what I – what I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was there was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient – uh – there were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation – um – and there were also discussions – uh – around intergenerational equity – about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you’ve raised was not raised with me … it’s not something the government has worked on.’
No, perhaps not, but taxing bedrooms is something that was headlining the media discussion during the Roundtable with serious intent.
Too many times, ideas hatched by university economists mysteriously find their way into government policy – particularly when we have the Treasurer grasping at straws, brainstorming all manner of tax (including tax on imaginary profits).
Why won’t Labor rule the Bedroom Tax out?
Is it already scrawled in the margin notes of the Treasurer’s Budget?
Has it been discussed?
Would Labor consider it?
‘No plans’ does not mean ‘no’.
As we have learned from Albanese declaring ‘no change to super’ – ‘no plans’ means ‘probably’.
My question to the Senator has been viewed over 150,000 times and of the thousands of replies I have received, the overwhelming response to Ms Gallagher is, ‘She didn’t answer the question.’
Rarely have I seen a tax instill more fury in voters – particularly young voters.
Private property is the last outpost of sanity we have in a nation swiftly falling into the arms of socialism. Labor has created a high-taxing, over-spending, open-borders, anti-productivity, unfair and over-crowded reality that Australians barely recognise from the paradise of 30 years ago.
Our homes are the nests into which we raise the next generation. We should not live in fear that a spare corner could bankrupt the family.
Labor MUST go on the record ruling out the Bedroom Tax or we will be forced to conclude that Jim Chalmers is keeping it in reserve if he cannot squeeze enough out of people’s retirement funds.
Labor’s socialist bedroom tax by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Punished for prosperity, persecuted for productivity
Last week at the Productivity Roundtable, a concerning proposal was floated—one that would force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters, under threat of a financial penalty (tax) if they refused. I asked the Minister why such a monstrous idea was even being entertained and pressed her on whether the government would rule it out to give our elderly peace of mind that they won’t be forced to share their family homes.
In response, Senator Gallagher claimed she wasn’t present at any session where that idea was raised and said it’s not something the government is working on. She acknowledged that tax reform and housing were discussed “broadly”, yet denied that specific proposals like this—or death tax or land tax on the family home—were part of any formal outcomes.
I asked whether these proposals were designed to push everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for large, co-located families among new arrivals—who, according to Labor-aligned researcher Kos Samaras, tend to vote Labor. Senator Gallagher refused to rule this out.
Transcript
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, relating to taxation proposals debated at last week’s productivity roundtable. The proposal was to force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty—a tax—if they don’t. Why did the roundtable even consider this monstrous idea, and will you now rule the idea out so our elderly can have peace of mind they won’t have strangers forced into their family homes?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. There was a pretty wide discussion on tax and Australia’s tax system. I did not attend all of the sessions and I was not at a session where that was raised. There was discussion around housing, as you would expect, and different views were being put around the table.
What I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient. There were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation, and there were discussions around intergenerational equity—about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you’ve raised were not raised with me by any roundtable participant, and I was not at a session where they were raised as something that people were seeking. It’s not something the government has worked on.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Additionally, the roundtable debated a death tax on the family home and a land tax on the value of the property. Are these mutually exclusive taxes, or will this government be introducing all three?
Senator GALLAGHER: Again, in the sessions that I was a participant at, that was not raised. I think the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were clear in the lead-up to the roundtable that there are no plans to change the taxation of owner occupied homes, and I have not been part of any discussions around that. Part of the discussion that was had was much more high level around how the tax system is working, how complicated it can be and whether or not the system is fair and working in the interest of every generation in this country. There were mixed views about that. But there were certainly no outcomes that went anywhere near what you have been asking about today. The tax reforms we will be doing are the ones we took to the election around standard deductions and income tax.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
All three of these new proposals will force everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for the large families and family co-location evident amongst new arrivals. Labor Party aligned researcher Kos Samaras has shown that these new arrivals vote heavily for Labor. Minister, why are you forcing Australians out of their homes to make way for Labor-voting new arrivals, and where are Australians supposed to go?
Senator GALLAGHER: There was a lot in that. I hope that I have answered your concerns around some of the ideas you say. They were not outcomes. In fact, in the sessions I was at, they were not raised. I don’t know anything about that. In relation to housing more generally, we are trying to build more housing. That is part of what we’ve been doing in this place and will continue to do, and, indeed, the announcement by the Prime Minister and the housing minister today was about how we ensure that owning your own home isn’t out of reach for generations of Australians and how we build more supply. In that respect, I hope that answers the second part. In terms of migration numbers, they’re outlined in the budget papers.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GFREg8txmnQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-25 17:03:042025-09-04 22:47:17Rent Out Your Spare Room or Pay the Price?
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.
22 year olds today are going to be caught up in Labor’s new super tax supported by the greens.
Inflation means eventually almost everyone will be paying the doubled tax rate and unrealised gains tax means the government wants to come after money you haven’t even earned yet.
Index the threshold, abolish taxes on unrealized gains or better yet, throw out the whole bill and start again.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/22YrOld.jpg?fit=625%2C863&ssl=1863625Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-05-15 16:15:282025-05-15 16:20:28A Shock New Tax on YOUNG People
Assistant Trade Minister Tim Ayres has been caught in a heated stoush with Sky News host Laura Jayes over the ongoing national energy debate.
Despite having been in power for the past three years, the Albanese government refuses to discuss its renewable energy plans.
Instead the government is insistent on just tackling Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal, running a “scare campaign” against the proven clean source of power.
Minister Ayres repeatedly refused to discuss the cost of the Albanese government’s energy plans during an interview with Sky News on Monday. Asked by Laura Jayes if he could tell voters the total system costs of Labor’s energy plans, Minister Ayres did not give an answer. “I’m very glad you raised it. You don’t make electricity prices and energy prices lower for Australian industry and households by making them higher,” Minister Ayres said.
Laura pressed Minister Ayres on the fact his government had failed to bring down energy prices by $275 per year as promised at the last election – “Here we are three years later, and you still can’t have any upfront conversation with any minister in your government about why that has happened,” she said. Rather than respond to the criticism or discuss any of the government’s energy plans heading into the upcoming election, Minister Ayres changed the subject. “Peter Dutton’s nuclear reactor plan will make electricity $1,200 more expensive from day one,” he said.
The @SkyNewsAust host said it was “pretty telling” that when she attempted to discuss Labor’s energy plans, all Mr Ayres wanted to do was talk about the opposition. “This is what really annoys people though,” she said. “That (voters are) told that the other guys – who haven’t been in power for three years – it’s all their fault and you’re not willing to take any responsibility.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has still failed to address the fact his government failed to deliver on its promise to reduce power bills by $275.
While he has blamed international pressures, such as the Ukraine War, the election promise was repeated even after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
Mr Ayres told Laura Jayes to “focus on the facts” after she raised the $275 promise. “I am focussed on the facts. Where’s the $275?” she responded. But the Labor minister again pivoted back to the opposition. “Every day that we’re about to have a hot day. Peter Dutton and poor old Angus Taylor and Ted O’Brien … are out there predicting that the power is going to go off,” he said. “And it doesn’t go off.”
The NSW government was forced to ask residents to reduce their power usage during a mild heatwave in November 2024.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) struggled to avoid blackouts and requested factories shut down to reduce power demands.
AEMO was forced to issue a “lack of reserve” notice due to insufficient power supply, exacerbated by breakdowns in several coal-fired plants.
Minister Ayres claimed the blackouts were “inevitably” because of storm damage or coal plant failures but not because of renewables.
During the recent heatwave, renewables were unable to back up the coal-fired plant breakdowns because solar production came off at 3 pm when people return home to use energy at home.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/tKObksunXx4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-06 14:19:002025-02-06 15:43:50Labor Pressed on Cost of Renewables Plan
After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research, we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). For example, a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.
In this session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked Mr Furlong, General Manager of FWC, how many applications for regulated Labour Hire Agreements were currently under the Commission’s consideration. He stated that 55 applications had been submitted, with 11 Orders made—9 in the mining industry and 2 in the meat processing industry.
I then asked a series of questions about the relationships between Awards, Regulated Labour Hire Agreements, and Enterprise Agreements. Mr Furlong confirmed that, under the Labor government’s recent legislation, it’s standard for casual workers performing the same job as full-time workers under a Regulated Labour Hire Agreement to receive an additional 25% in pay as compensation for entitlements they do not receive. Mr Furlong agreed to look into which Awards would have applied in the absence of Labour Hire Agreement Orders and provide that information on notice.
I’ve raised this issue at every senate estimates hearing since late 2019 and finally the Fair Work Commission and Minister seem to be taking this issue seriously. Until recently, bureaucrats and Ministers have been in denial of what has been happening right under their noses and that raises questions of integrity.
Australia’s largest wage theft case has been possible only with the participation of the relevant union bosses in the CFMEU/MEU, labour-hire firms, mine owners and the FWC’s approval.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m interested in exploring the nature of labour hire arrangements and their relationship with associated awards, and also partly the CFMEU administrator. What’s the total number of labour hire arrangements currently before the commission to date?
Mr Furlong: I might start here and then ask Ms Scarlett to assist. My understanding is that to 30 September we’ve received 55 applications for regulated labour hire authorisation orders. And of that—
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘regulated’?
Mr Furlong: Of that number?
Senator ROBERTS: No, what does the term ‘regulated’ refer to?
Mr Furlong: That’s the term—
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Come before you guys’?
Mr Furlong: given under the loopholes mark 1 changes. In terms of the number of orders that have been made, there are 11. Nine of them, I understand, are in the mining industry and two are in the meat-processing industry. Ms Scarlett, is there anything you’d like to add?
Senator ROBERTS: That number was how many?
Ms Scarlett: It was 55. As Mr Furlong has said, 11 labour hire arrangement orders have been issued since the commencement of the provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of orders?
Ms Scarlett: Regulated labour hire arrangement orders. Of the 55 applications, 11 orders have been made, a number of applications have been withdrawn and the remaining matters remain before the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the breakdown of these labour hire arrangement orders for each award that would otherwise have covered the employees? You might have to take that on notice.
Ms Scarlett: Yes. I’m not sure that we can go to the award. The regulated labour hire arrangement orders apply where there is a covered employment instrument such as an enterprise agreement in place. So it’s not necessarily an assessment of the award which applies, rather whether an enterprise agreement is in place that would cover the work of the labour hire employees if they were working in the business.
Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement would be in an industry or work site that is covered by an award, but the enterprise agreement supersedes the award; is that right?
Ms Scarlett: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So would there be any such sites that only have an enterprise agreement and no back-up award?
Ms Scarlett: I don’t believe there would be, but I’d need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know the connection to the award, or to the award that would be in place if the enterprise agreement wasn’t there?
Ms Scarlett: I understand.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice whether there would be a general expectation that anyone working as a casual should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Ms Scarlett: The regulated labour hire arrangement order provisions provide for a 25 per cent casual loading for regulated labour hire employees.
Senator ROBERTS: Casuals.
Ms Scarlett: Casuals.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice if there is specific legislation, regulation or policy that requires that a casual employee should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? I know that it’s a community expectation and it’s a right almost, but is it enshrined in law, statute or policy?
Ms Scarlett: I’m not aware of a specific provision in legislation that requires a 25 per cent loading.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to check that?
Ms Scarlett: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ll take on notice to check it? It is fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? Can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: I can’t point to an award, but I’ll happily take it on notice. There are 155 modern awards, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, so I’d like to know if that’s normal.
Mr Furlong: Can I clarify the question so we make sure that we provide you with the information that you require?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. Is it fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? That’s the first part.
Mr Furlong: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The second part is: can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: We’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong. In applying the better off overall test, the BOOT, to enterprise agreement applications, would it be the normal expectation of the Fair Work Commission, having regard to pay rates of casual workers, that casual employees should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: I will ask Mr Corcoran to assist you, Senator.
Mr Corcoran: Each application is considered on its own merits by the member. They take into account the circumstances in their entirety. It’s not a line-by-line assessment that the member will make; the better off overall test is a global assessment.
Senator ROBERTS: A global assessment. If an award did not allow for casual employment, would this create the circumstance in which casual employees working under enterprise agreements subject to the set award would be paid less than full-time employees and/or be paid a rate that would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent?
Mr Corcoran: A casual employee wouldn’t be paid less than a full-time employee, I wouldn’t have thought, in normal circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: A casual employee would be paid less than a full-time—
Mr Corcoran: I thought they would not have been paid less.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. And they’d be paid full time plus 25 per cent?
Mr Furlong: With some of these questions, I return to the correspondence I provided you on 11 January this year regarding information published on your website but also relating to the better off overall test and the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015. I’m not too sure if you still have access to that correspondence.
Senator ROBERTS: I do. It’s sitting on my desk—with an intent to reply.
Mr Furlong: This series of questions has been covered in that correspondence. I’m happy to table it, if that would assist.
Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s fine; I know exactly where it is on my desk. Can you envisage a circumstance in which, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed several times, the better off overall test, as Mr Corcoran said, is a global assessment to ensure the employees are better off overall. It is always determined by a member of the commission. Members, as you’re aware, are independent statutory office holders who are required to ensure that, in their decisions, they are satisfying the obligation, functions and prescribed content of the enterprise agreements before they can be satisfied and then ultimately approve the decision to make the agreement operational. If a party to that agreement or someone who has a valid interest in that agreement is unsatisfied, is concerned with that agreement application, they can seek to have the agreement overturned through the mechanism of an appeal; that is their right. The other thing I’d like to add here—
Senator ROBERTS: Just on the answer to that question: would the commission ignore the objections in assessing the enterprise agreement? Would the commission ignore the objections of the union as part of that? I’m not talking about passing it and then objecting to it; I’m talking about objecting as they’re processing it.
Mr Furlong: Prior to the application being made?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Furlong: It would be the subject of deliberation of a member before the tribunal.
Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, though, wouldn’t it?
Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of our members and their independent decision-making.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever seen a member overturn a union objection?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed, my role is to provide administrative support to the president of the commission to ensure—
Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, wouldn’t it?
Mr Furlong: I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Alright. I cut you off there.
Mr Furlong: I was just going to say that if an agreement has reached or passed its normal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can seek to have the agreement unilaterally terminated. They will then fall back to the underpinning award—or they can have the right to negotiate a new enterprise agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the extra detail; it goes outside what I’m looking for. In the process of getting approval for an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would hardly ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections.
Mr Furlong: It’s a case-by-case basis, on the information provided to the members in the consideration of whether or not—
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the likelihood? Have you heard of any?
Mr Furlong: As I said, it’s not my role to comment on cases determined by members of the commission. It’s my responsibility to provide the president with administrative support, as the general manager, to ensure the commission can operate effectively.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you for your opinion.
Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on cases that come before the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to. I’m not asking for your opinion on the member making the decision. I’m asking: would it happen, and has it happened?
Mr Furlong: I don’t have any oversight of particular cases that move through the tribunal side of the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: Would anyone else care to comment? It seems to me to be almost impossible; I won’t say it is impossible!
Mr Corcoran: I would say a member would always consider the views of the parties, but ultimately the member must be satisfied that the requirements of the act have been met.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have some questions for the minister; I think most of them will be pretty simple, Minister. I table this letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia; it’s the letter that was sent to the CFMEU administrator, copied to you, me and Senator Cash. I think these questions will be fairly simple, given your background, Minister. Why is the CFMEU administrator not here at Senate estimates?
Senator Watt: They’re not a public official. I think pretty much every person who attends estimates is either a minister or a public servant. The administrator is not a public servant. There are probably other reasons but that would be one of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Who pays his salary?
Senator Watt: He’s being paid by the CFMEU in the same way that officials of the union have traditionally been paid.
Senator ROBERTS: That explains that. What responsibilities does the CFMEU administrator have with or to the Fair Work Commission? I imagine he’d have to deal with them a fair bit.
Senator Watt: Mr Furlong might be better placed.
Mr Furlong: Under the registered organisations act, I am the regulator of registered organisations.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re overseeing it?
Mr Furlong: I oversee all the registered organisations, employer and employee alike.
Senator ROBERTS: Could the CFMEU administrator authorise payment of the underpaid miners from the CFMEU mining division using CFMEU funds?
Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of the administrator. I don’t think you were here for this section of my evidence: the administrator operates independent of government. He will make decisions on behalf of the union as he sees fit.
Senator ROBERTS: Can he investigate wage theft from casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley?
Mr Furlong: In representing the interests of his members, he can look into the underpayments. It’s a core function of trade unions to do that.
Senator Watt: Noting that the administrator is the administrator of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. To use the colloquial, his members are members of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, not, for example, members of the maritime division and certainly not people who are now members of the Mining and Energy Union. His only responsibility is for the Construction and General Division, and its members.
Senator ROBERTS: The government said it needed the parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality, didn’t it—amongst other things?
Senator Watt: I might look back at what we said. We had a debate this morning about it. It’s not possible for me to go into the intention of the administration because of the High Court litigation. I’m sure you can look back at what was said in the second reading speech.
Senator ROBERTS: That was my impression, so correct me if I’m wrong. Now, management of this is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. You said it would be a matter of immense public importance.
Senator Watt: I think there has been a lot of public interest in this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes—so wouldn’t it be better to have him subject to parliamentary scrutiny and Senate estimates?
Senator Watt: I’m looking around at our lawyers. I might get Ms Godden, the departmental chief counsel, back up, if that’s okay. I know departmental people don’t normally appear at the table for this. Senator Roberts, I don’t know if you were here this morning but we had a discussion about issues that we could answer questions on and issues that we couldn’t because they might involve the High Court case. I don’t want to say anything which will interfere with that, and I know you don’t want me to either. Could you ask the question again, so I can get some advice on whether I can answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is the government said it needed parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with the alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality. Now the oversight of the CFMEU administrator is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and yet it was said to be a matter of immense public importance.
Senator Watt: I have no doubt it’s a matter of great public interest. I was saying before to Senator Payman that either the legislation or the scheme of administration requires the administrator to provide a report to me every six months, which I’m required to table in the parliament, so there is a form of parliamentary accountability through that. That was considered to be the appropriate amount of reporting for a role that is completely independent of government.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I know you’ve been very patient during the day, but this is—
Senator ROBERTS: Given a report in the media on 12 April this year—I mentioned this in a speech in the Senate, but there was no answer to it—is the real reason for the CFMEU being placed in administration to stop John Setka taking over Labor in Victoria, as he reported? And why wouldn’t constituents be suspicious of the arrangement?
Senator Watt: As I said in response to an earlier question, I’d really like to be able to answer that question but it’s probably not wise that I do given the High Court litigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Senator Watt: But I’m told you might want to have a look at paragraph 11 of the revised explanatory memorandum, which provides some reasoning for the legislation.
