The Australia Institute recently claimed that big government serves everyday Australians while small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack One Nation’s “neoliberal” policies. They completely miss our core belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people creates growth and abundance so Australians can be self-sufficient and independent. It’s not about the size of government, it’s about what government actually does.
The left hates economic independence because self-sufficient Australians don’t rely on the state. That’s why the Australia Institute is pushing destructive measures like an inheritance tax on lifetime savings and a 2% wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income – assets! These taxes hit asset-rich, cash-poor Australians hard; our farmers, truckers, fishers and small business owners, which will force many into bankruptcy.
One Nation firmly rejects both wealth and inheritance taxes. The Albanese Labor government has already embraced these left-wing ideas, pushing capital gains tax changes that crashed housing prices, erased billions in national wealth and trapped young buyers in negative equity.
Labor needs to stop pushing ideology over economics.
Bring on the next election so One Nation can put an end to this socialist agenda once and for all.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Last month, the Australia Institute stated that big government serves the interests of everyday Australians and small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack as ‘neoliberal’ policies that One Nation is promoting. It fails to understand One Nation’s central belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people will grow wealth and abundance for all, reducing the need for government support as people take care of themselves. It fails to understand that it’s not the size of government but what government does that counts. The Australia Institute advocates an inheritance tax to target, in their words, ‘the untaxed compounding of intergenerational wealth’. One Nation calls that wealth that parents build up during a lifetime of hard work ‘people getting ahead’. That’s what it is. It’s what parents do: work hard and pass the benefit to their children.
The political left hate people becoming self-sufficient, because economic resilience removes subservience to government. The fundamental difference between One Nation and Labor-Greens socialism is economic independence. Small business is in the Australia Institute’s sights, with a proposed two per cent wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income—assets. The losers from this include farmers, truckers, restaurants, fishers, fast food franchisees and childcare workers. These Australians are asset rich and income poor. Paying a $100,000 annual tax would force them out of business.
One Nation rejects a wealth tax and an inheritance tax. The Albanese Labor government listened to the Australia Institute when they advocated recent capital gains tax changes. The Treasurer needs to stop pushing socialism. Founded on ideology not economics, these changes have caused a housing price crash, wiping billions from our national estate and placing many young Australians who used the five per cent deposit scheme in negative equity. Thanks, Treasurer. Now please stop helping. Enough! Bring on the next election so that One Nation can slay the socialist dragon.
Prompted by a glossy, heavily illustrated 57-page clean energy report for the Wide Bay-Burnett region that could easily have been a 10-page document, I questioned department officials regarding its substance and design.
I asked for the exact cost of this publication, whether similar reports were produced for other regions across Australia and what the cost-benefit analysis was for printing such a marketing document. I also questioned the total marketing spend of the regional development agency for the 2025-26 financial year.
Highlighting the accompanying letter’s call to advocate for a clean energy transition, I expressed my view that the brochure is nothing more than taxpayer-funded government propaganda filled with misinformation.
Minister Chisholm disagreed with my opinion and defended the government’s support for renewable energy and community engagement.
This Labor government is persisting with squandering billions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a pipe dream, trying to “trick” people into believing that an unreliable net-zerorenewable energy transition is somehow going to control the weather.
They label any dissenting view as “misinformation” ignoring the fact that the worst offenders of climate alarmism and energy fear-mongering are in the Labor and Greens parties.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have the regional development agency, please?
Ms Rauter: They are not part of the department. The regional development authorities, do you mean?
Senator ROBERTS: Regional development agencies: outcome 3.
Ms Rauter: We are outcome 3. How about you ask your question, and I will see whether we can answer it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This glossy brochure—
Senator Chisholm: Is that from the RDA—Regional Development Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: Regional Development Australia, yes.
Ms Rauter: They are government funded authorities, but they are not part of the department. We would have to take the question on notice and direct it to the RDAs.
Senator ROBERTS: Tell me what you can answer of these questions and put on notice what you can’t. This glossy brochure was posted out in January. I received a copy, as I am sure other senators did. It’s the Industry engagement report: industry perspectives on the path to clean energy. It is for the Wide Bay-Burnett region. Wide Bay is in Queensland. We are very keen to know. I care about the people in Wide Bay Burnett. This publication is 57 pages of full-page illustrations and white space. Distilling the actual information here, it would come to about a 10-page publication. How much did this publication cost? You can take it on notice.
Ms Rauter: Yes, we would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Secondly, was this publication required by an act of parliament? Why was it even produced?
Ms Rauter: No, it is not required by an act of parliament. We do fund the Regional Development Australia organisations, which are across Australia, to work with local government, councils and others, on the regional investment framework and to make sure that that is delivered in the regions. They also support regional stakeholders, including the not-for-profit sector and local government, to seek grant opportunities. They support decarbonisation efforts that are happening in the regional areas. They build evidence for economic development. They contribute relevant data and local intelligence. We don’t require them to produce that publication, but we can certainly ask them what the process is for them going into that, and the cost.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are they doing this same exercise in other regions around Australia? My question is: how many more of these publications exist?
Ms Rauter: Again, we will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it just Wide Bay, where there has been a huge, justifiable backlash on solar and wind? You can take that question on notice.
Ms Rauter: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain to me the cost benefit of this publication being produced as a glossy brochure instead of a simple emailed PDF?
Ms Rauter: That would be a question for the RDA, specifically. We will pass that on.
Senator ROBERTS: How much did the regional development agency spend on marketing in the 2025-26 financial year? I count this as marketing.
Ms Rauter: Yes, I understand that.
Senator ROBERTS: How does the carbon dioxide footprint manage to be factored into every Infrastructure Australia application, although the department can chop down trees for this nonsense propaganda? Where is the consistency in the management of your department, Minister?
Senator Chisholm: I don’t really know that we’re responsible for that.
Senator ROBERTS: I quote from the letter that accompanied the glossy propaganda brochure: We are seeking your support to advocate for a regional clean energy transition strategy. Then they go on and name five points, including many points of misinformation. Isn’t this just propaganda from people in a region strongly opposed to solar and wind and its environmental destruction, community destruction and economic destruction, Minister? This confirms that the biggest source of misinformation and disinformation is the government, yet again.
Senator Chisholm: It would be fair to say that I disagree with you on that basis, Senator Roberts. I am supportive of renewable energy projects. I come across many people in the community who are as well. I make the point that those things are best done when there is strong community engagement with the proponents. I see evidence in many places around the country that that is happening. I think that the work of the federal government and various state governments around the place is leading to better outcomes. Councils play an important role in that.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t bother you that it is crammed with misinformation and disinformation?
Senator Chisholm: I haven’t actually seen the document that you’re talking about, Senator Roberts. I think it would be fair to say, being someone who has observed the way that you have operated in the chamber and in Senate committees over the years, we probably have a different point of view on some of these matters.
Senator ROBERTS: We certainly do. Ms Rauter, thank you so much for stepping forward. It is appreciated. I am not holding you accountable for this, just the regional development agencies. Thank you.
Ms Rauter: Not a problem, Senator.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. That’s a nice way to finish.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers claims that six out of seven new jobs are in the private sector, yet private sector job share has fallen from 85.2% to 84%, with most growth occurring in taxpayer-funded non-market sectors (health, NDIS, aged care).
Minister Gallagher defended care economy jobs, criticising One Nation for previously labelling these jobs a “Ponzi scheme.” She maintains that the government supports job growth across all sectors.
Labour market productivity has fallen 5% overall under this Labor government – the Reserve Bank linking this to rising inflation. When questioned over this figure, Minister Gallagher responded by pointing to the government’s 15-point productivity package outlined in the budget, covering investment, innovation, red tape reduction, trade, housing, and technology — while criticising the previous coalition government’s productivity record.
In my final question, I pointed out the government’s poor economic performance, citing increased underutilisation, falling real wages and lower productivity – which Minister Gallagher rejected, highlighting positive metrics including higher employment, increased participation rates, a shrinking gender pay gap, falling headline inflation, and annual real wage growth.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday I asked a series of questions on the labour market using ABS data, including this question:
Treasurer Chalmers stated last week six out of seven jobs created since 2022 were in the private sector.
Yet over 70 per cent of the jobs created are in the taxpayer funded economy, not the private sector—health, NDIS, aged care and education. Your answer went to the worthiness of those jobs, which One Nation does not dispute. Your answer did not deal with the Treasurer’s misrepresentation. The Treasurer is wrong and misleading. How can six out of seven jobs that your government has created be in the private sector if the share of jobs in the private sector has fallen from 85.2 per cent of the labour market when you came to power down to 84 per cent today, indicating the reverse is true?
Senator GALLAGHER (Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. My answer to your question yesterday was in response to you calling non-market jobs a Ponzi scheme. That’s how you referred to those jobs. You said aged care, disability care and health workers are effectively masquerading as a Ponzi scheme. That was in your question, so that’s why I responded the way I did.
Since we came to government, the number of jobs has increased by about 1.3 million jobs to the economy since May 2022. I support completely the Treasurer’s comments around the jobs that are being created in the private sector, and we have seen jobs in the public sector and in the non-market sector as well because there is enormous growth in the care economy, as there should be—people who are working hard to support people’s ageing parents, our youngest citizens people who are sick and unwell. That is going to be a growing part of our economy as well. The point I was trying to make yesterday is: don’t punch down on those workers. Don’t demean those workers by saying they are essentially operating in a Ponzi scheme.
Senator Hanson interjecting—
Senator GALLAGHER: Well, Senator Hanson, they weren’t my words; they were your party’s words. The point we were making is that this party will always create jobs. We will always ensure that those jobs are well paid and that those jobs are secure whether they’re in the private sector, the public sector, the market sector or the non-market sector because at the end of the day a job allows you to live a dignified life. That’s what people on this side of the chamber care about. (Time expired)
Senator ROBERTS: Labour market productivity fell 0.2 per cent in the June quarter, taking the total fall under your government to five per cent. It’s supposed to go up, not down. The Reserve Bank has flagged this problem as likely to cause an increase in inflation. Productivity does not mean working harder. It means working smarter, more efficiently and more easily. Minister, what specifically is your government doing to reverse the fall in labour market productivity?
Senator GALLAGHER: In the budget—and we discussed this at estimates, I think, in the committee that you attended, Senator Roberts—there is a very extensive productivity package, whether it be in investment, innovation, removing red tape, some of the work that Senator Farrell’s doing in trade, building a single national market, making it easy to engage with government, accelerating approvals, simplifying building regulations, building more homes, modernising energy markets—
Senator Bragg: You couldn’t make it up!
Senator GALLAGHER: better recognising skills, unlocking the data and AI opportunity, investing in science and innovation, strengthening the superannuation system, better coordinating government investment and driving ongoing regulatory reform. They are the 15 areas that were contained in the budget around improving productivity.
Senator Bragg laughs, but, of course, he won’t be on the record saying that the decade of the worst productivity in this country was actually the decade that you were in government, because you didn’t care and you didn’t do anything, including in housing, including in super and including in those other areas I’ve outlined.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Your economic report card is full of red ink: underutilised workers increasing to 1.68 million, real wages falling 1.5 per cent and labour market productivity falling five per cent, due in part to your obsession with net zero and wokeism nobbling the economy, reducing productivity, increasing inflation, running up debt and making working lives harder. Minister, where is your plan to turn this around to keep a roof over workers’ heads and food on their family table?
Senator GALLAGHER: Employment is up—this is from when we came to government—the participation rate’s up, gender pay gaps are down, the number of women employed full-time is up, industrial disputes are down, headline inflation is down and annual real wage growth is up. If you look at any of those measures, they don’t align with what One Nation seek to portray about our economy.
And I would note that those opposite, the conservative side of politics that sit over there, absolutely love to talk our economy down, when the data acknowledging that people are doing it tough in an inflationary environment tells a different story. There are more people working now than ever before, and we will continue to invest in those jobs and support those workers with secure jobs into the future.
Critics like Senator Hume and Minister Watt are either misinformed or playing politics with One Nation’s seven-page immigration policy. To be clear: our policy keeps intake numbers completely unchanged for backpackers, PALM workers and the tourism sector.
Citing from the Treasury’s FIONA model, young, working-age migrants aged 25–35 contribute positively to the economy while older migrants, family reunion programs and non-working arrivals create a net financial cost.
Our policy aims to prioritise productive workers while screening out non-producers.
Canada is proof that immigration cuts ease rental pressures and benefits local workers. We will still permits genuinely skilled workers in critical areas like construction, nursing, aged care and rural industries.
Businesses should stop relying on imported labour rather than training the 690,000 unemployed and 1.65 million underemployed Australians. Our policy will end the “cheap-labour gravy train” and boost domestic living standards.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Liberal Senator Hume described One Nation’s immigration policy as ‘a headline number and a few slogans’. I have the policy here. It’s seven pages of details and facts. It took months of research to source the numbers and formulate the measures, which are comprehensive, detailed, consistent and will fix so many of the problems Australia is facing in housing, household wealth, service delivery, social cohesion and the current per capita recession in which Australians are suffering. It’s clear that people criticising the policy have never read it or are lying out of political self-interest. For clarity, there’s no change in backpackers, no change in PALM workers, no change in tourism numbers. All three can increase if the market can sustain more. Labor Minister Watt made this criticism: ‘One Nation policy will destroy the economy and drive the economy into recession.’ The minister is not alone in this deceit. Some Liberal-aligned business leaders and Labor-aligned media have repeated this unfounded fabrication, contrary to the facts.
The Treasury’s Fiscal Impact of New Australians model, FIONA, looks at the lifetime contribution of a new immigrant—the cost and the benefit. A young migrant in the sweet spot of 25 to 35 years of age—someone who assimilates, works his or her whole life and stays out of trouble—will add $198,000 to the economy in their lifetime, increasing GDP and wealth for all, which is why we are not reducing that cohort; we are increasing it. This is our immigration target demographic.
FIONA shows each person arriving under the family program, though, costs the Australian economy $126,000 across their lifetime. FIONA shows a migrant arriving after the age of 50 will never pay back the taxpayers either. In addition, their lifetime value is negative. The current mix of this government’s new arrivals is heavily weighted towards older migrants, family reunions and nonworkers, and there are hundreds of thousands of fake students working in the gig economy, cheating on their tax and sending home as much money as possible. Children of new arrivals or family reunions have a huge lifetime economic cost. The younger the child, the more likely it is that they will have a negative lifetime economic impact. This is why FIONA only puts the average lifetime contribution of all migrants that this government is letting in at $41,000. The more committed, young, educated or skilled workers we let in, the more nonproducers we can screen out. It only takes 20 per cent of all arrivals to be our target young demographic for the total value of arrivals to hit the $41,000 figure. So what do other arrivals contribute? They don’t. They add costs to Australians. Do the maths.
Prime Minister Carney grew Canada’s economy with the same approach One Nation is proposing. He grew it. Canada’s largest banks report that Canadian immigration cuts were easing rental pressures and supporting employment. In Canadian provinces where the immigration cuts were most significant, rents are falling fastest. The banks concluded the immigration slowdown has been great news for Canada’s battlers.
Speaking last night on—of course—the ABC, George Megalogenis said our cut would cause the worst depression since the 1890s. Talk about seeing what you want to see! What utter nonsense—a lie. The data I have just presented shows the reverse will be true. Canada proved the reverse will be true.
As for a supposed labour shortage, One Nation is not changing backpacker numbers. We’re offering skilled visas to genuinely skilled workers in areas we need them, including construction; the care economy, such as nursing and aged care; and rural industry. Let’s be clear; only one per cent of skilled arrivals last year under this government were construction workers, half a per cent were aged-care workers and one per cent were nurses. Our numbers leave plenty of room for more skilled and educated workers where we need them.
Our policy looks after those who are already here. Right now, there are 690,000 Australians out of work—690,000. There are another 1.65 million Australians looking for extra work. Business lobbies should start there—with Australians who want a job. It’s industry’s fault that workforce planning was sacrificed on the altar of high profits and lazy management. The workers are here in Australia. It’s time for industry to get back in the business of training the new generation of apprentices and staff, instead of lazily importing them.
Under One Nation, the cheap-labour gravy train will be over, and Australians can begin to restore Australian productivity and living standards. Together we Australians can restore Australia.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/UHP5wN925nE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-08 18:05:442026-10-08 18:05:52Misinformed or Playing Politics?
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.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/22ic-dEAFfM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-03 09:02:012026-09-03 09:02:05Prestige vs. Actual Performance
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/aEjM4aCNFVM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 17:42:462026-08-26 17:42:55When Art Crosses the Line
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/KCZZyVMQAO8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 15:25:562026-08-26 15:25:58One Nation Says NO to the UN Ocean Rules
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?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/nPv1QYWglmw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-05 14:02:432026-08-05 14:59:34The $5M Vaccine Grant With Zero Accountability
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/1wA_nVhnx9Q/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-09 16:30:322026-07-09 16:30:36Funding Hate: The Shocking Truth About Labor’s Grants
