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
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/KfQtjTs2vls/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-09 09:15:062026-07-09 09:16:25Tents vs. Space Programs
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.
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.
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.
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has managed to spend $96 million of your money on a new website including live radar images that is a step backward.
I’ve been hearing from countless Australians who are not happy with the “new and improved” site. It’s harder to navigate, requires more clicks to find basic data and has stripped away the topographical detail that people actually rely on.
If a private company delivered a product this bad after spending nearly $100 million, heads would roll.
I asked the BOM: has anyone been fired, demoted, or even counselled for this failure?
The answer was a lot of nothing really. I did manage to get one win for common sense: The Bureau has committed to keeping the old radar site active until the new one is actually fit for purpose.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Let’s go back to the new weather radar. Implementation of the new weather radar has been a failure. Has anyone been fired for wasting $96 million of taxpayers’ money?
Senator Watt: We went over this at the last estimates hearing. I think you were talking about the change to the bureau’s website rather than a weather radar.
Senator Roberts: The new website.
Senator Watt: Yes. It was explained at the last hearing that the portion of money attributable to the website costs was partly about an overall systems upgrade across the bureau’s meteorology systems in general. So, with that introduction, Dr Minchin might want to—
Senator Roberts: Minister, it has tarnished the reputation of the BOM.
Senator Watt: I understand that.
Senator Roberts: It has made a lot of people unhappy with the BOM’s service, so I’m wondering if anyone’s been counselled, demoted or had a note put on their service record for this failure.
Senator Watt: I’d need to have Dr Minchin answer.
Dr Minchin: Senator, I’m not aware of anyone being fired or demoted on this basis.
Senator Roberts: Chastised?
Dr Minchin: Senator, as I think you may be aware, I joined the bureau about three weeks after the website was launched. My focus as CEO is on moving forward, and, as I said at last hearing, I accepted that the website redesign had not met all users’ needs and that we were working hard with the team on addressing the feedback that we’ve received. We’ve received significant feedback from the Australian community and we are actively working on making releases to the website to improve it to meet people’s expectations. My philosophy on this as CEO is that I have a very committed team, who are working incredibly hard to meet the Australian public’s expectations. That doesn’t mean we get it right all the time, and I’m very confident that the team is totally focused on the task of improving Australians’ access to weather information, including through upgrades to the website as it goes forward.
Senator Roberts: I accept, Dr Minchin, that sometimes it’s not appropriate to chastise until you know the source of the problem, but has anyone been questioned about it? Have you done an investigation into it? It seems to be significant funds, and you’ve got to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. What reassurance can you give us that it won’t happen again?
Dr Minchin: What I can say is I don’t believe the website is a complete failure, and I’ve been public in saying that before. I think what has happened is it’s met 80 to 90 per cent of its intended outcomes and it’s missed the boat on a few key user experiences for some parts of the community, and we are working hard on addressing those. It’s clear the radar is part of the assessment. We moved quickly to adjust the view of the radar to improve that. We’ve made adjustments to the navigation of the website and we have a number of other rollouts happening over the next few months that will improve that. I can absolutely assure you that the team within the bureau are really dedicated to their task and are totally focused on improving the situation so that all Australians can have access to the weather data that they require.
Senator Roberts: Have you required contractors to complete the fixes for free, owing to their failure, or are you throwing more money from taxpayers at the problem? Are you rewarding contractors for failing?
Dr Minchin: You’ve categorised this as a contractor failure. The contractors have done what we asked them to do. What I think is very clear is we did not get all of the user experience testing and did not capture all of the subsequent detail and feedback that we’ve received from the community. So we’re working hard on addressing that. That will inevitably require investment, but that investment was already planned for as part of the website release. We always knew that there would be fixes that would be required. What probably caught the bureau a little bit unawares was the extent of the feedback that we received, but we’re working through that very actively.
Senator Roberts: It was pretty strong. If we look at topography, the colour graduations used to be based on topography, and now the national parks are just all green. Did the people who did the map understand topography?
Dr Minchin: Sorry, Senator, are you referring to the radar map?
Senator Roberts: Yes, I’m sorry.
Dr Minchin: The background to the radar map is a compromise, always, of the features that are of interest for the community—primarily about the townships. We are adjusting that. Just as one example of an upcoming upgrade, we will be bringing that into line with our iPhone and Android app that actually shows a background of the reach of the radars as well. So it will be clear where radar coverage exists and where it does not within the country. That’s an evolving process. I should also highlight that the public can choose their view of what appears on that map through various choices in the settings of the map view.
Senator Roberts: I’m told that the old map, which did show topography colour gradations, is appearing to visitors who search something like ‘weather Brisbane’, rather the new site, but the address is the new site. Have you gone back to using the old site for certain functions?
Dr Minchin: I think what you’re referring to is that there are a number of third-party providers who provide our radar data and other information through their applications. They receive those through our FTP service. They don’t access it directly from the website. In some cases they choose to visualise that data differently to the way that the bureau chooses to do that. I think that’s actually a good thing, meeting different user needs out in the community. They’re still accessing the same information, but it is, as I said, coming through our registered user services, which are not through the website itself.
Senator Roberts: Usability of the website is poor. Users are complaining that it takes multiple clicks to see what used to be available at a glance. What timeframe can you give people for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site?
Dr Minchin: There are ongoing releases happening over the next few months. We accept, as I said, that some users have found aspects of the website difficult and have been providing feedback on that. Another good example is navigation. We’ll be rolling out the ability to navigate by postcode in one of the next releases. We’re continually bringing those updates on board so that, as we get feedback about what is useful to the community to make their experience with the website better, we’re acting on that and we’re rolling that out with regular updates.
Senator Roberts: So what timeframe can you provide for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site, so that people will know?
Dr Minchin: I don’t accept that we’re trying to reach the standard of the old site, because the old site was a problem. It was very difficult to navigate. It was inaccessible to many sectors of the community. Website updates will never finish. As new information and new products come on board, we will continue developing the website. But we are hoping to address most of the major tranches of concern in releases over the next six months.
Senator Roberts: The old radar is still available on the ‘reg’ subdomain, I’m told. Will you give an undertaking that the old site will remain available until the new site can be made to work?
Dr Minchin: We certainly will not be turning off our ‘reg’ capability until we are confident that the Australian community are comfortable with our new radar capability. Senator Roberts: Thank you.
I questioned the Commissioner regarding her September trip to Stanford and meetings with US tech firms. She will provide a detailed log of her itinerary, speaking engagements, and total costs on notice. Australians deserve to know exactly how their money is being spent and what is being discussed behind closed doors.
I then queried the Minister regarding concerns raised by US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan about the Commissioner’s conduct. While I support protecting children from harm, we must be vigilant when unelected officials are labelled “extreme” by international peers.
Lastly, I was interested to know what the Commissioner’s philosophy was regarding censorship, noting the “enormous power” that has been given to her. She denied being a censor, stating she only acts on public complaints regarding “highly damaging” and “refused classification” material, specifically excluding political speech.
The eSafety Commissioner has enormous power over what you see and say online. I will continue to hold this agency to account to protect the rights of adult Australians from government overreach.
P.S. At one point during this session, Senator Green accidentally called me “Minister” – saying “maybe one day, if the LNP has their way.” She even joked that One Nation is already writing policy for the LNP! 😆😆
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I understand you have a few more questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, just three. Commissioner, you visited Stanford University in September this year as part of a USA trip. Did Australian taxpayers fund that?
Ms Inman Grant: Yes, I went, and I met with eight of the AI companies and the social media companies. Then I spent a day and a half at the Trust and Safety Research Conference.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide a log of meetings and a record of your speeches, or any other documentation, to assure taxpayers that their money was spent appropriately, as well as the total cost of the trip?
Ms Inman Grant: I sure can.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice.
Ms Inman Grant: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You’ve already answered a question from Senator Whitten about the House Judiciary Committee chairman wanting you to testify, so I don’t need to cover that. Minister, does it concern you that your commissioner is engaging in conduct that is so extreme that the US Congress, specifically the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jim Jordan, is alarmed?
Senator Green: Minister, I think the eSafety Commissioner’s address—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not a minister.
Senator Green: Sorry, Senator—maybe one day, if the LNP has their way.
*Senator Henderson interjecting—*
Senator Green: You never know. They wrote your net zero policy, so you never know. We are very proud of the reforms that we are undertaking. To be fair, I’m sure the coalition was very proud of the steps that they took in terms of online safety when the eSafety Commissioner was established. For the most part, we have had bipartisan support for these types of reforms, because they keep Australians safe. The social media ban or minimum age will seek to keep our children safe. It’s incredibly important. I know you come in here quite often talking about the safety of children and wanting to keep harmful material away from them. That is the work of the eSafety Commissioner. It’s open to other governments or other people in other parliaments to have their judgment of it, but from an Australian government point of view we are very proud of the work that she does.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, you said earlier, in roughly these words, that you’ve never claimed to censor the net globally. Why do you think people think this?
Ms Inman Grant: We talked about Elon Musk’s tweet that said she’s the eSafety commissar trying to globally regulate the internet, and then Ben Fordham then picked it up, and it’s just had a life of its own.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve complimented your office on its work in protecting children, quite clearly. There are other concerns we have with your work because it can cause consequences for adults that we don’t like, but it’s not appropriate to discuss it here. What’s your philosophy on censorship?
Ms Inman Grant: My philosophy is I’m not a censor. I respond to complaints from the public. We received many about the Charlie Kirk assassination and about the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska on a train where she bled to death and the decapitation of the Dallas hotel owner. If you think that that’s overstepping when that’s something that’s highly damaging and was determined—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that. I was wanting to know your thoughts on censorship—that’s all—because you’ve got enormous power.
Ms Inman Grant: My thoughts on censorship? Well, what has been helpfully built into the Online Safety Act is that we’re not regulating for political speech or commentary. It’s where either online invective or imagery veers into the lane of serious harm. You provide us with thresholds. Sometimes those thresholds are tested and sometimes they’re a grey area, but I think we help thousands of people every year. We’re doing world-leading work that the rest of the governments around the world are following. I think we’re punching above our weight. We’re a very small agency given the size of our population. So I guess I don’t have a view. I don’t see myself as a censor. I don’t tell you what you can or can’t say unless it’s refused classification or it’s trying to silence someone else’s voice by targeted online abuse that reaches the threshold of adult cyberabuse.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Lastly, I think it was Mr Fleming who invited us to have a briefing. We haven’t forgotten. We’d like to do that, but we’ve been a bit busy. We will do it one day.
Mr Fleming: Maybe in the new year. The offer still stands.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1769654088997-9e0ba7dd-2657-48fe-b136-9ff6339848f1.png6361135Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-29 12:57:422026-01-29 12:57:50The Fine Line Between Safety and Overreach
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is an embarrassment and another example of this government’s hypocrisy and deceit. Before the 2025 federal election, Labor condemned the Coalition over the RoboDebt scandal, using it as a key issue to win votes. Many Australians believed Labor would fix the injustice. However, this new bill seeks to retroactively validate the same flawed income calculation method that caused the RoboDebt problem in the first place—something Labor previously opposed.
The bill proposes offering small compensation payments—up to $600—to people who were wrongly charged thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. Once someone accepts this payment, they lose the right to claim anything further. This is a deceptive tactic to avoid paying full compensation and to silence victims. The scheme is only open for 12 months, and is designed to quietly close the door on proper justice for those affected.
The bill lacks transparency and detail, with much of its implementation left to future decisions by the minister, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny. Advocacy groups like Anglicare Australia and the Australian Council of Social Service have raised concerns, saying the bill doesn’t properly address the harm caused. Instead of correcting past wrongs, the government is validating them.
This is not just a failure to act—it’s a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility and cheat vulnerable Australians out of what they’re rightfully owed.
Transcript
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is an embarrassment and example of the Labor government’s hypocrisy and deceit. Before and during the last federal election, Labor used the robodebt scandal—and it was a scandal—as an election weapon to electorally gut the previous coalition government. It worked, and Labor won the election based on the incompetence of the coalition and on what Labor highlighted as the coalition’s cruel betrayal of robodebt victims.
So what do we have here? Labor wants to pass this bill to retrospectively validate the unlawful income apportionment method that underpinned the robodebt rip-off. You pretended to oppose it, and now you want to invalidate it—the injustice, deceit and betrayal. To make matters worse, persons ripped off to the extent of thousands of dollars are being offered puny payments to a maximum of $600 when actually owed $15,000 or more. That’s not justice; that’s theft. Labor is inducing people to take $600 now so people go away and to ensure they never become able to reasonably claim what the government legally owes them. You’re conning these people. They’re already in misery, and now you’re conning them.
Applications for the scheme will only be open for 12 months. Accepting a resolution payment will discharge the Commonwealth from any further liability. That ends it. In other words, the compensation scheme is completely inadequate. Worse, it’s deceptive, deliberately dishonest. Many robodebt victims likely voted for Labor to get justice on robodebt. That’s what you promised them. Those same people will now never get close to what they’re owed. The government is blatantly cheating robodebt victims out of thousands of dollars—in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars.
This is not just an uncaring government, and on this issue its approach is not just lazily getting around paying lawful entitlements. No; this government is working hard to rip off innocent, vulnerable taxpayers. These faulty assessments extend back to September 2003—22 years. Instead of paying back exactly what each victim of the unlawful robodebt calculations is owed, the government is trying to introduce retrospective legislation to make what was unlawful then now lawful. And you wonder why we’re upset. This sneaky new bill is making what was illegal legal—the very reverse of your promise before the election. It will try to validate debts which were unlawful when they tried to collect them. I will say that again, in fact. This bill will try to validate debts which were unlawful when they tried to collect them.
With potentially millions of unlawful debts to deal with, the government is using this bill to welch on its debts to innocent Australians who are victims of government dishonesty. There’s been little consultation with this bill, and it shows. There is little detail about how the scheme should work, and in some areas detail is totally missing. Instead, much of the detail is left to the minister’s use of future legislative instruments to bypass parliament, to bypass scrutiny. Now there’s Labor’s catchcry: ‘bypass scrutiny’—two words that tell us all about Labor in government at the moment. It is the complete opposite of transparency—bypass scrutiny.
The government has not justified why it considers it necessary to rely on retrospective validation of the previously found unlawful means of calculation. The intention is clear: the government wishes to validate previous decisions that were made on an unlawful basis. You want to validate what you were supposed to fix. The rip-off that you were going to fix you are now validating, quietly cementing in place the Liberals’ violations that before the election Labor screamed about. Anglicare Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service and even the Commonwealth Ombudsman have indicated their concerns that the bill does not address cases where income apportionment wrongly resulted in debts and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. This bill is an example of the government trying to cover up and weasel out of responsibility for the damage caused to innocent Australians who have been victims of the incompetence of governments, both the coalition and Labor.
On this issue, the coalition in government was incompetent, negligent and uncaring. People died because of this—suicide. Labor in government, though, is deceitful, deliberately dishonest. Only One Nation has the integrity to restore sound, honest and caring government. Only One Nation cares about the Australian people. Only One Nation puts our country, Australia, first. One Nation will always act to protect the interests of Australians, and we’ll oppose this pathetically woeful bill, this dishonest, deliberately deceitful Labor bill.
The Labor Government is running scared of scrutiny. Their atrocious bill to establish an Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC) is significant legislation—and I’ll go so far as to say it’s the worst I’ve seen in my nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous.
There were countless amendments that required answers, and many speakers were denied the opportunity to contribute. Serious questions remain unresolved.
The Albanese Government manipulated the speaking list to push One Nation Senators to the bottom. Just before it was my turn to speak, Labor guillotined the bill, preventing any further speeches from being delivered. I managed to use the debate on the guillotine to deliver part of my speech, which is the video you see here.
This marks a new low for the unscrupulous and arrogant Labor Government. The Greens should be ashamed for supporting the guillotine on such an important bill.
The CDC will provide the government of the day with cover to do whatever it wants. It’s expensive, it will control dangerous research, and the reporting and scrutiny provided in this bill are virtually non-existent. This is unacceptable.
One Nation will repeal this bill.
Transcript
Yet again, a guillotine stops debate immediately before I was scheduled to speak against this bill, and after pushing all three One Nation senators, who were going to speak, to the bottom of the list. One Nation opposed the guillotine. We want to know why the coalition and the Greens join with Labor in supporting big pharma.
Senator Canavan interjecting—
Senator ROBERTS: Except Senator Canavan. Thank you, Senator Canavan. This is significant legislation, and I’ll go so far as to say that it’s the worst legislation I’ve seen in nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous. There are many, many amendments that need answers, and there are many speakers that missed out. There are many questions.
The first question I have for you is: why are you avoiding scrutiny? This is half a bill! The bill establishes what the CDC director can do. It does not, though, establish what the director cannot do. There’s nothing in this legislation to establish rules around the following, so can you please clarify. What is the process for determining where the CDC will be located and what the site features should be—what protections for the community? What research will be conducted at the CDC, if any? Will that research include gain-of-function research, which was the cause of the COVID outbreak in 2019, which killed millions of people? Who will own the taxpayer funded CDC research? There are no answers to these questions. These are fundamental. What research will be conducted in cooperation with research facilities overseas, and what countries should be excluded on national security grounds? Start with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and exclude Anthony Fauci’s haunts, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and America’s National Institutes of Health, and Fauci’s colleagues including Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak.
Will live animal testing be conducted, and, if so, on what animals and how? Will research be conducted on behalf of commercial corporations, and, if so, who owns the taxpayer funded research. What annual reporting will be produced to alert the parliament and the Australian people about the risks to which they’re being exposed? If the CDC facility handles sensitive material, what level of containment will be used, and what will be the process for investigating and rectifying breaches? And what is the purpose of and limit to research? Is it just ego—’Look at what we can do!’—or is there a genuine medical outcome they’re working towards?
We know the CSIRO at its Geelong facility is already conducting risky experiments on deadly viruses such as Ebola, and they’re experimenting on animals. Those are my questions. Additionally, what’s happening with taxpayer funds? We know the CSIRO monetises its research, or used to, and we know lately the CSIRO has been publishing the results of their research allowing corporations to piggyback off that research free of charge, saving them years in developing new drugs from which the Australian taxpayers will have no commercial benefit. The taxpayers pay and get no benefit. This is the state of medical research in Australia. What impact will the CDC have on the CSIRO? We don’t know. The bill doesn’t set out these matters. It’s a glaring omission.
The minister says the Australian CDC will undertake technical and advisory functions based on its public health expertise and knowledge and access to relevant information. What expertise? It hasn’t started yet. You’re assuming bureaucrats and health officials actually have the expertise and knowledge to perform these studies, yet there’s nothing in this bill to say they must have that knowledge—nothing. This is a pretence to give ‘thank you’ jobs to COVID era health officials who have a track record of very dangerous, dishonest and inhuman decisions. These bureaucrats will be given powers. The Chief Medical Officer, for example, must be a doctor, but the director of the CDC does not. What could possibly go wrong?
Continuing cover ups from the government and freedom of information—an issue which One Nation senator for Western Australia Senator Whitten has raised is the changes the bill makes to the Freedom of Information Act. The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt the CDC from freedom of information applications to which the same documents are currently open. I wonder if this is to cover up information from the COVID years or just to get ahead of the next lab leak.
Finally, I’ve already discussed sensitive biological agents with regard to Ebola. The CDC bill transfers responsibility for the Security Sensitive Biological Agents Regulatory Scheme from the department to the Australian CDC. This scheme regulates certain biological agents that are considered dangerous. Now, let’s take a closer look at this one. Who would decide if a biological agent is sensitive and subject to extra checks? The CDC. Who would be most likely to be importing sensitive biological agents like Ebola and heaven knows what else? The CDC. Who would now be their own regulator? You guessed it, the CDC. This is a recipe for no accountability, a recipe for disaster, a recipe for rampant, unbridled control over the people.
Officially, this bill simply brings together powers spread across several departments into one place. If that’s really the case, why does the bill have a price tag of $250 million for the first three years and $73 million per year after that? Shouldn’t the cost of the CDC be offset through savings in other departments? If that’s all they intend, then that would be true. Clearly the Australian CDC will be doing much, much more. You’re given them the money to do it, and they’ll be doing it away from prying eyes and protected with freedom-of-information blocks and negligible reporting criteria, regulating itself and sending the bill to the taxpayers. In nine years in the Senate, this is one of the worst bills I’ve dealt with. Minister, I’ve given you many questions. I’d like some answers.
One of the most fundamental duties of a senator is to scrutinise the government — not just its words, but its actions. That means asking tough questions about how public money is spent, and demanding transparency when answers are withheld.
Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as “government money.”
Every dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers — from you, from your family, from every working Australian. Yet time and again, ministers dodge this truth. When asked directly, Minister Walsh couldn’t even say the word “taxpayer.” Instead, she danced around the issue, talking about “revenues” and “costed policies.” But the reality remains: it’s your money. And what’s happening with it? Billions of dollars are being funnelled into subsidies and climate schemes with no parliamentary scrutiny.
The government even refused to answer questions about an alleged fund linked to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I made no accusations – I just asked questions – yet the government doesn’t want those questions asked. This secrecy is becoming a pattern. Whether it’s Housing Australia or climate targets, Labor refuses to disclose where taxpayer money is going.
Meanwhile, the push for net zero continues — a policy introduced by the Liberals and Nationals – costing Australians billions. There’s no detailed plan, no milestones, no way to measure progress. Even the CSIRO can’t quantify the impact of human carbon dioxide on the climate.
So, what are we paying for? Australians deserve better. We deserve transparency. We deserve respect. And above all, we deserve to know how our hard-earned money is being spent.
https://youtu.be/nWGyg9fpVfk
Transcript
I rise to take note of Minister Ayres’s comment. One of the most fundamental parts of a senator ‘s job is to review and scrutinise the government. That’s why I support almost every single order for the production of documents, regardless of who moves it. Most importantly, scrutinising the government means scrutinising how the government is spending money—and, by the way, scrutinising the impacts of government policy on the national economy and on individual Australians is part of scrutiny of government.
To build back on the first point, scrutinising how the government is spending our money: the government forgets that what it spends isn’t the government’s money; it’s taxpayer money. Minister Walsh recently couldn’t utter the word ‘taxpayers’. I asked her what government money was. She said it is about revenues and that the policy was fully costed. She twisted and turned and gave me several other answers, but she could not utter the words ‘taxpayers’ money’. There is no such thing as government money. It is all taxpayer money. As taxpayers, we all pay taxpayer money. It is Australians’ money.
Last week I spoke in the Senate about Minister Bowen taking subsidies, completely away from parliamentary scrutiny. It was a cosy little deal worth billions of dollars. I mentioned a potential deal with a fund taken over by Julia Gillard, the former Labor prime minister. I made no imputations. I’m just saying we need to have a look at that data. The government is hiding, hiding, hiding and stopping scrutiny, stopping us from doing our jobs, which is a theme for this government. Too often the government is willing to waste hard-earned tax dollars. The minister has just been hauled in front of the Senate to explain because the government refused to answer where they’re spending taxpayer money. This is the second—we’ve just had discussions about Housing Australia—and the government has refused again. This secretive Labor government refuses to tell Australians where it’s spending its taxpayer money. Why the secrecy? Why the hiding? It’s not your money. It’s the Australians’ money. It’s because you don’t want Australians to know that you don’t treat taxpayer money with respect.
Now we come to the second motion that Labor is trying to keep secret, on climate targets. There’s a backstory here that shows how incoherent the Liberals and the Nationals are. The motion is from the Liberal-National coalition asking the government to hand over documents in relation to the Climate Change Authority and their targets. Australians hear all the time that the Liberals and the Nationals want to ditch net zero, yet here’s a motion that the Liberal-National coalition pursues that’s criticising the government for not putting out information on net zero targets. This is insane. It’s almost as insane as the net zero pipedream.
While the Liberals and the Nationals spin their wheels and try to figure out which way the wind is blowing, One Nation is clear. On this motion, One Nation says to the government, we’re not bothered about you handing over your net zero targets. We say, don’t bother pursuing net zero at all. All of these billions of dollars amounting to trillions of dollars and efforts to keep things secret are a waste of time and money. Every minute you spend making climate targets, bogging businesses down in green and blue tape and hamstringing our productive capacity harms the country. Give it up, government, and start putting Australians first.
Remember that the Liberals and the Nationals introduced every major climate and energy policy, including net zero. You did it. That Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison introduced net zero after breaking his election promise to not pursue net zero. What about the government spending trillions on net zero without a detailed project plan—no milestones, no measures of progress, just leading Australia towards an economic cliff blindfolded. Worse, net zero is taking Australia to energy ruin without any policy basis. The CSIRO have never specified—and I’ve asked them repeatedly in personal sessions and in Senate estimates—the specific, quantified effect of human carbon dioxide on the climate. Without that, you can’t have a policy. Thus there’s no basis for policy cutting human carbon dioxide. That’s why there’s no way of measuring the progress of implementing climate and energy policies. That’s why you’ve got to keep it secret. That’s why you’ve got to hide it. I’ll continue my remarks on this topic in the future.
