Posts

Labor’s Tax Take Is Hitting Home

Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher – why does your government refuse to support indexation of tax brackets. High inflation under Labor has completely negated past adjustments, leaving Australians no better off than they were in 2022 and paying 17.7% of the average wage in tax. Any upcoming pay rises will only trigger bracket creep and make workers worse off.

Minister Gallagher avoided the issue of bracket creep indexation and instead accused One Nation and I of voting against various government cost-of-living measures, housing investments and tax cuts. The Minister claimed the government is addressing bracket creep over time through various tax cuts and offsets, while pointing to investments in Medicare and cheaper medicines.

Since 2022, real wages have gone backwards by 2.2%. With underlying inflation running at 3.6% (now 3.5%), any national wage increases fail to make up for ground lost under Labor, leaving workers perpetually playing catch-up. I asked if she would accept that the only true way to restore workers’ incomes is to cut taxes.

Labor is now raking in more tax revenue than when they came to power, rising from 29.7% to 30.2% of GDP, fuelled heavily by corporate profits. Tax bracket creep is tightening its grip and increasing the fuel excise is hurting families.

Why is Labor turning their back on workers?

Once again, Minister Gallagher dodged the issue about total tax take and corporate profits, joking about the political relevance of the Liberals instead.

And then claimed the government works tirelessly 24/7 to ease household pressures, which is delusional given all the data showing workers are going backwards under this government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Last week, I moved an amendment that would have introduced indexation of tax brackets to protect against bracket creep, which is where inflation-driven pay rises push workers into the higher tax bracket and they wind up paying more tax on their pay packet. While this government adjusted tax brackets several years ago, the high inflation under your government has since negated the benefit. Australians are now no better off than they were in 2022, paying 17.7 per cent of the average wage in tax. The pay rises coming through next week will be the start of bracket creep, making people worse off than in 2022. Minister, why won’t this government support indexation of tax brackets? Are you happy to see workers paying more tax than when you came to power? 

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the minister, I remind the chamber that Senator Roberts has the right to ask his questions in silence. 

Senator GALLAGHER (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. Senator Roberts, you and your party last week voted against tax cuts for working people. I would be more generous if your voting record didn’t show you consistently voted against working people. You voted against penalty rates reform. You voted against energy bill relief. You voted against housing investment, against programs like Help to Buy that are actually helping low-income Australians into housing. The reality of the way the right-wing parties vote and then the concerns they raise—the disconnect between the concerns they raise in question time and the way they vote is astounding. You voted against tax cuts just last week. From memory, you voted against the stage 3 tax cuts as well, where we ensured— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. 

Senator Bragg interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Bragg, I’ve called order about four times. That does include you. Now either listen in silence or I’ll invite you to leave the chamber. Minister, please continue. 

Senator GALLAGHER: Every time we have sought to provide tax relief in this chamber, One Nation and the conservative right-wing parties in Australia voted against it. 

We are absolutely enthusiastic about cutting bracket creep. I have heard the Treasurer say this a number of times about returning bracket creep: we’ll do it when we can, in a responsible way and we can afford to do so. We’re cutting taxes five times in three different ways. We’ve got the tax cuts starting on Wednesday. We’ve got another tax cut starting 1 July the year after. We’ve got our instant tax deduction. We have the tax cuts that came on in 2024. We have the working Australians tax offset. These are all ways that we are making the tax system work better for working Australians. In addition to that, we’ve got all our investments in Medicare and cheaper medicines that we continue to roll out to help people with cost-of-living pressures. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Since 2022, real wages have gone backwards 2.2 per cent. With underlying inflation running at 3.6 per cent, and rising, next week’s national wage increase will not make up for what workers have lost since Labor came to power. Workers are forever playing catch-up, never getting ahead. Minister, will you accept the only way to properly restore workers incomes is to cut taxes and put more money back in people’s pockets? 

Senator GALLAGHER: That’s exactly what the government are doing. We are cutting taxes to put more money in people’s pockets. We are supporting wage increases, and have done so consistently since coming to government. Real wage outcomes are growing and they have had a three in front of them, for the first time in a decade, since we came to government, because we on this side of the chamber understand how important wage increases every year are to make sure you can balance the household budget. 

Now, inflation is higher than we would like—we can see that in the budget papers—and wages haven’t grown as fast as we would like. That’s why we have been so supportive of the annual wage claims and why we’ve consistently done everything we can, including in aged care and early education and care, to give those workers the pay rises that they deserve—something that had been ignored for the decade before we came to government. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: This government is raking in more tax than when you came to power, from 29.7 per cent of GDP to 30.2 per cent, with tax on increased corporate profits in the lead. As tax bracket creep cuts in, from 1 July workers will be getting taxed more. Today you’re increasing the fuel excise, which will hurt everyday Australians, particularly families. Minister, why did Labor turn your backs on workers to become the party of big business, and was this a cunning plan to make the Liberals look irrelevant? 

Senator GALLAGHER: They don’t need any help in looking irrelevant right now, Senator Roberts. Even if we were wanting to help them, they’re doing a pretty good job on their own. In relation to fuel excise, we did have a temporary relaxing of or halving of the fuel excise to help when the conflict in the Middle East had such a significant impact on petrol prices. That has come down quite a bit, but we think it is sensible to continue it at a lower level for a shorter period of time to help households adjust. At the same time, we continue to roll out all our cost-of-living help, whether it be tax cuts, whether it be our tripling of the bulk-billing rate or our lowering of the price of medicines. All of these areas are targeted to make sure that people can deal with some of those household pressures that we know they have to manage. What they know is that this government works 24 hours a day, seven days a week to work through all of the ways that we can help households with those cost-of-living pressures, and we will continue to do so. 

/0 Comments/by

Feeding the Illicit Trade

,

Cheap illicit tobacco keeps smoking rates alive – and the Health Department confirmed it.

They admitted that illicit cigarettes are cheaper because they avoid excise, and that cheap cigarettes encourage people to smoke.

When criminals flood the market with excise-free cigarettes, people keep smoking. It’s that simple.

Yet the government refuses to reduce the tobacco excise, clinging to the claim that high prices are the key to lowering smoking rates.

Make that make sense.

Transcript

CHAIR: Thank you very much. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. We are all agreed that smoking is very, very harmful to human health. Let’s put that aside. We are not agreed that the low price that people face when it comes to buying tobacco illicitly is overwhelmingly attractive to people. We know of policemen and policewomen and public servants who are buying illicit tobacco. The barriers to entry are very small. How much do you allocate to the quit smoking campaign? Isn’t it true that in recent years the decline in smoking rates has stopped and it’s been flat in Australia? It’s continuing to decline in other countries but it is flat in Australia.  

Ms Clancy: Thank you for your question, Senator. I will take the second part first, if I may, and then come back to the first part. Smoking prevalence has trended downwards over three decades, with some occasional flattening or plateaus as we go. Recent studies have shown that this decline continues. Our highest quality data is brought out every three years. At the moment, our most recent is 2022 data. One in 10 adults, 10.6 per cent, were current daily smokers. That is a steady decline from 22.4 per cent in 2001. More recent national representative estimates support this trend. In 2022-23, 8.3 per cent of people aged 14 and over smoked daily. In 2023, approximately one in 10, 10.8 per cent of representative adults, were current daily smokers in the HILDA study, which is a slightly different cut or set of data. The next high-quality data release will be at the end of this year, which will look at 2025 rates. We are very much anticipating those rates and will use those to tweak our policy settings as necessary. There are also a number of other data sources we use in the intervening years that tend to show that we’re still on a downward trajectory, although we are concerned. Our job is to be concerned about smoking rates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I agree with you that the data shows that, over decades, smoking rates did decline. But the data I’ve seen shows a graph that clearly shows that in the last few years it has been flat, whereas in other countries it has continued declining. How much is budgeted for the quit smoking campaign? How much has been paid?  

Ms Brown: I don’t have the expenditure amounts here. The government has committed, since 2023-24, $78.7 million over a four-year period. That’s invested in the Give up for Good smoking, vaping and tobacco public health campaigns. That’s at the Commonwealth level. As I mentioned in relation to other measures, there are also campaigns implemented through the states and territories to varying levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the total spending around about half a billion dollars over four years, the total projected spending? 

Ms Brown: On the campaign, no, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: On all the campaigns.  

Ms Brown: I am not sure that the Commonwealth has the total figure of investment in all campaigns across all states and territories. The federal government has committed $78.7 million over four years, since 2023-24.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you agree that the low price of cigarettes through the illicit tobacco industry makes it attractive to smoke?  

Ms Clancy: We know that price is a determinant of whether people smoke and how much they smoke.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the driver of the cheap price of illicit tobacco the fact that it is illicit tobacco and is not paying excess?  

Ms Clancy: Sorry; can you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the driver of low priced illicit tobacco the fact that it is escaping paying any excise, so we have very low priced cigarettes illicitly?  

Ms Clancy: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Ms Clancy: Criminals are bringing tobacco into the country without paying the excise they should pay and therefore their products are cheaper.  

Senator ROBERTS: We have got, as Senator Colbeck tried to establish, a low-price cigarette/tobacco industry; it’s illicit but it’s still there.  

Ms Clancy: Yes, illicit tobacco is available and it is evading the excise.  

Senator ROBERTS: It makes it very attractive to smoke because the price is low. This is an issue for the department of health in terms of preventing people smoking, because it is encouraging people to smoke because of illicit tobacco.  

Ms Clancy: Cheap cigarettes do encourage people to smoke. We, along with all of our partner agencies in the Commonwealth and the states and territories, are looking at a range of measures—some of which you’ve heard about this morning and in previous hearings—to tackle the illicit market and reduce their ability to sell in this country.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. These questions are for the ATO. The revenue decrease has been around about three-quarters of the revenue it was a few years ago, which is a big impact on the ATO revenue and a big impact on the people. Could you walk us all through the process of how the excise rate is set and particularly what is the minister’s role? Do you consult the department of health?  

Ms Hawkins: Thank you for the question. As I mentioned earlier, the excise rate is legislated through government. A change would be a policy issue for Treasury. That is set and then the ATO’s role is to administer it. It’s important to recognise, though, that it’s been illegal to grow or manufacture tobacco in Australia without a licence. There are no current licences. What that means is that all tobacco sold in Australia that’s legal is imported. As such, there is actually no excise collected on domestic tobacco. The Department of Home Affairs is responsible for the administration of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act, from which customs duty is applied to imported tobacco at rates which are equivalent to excise duty. It is a policy issue. It is legislated through government and it is not a rate that is determined by the ATO.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that clarification. That’s understood. Could you tell me what consultation is asked of the ATO? Do you provide advice in that process? What is your role in the process of developing the excise rate? You don’t have responsibility for it. I accept that’s the government and the Treasury. But how do you get involved in that? Do you get involved in it? Are you concerned about losing $12 billion in tax revenue?  

Ms Hawkins: The ATO are involved in that discussion, when it comes to Treasury, in providing any input that they seek from us, but we do not have direct control over what that rate is set at. We are always open to providing information, as requested, and being part of discussions where we can provide intelligence or information that would be useful in the process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What advice have you given over the last four years?  

Ms Hawkins: There was a question which I took on notice previously which was asking about whether the ATO was in direct discussions with regard to where the excise rate landed. I said I would take that on notice because I am not privy to, at that point in time, exactly what discussion we would have contributed to. I am more than happy to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you specifically mention in the answer on notice the advice that the ATO has given to the government. I understand that the government sets the excise rate. Could you give us the advice you’ve given to the government?  

Ms Hawkins: I am happy to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

13 Months Later, Labor Finally Listened

,

I first announced our policy to cut fuel excise back in February 2025, repeating it in March 2025 as part of our promise to deliver $40 billion into people’s pockets. Senator Hanson and I have consistently championed this measure, including early in 2026 following rising Middle East tensions.

After 13 months of One Nation patiently explaining why cutting fuel taxes would stimulate the economy and boost productivity without driving inflation, the Albanese government finally adopted our policy, even copying our slogan about putting money back into people’s pockets.

While our policy isn’t to remove the GST on fuel entirely, halving the excise automatically reduces the GST applied on top of it, chipping away at an immoral tax-on-a-tax that both major parties have long supported.

One Nation was the first to call for fuel security, supply stability, and excise relief long before the major parties even thought of it.

They called us extremists.

Yet we were right all along and we are proud to see that our vision finally delivered some relief to everyday Australians.

— March | Senate Speech

Senator Roberts: All these bills are coming before the parliament this week to solve the fuel crisis, when the real solution would be to solve the government crisis. Reducing the excise on fuel was part of One Nation’s 2025 federal election campaign. 

The Acting Deputy President (Senator Scarr): Excuse me, Senator Roberts—can you maybe just be a little bit lower in terms of the sound? It’s— 

Senator Roberts: I’m already pretty short! 

The Acting Deputy President (Senator Scarr): Thank you for your good humour. 

Senator Roberts: I first announced this One Nation policy on 11 February 2025 in a Senate adjournment debate. The policy was repeated in my adjournment speech on 25 March 2025 as part of our election promise to cut $13 billion worth of excises to put more money back into the pockets of everyday Australians. Not only have the Labor Party stolen the policy; they’ve stolen the slogan about putting more money back in people’s pockets. 

My talking point is similar to one I’ve heard today. It’s this: the ACCC monitor fuel prices daily, and I’m confident the reduction will be passed on to consumers. Fuel is an input cost right across the economy. Lowering fuel prices lowers commuting costs for consumers and transport costs across the economy, including for groceries, saving consumers and industry $8 billion a year. The policy was a hit and helped to start the orange tidal wave, the orange movement. 

Senator Hanson spoke to One Nation’s policy to reduce the fuel excise in her senator’s statement on 5 March 2026. In a statement on fuel prices and security amid Middle East tensions, Senator Hanson said: 

“The government collects 51.6c per litre in fuel excise. One Nation was elected on a policy to halve that tax, cutting 26c a litre immediately, with compensation for any truckies and farmers losing rebates. The Morrison government took our advice in 2022 for six months—”

They took our advice— 

“but didn’t look after truckies and farmers. It’s time for the Albanese government to do the same and deliver cheaper fuel for Australians in 2026.”

On 2 March, I raised the fuel crisis two days after the jets flew from Israel into Iran. On 12 March, I spoke on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 and called for the excise to be halved. This week, Senator Hanson called for the fuel excise to be removed and for the road user tax on trucks to be suspended for three months. One Nation, One Nation, One Nation, One Nation. Our policy is not to remove the GST on fuel, though reducing the excise 52c a litre will reduce the GST by 5c and end this immoral tax on a tax that both you parties support. 

So, here we are. After 13 months of One Nation patiently explaining to the ideologues on my left why reducing the fuel tax will help everyday Australians and stimulate the economy, finally, lo and behold, One Nation policy is now government policy. As I explained a minute ago, it’s not inflationary. It increases productivity. I did hear Senator Waters describe this bill as ‘rushed’. The bill is rushed. The idea of fuel duty relief, though, is not. 

It was amusing to listen to the Liberal Party and the National Party take credit for the idea. I went back and looked to see when the Liberals first started talking about cutting the excise on petrol and diesel. It was on 26 March 2026, last week, after four weeks. Yet, somehow, the Libs claim it was the Liberals who forced the Albanese government to introduce an excise cut. Nonsense. This is the second time today the Liberals have dispensed with the truth. Senator Cash’s speech on the cash ban regulations was factually false. It misrepresented the truth, and we will explain to the people of Farrer how the Liberals and the Nationals sold out the bush. Today, the uniparty was on display for everyone to see. Look at them down there. The Labor, Liberal and National uniparty were defending their big mates in big banking—their big donors in big banking. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026 implements a 50 per cent cut in petrol and diesel duty and suspends the road user charge. One Nation will support this sensible measure to reduce the cost of petrol by 31c for everyday Australians and 32.5c for the trucking industry. This will keep the trucks moving, putting food on the shelves at the supermarket, stock in the shops, medical supplies in hospitals and dentists and ensuring the economy doesn’t melt down entirely as a result of the war in Iran. 

I remind people that One Nation were the first to raise the fuel supply, fuel security and price volatility issues. We were the second, we were the third, we were the fourth, and we were the fifth, before the Nationals and the Liberals even dreamt of it. They’re playing catch-up. We are having crisis after crisis, and you lot over there in the government accused us of being far-right-wing extremists. We are correct, we are right, and we hit the target before you even dreamt of it.

/by

One Nation vs Labor: Putting Money Back in Your Pocket

,

The Labor government introduced legislation to increase the petrol and diesel excise by 16 cents a litre. When combined with GST (a tax on a tax) and retailer margins, everyday Australians will face an extra 32 cents per litre at the pump. This is money going straight into Treasury to fund Labor’s wasteful spending.

This tax hike hits those who can least afford it. While large corporations can pass these costs on to consumers, small and medium businesses lack market power and must absorb the hit directly from their profits. For everyday families, commuting, running errands and simple drives will all become more expensive.

Contrary to claims, reducing the fuel excise is not inflationary. It directly lowers fuel prices, which immediately reduces CPI inflation.

Furthermore, because fuel is a core input across the whole economy (farmers, tradespeople and freight operators), lowering fuel costs relieves inflationary pressure across all goods and services.

When One Nation proposed cutting the fuel excise by 50% and freezing indexation, it was dismissed. Yet, when the government temporarily adopted our measure, it proved to be a resounding success for living costs and inflation. That is why One Nation is calling on the government to freeze the fuel excise and cancel all indexation increases until June 2028.

While Labor is raising taxes to fund its reckless spending, a One Nation government would put a line through these wasteful projects.

We would:

➡️ Terminate all Net Zero spending, including associated departments, grants, and subsidies.

➡️ End funding to the “Aboriginal industry”, replacing it with direct grants to local councils for housing, infrastructure, and community support.

➡️ Scrap Snowy Hydro 2.0, saving taxpayers from a financial sinkhole that could reach $100 billion.

➡️ Cancel the $3.8 billion federal allocation for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop, an insane project projected to cost $216 billion that serves to line the pockets of union bosses.

The Albanese government must stop overtaxing Australians to funnel money to renewables, union mates, and left-wing causes.

One Nation will put money back in your pocket, starting with a freeze on the fuel excise until 2028.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: This week the government is introducing legislation to make a 16c a litre increase to the excise levied on petrol and diesel. When including the GST, which is levied on top of the fuel tax—it’s a tax on a tax—and then adding retailer margins, this will cause petrol to go up around 20c a litre before the weekend. Every litre, 20c—kerching into the Treasury for Labor to waste. This is occurring just when small business and everyday Australians are recovering from the high petrol prices caused as a direct result of the war in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Make no mistake, this is a tax on those who cannot afford it. Large corporations can simply pass this rise on to their customers—meaning you’ll be paying more. Small and medium businesses can’t do that. They have no market power. They are price takers. This tax rise will come straight out of what is left of their profit. Everyday Australians will find their drive to work will be more expensive, as will running around after the children. Even a simple day out, just getting in the car and going out for a drive, will be more expensive. 

I know when One Nation promised a 50 per cent reduction in the fuel excise at the last election, the commentariat called that ‘inflationary’. Then the government copied our policy and suddenly it’s no longer inflationary! Which is correct? It’s not inflationary. Reducing the fuel excise reduces the petrol price, which is directly trapped in the CPI—the consumer price index—calculation. Lower fuel prices means lower inflation. 

There is a second-round effect as well. Fuel is an input cost right through the economy, from the farmer running a cool room or ploughing a field, to the local tradesman, to the truckie who delivers everything we buy. When fuel goes up, everything goes up. When fuel goes down, inflationary pressure is taken out of the economy. Reducing the fuel excise will reduce inflation. It’s that simple. It’s proven. This is why One Nation promised, at the last election, to reduce the fuel excise by 50 per cent and suspend indexation for 12 months, with a review after that. 

Well, the government borrowing our policy for a few months has provided the review we needed to know that the policy is a winner. Everyday Australians have enjoyed the lower cost of living. Inflationary pressures were taken out of the economy for a short time. This is why One Nation are calling on the government to not increase the fuel excise until June 2028, including cancelling all indexation increases, and then review it after the next election, which any incoming government would do anyway. Give hardworking Australians and small businesses two more years of respite from the Albanese government’s high—stubbornly high—inflation. 

Why do the government need to put this tax up? Because they’re wasting our money again, that’s why! This budget included measures that One Nation would have put the red line through. I’ve already spoken about our policy promising to remove all net zero spending, including the department itself, loans, grants and associated boondoggles. We’ve already announced all spending on the Aboriginal industry will be terminated. Instead, One Nation will give grants directly to local government to build the homes and roads and provide maintenance and support to Aboriginal communities. 

We’ve already announced that Snowy Hydro 2.0 will be terminated and taxpayers saved from a financial disaster which may reach $1 trillion for capital costs, interest, maintenance and subsidies for the tiny amount of electricity the project will generate in the period the construction loans are being paid back. The budget set aside $3.8 billion for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has put the cost of this project at $216 billion over a 50-year finance cycle. This is an insane project. Even Victorians don’t want it. It’s there to put money into the pockets of corrupt union bosses and assorted underworld figures, as 60 Minutes clearly showed last night. One Nation would terminate that project. 

We will have more policy announcements in the months ahead. For today’s debate, let me say this: the Albanese government needs to stop overtaxing everyday Australians so it can funnel money to its mates in the unions, to the renewable solar and wind industry, academia and other costly lefty nonsense causes—spending that does not benefit everyday Australians and certainly benefits the Labor Party’s election campaign funds. Labor is making life harder during a severe cost-of-living crisis. One Nation will put more money back in people’s pockets, starting with a freeze on fuel excises until 2028. 

/3 Comments/by

The Illicit Tobacco Market Must Be Wiped Out

,

During the February Estimates hearings, I pressed the government and the Illicit Tobacco Commissioner on the ineffectiveness of their strategy to combat the illicit tobacco market.

Tobacco excise revenue is projected to fall to just $1.9 billion by 2029-30, far below the $16 billion-plus previously collected. A clear sign the government does not expect its enforcement efforts to meaningfully reduce the black market.

The Commissioner’s own report lists 10 drivers of illicit tobacco yet fails to directly acknowledge that high excise and the resulting price gap are major contributors, despite everyday Australians, including police officers, confirming this reality.

Independent data from Roy Morgan shows smoking rates have increased from 16.8% to 17.1% following recent excise hikes, contradicting the government’s claim that higher taxes reduce smoking. Without knowing the true size of the black market, boasting about a 34% increase in seizures of illicit product is meaningless. We cannot measure success when you don’t know the scale of the problem.

The government continues to act without reliable data, ignores evidence that contradicts its assumptions, and refuses to confront the policy settings driving the illicit tobacco growth.

This is a failure that Australians should not be forced to tolerate. It’s costing taxpayers billions in lost revenue.

One Nation will take drastic action until the illicit market is wiped out, then return duty to a much lower, more sensible and sustainable rate.

— February | Senate Estimates

Trancript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the Commissioner for Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarettes. My question on notice No. 15 remains unanswered from last estimates. It read: How many acts of violence were committed in Australia that were directly related to illegal tobacco and vapes? I’m talking about murders, fire bombings, assaults and similar acts or threats of violence. I did get a part answer in that the question was best answered by law enforcement, which I assume would include various state and federal agencies. Your role, as you expressed it to me in last estimates is, ‘activities that support intergovernmental governance functions and support reporting on the size and consequence of the illicit market’. Doesn’t consequence include acts of violence related to the illicit industry and criminals associated with that?  

Ms Shuhyta: We had looked at how to report on those statistics. At the moment, there isn’t a consistent way that we can report on the exact number of criminal activities related to illicit tobacco across states and territories. There are different datasets and definitions. For example, an arson might be coded or recorded as an arson but not necessarily if it is illicit tobacco related. It’s very hard for me to pull together the data from across Australia on those specific activity levels. We are continuing to work with states and territories in terms of what might be realistic there. We’re working with criminal intelligence agencies and AFP to look at the best way we can report as we move forward. The metrics that I have in the report to parliament this year are based on the data available to us. As we move forward over the years, we will definitely be looking at how we can mature that data and make it more sophisticated and comprehensive.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for admitting that you don’t know the consequences. I suggest listening to some people in the street. Secondly, the loss of tobacco excise revenue is stunning. In 2019-20, excise brought in $16.3 billion. In 2024-25, tax revenue had fallen to $7.8 billion, or about half, with a projection for 2025-26 of $5.5 billion, or one-third of what it was just five years ago. Minister, when will you accept that the Laffer curve applies to tobacco excise and the higher the tax rate the less revenue is received, especially with cheap illicit tobacco competing. I’m talking to police in Queensland who go to illicit tobacco to get cheaper cigarettes.  

Senator Watt: We certainly agree that illicit tobacco is a very serious problem and the connection to organised crime. That’s why we’ve devoted so many more resources to tackling illicit tobacco. I’m sure the commissioner and others could talk to you about the operations they’ve undertaken. In fact, I don’t know if you were here when the commissioner gave his opening statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was.  

Senator Watt: He talked about the success of those operations in terms of the seizures that have been achieved.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, his people have seized plenty of material, but we don’t know the total size and it could be a tiny proportion, which is what this is. 

Senator Watt: The commissioner might be able to give you some information about that. I’m not sure. On the excise, I understand why many people would like to see us reduce the excise. The government’s view is that we shouldn’t be giving in to organised crime. We should actually take them on and we should arrest them. We should confiscate the illegal tobacco. We know that tobacco kills thousands of Australians every single year. We know that higher prices for tobacco puts people off smoking, and that’s a good thing for their health. It’s a good thing for the health budget that we all pay for.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s why they buy it cheaper, Minister.  

Senator Watt: I’m aware of that. That’s why we are so determined to break the organised crime rings that are behind illegal tobacco.  

Senator ROBERTS: But, Minister, you’re not confident because you forecast, yet again, another reduction in revenue from tax. Page 8 of the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner Report 2024-25 lists 10 factors behind the growth in the illicit market. Not one of those mentions the high level of tobacco excise. Commissioner, do you really believe the high price of legal cigarettes is not driving demand for illicit tobacco? Not even 10th out of 10?  

Ms Shuhyta: Just a correction—excise is listed on that page. In terms of a number of drivers for the illicit market, price differential is listed as one of those drivers. Within price differential, there is a number of aspects. One is that the cost of illicit tobacco is pushed down because of cheap supply costs and an overabundance in the region of illicit tobacco—  

Senator ROBERTS: And lack of excise.  

Ms Shuhyta: And then excise and tobacco company profitability actually pushes up regulated tobacco. You’ve got those two things at play. Excise isn’t the be-all and end-all driver of the illicit market. We see different excise rates around the world in different countries that don’t correlate with the size of the illicit market. In fact, in some countries with the cheapest tobacco there are sizeable illicit markets. Or within the same country that has a standard excise rate, you’ll get different market shares of illicit tobacco in different cities. For me, it’s not as simple as advising government that excise is the solution.  

Senator ROBERTS: Talking to people in the street, including policemen who use illicit tobacco, it’s certainly very significant. On page 9, Commissioner, you’re claiming success because the amount of illicit product being seized has increased by 34 per cent. Do you accept making a claim of success when you don’t know how much the black market has grown is pointless? If you don’t know the total size of the black market and no-one has any idea—I’ve asked before—you don’t know whether you’re having success or you’re failing. Looking at the criminal activities and the adoption of illicit tobacco widely, it looks like you’re failing.  

Ms Shuhyta: I’m going to try to answer the question that is in there. We do have an estimate of the size of the illicit market. This report does estimate the size of the illicit market. It’s the first time that we’ve been able to do so. I think at the last estimates I wasn’t able to give you that size because the report hadn’t been finalised and tabled, but it is there now.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I find it troubling that the budget projection for tobacco excise in forward estimates only shows revenue of $6.9 billion in 2028-29. That suggests you do not expect the commissioner to make a dent in the illegal trade. Shouldn’t that figure be closer to the $16 billion or more we used to get? Isn’t that an admission of failure or of ignorance?  

Senator Watt: We’re absolutely not giving up in the fight against illegal tobacco. Again, I’m sure—  

Senator ROBERTS: You said you are.  

Senator Watt: I don’t think you should insult the efforts of the Border Force personnel.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was a clever switch, Minister, but I’m not doing that. They’re doing a good job.  

Senator Watt: You’ve just said it’s a failure. They’re the people who are on the front line, taking on organised crime.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your failure to control illicit tobacco?  

Senator Watt: You and I are sitting in this room. We have Border Force personnel out there on the front line taking on the organised crime elements behind illegal tobacco, and we are absolutely determined to keep that up.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the report makes a statement on page 19 that reducing the tobacco excise will increase smoking rates and undo the gains made to date, which you said earlier. In July 2025, Roy Morgan showed recent excise increases on top of the normal CPI increase had caused an increase in smoking rates from 16.8 per cent to 17.1 per cent. The graph I’ve seen confirms that. Yet you are saying the opposite. The National Tobacco Strategy added large excise increases in September 2023, ’24 and ’25. Can you show any data that these massive increases have reduced smoking rates? I suggest that the opposite is true, and that’s what the data shows. 

Senator Watt: The trouble with—  

Senator ROBERTS: Criminals don’t ask for ID.  

Senator Watt: No, I’m aware of that. They’re very bad people who deserve to be locked up, which is what we’re trying to do. Your question about smoking rates is probably one you should take up in the Health estimates. That’s not the work of this department. The work of this department is going after organised crime. We’d appreciate your support in that effort.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got my support. That’s why I’m talking about this and that’s why I’ve been raising it for a couple of years now. Decades of shoddy governance show that our biggest problem is governments acting without data, going without data and contradicting the data in so many areas.  

Senator Watt: I’ll let that pass. 

/by

Productivity is Prosperity

,
… government greed for other people’s money is our biggest threat.

Productivity and prosperity – these are two concepts intimately linked and yet wrongly separated thanks to the over-taxing demands of Treasury.

Productivity is not about taxation.

Taxation is a reward taken by the Treasury from productivity in the private sector.

This has led some ministers to view tax revenue as the chief goal of productivity instead of a reflection of economic success – a catastrophic error that speaks to the financial illiteracy plaguing the Labor government.

The recent Budget saw Labor propose raising taxes on the few remaining productive sectors of the economy. These represent the small corners of investment occupied with people trying to make ends meet in an increasingly unfair system. The result has been … predictable. A flat, weakening investment sector and stagnating housing markets.

Panic has spread. Money has retreated. Productivity has taken a hit it could not afford.

It was only last week that the Treasurer had to be told that his new Capital Gains Taxes threatened future productivity within the business sector and the investment market.

Think about it. When doubling taxes on risky investment returns, the government misses out on the taxes it could have collected when investors transition into home ownership. Which is what most young people say they intend to do with their capital gains… Because of these new taxes, young people will purchase fewer homes. It is just one example of stifling economic growth in favour of short-term tax grabs. And this is without mentioning the reduced productivity of renters already facing price hikes as a result.

Government greed for other people’s money is the biggest threat to productivity.

This government has strongly disincentivised productive risk-takers.

Business owners are punished and over-taxed workers are conditioned to blame their employers for economic hardship. This creates unproductive economic tension.

Instead, the true culprit is the acute failure of government to contain inflation and tighten its own belt. Labor has acquired substantial debts through mismanagement, hubris, panic, and delusion. What did we see in this budget? The Treasurer is still spending money he doesn’t have on things this country doesn’t need.

Meanwhile, businesses are collapsing are record rates. The public sector is growing. Wealth generation is shrinking. This is not productive.

Australia is becoming an incoherent economic mess that rewards a culture of hand-outs – be they corporate or private – instead of offering a hand-up to those who want to succeed.

Here is the truth. We are almost at a trillion dollars in debt, chasing our tail to keep up with interest repayments worth $28 billion per annum. Dead money. The Treasury is in desperate need of productivity while having no idea – whatsoever – about how to nurture productivity in a complex Western democracy full of free people making independent choices about their economic future.

The economy requires incentive, not the punishment.

What is ‘productivity’?

Productivity is cheap, reliable, Australian-sourced energy. It is good roads connecting regional areas with city centres. High speed rail lines and Australian-controlled ports. Refineries guaranteeing fuel supply when the world is in crisis. A competitive construction industry. It is the cutting of petty and unnecessary red tape. It is cutting UN and foreign agency imposed green and blue tape. It is high-speed, reliable internet – everywhere – including along highways and in regional areas. It is the freedom to take risks and earn a reward. It is a reliable nation of stable economic rules to encourage investment.

Productivity means placing trust and respect in businesses – freeing them of unnecessary cost burdens so they can hire staff, reward the hardest workers, and voluntarily pay above minimum wage.

Labor is spending all of its time focused on the minimum wage, because the economy is dying. Low wages are becoming the standard, rather than the baseline, because businesses are giving too much of their capital to the Treasury.

A Treasury that has run out of money and wants to dip into the pockets of Australians who did nothing wrong.

Productivity is not about working harder – it is about working smarter.

The Woke-Left have taken over the economy and built an economic prison rather than a promise.

One Nation wants to free the Australian people so they can be productive – on their own terms – to build a future they want for their children and their children’s children. Also, a nation worth living in for the people alive now, who deserve to enjoy the sacrifices of their ancestors.

To the Prime Minister, I say this, you don’t make the next generation of Australians productive through saddling them with an education debt larger than a housing deposit, selling their jobs to an imported workforce, and then tempting them into home deposit schemes they can never hope to pay off while depreciating the value of their asset. These Australians will never have the financial security to invest their money or take the risk of starting a business that creates productivity. What they are doing is surviving. Not thriving.

One Nation have been presenting policies for productivity for years. Since rising in the polls, these policies have gained traction. The response? Our political opponents are seeking to tear them down. They complain that any drop in revenue is an affront to the status quo of Treasury.

When we offered income splitting to give families a fairer tax policy and the flexibility to raise their own children, we were told this would ‘hurt income tax returns’ and ‘cause women to leave the workforce’. I’m sorry? What about the savings to childcare, which are currently costing the Budget a fortune? What about the humanity of allowing one parent to stay home, if that is what they wish? What about the benefits to the child? The community benefits? The education benefits? One Nation offers economic freedom – and the economists whinge.

When One Nation offered to end bracket creep – Labor, the Coalition, and Greens united to stop us. Then the government tossed a measly $250 at working Australians in compensation. It is … disgusting. It is … dishonest.

When One Nation offered greater freedom to businesses so they can grow and hire more staff, we are told that we are denting corporate tax. One Nation does not want minimum wage to be the anchor dragging down prosperity – we want the private sector to reward merit, pay better wages, and give proper benefits to the hardest workers and brightest staff because the most skilled should rise to the top. Productive societies are merit-driven. Always.

Merit makes money. Hard work makes money. Businesses make money. Government spends money other people have made.

And it should spend that money in a way that encourages productivity – not fantasy obsessions, like a non-existent climate crisis. The green apocalypse made a lot of corporations very rich at the expense of taxpayers. You think we didn’t notice – we did.

Of course, One Nation will retain the minimum award system and seeks to elevate wages above the minimum level through productivity increases.

One Nation understands that productivity has nothing to do with forcing people to work harder. They already work hard. Instead, Australia requires bold changes in regulation to unchain the economy and release its potential.

A smaller government.

This is our message to the Treasurer. If you have to sit around mulling over productivity at a roundtable it means you don’t understand productivity. You have no clue what to do.

Just as you cannot subsidise your way to becoming an energy super-power, you cannot tax your way to productivity.

A One Nation leadership will force – force – the government to tighten its belt, stop wasting money, and cut off parasitic departments and bureaucracies. We will shrink the government to fit the constitution, saving $90 billion a year of waste and duplication, so that we can offer the Australian people lower taxes, less red tape, and more personal flexibility. One Nation wants tax money put to use to build transit lines and infrastructure required to increase productivity – not into wasteful projects that tick a Net Zero box at the UN.

We cannot keep sending billions ($31 billion a year) of dollars offshore and billions more into the hands of domestic fraudsters and criminals.

Cheap, reliable energy. Proper infrastructure. Real wealth. Lower taxes. Less bureaucracy.

That is the formula for productivity.

I will finish with this. And this will hurt. If the Treasury wants productivity, it will have to take a leaf out of the private sector. It will have to take a risk. Take a hit to its balance sheet. Make an investment. It will have to lower taxes and allow the private sector to keep more of it what it earns so that the men and women of Australia can choose what sections of the economy to grow – to pick the best parts to invest in – to cultivate what actually works, not what the government wants to work.

The Australian people have always been financially responsible and economically intelligent. They will dig the government out of this financial hole – only if the government lets them.

/1 Comment/by

A Future for Your Grandchildren

,

For decades, the Liberal-Labor uniparty has sold out Australians to a globalist agenda.

Sky-high electricity prices, crushed farmers and unaffordable housing aren’t accidents; they are the result of the UN’s Agenda 21 and the psychopathic UN criminal Maurice Strong and his plan to deindustrialise the West.

From the UN’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the current “Net Zero” madness, elected Liberal-National-Labor leaders have been blindly following a foreign script. The Howard Liberal-National government started this dishonest madness. It stole farmers property rights, imposed renewable energy targets and proposed the first policy for a carbon dioxide TAX, an emissions trading scheme to make Maurice Strong a billionaire.

The current approach to climate and energy policy is built on scientific uncertainty and economic risk. Minister Chris Bowen’s department lacks scientific proof of climate change and defers instead to the UN IPCC, an organisation that relies on “guesses” rather than empirical data.

We are being driven off a $1.9 trillion cliff for climate prostitutes stealing subsidies for large solar and wind projects that lack cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, farmers’ rights have been stolen, affordable energy destroyed and $30 billion a year is being wasted on UN climate compliance.

One Nation is the only party with a plan to: ✅ Exit the UN Paris Agreement ✅ Abolish the Department of Climate Change, saving $30 billion/year in UN waste ✅ Restore affordable coal and gas ✅ Build dams and infrastructure ✅ Put AUSTRALIANS first, not globalist billionaires.

👉 Vote One Nation to secure a future for your children, your grandchildren – and every generation to follow.

Trancript

Senator Roberts: As people awaken to the Liberal-Labor uniparty facade, polls show the political status quo is changing and ending. The one thing I want everyone to remember is that Australia’s economic and environmental destruction is based on the psychopathic United Nations criminal Maurice Strong. It matters, because all Australians are suffering unaffordable energy prices, cruel cost of living and family-crushing house prices and rents. The Howard Liberal-National government started this dishonest madness. It stole farmers property rights to comply with the UN’s 1997 Kyoto protocol. It imposed its renewable energy target and proposed the first policy for a carbon dioxide tax—an emissions trading scheme to make Maurice Strong a billionaire. 

Energy prices affect every aspect of our lives and lifestyles. It’s the foundation of modern civilisation and international competitiveness. In a recent Senate inquiry, Minister Chris Bowen’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water could not provide me with scientific proof climate is changing. They deferred to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the UN body that Maurice Strong spawned. The UN IPCC provides no hard data as proof. It guesses likelihoods and confidence levels to fraudulently imply statistical rigour where there is none. 

The department then revealed it has no specific, measured policy basis for transition to unaffordable solar, wind and batteries under Maurice Strong’s UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development Goals. It has no specific impact of human carbon dioxide as basis for policy—confirming no cost-benefit analysis, no evaluation of policy options, no business case, no plan and no tracking implementation. We are not transitioning in this country. Minister Chris Bowen is blindly driving us off a cliff at a cost of $1.9 trillion for nothing. Australians now suffer the world’s most stupid and highest electricity prices. Meanwhile, President Trump in America uses real science to restore affordable hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas. 

My team has 24,000 datasets from science agencies worldwide, including our own Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO. They show no change in climate—temperature; rainfall; storm frequency, severity or duration; drought, ocean temperature; or extreme weather—but just show ongoing inherent natural variation in cycles: warm/cool, warm/cool. 

Maurice Strong was a Canadian oil magnate who, in 1972, started the UN environmental program UNEP. Six months later he manipulated and schemed his way to be its head. In 1976 UNEP fabricated science to ban the insecticide DDT that had eradicated malaria in the West. After 40- to 50 million needless deaths from malaria—Indians, Asians and Africans—the UN restored the use of DDT in 2006. The world’s list of mass killers is Chairman Mao, 60 million deaths; Maurice Strong, 40- to 50 million; Joseph Stalin, 40 million; and Adolph Hitler, 20 million. 

In 1980 Maurice Strong started systematically entrenching bogus claims of future climate catastrophe due to carbon dioxide from human activity—power stations, industry, transport, travel and animal farming. In 1988 he formed the UN’s political climate body, the IPCC, and fraudulently proclaimed it ‘scientific’. His purpose was to corrupt climate science to mislead and scare people worldwide with unfounded fear. For example, in its second science report in 1995, scientists concluded they could find no evidence of human carbon dioxide affecting climate, yet the IPCC’s Ben Santer—he’s still in the IPCC—single-handedly reversed that to say they did. All six UN science reports rely on distortion and fraud. Why? 

Maurice Strong was a founding director of the Chicago Climate Exchange, trading carbon dioxide credits—a corrupt global carbon dioxide tax—to make its directors billionaires, to provide the UN with ongoing revenue independent of member-nation grants and to guarantee revenue for his ambitions of global governance. Maurice Strong then built paths and systems for climate prostitutes stealing subsidies for solar and wind. When American law enforcement wanted Maurice Strong for illegal water trading and the UN’s oil-for-food scandal, he exiled himself to China, a major beneficiary of the West’s climate and energy insanity. 

In his report for the UN, the Club of Rome’s Maurice Strong stated: 

In searching for a new enemy to unite us— 

being humans globally— 

we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. 

He was a lying scaremonger. 

In 1992 UN Earth Summit Secretary-General Maurice Strong—there he is again—said: 

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles, small electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable … 

The reports said human activity caused these ‘dangers’ and needed a global response. 

Maurice Strong stated his life’s aims as ‘deindustrialising Western civilisation’ and ‘putting in place an unelected socialist global governance’. In 1992 Paul Keating’s Labor government signed UN Agenda 21 that pushed 17 so-called sustainable development goals to control every aspect of every person’s life globally. John Howard’s Liberal-National government accelerated an entrenched implementation of UN Agenda 21, including its 2007 Water Act. Its energy transition is now destroying what had been the world’s best electricity supply grid, stealing farmers’ property rights and laying the foundation for pushing Maurice Strong’s policies across Australia. In 1996 one federal MP, Pauline Hanson, courageously exposed it all. In 2013 the South Australian MP Ann Bressington gave details of UN Agenda 21 fabricating bogus crises blamed on humans. 

Maurice Strong said, ‘The enemy is humanity itself.’ They hate you and they want to control every aspect of our lives, lifestyles and society, transferring wealth from we the people to globalist climate prostitutes. An extraordinarily clever and scheming Maurice Strong manipulated national leaders to adopt his programs to save the planet and humanity from humans. In my first Senate speech, in 2016, I called out UN Agenda 21 and called for Australia to exit the UN. I’m pleased to say that’s now One Nation policy. 

We want the people of Australia to regain control over their lives and over our nation. We want Australians to keep the billions of dollars currently being transferred to climate and energy whores, who are stealing your money through subsidies, grants and taxes, enabled by people in this Senate. As your financial position goes backwards, Labor, Greens and moderates in the Liberals drive social policies to attack and divide you as colonisers, degendered and disrespected. 

Maurice Strong drove those attacks with policies to smash both foundations of human civilisation: the family and the nation-state. Maurice Strong died in 2015, one month before his UN Paris Agreement was signed and his legacy UN net zero program targets were set—targets to which Labor, Liberal, the teals and the Greens all remain committed. They silently and dishonestly impose UN restrictions, fraud and burdens on Australians to govern with invalid edicts from New York and Geneva. 

One Nation will remove Maurice Strong’s psychopathic grip over Australia. Instead, One Nation will return you to affordable energy; affordable living; affordable housing; lifestyle choices, making families strong again; industry, with breadwinner jobs; and a future with abundance, built on realising Australia’s true potential. One Nation is changing Australia’s political status quo. One Nation will abolish the department of climate change, leave the UN Paris Agreement and the UN Kyoto protocol, and stop UN net zero and all associated regulations, schemes and spending to save more than $30 billion a year in duplication and waste. That $30 billion a year we will use to build infrastructure that benefits everyday Australians, starting with Queensland’s Urannah Dam irrigation project and a new greenfield hospital in Albury. A vote for One Nation will end Maurice Strong’s psychopathic, criminal control over our country and put Australia first. 

/by

Your Taxes, Their Blunder: The BOM Mess

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has managed to spend $96 million of your money on a new website including live radar images that is a step backward.

I’ve been hearing from countless Australians who are not happy with the “new and improved” site. It’s harder to navigate, requires more clicks to find basic data and has stripped away the topographical detail that people actually rely on.

If a private company delivered a product this bad after spending nearly $100 million, heads would roll.

I asked the BOM: has anyone been fired, demoted, or even counselled for this failure?

The answer was a lot of nothing really. I did manage to get one win for common sense: The Bureau has committed to keeping the old radar site active until the new one is actually fit for purpose.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Let’s go back to the new weather radar. Implementation of the new weather radar has been a failure. Has anyone been fired for wasting $96 million of taxpayers’ money?

Senator Watt: We went over this at the last estimates hearing. I think you were talking about the change to the bureau’s website rather than a weather radar.

Senator Roberts: The new website.

Senator Watt: Yes. It was explained at the last hearing that the portion of money attributable to the website costs was partly about an overall systems upgrade across the bureau’s meteorology systems in general. So, with that introduction, Dr Minchin might want to—

Senator Roberts: Minister, it has tarnished the reputation of the BOM.

Senator Watt: I understand that.

Senator Roberts: It has made a lot of people unhappy with the BOM’s service, so I’m wondering if anyone’s been counselled, demoted or had a note put on their service record for this failure.

Senator Watt: I’d need to have Dr Minchin answer.

Dr Minchin: Senator, I’m not aware of anyone being fired or demoted on this basis.

Senator Roberts: Chastised?

Dr Minchin: Senator, as I think you may be aware, I joined the bureau about three weeks after the website was launched. My focus as CEO is on moving forward, and, as I said at last hearing, I accepted that the website redesign had not met all users’ needs and that we were working hard with the team on addressing the feedback that we’ve received. We’ve received significant feedback from the Australian community and we are actively working on making releases to the website to improve it to meet people’s expectations. My philosophy on this as CEO is that I have a very committed team, who are working incredibly hard to meet the Australian public’s expectations. That doesn’t mean we get it right all the time, and I’m very confident that the team is totally focused on the task of improving Australians’ access to weather information, including through upgrades to the website as it goes forward.

Senator Roberts: I accept, Dr Minchin, that sometimes it’s not appropriate to chastise until you know the source of the problem, but has anyone been questioned about it? Have you done an investigation into it? It seems to be significant funds, and you’ve got to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. What reassurance can you give us that it won’t happen again?

Dr Minchin: What I can say is I don’t believe the website is a complete failure, and I’ve been public in saying that before. I think what has happened is it’s met 80 to 90 per cent of its intended outcomes and it’s missed the boat on a few key user experiences for some parts of the community, and we are working hard on addressing those. It’s clear the radar is part of the assessment. We moved quickly to adjust the view of the radar to improve that. We’ve made adjustments to the navigation of the website and we have a number of other rollouts happening over the next few months that will improve that. I can absolutely assure you that the team within the bureau are really dedicated to their task and are totally focused on improving the situation so that all Australians can have access to the weather data that they require.

Senator Roberts: Have you required contractors to complete the fixes for free, owing to their failure, or are you throwing more money from taxpayers at the problem? Are you rewarding contractors for failing?

Dr Minchin: You’ve categorised this as a contractor failure. The contractors have done what we asked them to do. What I think is very clear is we did not get all of the user experience testing and did not capture all of the subsequent detail and feedback that we’ve received from the community. So we’re working hard on addressing that. That will inevitably require investment, but that investment was already planned for as part of the website release. We always knew that there would be fixes that would be required. What probably caught the bureau a little bit unawares was the extent of the feedback that we received, but we’re working through that very actively.

Senator Roberts: It was pretty strong. If we look at topography, the colour graduations used to be based on topography, and now the national parks are just all green. Did the people who did the map understand topography?

Dr Minchin: Sorry, Senator, are you referring to the radar map?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I’m sorry.

Dr Minchin: The background to the radar map is a compromise, always, of the features that are of interest for the community—primarily about the townships. We are adjusting that. Just as one example of an upcoming upgrade, we will be bringing that into line with our iPhone and Android app that actually shows a background of the reach of the radars as well. So it will be clear where radar coverage exists and where it does not within the country. That’s an evolving process. I should also highlight that the public can choose their view of what appears on that map through various choices in the settings of the map view.

Senator Roberts: I’m told that the old map, which did show topography colour gradations, is appearing to visitors who search something like ‘weather Brisbane’, rather the new site, but the address is the new site. Have you gone back to using the old site for certain functions?

Dr Minchin: I think what you’re referring to is that there are a number of third-party providers who provide our radar data and other information through their applications. They receive those through our FTP service. They don’t access it directly from the website. In some cases they choose to visualise that data differently to the way that the bureau chooses to do that. I think that’s actually a good thing, meeting different user needs out in the community. They’re still accessing the same information, but it is, as I said, coming through our registered user services, which are not through the website itself.

Senator Roberts: Usability of the website is poor. Users are complaining that it takes multiple clicks to see what used to be available at a glance. What timeframe can you give people for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site?

Dr Minchin: There are ongoing releases happening over the next few months. We accept, as I said, that some users have found aspects of the website difficult and have been providing feedback on that. Another good example is navigation. We’ll be rolling out the ability to navigate by postcode in one of the next releases. We’re continually bringing those updates on board so that, as we get feedback about what is useful to the community to make their experience with the website better, we’re acting on that and we’re rolling that out with regular updates.

Senator Roberts: So what timeframe can you provide for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site, so that people will know?

Dr Minchin: I don’t accept that we’re trying to reach the standard of the old site, because the old site was a problem. It was very difficult to navigate. It was inaccessible to many sectors of the community. Website updates will never finish. As new information and new products come on board, we will continue developing the website. But we are hoping to address most of the major tranches of concern in releases over the next six months.

Senator Roberts: The old radar is still available on the ‘reg’ subdomain, I’m told. Will you give an undertaking that the old site will remain available until the new site can be made to work?

Dr Minchin: We certainly will not be turning off our ‘reg’ capability until we are confident that the Australian community are comfortable with our new radar capability. Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Scrap Net Zero, Stop Waste, Restore Australia

,

Australia watched the Treasurer turn the cabinet room into a stage for business and union bosses instead of using it for real cabinet deliberation. The roundtable wasn’t about shaping policy—it was about rubberstamping what the government had already decided. Their attempt to link productivity to higher taxes collapsed, and Australians are left wondering why this government keeps chasing revenue instead of fixing its spending problem.

One Nation will fight the Albanese government’s tax hikes and end the wasteful net zero transition that’s draining billions a year while driving private enterprise away. We will restore fiscal sanity by cutting unnecessary spending, imposing an eight-year residency requirement for Social Security, and cracking down on fraud in agencies such as Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS, and the PBS.

Smaller government and a sensible energy policy will deliver real productivity gains and prosperity for Australians—especially our young.

Transcript

Last week, Australia watched the Treasurer host business and union bosses in the cabinet room. The irony escaped the Treasurer—using the cabinet room to hold a policy debate cabinet itself should be doing. The usual suspects were not there to help form government policy; they were there to rubberstamp the policies the government intends to implement in this parliament. The roundtable even failed to achieve that. We know this because the ABC leaked the outcome of the week before. That communique remains in Treasurer Chalmers’s drawer, abandoned and unloved. The core intent—making productivity about taxation—failed.  

One Nation will oppose the tax hike the Albanese government will still try to introduce to cover its growing financial black hole caused largely through the increasing use of taxpayer money to pay for a net zero transition from which private enterprise is walking away—indeed, running away. This government doesn’t need more revenue; it needs to spend less money. One Nation will abolish the net zero transition, saving the government $30 billion each year in direct expenditure and generating that much again in extra revenue from a revitalised economy. One Nation will impose an eight-year residency requirement on access to social security, taking tens of billions of dollars off the cost of Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS and the PBS and giving auditors and police a chance to investigate and prosecute the rampant fraud. Net zero insanity, deficit spending and throwing cash at new arrivals are robbing our children of their future.  

Smaller government and a sensible energy policy are where productivity improvements will actually come from. One Nation’s policies will restore wealth and prosperity for all who are here, especially our young. The Albanese government will just take your money and leave working Australians with less—much less. A One Nation government, though, will restore Australia. 

/by

Labor’s Socialist Bedroom Tax

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

Read on Substack
/by