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
Sunday stirred something deep in the soul of this nation. It terrified the establishment because it woke the people—and when the people wake, the government should tremble.
Senator Hanson’s motion to protect our national flag was clear and powerful, rooted in unity and pride. Yet Labor and the Greens twisted it, replacing it with a feel-good statement that confuses our national identity. We have one national flag. One. Their amendment is disgraceful distortion – just another attempt to silence the voice of the people.
Australia is dying—not because of the people, but because of the government’s betrayal. It’s time to restore our nation, reclaim our spirit, and remind Canberra that the Constitution belongs to the people. The government serves us—not the other way around.
— March for Australia | 31 August 2025
Transcript
Sunday changed Australia. It stirred the people. The people are waking because Australia is dying. We can feel it. It’s dying at the hands of Labor and the Greens. Sunday terrified you—it absolutely terrified you—because the people woke up. Sunday changed the whole nation. What you have done now is change the whole motion. I will read Senator Hanson’s motion:
The need for the Senate to take immediate action to make it an offence to wilfully burn or desecrate the Australian National Flag.
That has been changed under bastardry by the Labor and Greens parties to:
The need for the Senate to recognise that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views and today is home to the oldest continuous culture on the planet—
we agree with that—
and to people from more than 300 ancestries. The Australian National Flag, and the other national flags, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags, represent our shared values and our rich history and any actions to desecrate these flags should be condemned.
Rubbish! We have one national flag. I will tell you what Google says about the Aboriginal flag—’It was proclaimed as an official flag of Australia but is not the primary national flag.’ It is not a national flag. You don’t even know that. That’s disgraceful. You don’t even know. You said ‘the other national flags’. How is the Aboriginal flag a national flag when it doesn’t cover the whole of the country, when it doesn’t cover the Torres Strait Islands? How is the Torres Strait Islander flag—good people in the Torres Strait; Aboriginals are fine people—a national flag when the flag of the Torres Strait Islands does not cover the whole of the country? These are not national flags. I cannot support this Labor-Greens bastardisation of an amendment.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, I would ask you to withdraw that.
Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw. Look at what they’ve done to Senator Pauline Hanson. They jailed her, they denigrated her, they infiltrated her party and destroyed it in 1988 and now they are gagging her and changing her motions. Why? For the simple sin of saying what she thinks and saying what the people think. She says what the people think, and you guys do not get that. You just don’t get it. She has the spirit of Australia in her heart. She has the spirit of Australia right through every cell of her body. That is what the Australian flag is. It has the spirit of this country, and the spirit is the most important thing of any entity, whether it be a football club, a business, a church, or a country. The spirit is important, and you are killing the spirit of this country. Australia is dying. We need to restore Australia and, instead, of looking at the scarcity that you are inviting on everyone here and the fearmongering and the division, what we need to do is dwell on the abundance. It starts with the government.
Remember this one thing: the people are in the charge of our Constitution, not the government. The government serves the people; the people do not serve the government.
UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, doesn’t know Anthony Albanese particularly well. It was clear from the outset, despite their embraces on stage.
Opening his Renew Britain speech, Starmer confused the room by saying the Australian Labor Party won ‘a landslide victory earlier this Summer’.
The fact-check: Albanese attracted one of the lowest primary votes in recorded history during an Autumn election.
‘A key part is standing up to the divisive politics of the Right…’
Starmer’s complaint about division loosely translates as ‘anything that divides public opinion from government policy’.
Leaders frightened of public opinion are redefining debate as divisive. If the ghost of Churchill so-much as side-eyes Starmer, he wraps himself in the Online Safety Act like an infant dragging its blanket around.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-01-100329.jpg?fit=824%2C736&ssl=1736824Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-01 10:26:592025-10-01 10:27:02What are they Plotting this Time?
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?
