Posts

Labor Trapped Young People

,

RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits

Labor’s ‘Big Australia’ mass migration project, designed to shore-up Albanese’s vote at the next election, has created a catastrophic housing shortage.

Everyone knows it.

Even if the media and self-interested uniparty choose to deny the facts.

Young people across the country know it too. They are the ones standing in rental lines behind 50 people who cannot speak English, trying to decipher rental signs written in a foreign language and clearly pitched to everyone except Aussie kids.

They feel upset. Betrayed. Left out. And ignored.

These Australians know they are competing against Labor’s migration agenda, not organic competition like their parents and grandparents faced. This is not, in any way, a ‘fair’ housing market.

When these young Australians decide to ditch the soul-crushing rental queue and take on the dream of home ownership that changed their parents’ lives – they discover an even worse situation.

The price of homes, including small city apartments in the areas they need to live to keep their jobs, are unattainable.

Some of this price increase is to do with greedy government fees and charges, while the rest is a consequence of too much demand from people who live outside the Australian economic cost-of-living crisis. Foreign buyers often have the means to push prices well above what they should be.

In Australia, house prices have advanced much faster than the average wage. Even those earning $100,000 per year – once considered a mark of success – feel that home ownership is financially impossible. These people are no longer considered to be ‘doing well’. They are struggling.

Not to mention that the average worker has a considerable amount of their wage taken as ‘super’ and given to union funds to play the stockmarket. This makes union super funds rich and pushes huge volumes of investment money into projects – usually in the green industry – that otherwise would never receive private funding. $4.5 trillion has been taken out of people’s pockets and locked away. This money remains untouchable until someone turns 65. 8-10% of Australians will die before they access their super (or 56% of Indigenous Australians). That money used to be used for home investment and there is good reason to believe that compulsory super is one of the contributing factors to a major drop in home ownership amongst the middle and working classes.

There are ways to immediately improve the housing situation – the most obvious being the deportation of visa overstayers and a severe cut to migration. This would immediately free up hundreds of thousands of properties for domestic buyers and renters.

That would benefit Australians and massively hurt the political class and their major financial backers.

Instead of doing the right thing, Chalmers & Co have designed a system to turn a profit from the hardship and desperation of young Australians.

In August of 2025, the Labor government introduced their 5% deposit scheme for first home buyers. There is also another version of this for single parents to buy a home with a 2% deposit.

Labor described this as ‘helping more Australians realise their dream of home ownership’ where the government (taxpayers) ‘guarantee a portion of a first home buy’s home loan with a lower deposit and not pay Lenders Mortgage Insurance’.

Their argument is this:

‘All first home buyers will have access, with no caps on places or incomes limits. Property price caps will also be set higher in line with the average house prices, providing access to a greater variety of homes.’

Predictably, this did not unlock more desirable homes – it created an almost immediate increase in home prices. Labor said it would be 0.6% over the medium term. Instead, it was 3.6% in the first quarter. The developers win. Ministers in Canberra with property portfolios win.

Finder says the average loan amount for first home buyers in December 2025 was $607,624. This is a huge sum of money. In 2015, you could expect a first homebuyer to take on $333,500. Westpac says first homebuyers are typically over 40. This shows you how much harder it is to get enough financial security to consider buying a home.

And while the ‘average wage’ is listed as $104,000, it’s suspected that this figure is skewed and the real average is probably closer to $88,000. After tax that’s around $69,000.

If you think this whole thing sounds like a bad idea, you’re right.

To translate it into economic reality, Labor is encouraging and actively changing the rules to allow young Australians to take on loans they cannot realistically afford (and would not be normally given) right when the RBA has warned it will continue to raise the cash rate – which it has done multiple times since the scheme began.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he did his degree in ‘Paul Keating’ – now he is in danger of re-creating Keating’s gravest mistake.

A person with a normal mortgage that they attained under strict rules is already suffering under the RBA rate rises. Individuals who took on a 95% mortgage are at a very serious risk of defaulting. It only takes a small rate rise on a sum of money this large to lead them into disaster.

An entire generation of vulnerable, trusting Australians have been led into imminent economic ruin by a government that thought 5% deposits were nothing more than a vote-buying game.

It isn’t a game.

It’s people’s lives.

People’s futures.

This isn’t about ‘votes for Labor’ for people who think the government is ‘gifting’ them a house, it’s about Australians watching their savings burn and homes taken off them in a time of economic uncertainty.

It’s rare to find a government that cares so little about young people – although we know exactly why they did it.

Mass migration is a vote buying operation for the Labor Party. They cannot give it up, even though home ownership is the leading election topic among their rising young demographic that is in danger of being taken by the Greens. Labor has made a wager on a short-term vote winner with no regard for the coming disaster.

Even the Daily Mail warned of an impending catastrophe after the latest RBA cash rate rise highlighted a significant rise in risky mortgages (4% of the total market!)

To quote:

‘While the banks are insulated by the government guarantee, which covers the first 15% of any losses from these loans, households are exposed. The banks are fine. The main risk falls on individuals.’

It’s widely expected war in Iran, and the high petrol prices and fuel insecurity that flow on from this scenario, will increase inflation and lead to even more rate rises in the near future.

Government debt – also known as Chalmers’ spending spree – is the main driver of inflation and the interest repayments on this blackhole are climbing every day.

When debt passes $1 trillion – which it is expected to do shortly – interest payments will cost $60 million per day or $41,667 every minute.

Every Australian – whether they are an infant or retired – owes $806.65 every year in just interest. And that’s if Chalmers stops spending right now. And to pay off the $1 trillion debt tomorrow, it would require every person to cough up $36,850.01.

If fuel prices increase (or fuel rationing starts), we can expect a catastrophic loss of businesses and, therefore, jobs. How many young people will lose their jobs and be unable to service these mortgages?

The uniparty doesn’t care. The government never loses.

It raises taxes. It tightens your belt so it can eat more money.

Remember, if you think the LNP are any better, they have their own reasons for supporting ‘Big Australia’. The Howard government marked the start of mass migration. All Coalition governments since have done nothing to change it and they never will.

One Nation are desperately worried about the future young people face.

We have a comprehensive policy to cut immigration by over 570,000 and to deport 75,000 migrants visa over-stayers, illegal workers, and unlawful non-residents who threaten our national security. We also have a housing policy to ensure unnecessary fees, charges, and taxes are cut to get homes built without destroying our green spaces or cultural heritage.

One Nation is here to make a genuine difference for you, not Canberra.

Labor TRAPPED young people by Senator Malcolm Roberts

RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits

Read on Substack

/1 Comment/by

Running on Empty

,

How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’

Despite decades of warnings, Australia has been exposed to an incredibly dangerous situation.

We have 20-ish days of fuel security, much of it hosted offshore, and all of it draining away as war escalates in the Middle East.

As for a backup plan? That doesn’t exist.

‘In a time of conflict, this government is running a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude.

‘There is no need to panic-buy petrol…’ insisted our reckless, over-spending Treasurer, Jim Chalmers.

Chalmers was simultaneously trying to blame the war in Iran for his dodgy budget accounting while pretending there’s ‘nothing to see here’ with the fuel situation.

Prime Minister Albanese’s Energy Minister, who has forgotten about carbon emissions, backed Chalmers’ comments, insisting that panic buying would ‘just make the situation worse’.

It’s impossible for Australian taxpayers to make the fuel situation ‘worse’ after successive Labor and Coalition Unitparty governments left us in a catastrophic position. We import 90% of our liquid fuel – this includes our requirements for domestic transport, industry, agriculture, and military defence.

To save money on storage, the vast majority of these imports come as ‘just-in-time’ deliveries.

Even the fuel we import from Asia is sourced largely from the Middle East – and we can expect China to lean heavily on this supply now that its import network is severely disrupted after what happened in Venezuela, Iran, and the wider Middle East.

Other nations are forced to rely on dicey international transit routes, and Australia has chosen to do the same. This is a monumental political failure.

Over 20 years, six of our eight refineries were closed or substantially wound down with ‘competition from Asia’ cited as the reason. Two of these critical refineries met their demise under the watch of the then-Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who now seeks to present himself as the salvation of conservatism.

At the time of ExxonMobil’s decision to close the Altona refinery (constructed in 1946), Angus Taylor said this ‘will not negatively impact Australian fuel stockholdings’.

This was simply wrong. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

Successive Coalition-Labor governments have sold Australia’s national security off to free up cash in the budget or because they could not be bothered to argue the case of national security when it mattered.

We still have minimum reserve supply rates, which are designed to buffer against natural disasters and temporary disruptions – they are not satisfactory for extended periods of global conflict nor do they make provisions for the fuel-guzzling behaviours of our geopolitical partners. This means that earlier war-gaming by the government, which insists Australia can buy its way out of a shortage, lack the real-world probability that nations will protect their own needs above our contractual arrangements.

It’s a cold, hard reality that if Australia were to be cut-off from its fuel deliveries, the wheels of our nation would fall off in early April.

A 2018 report commissioned by the government suggested Australia maintain domestic refinery capabilities. It did not foresee simultaneous disruption to Asian, Middle Eastern, and South American fuel markets. It did not foresee conflict zones and regime changes in Europe, the Middle East, and South America. It did not foresee the largest refinery in the Middle East going up in flames, or Iran deliberately targeting the entire energy structure of its neighbours. And it did not foresee the oil politics taking place between Russia, Ukraine, and neighbouring nations such as Hungary.

In other words, the government report failed to properly gauge future risk and assumed a world that no longer exists.

…even after US President Donald Trump gave everyone the hint with his, Drill, baby, drill! push to bolster domestic supply.

As the Maritime Union of Australia said earlier this week:

‘This is not a distant geopolitical drama, but a direct threat to Australian workers, families, and industries.

When a fifth of the world’s oil moves through a single maritime corridor and that corridor is shut by war, the consequences are immediate.’

It’s in this environment that our party leader, Pauline Hanson, put forward a proposal for an immediate inquiry into fuel security. To this we would also request full transparency on how long it would take and how much it would cost to construct domestic self-sufficiency in fuel refineries.

These are things we need to know.

And what did Labor and the Greens do?

They voted it down.

They put party politics ahead of Australia’s security and your future survival.

Their dislike of Pauline Hanson, who they wasted time censuring for a second time, overrode their responsibility to the people of this nation. This is the type of politicking that must end.

While we take fuel security seriously, there is evidence mounting that Labor and the Greens intend to use public panic as a means to prop-up their dying ‘Net Zero’ industry.

The Climate Catastrophism narrative has well and truly worn off, with most Australians – and nations around the world – realising that it was a scam designed to line the pockets of mining operations and foreign energy companies with public money. A lot of politicians found very rich private sector jobs after legislating in favour of all things ‘green’.

Now, ‘national security’ has become the next unquestionable buzz word that can be invoked by the Prime Minister, Treasurer, and his Energy Minister to justify another pivot toward decarbonisation.

The outrageous propaganda is already starting.

News.com.au ran a story at the beginning of March, Why your next car is a matter of Australia’s national security.

It was one of many pieces caught up in the ‘EV to save us from the Iran war’ frenzy.

If you wouldn’t drive an electric car for yourself, would you do it for your country? Conflict in Iran is a stark reminder: an EV is more than a personal choice – it’s a matter of national security. Choosing an EV makes you, me, and our wider community less reliant on fossil fuels.

The Australian Electric Vehicle Association also put out a press release: EVs have always been about fuel security. Really? I thought they were about ‘saving the world’?

AEVA argues that the full electrification of transport remains the single most effective strategy the nation can enact to improve fuel security.

Of course, there is no explanation as to how relying on communist China – which uses Middle Eastern oil to build EVs and Middle Eastern diesel to ship them to Australia – solves any of our problems.

Nor is there a reliable answer to the transport industry, which is incompatible with electric trucks. And there isn’t even a faint ‘nod’ to where China sources the materials for the construction of our renewable grid – those being volatile African nations which operate under a mixture of debt-trapping and despot corruption, abuses of human rights, and traversing regions of the world prone to terrorism and war.

Even if we were to replace our domestic fossil fuel energy grid with solar, wind, and batteries – there is nothing more vulnerable in a time of conflict than a giant solar industrial complex or thousands of kilometres of transmission lines running through undefended forests and open ocean.

Strategically, it’s madness.

In reality – it’s impossible.

Yet attempting to achieve this lunacy is a ‘national security’ narrative with which the Prime Minister and his mates will likely try to appease the Greens.

The Greens have come out in open defiance in recent weeks and their voters will see it as an ideological victory and anti-war protest. Their support will join huge corporations already gorging on taxpayer dollars and unions protecting Net Zero-inclined funds.

Money and opportunism are about to hijack public fear over the war to revive the Net Zero industry.

And it will do so at the expense of Australia’s national security.

One Nation believes this to be one of the most dangerous fake news narratives an Australian government has ever sold. A short-sighted, selfish political move that could leave Australia open to a very real logistic catastrophe.

We call on the entire Parliament to put fuel security at the top of the agenda, and to restore Australia’s energy grid to self-sufficient network as a matter of urgency.

One Nation will immediately buy whatever supplies we can obtain in the market, which the Albanese government is still not doing. Then we will work with fuel companies to get new oil refineries in Kurnell and upgrade the Lytton plant in Brisbane, and Geelong in Victoria.

We will immediately start construction on gas-to-fuel plants and legislate a domestic gas reservation so we have cheap Australian gas to convert to fuel. We will build the missing link in the national gas network – a pipeline to connect the East coast and West coast gas networks.

This violation of national security can never be allowed to happen again.

‘Running on empty’ by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’

Read on Substack

/by

Running on Empty

,

Successive Liberal and Labor governments have run Australia’s fuel reserves down to dangerously low levels. Both parties are following an agenda to promote electrification, pushing for the adoption of electric cars and trucks. The most effective way to achieve this is to force petrol shortages, thereby forcing the public to buy electric vehicles.

Over the last seven years, four reports have all called for Australia to restart domestic oil production, open more refineries, build more storage tanks and increase our domestic reserves. For four years, the “Uniparty” did nothing.

This week, as the war in Iran has frozen oil shipments, I asked Minister Ayres what his government was doing to keep the economy moving. His non-answers would be laughable if the subject weren’t so serious.

One Nation will increase domestic extraction, refining, and storage because, unlike this government, we aren’t stupid.

⭐ I also need to correct the record regarding a statement in this video. I asked what would happen in a few weeks when our largest refinery closes for maintenance for 10 days; the correct information is that the refinery will actually be closing for 10 WEEKS 😲

Transcript

Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Yesterday, I asked you to confirm that Australia was entering a period of oil supply disruption, with a mere 26 days of petrol in the system. Under International Energy Agency guidance, the minimum fuel reserve is 90 days, yet you responded that Australia has 150 per cent of its minimum requirement. Last year, the Albanese government quietly chose to ignore the International Energy Agency and instead decided to introduce its own minimum stockholding obligations, which it set at a mere 24 days—problem solved! Aside from 26 not being 150 per cent of 24, how can you justify ignoring International Energy Agency best practice and introducing a patently absurd and dangerous minimum stockholding obligation of only 24 days of petrol supply? Why are you entrenching energy insecurity and volatility for which Australians will pay? 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (14:40): I’ll start at the end of that question, and then I’ll try to deal with some of the substance of it. Energy insecurity in Australia is a consequence of what happened over the Morrison-Abbott-Turnbull catastrophe where four out of our six oil refineries closed. Despite what Mr Hastie says, when he turns to you for work, these things are not straightforward to rebuild. Four out of six closed, so, if you want to ask questions about energy insecurity, ask them how it is that they sat on their hands for so long. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: Point of order: I’m not asking the opposition; I’m asking the minister, and I want an answer. 

The PRESIDENT: I will direct the minister to your question. Minister Ayres? 

Senator AYRES: While I’m on the subject of the opposition and the current fuel security arrangements—we have larger reserves on hand today than there have been at any time over the last 15 years as a result of the action, not words, that this government has taken. When Mr Taylor was in charge of energy, sort of—it was unclear, as I think Mr Morrison was secretly also the minister at the same time—he was the worst energy minister in Australian history and did more to debauch and pull down our energy policy framework. His proposition was that Australia’s fuel reserves should be contained in Texas. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator Roberts: In the next few weeks, Brisbane’s Lytton fuel refinery is scheduled to close for 10 days maintenance. Lytton produces the majority of Australia’s domestic petrol, diesel and industrial gas. Ten days production taken out of the system at a time of supply shortage is a recipe for disaster. Why didn’t the Albanese government secure additional supply prior to Lytton closing to ensure fuel security in Australia? 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (14:43): In relation to the previous question, Texas in the United States—not Texas, Queensland—is where, supposedly, this character had our fuel. You say that there is a 10-day—I couldn’t be any more relevant. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: Point of order: I’m not asking about Texas. I’m asking about Lytton and securing additional fuel supplies to protect this country. 

The PRESIDENT: I was about to direct the minister to your question, but he went to the question himself. Minister Ayres? 

Senator AYRES: I did. Of course, these kinds of maintenance shutdowns occur from time to time. If there’s anything in relation to this particular shutdown that I can provide to you, I will. There are not six oil refineries. Four closed. Four closed when Senator Canavan, who’s very noisy about these issues in opposition, was as quiet as a mouse when the other side was in government. I think I’ve run out of time. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator Roberts: Of the 3,000 oil tankers that service Australia, we own just four, with a total capacity of approximately 1.8 million barrels every delivery cycle, which takes 30 days from Singapore and 40 days from South Korea, our major supply point. 1.8 million barrels is enough to last Australia six days. Minister, what’s your plan here? Will you beg other countries for some of their oil, force Australians to pay $3 a litre at the pumps, or use the petrol shortage to introduce more Labor communism control? 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (14:45): I’m not sure there’s an adjective big enough for that overreach in the English language. If you’re so critical of Mr Taylor’s performance as the Minister for Energy and the fact that our merchant fleet declined over that period, the fact that four out of our six oil refineries closed and the fact that 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure, why do you cuddle up to them so much? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I’m not asking about his uniparty mate, Mr Taylor. I’m asking about his own policy. What’s he going to do? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you’ve made the point of order. I will draw the minister to your question. 

Senator AYRES: I’ve answered the question. I make the point that, if you and the Nationals and the Liberals really want to get behind Mr Taylor, who was the worst energy minister in our history, who did more damage than any other person to Australia’s energy security and who did more, along with Senator Hume, to trash the economic record of the Liberal Party at the last election, be our guest. 

/3 Comments/by

Foreign Control on Australian Soil: A Big Fail

,

I asked Minister Wong about Labor’s failed promise to return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands.

Before the election, Anthony Albanese was happy to call foreign ownership of our ports a mistake. Now that he’s the PM, he has gone quiet.

When I pushed for a timeframe, Minister Wong couldn’t provide a date, nor a plan. All we got was more “we’re working on it.”

The PM didn’t even raise the Port during his recent trip to China! Is he too scared of retaliation from the Chinese Communist Party?

We have a foreign power (the CCP) controlling our most strategic northern port on a 99-year lease. This was a catastrophic mistake by the Coalition, yet Labor is proving they are too weak to fix it.

Australian assets must be held exclusively by Australians to ensure our national interests are protected.

It is time to put Australians ahead of Beijing’s feelings.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move to the port of Darwin. Minister, the Prime Minister said to the ABC, I think just before the election, but I’m not sure of the timing—he definitely said that the idea that any Australian port owned by foreign interests is not in the Australian national interest. Does that also apply to the lease of the port of Darwin—a catastrophic mistake made originally by the coalition?  

Ms Luchetti: The Prime Minister has said that the port of Darwin is working to get into Australian hands.  

Senator ROBERTS: He’s what?  

Senator Wong: The Prime Minister has publicly committed to return the port of Darwin to Australian hands.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it was not raised on his latest trip to China. As an electoral promise, the Prime Minister said that Labor would ensure the Australian strategic port of Darwin would return to Australian hands. When is he going to fulfil this promise, or is he too scared of the threat of Communist Party economic retaliation as threatened recently by the Chinese ambassador?  

Senator Wong: I’ll speak for the Australian government. I’ll leave others to publicise what other governments say. The Australian government’s position is that we will deliver on our commitment to return the port of Darwin to Australian hands, and we are working to deliver on that commitment.  

Senator ROBERTS: As Foreign minister, can you say why it wasn’t raised on this latest trip to China?  

Senator Wong: I might ask Ms Lawson to add if I miss anything, but, obviously, I would just make the point that the Port of Darwin is actually leased to another corporate entity.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chinese—controlled by the Communist Party. I know it wasn’t Labor to do the deal, but nonetheless we want Labor to undo the deal.  

Ms Lawson: The Prime Minister raised a range of issues in the national interest during his travel to China. We don’t go into the specifics of those conversations. He has said that the Port of Darwin will return to Australian hands, and that is what he has committed to do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a timeframe?  

Ms Lawson: I’m not able to give you a timeframe. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.  

Senator Wong: What I would say, Senator, is I think that China is well aware of our position on this.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are they doing anything with it?  

Senator Wong: I’m just saying China is well aware of our position.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/2 Comments/by

Stop the Boats’ Rental

,

Why on earth are we leasing Navy patrol boats from the National Australia Bank?

It’s a strange arrangement – handing over $63 million to one of the “Big Four” to rent vessels like the Cape Inscription.

When I asked for the logic behind this, or even the basic cost of the lease extensions, the answers were frustratingly thin. No one in the room could tell me what it would cost to buy these ships back, or even how much total taxpayer money has been paid to the NAB so far.

This feels like a stopgap measure that has turned into a more permanent, expensive one, and I intend to find out exactly who is profiting from it.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. Australian Defence vessels Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy were reportedly being leased from the National Australia Bank for three years from 2017 for $63 million. Why did the Defence Force ever lease a Navy ship from the NAB, one of Australia’s big four banks?  

Adm. Johnston: The Chief of Navy will come to the table. We will be able to explain it in the terms of what the circumstances were at the time, particularly a transition plan, as it was, to the offshore patrol vessels, and where we are now.  

Vice Adm. Hammond: As CDF just intimated, there was a patrol boat transition plan which involved Armidale class and enhanced Cape class and Arafura. At that time the intent was to transition to 12 Arafura class offshore patrol vessels. As we’ve gone through the Defence Strategic Review and then the surface combatant review, that plan has changed. The E-Cape has now become the program of record, for the Australian Defence Force and Border Force, for patrol boat capability. We had two Cape class patrol vessels that we were leasing as a stopgap capability. Now that the Evolved Cape class program is the program of record, that program has changed. The initial basis was around a decision between the cost of ownership for an outright purchase and a short-term lease arrangement, and that was negotiated by the Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group. I’ll throw to my colleague Rear Admiral Brad Smith for any further details.  

Rear Adm. Smith: Nothing further to add to that—other than that the program has been in place since 2017.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The lease on these Navy ships was reportedly extended in 2020 for two years. What was the cost of that two-year lease extension?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice and get back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no-one in the room who can answer that question?  

Rear Adm. Smith: Not at this time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the ships today—the Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy? Are they still on lease from the National Australia Bank?  

Rear Adm. Smith: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the agreed residual value of the two ships that NAB can purchase if the Navy ends the lease?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll also get that one back to you, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total amount that has been paid to NAB under these leases for both ships, Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the Australian Defence Force leasing patrol boats from a bank that made $7 billion in profit last year?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I think Chief of Navy answered that earlier, Senator.  

/1 Comment/by

Minister Dodges Accountability as Border Force Grapples with Safety Concerns

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired with Border Force officials about what was needed to ensure the safety of Australians.  True to form, Minister Watt attempted to shift blame onto the previous government. He mentioned measures like monitoring and curfews, but refused to accept responsibility for detainee-related crimes, and failed to offer a reasonable solution. 

When asked about the government’s legislation regarding the re-detention of dangerous detainees, departmental representatives explained that it was a high bar to meet before requests could be put before a court seeking an Order.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree, Mr Outram and Ms Holben, that it’s a difficult issue? It’s a challenging issue. You’ve got safety considerations. You’ve got legal considerations—all the things you mentioned a minute ago, Mr Outram. It’s not easy.

Mr Outram: Running borders is challenging.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is, and it’s a fundamental duty of the federal government to keep our borders secure. To make it clearer and easier for us and safer for people, what are your greatest issues? What are the core
issues that you need to have addressed by the government?

Mr Outram: That’s a very wide-ranging question. I could talk for a very long time. Our functions fall into three areas, I suppose. One is the customs function that we undertake, which is of course about collection of duty revenue, management of and administration of the Customs Act, and ensuring that prohibited goods don’t get brought across our border.

Senator ROBERTS: I mean in relation to keeping people safe in this country and keeping our border secure. What do you need on this issue that we have been talking about at length for hours now?

Mr Outram: Preventing prohibited goods from coming in across our border keeps our country safe. So I’d say—

Senator ROBERTS: On this issue—

Mr Outram: the management of cargo is a big area for us. We have, as I said in my opening statement, a 70 per cent projected increase in cargo over the next ten years.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I’m trying to help you on this issue, which is about the safety of the citizens of this country and about dealing with hardened criminals, murderers, rapists and domestic violence offenders. I’d like to know: what are your biggest cost components? You’ve talked about surveillance. You’ve talked about so many different measures that you’ve had to do—’unprecedented’. Senator Ghosh was getting at a good point. But what do you need from us or what do you need from the government to fix this?

Mr Outram: As I said earlier on, our budget is sitting at unprecedented levels. There’s a lot of work going on behind the scenes in relation to our civil maritime capabilities. We’re working very closely with Defence and looking at how we put those capabilities on a more sustainable footing going forwards into the future. That will be really important.

Senator ROBERTS: You said that you have to comply with the law. I’m pleased to hear you say that. You said that you’ve got to do it within the legal regime you’ve got. What legal regime would you prefer? What fine-
tuning would you need?

Mr Outram: That’s really a policy question.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what do these people need to solve this problem?

Senator Watt: What was the question?

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve talked about unprecedented cost levels and unprecedented risks. What do we need to solve the problem?

Senator Watt: Sorry, what is the problem that you’re talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: Safety of people, keeping these murderers and other criminals in the country at the moment—how do we get rid of them? How do we protect people’s safety?

Senator Watt: What the government has been trying to do is to keep the Australian people safe. That’s why there are a range of cases that have had their visas cancelled with a view to deportation. Those people have been kept in detention during that time. As a result of a High Court decision and other legal decisions, the government’s attempt to keep these people in detention or deport them has been overturned. What we’ve done is follow the law, comply with the law, which I would hope that you would agree is needed, but we do it in a way that maximises the safety of the Australian people by putting into place—

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve also got—

Senator Watt: Hang on, can I just finish—by putting into place an unprecedented system of protection with electronic monitoring and curfews. We just heard in response to those questions from Senator Ghosh that, in the time Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister, it would appear that dozens of murderers, sex offenders and other offenders were released from detention without a single skerrick of protection like what this government is putting in place. There was not one electronic bracelet nor one curfew, and yet Mr Dutton and his cohorts are out there claiming that this government is not protecting the Australian people when we’re doing more than Mr Dutton ever did as the minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Will Minister Giles rescind directive 99? Will he stop people claiming to be Aboriginal connected to overturn a deportation order, failing character tests? Will directive 99—

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I think the chair has been clear that we’ve dealt with direction 99.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Why has Labor not applied to redetain noncitizens who pose an unacceptable risk to the community in the last six months since Labor passed legislation specifically aimed at
doing just that? Why have you not redetained people?

Senator Watt: I think Ms Sharp addressed that prior to the lunch break, but she might be willing to give you a summarised version of that again.

Ms Sharp: Certainly, Senator. As I was saying prior to lunch, the Community Safety Order scheme is modelled on the High Risk Terrorist Offenders Scheme. Applications under it need to be made to the court and need to be accompanied by a very substantial set of evidence. The evidence needs to go to all information known to the Commonwealth for why the order should be granted, and also all information known to the Commonwealth for why the order should not be granted. That requires an extensive review of records held by government agencies across the Commonwealth, and the states and territories, followed by the receipt of expert evidence that looks at the risk profile of the individual. That expert evidence is gained through individual assessments, one-on-one with psychiatrists et cetera, to really form up whether we have a reasonable case to demonstrate to the court that the only way to protect the community from a high risk of the person committing a serious, violent or sexual offence is detention. It’s a very high legal bar to cross.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to the recent Palestinian refugees from Gaza given fast-track visas. Why were they given special treatment, where some visas were said to be given with only an hour of scrutiny and
processing? An hour?

Chair: Senator Roberts, officials will probably dispute the assumptions made in your question. I won’t put myself on the other side of the table, but we did have extensive questioning on that earlier—it does relate to
outcome 2 as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Given that 80 per cent of Palestinians support the inhuman terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza, how can these Palestinians be shown not to be a danger to Australians in such a short time?

Chair: Senator Roberts, that relates to outcome 2. Apart from being divisive language, it’s probably not an appropriate question in parliament—

Senator ROBERTS: Last question—when will Palestine be declared a country of concern so that high-risk applicants from Palestine are not able to be considered for a visa?

Senator Watt: I’m not actually even sure if that’s possible, given that Palestine is not a nation.

Senator ROBERTS: So you have to have a nation before you can—

Senator Watt: I don’t know, I’m guessing that’s the way it works, but officials might know better than me.

Senator Reynolds: Yes—

Senator Watt: I’m doing my best to assist the committee, Senator Reynolds!

Chair: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Chair: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Paterson.

/6 Comments/by

Labor’s Failures in Immigration and Security

,

The recent admission by Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O’Neil, that the Labor government has lost control of Australia’s borders is deeply troubling. A government’s primary responsibility is to ensure the security of its citizens and this revelation is a national disgrace.

It seems that the government has ceded control of our borders to the courts. The hasty release of dangerous criminals into the community following a High Court decision last year was a direct consequence of this failure to prepare.

Labor’s mismanagement is further underscored by the recent statistics from the ABS, revealing a record influx of 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals in January 2024 alone. This represents a 40% increase over the previous January record, placing immense strain on infrastructure and services.

This government’s actions that include reissuing visas to released detainees – murderers, rapists and child sex offenders – demonstrate a profound inability to govern effectively and responsibly. Labor has proven itself untrustworthy and incapable of fulfilling its duties to the Australian people.

Transcript

On immigration, this government is lost. Its failure to prepare for the anticipated High Court NZYQ decision last year enabled the rushed and ill-considered release of dangerous criminals from detention straight into the community. With no backup plan, Labor lurches from one disaster to another. Labor issued invalid visas to the released criminals. Labor charged at least 10 of those criminals for breaching visa conditions. Labor were forced to withdraw the charges because the visas were invalid. Labor then reissued new visas to all released detainees, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. It now appears that potentially another 150 criminal detainees will soon be released into the community without appropriate safeguards. Some detainees maintain that, if they do not cooperate with deportation processes, they cannot be deported and should be released into the community. 

The revelation from the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O’Neil, over the weekend that the Labor government has lost control of our borders is a national disgrace. A government’s principal role is to provide security for its citizens, and the minister’s admission is terrifying and absolutely damning. It appears that the government has relinquished to the courts the power over our borders. 

Most recently, two boatloads of illegal immigrants made it to our shores, getting past border security, making a mockery of national security. There was the rushed issue of visas to Palestinian refugees from Gaza, some visas taking only an hour or so to issue. What about the cancellation of the visas in transit, then the reissue of most of the visas? This is a hopelessly inept government trying to look good, not do good. ABS statistics for January reveal a staggering 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals. Accounting for departures, the net growth in permanent and long-term arrivals in January was 55,330, 40 per cent higher than the previous January record intake way back in 2009, putting enormous strain on infrastructure and services. This Labor government does not know how to govern. This Labor government cannot be trusted. 

/6 Comments/by

Asia Pacific Security Innovation Forum

I was invited to join this International Parliamentary Assembly Virtual Event for the Asia Pacific Security Innovation Forum, a non-partisan New Zealand think tank, formed in 2019. It aims to strengthen strategic partnerships and alliances in international relations.

The theme of this event was Traditional and Non-traditional Security Challenges: Lessons Learned.

I was impressed with another invited guest, Leighton Baker, a former political party leader with a trades background. His clear-thinking, clear-speaking, practical and sensible approach to the subject matter of national security was refreshing to hear.

More about the other speakers can be found here: https://www.apsisummit.com/speakers/

/by