Posts

Put Australians Ahead of UN Junkets

,

I questioned Minister Murray Watt and departmental officials to get straight answers on how much taxpayer money is being spent on United Nations climate events and whether the government’s policies are hurting economic growth.

I asked the department questions on taxpayer spending regarding Minister Chris Bowen’s role as president of negotiations for COP31 in Türkiye. They confirmed that $147.8 million over three years was allocated under a budget measure titled “Standing with our partners in the Pacific”.

While Dr Box explained this covers events, Pacific delegates, pavilions and staff travel, I asked what the real return on investment for everyday Australian taxpayers was. Furthermore, officials admitted that the total budget for attending COP31 itself and whether grants will again be handed out to climate activists as was done for COP30, has not yet been finalised.

I requested a complete breakdown of international travel costs within the climate change and energy portfolios for the 2026–27 financial year. The Department could not provide specific figures on wages, airfares, or days spent abroad, stating decisions are made on a “case-by-case basis.”

I asked Minister Watt why Australia should have international climate agreements imposed on us, pointing out that sovereign nations like the United States have withdrawn from these arrangements and that the UN cannot enforce anything unless Parliament legislates it.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Good morning, Minister.  

Senator Watt: Good to see you, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re looking chirpy.  

Senator Watt: Always chirpy, just like yourself.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, is the president of negotiations for COP31—the Conference of the Parties—in Turkiye taking place in November this year. Has the department incurred any expense in respect of that role for travel, expense for extra staffing or expense in any other related purpose, and, if so, how much?  

Mr Kaiser: Yes. We covered some of that ground in answer to questions from Senator Henderson just moments ago.  

Senator ROBERTS: The specific amounts for staffing, travel and related weren’t covered, though, were they?  

Mr Kaiser: I think what we said was that a number of staff did travel with Minister Bowen, most recently, as part of his responsibilities but that those figures had not been reconciled yet because, I think, the staff literally arrived home on Saturday.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does he have any additional staff as a result of his duties, not just travel?  

Mr Kaiser: In terms of his ministerial staff?  

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of his position as president of negotiations, does he have any additional staff in his—  

Mr Kaiser: In his ministerial office?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are the taxpayers paying for anything for the United Nations role?  

Mr Kaiser: There was a specific budget measure which provided funding to the department to assist him with that role.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is that amount?  

Mr Kaiser: My colleagues will be able to help you with that. 

Dr Box: I’ll take that, Senator. The amount allocated for the budget measure ‘Standing with our partners in the Pacific’ in the 2026-27 budget was $147.8 million over three years.  

Senator ROBERTS: $147 million over three years?  

Dr Box: That’s right.  

Senator Watt: Just to be clear—because what that money is for shouldn’t be misrepresented—it might be helpful to have Dr Box set out what that money is going to. It’s not to create an office, for example.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m all ears.  

Dr Box: The money is for a range of activities: the delivery of the pre-COP, the preparatory meeting in the Pacific, in Fiji, and with the leaders element in Tuvalu; things like sponsored travel for Pacific delegates; additional events in the Pacific; and to support a pavilion at COP31. It also includes some funding for the presidency youth champion and to support our Pacific climate envoys, and of course it also includes some funding for staff and travel.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Was there an amount—I may have missed it—for the cost of attending COP31 itself?  

Dr Box: For COP31? No.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that is yet to be added?  

Dr Box: That budget measure will support attendance at COP31, but the delegation for COP31 and associated costs hasn’t yet been determined.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are the Australian taxpayers, Minister, paying to raise Minister Bowen’s international profile? Where’s the benefit to taxpayers? Where’s the return on investment? What is the return?  

Senator Watt: Well, you won’t be surprised to hear me say that that funding is not about raising Minister Bowen’s profile. It’s about ensuring that Australia has a leading role in international negotiations regarding climate change and energy. I know you and I, Senator Roberts, have a pretty different view about whether climate change is real and what we should be doing about it, but the reality is that countries all around the world are negotiating and reaching agreements about this, and our government’s view is that it’s a very good idea and it’s in Australia’s national interests to be helping to lead those negotiations. We’ve got a view that you’d rather be involved in negotiations than have outcomes imposed on you by the rest of the world, and, through Minister Bowen, occupying that role gives Australia a front-row seat in those negotiations. The other reason for us doing this is that it’s an opportunity for greater partnership with our Pacific neighbours. I’m sure, Senator Roberts, one thing you and I could agree on is that the Pacific is a region where there are a lot of national security interests for the Australian people and there is an opportunity for Australia to work in partnership with the Pacific on an issue, being climate change, that they consider to be arguably the biggest challenge they’re facing. That is a good thing for Australia, and dealing with those national security interests as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think the better way to go about dealing with our neighbours, who are very important to us strategically, is to tell them the truth. That’s much more important for me. You said ‘costs imposed’ or ‘agreements imposed’. The UN cannot impose an agreement on us. The only way it can be imposed is if parliamentarians in this place legislate it.  

Senator Watt: Well, again, you and I might disagree on this, Senator Roberts, but our government, and I personally, believe that it is useful to Australia and the Australian people to be part of international agreements about how we manage a range of challenges facing the world. There are some governments around the world that have withdrawn from those sorts of agreements—  

Senator ROBERTS: The United States of America, for example.  

Senator Watt: For example.  

Senator ROBERTS: Keir Starmer calling it now the ending of climate catastrophes— Senator Watt: I don’t think the UK has withdrawn from those agreements, and we think it would be a negative for the Australian people if we were to withdraw from those agreements. I know One Nation’s got a different view. You’re entitled to your view, but we think it’s better to be at the table, in this case in a leadership role, leading the world to negotiate outcomes that are in Australia’s interests.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you aware that 65 per cent of the voters in the recent Farrer by-election voted for a party that wants to end net zero?  

Senator Watt: Are you adding the Liberal and National Party votes to your— 

Senator ROBERTS: No. We’re not.  

Senator Watt: I didn’t think you got 65 per cent.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, we didn’t. We got about 40 per cent.  

Senator Watt: That’s what I’m wondering—how you got from 40 to 65.  

Senator ROBERTS: The other minor parties. Have a look.  

Senator Watt: I recognise that there are different views about this in Australia. I think this government has been pretty clear, going into the last two elections, that we support action on climate change and that that is not only a good outcome for our environment but good for our economy and jobs as well. We’ve gone to the election with that policy. We’ve won the last two elections. We’re now implementing that policy. But you’re entitled to a different view.  

Senator ROBERTS: I may have missed something here, Mr Kaiser or Dr Box, but COP30 in Brazil was extremely expensive at $1.6 million in taxpayer money. What’s the budget for the actual attendance at COP31?  

Dr Box: We don’t have a specific budget for attendance at COP31 yet, because we haven’t determined how many people will go to COP31. The travel to COP31 will be taken from that $147 million that I mentioned that’s in the budget.  

Senator ROBERTS: In COP30 you gave away $395,612 in grants to bring along climate change activists and so-called stakeholders. Will you be doing that again in COP31? If yes, why? What is in it for the taxpayer? Mr Rudd took, as Prime Minister, to Copenhagen 114 people, including his hairdresser. Will that same graciousness be extended to Mr Bowen?  

Dr Box: You’re correct that we did have a grants program for COP30 that supported a range of organisations to attend COP30 in Belem in Brazil, including youth organisations, First Nations organisations and organisations from a range of sectors, including the agricultural sector. There is funding in the budget to support organisations to attend COP31 in Antalya in Turkiye, but the parameters of that haven’t yet been decided.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers. This next question comes up frequently, so I assume you have the data on hand. What is your budget for international travel within the climate change and energy portfolios—that’s wages, airfare and accommodation—in the 2026-27 financial year? Could you include a breakdown of how much over how many days for how many employees?  

Ms Munro: These decisions, in terms of what the required travel is, are always taken on a case-by-case basis. A lot of the work that we do is done virtually, and it’s really by exception that there will be that international travel, but it is necessary to build the relationships and to negotiate outcomes. That’s the responsibility that the government has given us. We don’t have the detail that you are asking for, given that we need to plan through what are going to be the priorities for this year, and, as I said, we make those decisions almost on a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me a broad idea of the categories of considerations that will go into that or could go into it.  

Ms Munro: Go into travel?  

Senator ROBERTS: Selecting travelling companions.  

Ms Munro: Yes, we’re happy to.  

Dr Box: There are a range of factors that we consider. Value for money is obviously a very big consideration. Another is whether the intended meeting outcomes are of significant benefit for Australia’s climate, energy, environment and water agenda. We also consider whether virtual or alternative representation options aren’t suitable, and, of course, all approved travel requests include a contingency. We look at the intended meeting outcomes and whether virtual participation is available and, of course, value for money as an overarching consideration in coordination with the PGPA Act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Value for money is a pretty subjective thing. It depends on the goals of your party going there. Coming back to the EPBC Act, your website page for the new national environmental standards under the EPBC Act does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says that the circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April, and it wasn’t. When will the new standard be made available to senators?  

Senator Watt: I’m not sure when that research was done, but, in the last month, we have begun a second round of consultation on two of those national environmental standards. In outcome 2, we’ll be able to talk to you at length about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. As things stand, the EPBC Act is, in our opinion—we differ on this, no doubt—a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia said, and I quote: Average decision times for resources projects have increased by 60 per cent, from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025 … What steps are you taking to increase your throughput?  

Senator Watt: Again, we could have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but that was exactly one of the key reasons for the reforms that we passed in the parliament last year. I know you voted against them, but one of the key objectives of those reforms was to speed up decision-making on projects after that blowout of timeframes that you referred to, and we’re confident that will happen.  

Senator ROBERTS: I note that the budget—and you’ve answered a related question from Senator Waters— includes a measure for introducing AI. Will that help in data collection and analysis or will that be actually making decisions?  

Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about this in more detail in outcome 2, but the primary purpose of that AI pilot and tool is essentially to help proponents in preparing their applications. There are people who know a lot more about it than me who will be available to talk to you about it in outcome 2.  

Mr Kaiser: I’ll just add to the minister’s answer an important principle in the application of AI in the public sector generally, and including in this department, is that humans remain the decision-makers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you using ludicrously long delays in approvals for minerals projects to discourage application for minerals projects?  

Senator Watt: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project, the holding cost of the project across a 3.8-year development application cycle will cost the proponents $25 million per year—almost $100 million total across 3.8 years to four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by a procedural failure in your department?  

Senator Watt: Again, we can have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but a key objective behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up assessments and approvals of projects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get a benchmark going. How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects?  

Senator Watt: There will be officials available to answer those sorts of questions in outcome 2.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your expectation for reductions in this figure of 3.8 years? When will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth and the breadwinner jobs that go with minerals projects?  

Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about that in more detail in outcome 2.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can we talk about mining being a driver of the economy, of standard of living, and the six-to-one jobs multiplier in coalmines?  

Senator Watt: In my opening statement, Senator Roberts—and I realise you weren’t here for that—I referred to the fact that, along with greater protections for the environment, one of the key objectives behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up decisions around housing, energy and critical minerals projects.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the things that’s become clear with new Labor is that it appeals to activists to get more votes.  

Senator Watt: That’s your view.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the government aware, Minister, that obstructing resource projects stifles funds for social and welfare programs for caring for people?  

Senator Watt: I would agree with the general proposition that economic development delivers economic wealth for the country that can be used for those sorts of social services.  

Senator ROBERTS: And mining is a key to developing economic—  

Senator Watt: It’s a big industry. I recognise that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Number one exporter.  

Senator Watt: It’s a big industry. 

/0 Comments/by

Prestige vs. Actual Performance

,

Does Australia’s education system rewards true excellence or just old prestige?

Most Australians don’t know that some of our highest-rated higher education institutions aren’t the elite sandstone Group of Eight universities, or public universities. Smaller, independent providers like Alphacrucis University College are blowing national averages out of the water, boasting a 90% overall student satisfaction rate and a 100% graduate employment rate for postgraduate teaching degrees.

Yet, our current tertiary funding system heavily favours established universities over high-performing, innovative contenders. If we want real diversity, innovation and value for taxpayer dollars, we must level the playing field. Funding should follow actual performance, student satisfaction, and real-world results — not history, size, or reputation.

One Nation is committed to scrutinising tertiary funding and fighting for a system that rewards achievement, boosts competition and puts students first.

— June | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Tonight I discuss the heart of Australia’s future: whether our higher education system is identifying and supporting excellence or whether elites have captured education to reward size, history and established reputation. How many Australians know that some of the highest rated higher education institutions in our country, in terms of student satisfaction, are not the sandstone Group of Eight universities or any public universities? They’re smaller, independent universities, one of which, Alphacrucis University College, records student satisfaction rates of 90 per cent for overall educational experience when the national average sits in the mid-70s. The national regulator recognises Alphacrucis as delivering superior quality education and granted it unlimited self-accrediting authority, in part because students studying a postgraduate teaching degree at Alphacrucis graduated with a job 100 per cent of the time. Until recently, I didn’t know that tertiary education institutions with this level of success existed. Australians need to know there are exemplary institutions leading our country, yet we’ve never heard of them. 

We need to reassess how our tertiary institutions are supported, because, if we don’t, we’re reinforcing the status quo, and that’s not working. Our universities have governance issues, financial issues, confidence issues and efficiency issues, yet there are higher education providers achieving excellent outcomes for students without the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in funding that our public universities receive, including grants and commercial activity. If institutions like Alphacrucis do not become well known, students who might have thrived in such a place will miss the opportunity. Students will be less satisfied with their education than they might otherwise have been. Students might be less likely to graduate into employment and less likely to leave their mark and their legacy on our society. Philanthropic foundations need to know that outside of the G8 there’s great teaching and research, and it’s worthy of support. Foundations need to be looking for opportunities to fund teaching and research institutions like Alphacrucis, because that’s where our future may well be. 

Government has set lofty aspirational targets for tertiary attainment through the Australian Universities Accord and has already acknowledged that public universities alone cannot achieve these targets. The system needs provider diversity and rewards for excellence. Our tertiary funding must move to a level playing field. We must allocate funds on actual performance, not past reputation. The government makes much noise of diversity, yet where’s the funding for real diversity in higher education? The G8 sandstone universities would benefit from increased competition. We must do all that we can to remove barriers from lesser known institutions to enable them to compete. Part of that is to raise their profile, and part of that is to shift funds from the sandstone G8s to institutions already delivering. 

One Nation is committed to greater scrutiny of tertiary institution funding and wants to know why funding favours established universities over new entries. I’m focusing on Alphacrucis, yet the issue is larger than one university college. It’s about whether Australia rewards performance or prestige. These are not the same thing. Reward is about working for today’s students. Prestige is about what’s been done for students in days past. It’s about whether new institutions with fresh ideas are given the opportunity to compete or whether the system remains tilted towards those who have always held advantage. 

Alphacrucis University College is a test case, an institution achieving outstanding student satisfaction, national recognition for quality and a growing reputation for excellence, yet most Australians have never heard of it. If we’re serious about innovation, competition and value for taxpayers, then institutions should be judged on what they actually deliver, not on how old they are, how large they are or how well connected they are. Australia’s future depends upon identifying excellence wherever it’s found and giving it the opportunity to flourish. The Australian people deserve a higher education system that rewards achievement, encourages competition and invests in results. That’s beneficial for students, for taxpayers and for Australia’s future. 

Tonight I address media misrepresentation of One Nation’s policy to review some drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. The New England Times newspaper flagrantly lied to readers in a story just published last Saturday, giving the false impression that One Nation will be removing medications from the PBS. Author RK Crosby’s hit piece was titled ‘Concern brewing as buried Hanson policy threatens affordable medicines’. Only last week, I included the PBS in a list of social welfare institutions that One Nation would defend in government—not tolerate or be afraid to touch but defend. This pathetic piece of journalism shows the lack of research the New England Times conducted for its story. I understand that, like many regional newspapers, the New England Times is short of staff. This leads them to accept a hit piece that Better Access Australia most likely prepared. It’s quoted extensively, and its mission statement is to transfer as much taxpayer money as it can into big pharma’s pockets. 

One phone call would have cleared this up. The story stems from a two-line election policy promise in 2025 which said One Nation will review all medications fast-tracked during COVID to ensure safety and efficacy have been proven. It’s perfectly sensible and responsible. In fact, most of the drugs that were given emergency use authorisation, officially known as the provisional use pathway, have already been withdrawn or had their use reduced to insignificance. Only three remain of interest to One Nation, and these are the drugs we will review: Paxlovid; remdesivir, or ‘Run—death is near’; and molnupiravir. With each of these, there are alternatives which anecdotally carry a lower cost and better safety and efficacy outcomes. No Australian will be left without medication—not one Australian. This is actually a small promise that the pharmaceutical lobby has deliberately taken out of context. During COVID, big pharma benefited to the tune of billions of dollars and is terrified of any scrutiny. 

To open their story, RK Crosby offered a vignette suggesting One Nation will remove asthma medication from the PBS—an outright lie; a fabrication, pure and simple. One Nation threatening affordable medicines is an outright lie. One Nation will not change PBS charges nor change the amounts government pays under the existing arrangements. Contracts signed will be honoured. If we start tearing up legally-binding contracts, confidence in government will never recover. We’re not going to tear up contracts. Negotiate? Yes. Tear up? No. For clarity, no PBS contracts are in our sights. 

The COVID vaccines will be looked at in our terms of reference for a royal commission, although these were not supplied through the PBS. Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry didn’t want to mention their COVID products and instead chose to lie about our PBS policy. For the record, here’s the philosophy behind our policy. As I said last week in the Senate, One Nation supports the PBS for the same reason we support Medicare. Society benefits when our sick are healed quickly and returned to looking after themselves. For those with permanent conditions, the basic laws of humanity require society to care for those people with love and respect. The financial cost of medication and related devices should not detract from this care. 

Last week, Minister Butler made similar comments. On this, we’re in alignment. Over the last 40 years, the PBS has balanced prices paid to pharmaceutical companies against product benefits. Sometimes negotiation has delayed drugs, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee displayed a sensible balance, making our PBS the envy of the world. We will defend the process of negotiating drug prices to ensure no compromise on the principles that have informed the PBS for 40 years. 

I’ll discuss two more policies. One Nation will introduce legislation in the next parliament for the right to try. This means that, if a person is being treated for an illness the outcome of which could be death and all existing measures have failed, the patient has a right to request from their doctor, or a doctor has a right to suggest, a drug not listed for that condition. It may be an alternative therapy or an unlisted drug. To put this simply, the patient has nothing to lose and everything to gain. This may expand the market for existing pharmaceutical products—who knows? That’s the point. It’s a free clinical trial that a patient has voluntarily entered into, reducing drug prices and saving lives. 

The other policy is to introduce an eight-year wait for new arrivals to access the PBS, unless you’re a citizen or a permanent resident. Under One Nation, there’ll be an eight-year wait for citizenship and for permanent residence. This will not be backdated. You can’t be unmade as citizen. This will not deny medical care for new arrivals, who will pay for that care themselves. Anyone on prescription medication can vote One Nation without fear of losing access to or paying more for their medication. I trust that’s clear.

/0 Comments/by

When Art Crosses the Line

,

Why are taxpayers bankrolling art projects that cross the line from “expression” into outright extremism?

Creative Australia admitted to funding nearly $100,000 for events linked to an artist who has publicly praised a listed terrorist organisation and celebrated violence.

We also learned that $48,000 went to an exhibition that mocked public figures and pushed divisive political messaging, followed by another $318,000 from the department for the same project.

Everyday Australians are sick of seeing their money poured into insider art projects that promote radical politics instead of strengthening community culture.

One Nation get’s labelled as “divisive” for asking when taxpayer funding will start serving Australians, not ideology.

Labor keeps batting accusations back and forth like a game of political tennis, but we’re not here to play – we’re here to get answers for taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $1.692 million to Diversity Arts Australia, DARTS, which is the national voice for ethnocultural and migrant racial equity in the arts, cultural and creative industries. Their primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections for women and DEI related purposes’. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy groups to influence government policy? Where’s the arts funding here? This is advocacy, research and brokering connections. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy?  

Mr Blackwell: One of the functions of Creative Australia is to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia. I’m not sure about the amount of funding over what period you’re referring to, but that may well be activities that allow us to perform this function.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why are we funding this? The primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections’. Why are we funding advocacy? Basically, advocacy is funding advocacy groups to influence government policy. Where’s the art?  

Senator Green: I’m not familiar with that project, so we’d have to take it on notice. I don’t know if the officials from Creative Australia have more information for you about what that project or that organisation is doing. Obviously, some organisations are funded for a particular project, so they might have some more explanation for you.  

Mr Blackwell: We do, actually. Thank you, Minister. Diversity Arts Australia are a delivery partner to service the organisations under the community, arts and cultural development stream of our funding. Those organisations that we classify as delivery partners provide services to the arts sector. They strengthen the arts sector, and they allow the arts sector to leverage more value through that connection. That is the connection through to the arts sector and how we would then fulfil that function to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: You used some nice buzzwords in there—delivery, diversity, leverage. But you didn’t tell me why you’re funding advocacy. Advocacy is not art.  

Mr Blackwell: No, but it’s advocacy for the arts. It’s not lobbying; it’s advocacy for the arts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding that?  

Mr Blackwell: Because that’s part of our remit.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, RP? Can you give a quick explanation of that, please?  

Mr Blackwell: Sorry; could you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, and could you give a quick explanation if it is?  

Mr Blackwell: I would say that we have a responsible process for issuing our grants from start to finish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that incorporate a responsible person for each grant?  

Mr Blackwell: Could you define ‘responsible person’ for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you if it includes that. It doesn’t sound like it does.  

Senator Green: Perhaps you need to provide the context of what you’re referring to—the agreement or the consideration of the application. You may have to give us a guide on what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps it’ll come out in the more detailed questions.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $197,500 to a recipient called Click Ink Inc. for the Bankstown Poetry Slam. They describe themselves: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power, and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by, and disaffected with, systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism, solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ That’s the end of the quote. Events include ‘They call me the good Muslim’, ‘I am Palestinian’ and related pro-Palestinian events. My question is simple. Why are taxpayer dollars funding propaganda? This isn’t art; it’s politics. 

Mr Blackwell: I would say that it is art. I’d have to disagree with you. I would say that it is art. Poetry slams are a common and popular form of artistic expression in this country.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go through the quote again: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by and disaffected with systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism and solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ This sounds like it’s very divisive and pushing an ideology, not art. It doesn’t bother you?  

Senator Green: Art can be political or non-political. You might not like that type of art, but it might be what other people choose to express. It might be a form of expression for them, or there might be an audience for that type of art. I think it’s wrong to say that art can’t be political or shouldn’t be political in some sort of way. Otherwise, we might have a lot of pictures of fields but we wouldn’t have any generation of debate or discussion through the use of art. Are you suggesting that there should be no politics in any songs, music, plays or artistic expression?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying it’s okay for your government to push ideological issues as politics.  

Senator Green: No, that’s not what’s happening here.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what’s happening.  

Senator Green: No. This is funding for artistic expression projects. I thought One Nation was the party of freedom of expression, so I’m a little confused about why you would want to stifle people’s views even if you don’t agree with them and even if you don’t agree with the art. You might not want to go to the poetry slam, but it doesn’t mean that art can’t be political in some way.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are not in favour of government funding government propaganda and government ideology.  

Senator Green: But you are in favour of freedom of expression, aren’t you?  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but not funded by government necessarily.  

Senator Green: Only when it suits you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not funded by government.  

Senator Green: Only the freedom of expression that you—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re defending propaganda from your own government.  

Senator Green: No, it’s not propaganda. The views of the artists might not support our government, but we don’t think that that is a reason why particular art shouldn’t be supported. To make my final point for your next question, the law that was passed in 2023 made it very clear that the government has no role in the funding decisions so that any type of government that might be in power can’t influence the independent funding decisions to alleviate the particular issues that you’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’m heading—accountability. Here’s an example. The registered person for this organisation—presumably, it’s registered with you. I don’t know who it’s registered with. The registered person for this organisation is Bilal Hafda, who said on social media that ‘any Australian who fails to support Palestinians who attacked Israel is a white supremacist’. Another registered person is Sara Saleh, who celebrated the Hamas terrorist aerial attack on Israel on her social media. Is there any rule in your grant guide that precludes grants from being used for political purposes?  

Mr Blackwell: In our funding agreements, we have conditions. If you give me a moment, I’ll find it. Our funding agreements have a condition that says that ‘it is a condition of your funding that you comply with all applicable state, territory and Commonwealth work, health and safety and antidiscrimination laws’.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it?  

Mr Blackwell: And we refer them to Safe Work Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission for more information on those applicable laws. So that is—  

Senator ROBERTS: So celebrating terrorists is okay?  

Mr Blackwell: I—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go on. Ali Al Haj Hussein, who is also known as the Poetic Ninja, has won multiple awards at the Bankstown Poetry Slam. He has praised Hezbollah—declared terrorists—as ‘men of God’, praised the 7 October murders as ‘just the beginning’, promised to ‘drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell’ and used an implicit threat of violence in a poem at the Sydney Writers Festival, where he called for the downfall of the western empire and all its debauchery, including in a general context the same 2SLGBTQQIPAA community your grants are advancing. Does this sound to you like a great day out for the family to listen to poetry? This isn’t art or free expression. It’s an incitement to violence against the Australian community. Why are you funding it? 

Mr Blackwell: I can tell you, in terms of the funding, the grant was $98,000—  

Senator ROBERTS: Nearly a hundred thousand dollars.  

Mr Blackwell: and the project summary, which was funded, was monthly themed poetry slam events; the grand slam championship, Real Talk; high-school poetry programs; the National Youth Poetry Slam; and the development of the Brave New Word Youth Poetry Festival at the Powerhouse Museum. That’s what we funded.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are funding multiple awards for someone praising a terrorist group and wanting to drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell—an implicit threat of violence.  

Mr Blackwell: I’m not aware of that quotation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, you are now. Moving on to the artist Kait James and her Red Flags exhibition, this was partly funded by Creative Australia with a grant of $48,000 on 28 November 2023. As the title suggests, this exhibition decided certain people and events were red flags to the Aboriginal community and proceeded to insult these people and events using a series of pennants and tea towels. One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, was mocked, and Captain Cook had his eyes crossed out and was called a c-u-n-t. This is kindergarten art. You talk about not being political, Minister. Why does everything you or Creative Australia fund which could be considered political aim to promote radical causes, including radical Islam, and attack conservatives and everyday Australians? Where’s the balance? This is divisive, and it’s pushing a Marxist ideology. Why are you funding only one side?  

Mr Blackwell: In regard to Kait James’s Red Flags, we funded it for $48,000 under an arts project grant for the development of the artwork. We weren’t involved in putting on that exhibition. The grant has been acquitted. Within that, there is content which we would say falls into freedom of artistic expression. It may offend some people, Senator, but not necessarily all people. There may be satire in it. All of these things form part of artistic expression.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition, the same one I just raised. Was the criticism of a political rival the quid pro quo for making such a large grant, and what pot of taxpayer money did that grant come from? Where did the money come from?  

Senator Green: First of all, to make it clear, the funding was provided through Creative Australia. It’s not a decision of government; it’s a decision of Creative Australia. But I take your point. The art is not to my taste, but people are entitled to express their views in different ways. I note that viewers of the exhibition were provided a warning about the fact that the art depicted themes and images related to historical and ongoing systematic racism and discrimination and included critique of the artist’s perspectives and strong language. Viewer discretion was advised, so certainly people who wanted to view that art were given fair warning. As I said, it’s not something that I necessarily would consider. I wouldn’t have done it myself, and it probably isn’t something I would go to see, but people are entitled to respect the views of individuals and to present their views in different ways.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your answer, Creative Australia gave a grant of $48,000, which Mr Blackwell confirmed.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition. That would seem to me to be outside the Creative Australia funds. So where did that money come from? What pot of gold in the department did that money come from?  

Senator Green: You are correct. Sorry; I thought you were talking about the grant from Creative Australia for the development of the exhibition.  

Senator ROBERTS: No—the $318,000.  

Senator Green: There was funding under the Office for the Arts, who were with us a bit earlier. Apologies; those officials have left. You won’t be able to ask them about the funding.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can ask you, though.  

Senator Green: Yes, but I’m not an official, so I will have to take it on notice if I don’t have enough information for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. When you come back with your answer on notice, could you tell us whether or not this was political quid pro quo for a political rival.  

Senator Green: Definitely not. I don’t need to take that on notice. I can tell you with 100 per cent confidence that we don’t fund art because we want to attack One Nation. We can do that if we just walk up to the press gallery.  

Senator ROBERTS: For ministers, it’s much cheaper to walk up to the press gallery, hey?  

Senator Green: You should go up to the press gallery! They can ask you some questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to it. Minister, everyday Australians are sick of taxpayers’ money being spent on insider projects and social engineering. We had embarrassment from your government yesterday on this. When will your government listen to them?  

Senator Green: We do listen to Australians. We’ve just finished consultation on the most recent cultural policy. It’ll be the first time Australia’s ever had two national cultural policies in a row. You will remember the release of the Revive cultural policy. So we do give Australians an opportunity to give us feedback on what our cultural policy should be. We’re making sure that that development of that policy takes into consideration all of those views.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do you push ideologically driven, divisive policies that split the Australian community?  

Senator Green: I think that’s what you and One Nation do, Senator—respectfully—and unfortunately we’re seeing that more and more from the Liberal and National parties as they try to join you in that fight.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thanks, Mr Blackwell.

/1 Comment/by

One Nation Says NO to the UN Ocean Rules

,

One Nation opposes the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 which implements the United Nations Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty. This bill represents an unnecessary surrender of Australian sovereignty, creates excessive bureaucracy and risks global food security and medical research.

This bill mandates strict notification and database requirements for collecting marine DNA. This will discourage expensive deep-sea medical research, protect pharmaceutical companies and impose unprecedented criminal penalties for collecting ocean compounds.

It also allows the UN to declare specially managed ocean areas, aligning with the UN’s “30×30” target (conserving 30% of oceans by 2030).

Despite clauses protecting commercial fisheries, the bill threatens the global seafood supply (up to 11 billion tonnes annually) without viable substitutes.

Further, it requires mandatory assessments for activities that may cause environmental harm. This is vague, bureaucratic overreach that fails to address actual ocean issues, such as third-world plastic pollution forming major ocean garbage patches.

It also establishes a large enforcement apparatus (inspectors, permits, audits), committing Australian taxpayer funds without a capped limit. This is literally giving a “blank cheque” to the UN.

One Nation will always protect taxpayers from unquantified financial burdens, safeguard global food security, and resist the transfer of regulatory power to international bodies.

Australia first!

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Here comes yet another UN power grab for control over Australian sovereignty. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 implements Australia’s obligations under the agreement made under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Nobody at the UN, it seems, thought maybe a shorter name would suffice. It’s called BBNJ for short—BB, biodiversity bill, and NJ, areas beyond national jurisdiction. The bill addresses three core parts of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, MGR; area based management tools, ABMDs—the UN’s full of acronyms, isn’t it—and environmental impact assessments, EIAs. Exemptions apply to activities in Antarctica, which maintains Australia’s rights in that region. Of the main provisions of the bill, the first relates to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This establishes a notification based regime for Australian entities collecting or utilising marine genetic resources. Entities must submit pre-collection, post-collection and utilisation notices to the minister. The minister may issue collection or utilisation certificates. Then again, the minister may not. This could actually lock up nature’s own undersea pharmacy and protect the pharmaceutical industry. Remember, natural products can’t be patented. They’re a threat to the pharmaceutical industry. The provision in this bill which requires genetic material, including DNA sequences, to be made publicly available in a regulated repository and database may act to stop companies spending the money to conduct this research, either in entirety or via avoidance behaviour. The regulations do allow some scope for protection of intellectual property, although, given the cost of deep-sea exploration, there is a real risk of this bill reducing the deployment of nature’s remedies hidden in the ocean depths. 

Noncompliance triggers civil and criminal penalties. While previous UN agreements have made the same requirement—criminal penalties on Australians—these have been in areas where such penalties are appropriate—terrorism, genocide, slavery, and suchlike. This is the first agreement that extends the UN’s powers to cover criminal penalties for an action which one would not immediately consider illegal, like taking DNA from a marine creature, looking for a compound that could cure human disease. 

The second aspect relates to area based management tools, ABMTs, and specially managed areas. This creates a framework to recognise international area based management tools—for example, marine protected areas—decided by a UN conference of the parties. The minister must declare the area a specially managed area and determine a special management plan within 120 days, consistent with the area based management tools. Plans may include permitting regimes or prohibitions. Offences apply for contravening the plans. 

The explanatory memorandum and the hype around this agreement show great lengths have been taken to carve out commercial fishing from the agreement. Regional fisheries management organisations, like the ones that manage tuna across the world’s oceans, remain fully in charge of quotas, gear rules, seasons, and enforcement. The agreement contains a strong non-undermining clause, article 5.2, that says the whole treaty ‘shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that does not undermine’ existing fisheries bodies and rules. This was a key demand from fishing nations during negotiations, and it is repeated throughout the text when it comes to area based management tools, although there is a provision which takes precedence, which is marine protected areas on the high seas. The UN conference of the parties can propose and adopt area based management tools to protect vulnerable ecosystems, such as undersea mountains, hydrothermal vents, migration corridors and so on. How much of the ocean can be carved out in this manner depends on the exclusion zone around each of these and on the definition of things like migration corridors. Expect a significant percentage of the world’s ocean to be caught in environmental exemptions—probably 30 per cent, a figure I’ll explain in a minute. 

I appreciate there are checks and balances in this process, yet we have seen the zeal with which anything United Nations is embraced by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens and the teals. Does anyone really think the uniparty is going to say no to the United Nations once these powers have been granted? The UN has already decimated Australia’s fishing industry under these same environmental rules. Now they’ll do the same thing to ocean fishing, which, according to the UN’s own Food and Agriculture Organization, yields 11 billion tonnes of fish—of food, and protein—annually. Eleven billion tonnes of food to feed the world’s hungry may be at risk, and One Nation would argue it is at risk. Australia’s aquaculture industry, fish grown in farms, is only 100,000 tonnes per annum, according to ABARES, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. This doesn’t include wild-caught fish. What country has the ability to produce billions of tonnes of protein to replace the billions of tonnes of fish at risk from this agreement? Australia is an entire continent, and we can only manage thousands, not billions, of tonnes of aquaculture. Even the measly 40,000 tonnes coming out of Tasmania’s fish farming in Macquarie Harbour is under attack right now for being too much, too intensive, too damaging, according to the Greens, who support this bill, so go figure. What will people eat in Greens land? It’s not the first time I’ve asked them that question, and I still haven’t heard their answer. As Australia cannot change an international agreement, all One Nation can do is oppose this bill, and we will. 

The third aspect is the environmental impact assessment regime. This introduces a mandatory environmental impact assessment process for activities within Australian jurisdiction that may cause substantial pollution or harmful changes in the environment. Note the use of the word ‘may’, which is bureaucrat speak for anything they want it to mean—include anything. Every stage of the project is subject to individual licensing, scrutiny, reporting and review. The United Nations’ recipe for everything is more bureaucracy, more licences, more power and more control taken to New York to make things worse—and, if not New York, Geneva. 

How will this legislation solve the major problem actually threatening large areas of our oceans—the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, covering 1.6 million square kilometres; the south Pacific garbage patch; the north Atlantic garbage patch; the south Atlantic garbage patch; and the Indian Ocean garbage patch? How? It won’t. Can anyone show me where in this legislation these abominations, these embarrassments to civilisation will be fixed through this legislation? You can’t, Minister, because the source of this pollution is third-world countries chucking their rubbish into rivers, which travels out to sea and gathers in the gyres between permanent ocean currents. Those will not be covered by the international agreement this legislation introduces, because nobody wants to take on the countries doing it. You won’t take them on. 

Australia did it, though. We banned the export of our waste to third-world countries, who were taking out anything of value from the rubbish and then using their rivers as waste disposal facilities—putting their rubbish, our rubbish, into their rivers and then into the ocean. We did that without a United Nations agreement. We took out the dumping of rubbish and the exporting of our rubbish. We banned the exporting of our rubbish. We did that because it was the right thing to do. And, for the record, One Nation supported that legislation. Here’s the catch, though. Under this agreement, if the United Nations wanted to solve the rubbish handling across nations whose populations exceed three billion, Australia would have to pay for it. That’s the point of this bill. We undertake to pay whatever our share of whatever they spend becomes. 

The fourth area is compliance, enforcement and administration. Australia appoints inspectors for monitoring, investigation, civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. This includes information notices, audits and protections against self-incrimination. Australia authorises grants, payments and financial arrangements to meet the BBNJ obligations, including capacity building and technology transfer. When I said ‘more bureaucracy’, I wasn’t joking. This is an insane level of new bureaucracy that we will be paying for. 

And here’s our next objection: the bill creates the heads of power for the government to make appropriations for the purposes of paying our share of this whole new bureaucracy yet doesn’t say how much. You do not say how much. It can’t, because the UN hasn’t set their cost yet. Whatever that outcome becomes, we pay our share of that. This legislation is a blank cheque to the bloody United Nations. One Nation will not sign blank cheques. This is taxpayer money. Taxpayers are under extreme cost-of-living pressure and housing prices. This is taxpayers’ money, and we have an obligation to make sure it’s being spent properly. When you can’t fulfil that obligation, we don’t want to spend it. There’s no reason why the spending can’t be put in a separate bill when the cost is known. Then again, financial responsibility goes out the door when it’s the United Nations asking or the World Health Organization, which is part of the UN, or the Asian Development Bank or the World Bank or any other globalist entity so beloved by the uniparty. Finally, let me share with the Senate One Nation’s overarching objection to this and similar legislation. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted in December 2022 at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Conference of the Parties 15. This framework, which Australia has signed, includes 23 targets for 2030—that’s just four years away. Target 3, called the 30-30 target, requires members to conserve and manage at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, coastal marine areas and oceans by 2030 through creating protected areas, taking area based conservation measures and recognising Indigenous territories. 

That’s exactly what this bill does. For all the nice words—the fraudulent wording—around protecting fishing, this bill will give the United Nations, in their own words, the right to lock up 30 per cent of the world’s oceans from fishing. In so doing, the world’s hungry will lose billions of tonnes of food, of protein and of good nutrition. That’s what you’re all voting for. One Nation opposes this bill.

/0 Comments/by

The $5M Vaccine Grant With Zero Accountability

,

I questioned the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on why taxpayers are funding a new $5 million vaccine-adjuvant research centre when Australians still haven’t been given clear answers about the safety of existing adjuvants.

Their written response to my questions confirmed the project was funded simply because peer reviewers ranked it highly, saying that “there are only seven adjuvants used in license vaccines which limits the choice” and the NHMRC’s Centres of Research Excellence aims to “discover novel adjuvants to improve vaccine development.”

That’s not oversight – that’s the NHMRC waving through millions without addressing the real issues.

I asked directly whether concerns about aluminum-based adjuvants or neurological conditions played any role and they couldn’t give me an answer.

I also confirmed that any new vaccine technology developed with Australian taxpayer money WILL NOT be owned by Australians.

This is simply not good enough.

Taxpayers should not be funding research that lines the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies. Any intellectual property generated through these grants must belong to the taxpayers. Handing over valuable IP to entities to monetise at our expense provides zero return to the taxpayers.

This has to stop!

For a billion-dollar grant body, Australians deserve better than vague justifications and no clear outcomes.

Australians deserve accountability that matches the scale of the spending.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could I turn to the National Health and Medical Research Council, please. In 2025, the National Health and Medical Research Council funded the Vaccine Adjuvant Discovery and Development Centre of Research Excellence—CRE—led by Professor Katherine Andrews at Griffith University, with $5 million as part of a $72 million CRE package. This grant focuses on discovering new adjuvants to enhance vaccine efficacy, safety and related purposes. First question: Why do we need new adjuvants? What’s wrong with the existing adjuvants?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We assess grants through a peer review process. Through that process, we utilise experts from around Australia to assess all of the grants that come to us—whether it’s for a centre of research excellence, an investigator grant or an ideas grant. The way that CRE would’ve been assessed would’ve been through that peer review process. Through that peer review process, they would’ve been elevated to the top of that scheme and would’ve been funded on the basis of their peers indicating that this was high-quality research that was likely to have a significant impact on health in Australia. We would take that on board; therefore, if they were ranked accordingly, we would fund them.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the reasons why their peers elevated it to No. 1?  

Prof. Wesselingh: I would have to go back and look at all of the assessments by those peers. Obviously, I don’t have that directly in front of me at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you do that on notice, please? We’d like to know why that research was approved, why we need new adjuvants, and what’s wrong with the existing adjuvants? 

Prof. Wesselingh: I’m very happy to look back at the peer review. But what I can guarantee you is that they would have been regarded as excellent research likely to produce significant impact.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what they are.  

Prof. Wesselingh: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Adjuvants and vaccines are there to enhance the body’s immune response to the antigen. Common adjuvants include aluminium hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate and potassium aluminium sulphate. These have been widely linked to neurological conditions spontaneously occurring after vaccination. Is this program an admission that there might be a level of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism? I guess you wouldn’t know, because you don’t know the—  

Prof. Wesselingh: So you’re asking us if the fact that we funded the CRE is an admission? We, again, funded the CRE on the basis of the scores that the CRE obtained. Those scores would indicate the quality of the science and the likelihood of obtaining high-quality evidence to improve the health of Australians.  

Senator ROBERTS: Right, and you’re going to find the reason anyway, so perhaps you could check if there is any aspect of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism as part of the reasons for developing a new adjuvant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We can certainly look at the arguments that the CRE made and the peer review of that CRE.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If research is successful and you find an effective adjuvant that is not neurotoxic, who will own the intellectual property the taxpayers just funded?  

Prof. Wesselingh: The way our granting system works is that the intellectual property developed by—the people who get the grants from us, which are normally medical research institutes or universities or members of those organisations, own the intellectual property. So the intellectual property would be assigned according to a university’s intellectual property rules or a medical research institute’s rules. I’m not sure, with that CRE, where they were.  

Senator ROBERTS: A $5 million synergy grant was awarded in 2024 to a multi-institutional team, including Monash University, to optimise vaccines for respiratory viruses, like influenza and RSV. This includes evaluating safety profiles to improve protection while minimising risks. If that develops new technology which achieves that objective, who will own that IP?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, the IP would be organised according to the rules developed by the organisations as part of that synergy grant. Synergy grants tend to have a number of organisations from around Australia, so I imagine there are multiple universities and MRIs involved in that synergy grant, and they will have developed an IP policy and the IP will be owned according to that policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: But not by the Australian government?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Not by NHMRC or by the government.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re very concerned about the level of spending in this government. Professor Bette Liu from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance received a $2.79 million investigator grant in 2024 to study adult vaccination programs. This explicitly includes assessing vaccine safety, identifying risks in high-risk groups and informing safer program designs. What was the outcome of that grant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, if I knew the outcomes of all of the grants that I fund—we fund a billion dollars worth of grants every year—I think I’d be pretty good. I can’t tell you the outcome of that grant, but we can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you still think you’re pretty good?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Do I think I’m personally pretty good or the NHMRC is very good?  

Senator ROBERTS: Both! Okay, thank you very much. 

/by

Funding Hate: The Shocking Truth About Labor’s Grants

,

How can Tony Burke serve as the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible for our national security, authorise hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in grants to pro-Palestinian activists?

Grant recipients going to groups who have publicly referred to Hezbollah terrorists as “men of God,” supported Intifada, and condemned Australians who stood with the Jewish community after the massacres in Israel.

When I asked how a minister can balance protecting our security on one hand while funding anti-Australian rhetoric on the other, the Labor government refused to answer, instead claiming arts grants weren’t a matter for Home Affairs and are handled at “arm’s length” by independent councils.

Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund individuals who undermine our social cohesion and praise banned terrorist organisations.

Labor can try to hide behind bureaucratic red tape, but I won’t let this drop.

Australians deserve to know exactly where their hard-earned money is going.

— May | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Separately: Minister, I find it confusing that, as Minister for the Arts, Minister Tony Burke authorised hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to known pro-Palestinian activists. These recipients of Australian tax dollars publicly support anti-Australian activities; refer to the terrorists of Hezbollah as ‘men of God’; support Intifada, which is a holy war—the slaughter of non-Muslims; and condemn those Australians who support the Jewish community after the massacre in Israel. Why would he do that?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would suggest that any grants administered under Minister Burke’s portfolio in the arts is not a matter for the Home Affairs portfolio. You would need to take it to—  

Senator ROBERTS: But, Chair, I’m interested in this because he’s also Minister for Home Affairs.  

CHAIR: But the grants you’re talking about are administered under the arts, so if you have a question relating to the grants administered there then you need to ask your questions in that hearing.  

Senator ROBERTS: We will be, but isn’t that hypocrisy? Security and funding terrorists?  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I do think that the chair is correct. There’s a whole other estimates session devoted to arts funding and grants. But I can tell you, in a general sense, that individual decisions about grants are made at arm’s length from the minister. In the arts portfolio there are groups like the Australia Council and other groups that determine who gets what grant. Those decisions are not made by this minister or have been by previous ministers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.  

CHAIR: Thank you for your assistance, Senator Roberts. 

 

/2 Comments/by

Tents vs. Space Programs

,

I seemed to have upset my colleagues when I questioned why more than half a million dollars was being spent on a grant exploring “Indigenous connections to outer space” and whether Aboriginal people “cared for other planets.”

How do such projects help Australians who are living in tents, skipping meals, or struggling to pay rent?

While people are hurting, the Labor government is spending $1 billion a year on grants like this.

Taxpayers deserve to know why.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Moving on, Dr Lara Daley at the University of Newcastle received a grant of $528,491 over three years, including salary and project costs to study: ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge in Australian space policy, using songlines and creation stories, aiming to broaden understandings of outer space by identifying and supporting Aboriginal connections between space and life on Earth to develop culturally respectful and environmentally responsible space exploration.’ How would Aboriginal environmental management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management that includes Aboriginal management of the environment? 

Prof. Shergold: My answer to this and other questions I suspect are going to be identical. I can do no more than describe the peer-review processes that are being used and hopefully make it clear why it would be entirely inappropriate for me or the board to step in on particular projects on which we would have far less expertise than the assessors to overturn decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Shergold. That doesn’t give the taxpayers much confidence. How would Aboriginal management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management full stop? Does the ARC expect Elon Musk to encounter an Indigenous population on Mars for which we should prepare? According to her bio, Dr Daley’s research is grounded in herself as, inter alia, ‘a white, non-Indigenous person on unceded Aboriginal country specialising in human and more-than-human research, including outer space as being already known, cared for and inhabited through Indigenous ontologies. Did Aboriginals inhabit other planets?  

CHAIR: The scope of estimates is very broad, but it is contained to the operations and expenditure of departments and agencies, and I—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, one more question.  

CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wonder: did Aboriginals care for other planets in the solar system? You appear to be trying to extend Aboriginal mythology to other planets in the solar system. How far out—Pluto, Saturn, to infinity and beyond, as Buzz Lightyear said in Toy Story?  

Senator FARUQI: My God. Read some books, Malcolm!  

Senator ROBERTS: Australians are living in tents, struggling to buy food. Hundreds of thousands of people are struggling. Tens of thousands are living under bridges and in cars, and this is what you spend your $1 billion a year on. Unidentified speaker: Is there a question, Chair?  

Senator FARUQI: Chair, please put us out of our misery.  

CHAIR: Malcolm Roberts, please take a moment. Senators, I appreciate all the feelings at the table, but it is important that senators are able to be heard in silence as they ask their questions, as it is important for witnesses to be heard in silence and not spoken over. I will be enforcing this on both counts. Senator Roberts, you have the call to keep asking your question. Senators, regardless of what you think of it, please allow him to do so in silence.  

Senator ROBERTS: With Australians struggling, why is this what you spend your $1 billion a year on? Taxpayers would be saying, ‘Shame on you.’  

Senator Walsh: Was that for the professor or for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: Both.  

Senator Walsh: I’ll go first, Senator Roberts, and say that you are a politician and that you are expressing your political views right now—  

Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of many constituents, yes.  

Senator Walsh: and what we did is we removed politics from the processes that the ARC uses, because we believe in peer review of research not political review of research. The ARC’s process is rigorous. It is independent. As Professor Shergold has said, it is based on a strong network of peer reviewers. That is the decision of the government. We based that decision after an independent review of the ARC Act. Our reforms came into force from 1 July 2024, and we established an independent and expert ARC board to be responsible for the approval of grants, fellowships and the like. Professor Shergold and his team are discharging their obligations under the legislation to assess grant applications through these processes—through the panel, through peer review. They are discharging their obligations appropriately, and the government undermines efforts to undermine the trust in the Australian Research Council.  

Prof. Shergold: You are quite right to be directing the question to me. It isn’t a ministerial decision. It is in very large measure a decision for me and the board of the ARC. You’re quite right. The reality is, as I said, that we had about 1,000 grants that were approved last year. It is inevitable that there will be 10 or 20 of those that will become highly controversial for the reasons you’ve suggested. I suppose my view is—and it’s not giving any view on any particular research—that the fact that becomes controversial is not a bad thing. The whole purpose of research is to look for new paradigms, to interpret in new ways, to provoke and, to be honest with you, to raise hackles on existence. It is the way in which we continue to improve what we do economically, socially and environmentally and have debates about culture within Australia. I can’t, like you, sit down and say, ‘I think that looks like a really good piece of research to me, and that one looks a bit whacky.’ I’ve got to be dependent upon the experts that I use. My task, as I’ve said, is to make sure that they are doing it with integrity. I want to make sure, to see, that there are no conflicts of interest. I want to look at the outcomes of that research, to make sure that all universities are getting agreement that Indigenous scholars—not just on Indigenous issues, incidentally, but Indigenous scholars in all areas—are getting fair access. That’s what I’m looking at when I look at the 4,000 grant applications we receive and the thousands of decisions we make. It’s making sure that, in all ways, the peer review process is working and, with the board, looking at ways in which it can be improved all the time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/by

Niche Ideology vs. Taxpayer Value

,

I seemed to upset my colleagues when I questioned why the Australian Research Council is spending close to a billion dollars a year on grants that taxpayers would struggle to see any value in.

ARC leadership repeatedly hid behind “peer review processes”, refusing to justify cost-benefit while signing off on a $889,275 grant for an Arab/Muslim Australian social movements study, and another $322,213 grant that produced a commercial sold book Coming of Age in War on Terror.

While I respect independent review processes, the real issue is being ignored.

How is this supposedly “world-class system” allowing taxpayer money to be poured into niche ideological research with no demonstrated benefit to the people footing the bill?

The problem isn’t that research exists – it’s why taxpayers are being forced to fund it.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing tonight. Good evening. I have here grant reference FT220100427 for beneficiary Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, covering the period from 2022 to 2027, with a grant amount $802,000, since increased to $889,275. The purpose of this very large grant—inter alia—is: Arab/Muslim Australian Social Movements since the 1970s: a hidden history … aims to recover previously untapped oral histories and rare archival collections of Arab/Muslim Australian activists … Who have struggled against external systems and internal conflicts to build a socially just future … include a greater understanding of the transformative activism of communities whose movement work is often relegated to the margins. This is what you’re spending taxpayer money on. What is the cost benefit of this study sufficient to justify an almost $900,000 price tag? 

Senator FARUQI: Why do you hate Muslims, Malcolm?  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t; we have some in this party.  

Prof. Shergold: Let me answer that question and I’m happy to do so because the key change to the ARC legislation, as you will be aware, is that, at this stage—in most instances, not all—it is the ARC and board which make the decision on grants and not the minister. So the minister is clearly at arm’s length. Now, what do you do if you’re on a board and you are trying to make sure that you use public funds for the best purposes available for projects that are deemed by universities to be in the national interest? If you look at the number of applications that come forward, you’ll start to understand what a challenge it is. I think last year—I’m looking for the numbers—there was something about 4,000 applications.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is this getting to the answer of my question?  

Prof. Shergold: I am going to get there, because I want you to share my pain. We’ve got 4,000 applications and about, give or take, 25 per cent are accepted. It is quite unrealistic and very bad governance to imagine I and the board members sit down and look at 4,000 applications, even as well as presented as you’ve just done with this one, and say yes or no. How do you do it? You try and make sure you have the very best world-class system, which is a peer-review process. The role of myself, the role of the board, isn’t to go through and second-guess those expert peer reviewers in the decisions they make. My role—an important one; I feel a burden of responsibility—is to make sure that the processes that are being used are best practice in peer review and are done with honesty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a cost benefit?  

Prof. Shergold: This was a proposal that came forward out of about was about 1,200, give or take, that were accepted last year.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t tell me—  

Prof. Shergold: What I can tell you is we are using the best peer-review processes that we have available. It was thought by members of college of experts and then by disciplinary experts that this would be an important and innovative and, no doubt, provocative piece of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me the cost benefit.  

Prof. Shergold: Well, I tell you what I can do. I can tell you the cost benefit as assessed of the ARC grants overall, which we had undertaken a few years ago—  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that for this grant?  

Prof. Shergold: which gave a return on all our grants of about I think $3.20 on the dollar, something like that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on. This isn’t your first grant to the doctor. There was also grant DP110101249 titled ‘Youth in the digital age: Being young and Muslim in Australia’ for $322,213 covering 2018 to 2021. Now my question is: why didn’t you use the correct name of the project, which was: ‘”Trust, Politics, and Fear: ‘Generation 9/11’ Muslim and Non-Muslim youth compared”‘?  

Prof. Shergold: Well, it wasn’t my piece of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: This grant allowed the doctor to write a book titled Coming of Age in the War on Terror, published by Allen and Unwin. Why are you funding this person to write a book which she sold commercially and for which the doctor most likely received payment? Did she?  

Prof. Shergold: I have no idea—  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what bothers me.  

Prof. Shergold: if she received payment from that. But I am delighted overall when pieces of research that we fund end up in books or articles. I think that was a good use of money.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is socialising costs and privatising profits. Why is the Australian Research Council allowed to use taxpayer money to provide a commercial benefit to their friends in academia—paid to write the book, paid to sell the book? This seems to be a great scam going on here for academia.  

Prof. Shergold: Well, in answering the question, and you were frustrated at the delay, the one thing I did show is how this is a best-practice peer-review process, and to identify that as a scam is probably stretching it somewhat.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is the ARC allowed to do this—socialise costs and privatise benefits? 

Senator Walsh: The ARC’s role in the process is through its independent and expert board to use the process of peer review that Professor Shergold spoke about to be responsible for the approval of grants and fellowships and so on. That’s the ARC’s role and they rely on independent peer review to discharge their obligations. I think you’re asking questions about academics then publishing books after they have conducted research which may be funded by the ARC or may be supported in other ways. I think that publishing opportunity is just a part of higher education; it is standard procedure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you have been funding this person continuously since 2018. Dr Randa Abdel Fattah is a radical Islamic activist who just participated in the figurative ‘burning down’ of the Adelaide Writers Festival. Is this grant nothing more than the ARC funding Islamic activism?  

Prof. Shergold: I won’t repeat the process which the minister has described well. I will say we have a college of experts carefully selected who do a first assessment. We then have detailed assessments from over 20,000 assessors from Australia and around the world that then assess each of those pieces of research. And roughly about 25 per cent of them manage to make the cut. I wish I could fund more. There are many more good projects you could, but that’s the truth. There is a process. I can’t possibly step in and start to overrule decisions of that process on the basis that I don’t like particularly the political advocacy that someone does. I’ve got to make sure on your behalf that that process is being used as well as it possibly can be to make sure that decisions are being made fairly, honestly, transparently and in the national interest.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re nice words. But I’d leave this to the taxpayers to decide. The doctor has now organised an alternative event to the Adelaide Writers Festival, which, by all reports, is designed to exclude people of a certain faith or belief. Minister, I keep on hearing about social cohesion and yet this grant has gone to a person who is attacking social cohesion to advance Islamic propaganda. Why is your grants program encouraging social conflict?  

Senator Walsh: There are a lot of incorrect premises there about the role of the ARC and the grants process and the investigation that was undertaken by Macquarie University. Essentially, Professor Shergold has already gone through that process. To go over it again, briefly, the minister wrote to the ARC and, I think, to Professor Shergold and asked the ARC to look into this particular grant to the doctor and make sure that the grant was being appropriately used. The way that works is that it’s the university that receives the grant that is then tasked with doing the investigation. Macquarie University appointed academic experts to conduct the review. The review investigated whether the grant funding was being used for its intended purpose. During that process, the funding was suspended. The process concluded and the grant was reinstated. It was reinstated, as I understand it, because there was no evidence that there was an inappropriate acquittal of public funds. So that’s the process.  

Prof. Shergold: The only thing I would add is that, of course, we will continue to review this grant, just as we review all the other grants.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister. Just moving on then—  

Senator FARUQI: Chair, may I raise a point of order?  

CHAIR: Yes.  

Senator FARUQI: Senator Roberts is making completely unfounded and false allegations about a very respected academic and researcher. I would really like you to ask him to withdraw those or stop that line of questioning.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to move on, Chair.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to wait for me to respond to the point of order before you can direct the committee to move on. I take your point, Senator Faruqi, but I don’t believe there has been a breach of the standing orders from what I can observe. But I would just remind all senators, as we continue through this session, to do so respectfully of the witnesses and topics we’re dealing with and of each other at the table. Senator Roberts, you still have the call.  

/by

Government Gambles With Your Money

,

I wanted to get some straight answers about the government’s 5% deposit scheme, because to me, it looks like risky lending at the taxpayers’ expense.

APRA have previously said that loans with a 95% value ratio are high-risk. I asked how they reconcile that with a government scheme that encourages this exact behaviour. They admitted that high-ratio lending is “more risky” and they are watching it closely.

I’m worried about what happens if property prices drop by 10 or 20%. If people fall into negative equity, the taxpayer is underwriting a huge chunk of those losses. APRA ducked out of giving a specific answer on the scheme itself, however insisted their “stress tests” for the overall banking system are even more severe than the scenarios raised.

I asked: was the Treasurer warned about the scheme’s risks? They told me they gave some advice to Treasury early on about mortgage insurers, but nothing specifically to the Treasurer. They will provide me with a copy of that advice on notice.

I questioned APRA as to whether this scheme follows their own sound risk management standards. They replied that they don’t “opine” on government policy, however confirmed that they’ll expect banks to hold the same amount of capital against these loans as any other high-risk product.

Finally, I asked if they would publish stress test results specifically for this 5% scheme. They stated that their stress tests are “much broader than any one government policy” and that they are “not aware of a stress test” planned for this specific scheme.

APRA knows these loans are risky and are tiptoeing around the topic.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. APRA has previously stated that loans with loan-to value ratios above 90 per cent ‘clearly expose an ADI to a higher risk of loss’ and that prudent loan-to-value ratio limits are essential for portfolio risk management. How does APRA reconcile those warnings with the government’s five per cent deposit scheme, which institutionalises 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio lending, backed by taxpayers?  

Mr Lonsdale: Well, it’s something that we’re watching very closely, Senator. I think the premises of your question is correct: high LVR lending, as a general statement, and high debt-to-income lending are at the more risky end. Because of that, we watch that type of lending very closely.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has APRA provided advice to government on the systemic risk and implications of guaranteeing high loan-to-value ratio loans under this scheme? If so, will you table that advice? 

Mr Lonsdale: As I mentioned to Senator Brag, we were asked for our advice on LMI providers for the early design of the scheme, which we provided to Treasury, not the Treasurer. But we’ve not provided any advice to the Treasurer on the systemic effects of the Home Guarantee Scheme as currently implemented.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get a copy of that advice that you gave to Treasury, on notice?  

Mr Lonsdale: I’m happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Borrowers with 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio loans are more likely to fall into negative equity during downturns, and taxpayers are underwriting 15 per cent of these loans. Has APRA modelled fiscal exposure if property prices fall by, say, 10 to 20 per cent?  

Mr Lonsdale: We do very stringent stress tests on the banks and on the system that are more stringent than you just outlined there.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve done what I’ve said?  

Mr Lonsdale: More stringent, I would say, and we publish those results. The outcome is that our banking system, particularly our major banks, are very resilient.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does APRA consider the scheme consistent with Prudential Standard APS 220 and APG 223, guidance of sound risk management?  

Mr Lonsdale: I don’t want to comment directly on the scheme, but what I can say is that that’s a very important standard that you mentioned, and we deal with the banks all the time to make sure that they are resilient and are adhering to our standards, of which that is one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you discuss the scheme in relation to that?  

Mr Lonsdale: As I said to Senator Bragg, if we’re looking at the scheme, we want to have a look very closely at the empirics, the loans being used—  

Senator ROBERTS: Once you’ve got experience.  

Mr Lonsdale: After we’ve got experience. We like to base our conclusions on facts.  

Ms McCarthy Hockey: Government schemes at federal level and state level come and go from time to time. We see different structures of ways in which government make their decisions and put in place policies. At all points in time, it is for the bank to determine its risk appetite for the kind of lending that it would extend and then that it adequately capitalises that and puts liquidity against it. So, I think the really key point here is that we don’t opine on any regime put forward by a government. It is their prerogative. However, the banks are to uphold the lending standards and the risk management, and to capitalise it and put liquidity accordingly. What we then do is look at the macroprudential picture that we monitor—you can see us very regularly publishing our view of that— and take our macroprudential measures accordingly, which are within our gift to do. There are different roles that we play, but the key thing is that banks are managing that risk, we are managing the system risk, and governments will make their decisions as they see fit.  

Senator ROBERTS: APRA’s guidance emphasises limiting large volumes of high-risk lending. Does APRA classify the government’s scheme as high-risk lending?  

Mr Lonsdale: Again, I don’t want to comment directly on the scheme, but I’ll make this general point: the higher the LVR, generally, the higher the risk involved, and the higher the probability of default. I think that is true. Because we’ve had a large number of questions on high-LVR lending, can I just make this point: it is part of our normal course that we would seek reporting from the banks on high-LVR lending; because it is high-risk lending, we do that. The other thing that I think is a very important point is that when you look at the capital settings that we apply, the vast bulk of lending that is happening in the country—but also that we’d expect under this scheme—is done by the major banks, the lion’s share. The capital that we are requiring to be held is agnostic to the Home Guarantee Scheme. So, regardless of that guarantee, we are requiring the same amount of capital to be held. 

Senator ROBERTS: So that means that APRA will apply the same supervisory expectations to banks originating these loans as it does to other high loan-to-value ratio products? 

Mr Lonsdale: Yes, we will. 

CHAIR: How are you going, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: Almost. Will APRA commit to publishing stress test results for the five per cent deposit scheme under scenarios of price declines and unemployment shocks? 

Mr Lonsdale: The stress tests that we do are much broader than any one government policy, and we do publish those. I’m not aware of a stress test that we will be doing on the particular scheme. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your succinct answers. Thanks, Chair. 

/by

Integrity in Parental Leave

,

One Nation fully supports the heart of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025. Losing a child to stillbirth is a crushing, heartbreaking tragedy and parents deserve the full support of our paid parental leave system during such a dark time. We agree that no employer should be able to unilaterally cancel leave when a family is grieving.

However, I introduced an amendment to fix a serious flaw in the current drafting. As it stands, the definition of “stillbirth” would allow a woman who undergoes a voluntary late-term abortion to claim 26 weeks of taxpayer-funded parental leave.

Our position is clear: ✔️ YES to supporting parents through the tragedy of stillbirth or infant loss. ✔️ YES to protecting mothers who need emergency medical terminations for health reasons. ❌ NO to using taxpayer dollars to provide “parental leave” for elective abortions.

Paid parental leave is a benefit designed to support families and the bond between parent and child. It should not be extended to those who voluntarily choose to terminate a pregnancy.

I called on the Senate to support our common-sense amendment to ensure this bill serves its true purpose: supporting grieving families.

Transcript

The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025 amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to extend entitlements to paid parental leave in the case of stillbirth or death of a child. Stillbirths or deaths of a child are crushing—heartbreaking to parents. My wife, Christine, and I have two children and one grandchild. Nothing else comes close, as I’m sure every parent feels. Nothing else comes close to having a child, except possibly losing a child. One Nation supports the bill’s core intent for the very reason I’ve just mentioned.  

The bill only deals with paid parental leave; it does not alter the existing provisions around unpaid parental leave. The bill will prevent employers from unilaterally cancelling periods of paid parental leave in cases of stillbirth or the death of a child during the paid parental leave period. The bill will not prevent employers and employees from agreeing between themselves to cancel such periods of leave, usually so the employee can return to work early for sound reasons. And the bill does not change arrangements for payment of allowances to parents who are not employed. The bill does not impose any requirement on employers to provide employer-funded paid parental leave, because the employer does not pay parental leave; the government does, at a cost of $2.9 billion a year. Some companies pay parental leave at a higher rate. Often, they pay the employee’s regular pay and top up the government payment themselves. In this case, the bill will make those employers pay this higher rate to an employee who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy when their child was delivered stillborn. I will say that again: in this case, the bill will make those employers pay this higher rate to an employee who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy when the child was delivered stillborn. 

Why has One Nation submitted an amendment to the Baby Priya bill? Why have I submitted an amendment to the Baby Priya bill? The bill requires employers to provide paid parental leave to employees who have a stillborn baby, or where the baby dies during the parental leave period. One Nation do not oppose this measure in principle; we support it. Our amendment does not change the outcome of the bill for most women, including the situation Baby Priya’s parents, very sadly, found themselves to be in.  

The definition of a stillborn baby in the bill relies on section 77A(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which defines a stillborn child as one: 

(a) who weighs at least 400 grams at delivery …; and 

(b) who has not breathed since delivery; and 

(c) whose heart has not beaten since delivery. 

Yet here’s a key concern of many constituents across Australia and my state of Queensland: nothing in this definition takes account of a voluntary abortion resulting in a stillbirth, which is most late-term abortions. These involve injecting the human baby with a drug that stops their heart and then is delivered as a stillbirth. In the bill as it was introduced, a mother in that situation would qualify for 26 weeks of paid parental leave. This is the very specific issue One Nation’s amendment seeks to correct. We do not believe it is right for a woman who deliberately terminates her pregnancy to then qualify for 26 weeks paid parental leave at taxpayer expense. I must emphasise that neither this bill nor One Nation’s amendment changes anything around emergency terminations in the event of serious health issues affecting the mother. Nothing changes. That’s already protected in legislation; I want to make that very clear. For example, early delivery without killing the baby first is normal obstetric practice for emergency health conditions late in pregnancy such as high blood pressure, liver or kidney disease or cancer that requires chemotherapy. 

Here are some more important facts on abortion that have informed One Nation’s amendment. There is no upper gestational limit on abortion in any Australian state jurisdiction—none. In each jurisdiction, abortion is permitted until birth with the approval of two doctors after a certain gestation. In some jurisdictions such as Queensland, the second doctor who approves the late term abortion is not even required to examine the pregnant woman. A late term abortion is an abortion at 20 weeks or more in gestation. This is consistent with the definition provided by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in its practice guideline on late term abortion. 

How many late term abortions are performed in Australia every year? We don’t know because only Victoria, Queensland and South Australia publish the figures. The other states are obviously ashamed of how many they perform. The total number of known late term abortions in 2024 was 5,559. Of those, 75 per cent were for non-life-threatening conditions. This makes a complete mockery of the leftist talking point that women don’t abort their babies on a whim. Some do. 

There is a strong case for the productivity benefit of paid parental leave though, including in cases of natural death of the child. One Nation quite clearly supports this. It’s only the extension of this benefit to women who deliberately kill their baby, murder their baby, that One Nation objects to. I ask the Senate to support this amendment. 

In good conscience, we cannot wave through legislation that forces employers and taxpayers to fund 26 weeks of parental leave for terminated births or neonatal neglect.

While the loss of a child to natural causes is a tragedy, we are currently witnessing a horrifying reality in our hospitals: babies born alive after termination are being left to die alone in cold steel tins. This isn’t just a policy debate; it is a question of fundamental humanity.

Australia must stop and listen. We refuse to let this be treated as a tool for social media points or gender warfare. The Australian people deserve a formal inquiry to review these harrowing circumstances and have their voices heard.

Transcript

One Nation supports Senator Hanson-Young’s amendment. This bill will have far-reaching impacts on Australia. It’s not to be rushed through the parliament. One Nation is the party of the natural environment and the party of the human environment. We want to give Australians a say. Workers, employers and small businesses—the parliament needs to listen to these people and give them a say. 

I’d also like to now move my amendment to the Selection of Bills report as circulated in the chamber. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you can’t. We are dealing with Senator Hanson-Young’s amendment at this point. You can speak to your motion if you wish to, but you can’t move it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will speak to it now, and that’ll save us time later. One Nation has moved to send the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025 to committee. The bill, as worded, allows employer paid parental leave for the parents of a baby who has been born still as a result of a termination or of a live birth abortion. Loss of a child due to natural circumstances is crushing, but where a child is terminated and born alive that child is cast away into a cold steel tin and left inhumanly to die from neglect in a bucket of cold steel. This is what’s going on our country. Alone, scared and suffering, the child dies a slow and terrifying death. 

This happens every few weeks in a hospital somewhere in Australia. The mother’s employer or the taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for 26 weeks paid leave for an aborted baby or neonatal murder—they should not. This is too important an issue to wave through parliament for social media likes and gender warfare points. A committee inquiry is needed to review this position and allow the public their say. The people of Australia need to have an opportunity to have their say, and we need to listen. 

/1 Comment/by