Setting the Record Straight with the BOM

,

During the recent Senate Estimates Session with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), I tabled a graph from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to challenge some of the exaggerated claims we’ve been hearing about extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, and fires.

For years the BOM has always referred me to the IPCC’s work as the authoritative source on climate science. I specifically pointed to the IPCC’s Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, where they provide an analysis of a wide range of weather events. What struck me—and I think it should strike everyone—is that for nearly every major type of extreme weather event, the IPCC finds that there has been no detectable change in frequency or severity over time. This includes river floods, fire weather, tropical cyclones, and coastal floods. The data doesn’t support the claims that these events are becoming more frequent or intense because of “climate change”.

This is important because politicians and the media have often linked these events to human-induced climate change. They claim that floods, fires, and cyclones are somehow the direct result of our carbon dioxide production.

Yet if the IPCC itself, the body these same politicians refer to, says there’s no significant change in these events, why aren’t we calling out this misinformation? Why isn’t BOM calling out this misinformation?

For example, tropical cyclones – the IPCC indicates no change in their frequency or severity, not just for today, but looking ahead through to 2100—even under the worst-case climate scenario. And yet, we continue to hear false claims that “human-induced climate change” is worsening cyclone events. This isn’t true. These events have been part of the natural weather cycle for millennia.

The BOM Director, Dr Johnson’s response acknowledged that the science on cyclones is evolving and confirmed that while there may be fewer cyclones in the future, the ones that do occur may be more intense. Yet again, these claims are based on unsubstantiated projections—not hard data. They’re misinformation!

What’s more, looking at the IPCC’s tables, which break down the evidence of (naturally) varying weather patterns, for nearly every phenomenon—whether it’s precipitation, floods, fire weather, or tropical cyclones—the data simply doesn’t support the idea of dramatic increases due to “human-induced” climate change.

So, why are we still seeing politicians and the media push these claims?

This is not saying to ignore the importance of understanding climate variability, it’s about dealing with the facts – the measured data. The science must guide us, not the political agenda. And if the observed, measured scientific data says these extreme weather events aren’t changing as some claim, we need to stand firm against the misinformation.

Let’s be clear: the data doesn’t support the alarmist rhetoric. We should be calling out the misinformation and ensuring that decisions, policies, regulations and public opinion are based on what the science actually tells us—not on what some want us to believe.

I will continue to hold taxpayer funded agencies and politicians accountable. The truth matters, because, as always, it’s we the people who pay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table this graph from a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as the basis for some brief questions. I don’t have too many questions today. I’ll start with a little preamble just to set the scene for this. When you get the graph, you’ll see it. I refer to misinformation being put out that cyclones and floods are getting more frequent and severe. Over many years in this committee the BOM has referred me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This might surprise you, but I’m not actually going to argue with you on the merits of the IPCC today, even though they’re a bunch of net zero pushers and are politically driven. I’m going to quote them, because you claim they’re the authority. I’ll take you to Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, table 12.12, by working group 1, on the science of climate, at page 1856. In that table is just about every type of measurable weather event. Some call it extreme weather events.

The blank or white boxes indicate there is no detectable change in frequency or severity of the weather event. I’ll go down the list of what the IPCC itself says—not me. River flood—no change is detected in current period. No change is expected to be detected under the worst case climate scenario by 2050 or even by 2100. Fire weather—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Tropical cyclone—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Coastal flood—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Pluvial—there’s a minor risk in the most extreme, worst-case scenario. If your net zero gods at the IPCC say the data shows weather events are not getting worse because of climate change, why isn’t the Bureau of Meteorology calling out the misinformation peddled by politicians when they state that this flood is because of climate change, this fire is because of climate change or this cyclone is because of climate change? Everyone knows that’s not true. These events have been happening for millennia. Even the scientists in the United Nations that you reference say it’s not so.  

Dr Johnson: I might make a couple of preliminary remarks and then ask Dr Braganza, who is online, to join in. I haven’t had a chance to study the page that you’ve just supplied me. I think many times I’ve referred you to the State of the climate report that the bureau produces with the CSIRO every two years, which contains the latest up-to-date information on climate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve read each of them.  

Dr Johnson: I know you read it, and I’d encourage you to refer to it again. Across a range of phenomena we know there are very strong signals already from climate change, in particular around temperature and in particular around drying in the southern, south-east and south-west parts of Australia. Those signals are very strong. The level of confidence in them is very high. Some of the signals for other phenomena, including tropical cyclones, are still evolving and maturing. We have seen an increase in the incidence of high-intensity rainfall. We know as a matter of fact that, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture—probably up to 10 or 11 per cent more—than it would otherwise have, and that we’ve seen an increase in high-intensity events. We’ve certainly been on record saying that we expect in Australia it’s likely that there will be a lower number and frequency of cyclones, but they’re likely to be more severe. We’ve been on the record for that for ages. We’ve also been on the record on many occasions—  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain the basis for that? The UN says it’s not—  

Dr Johnson: I’ll come to that. Dr Braganza might want to say something about this in a minute. We’ve also been on the record that, particularly when it comes to individual cyclones and individual rainfall events, it’s very difficult to attribute single events to climate change. We’re talking about longer term global trends here. That’s been our position for some time, and it remains so unless new evidence is entered into existence that would cause us to change our mind. I can only be accountable for the science we do. I can’t be accountable for how those in the public domain choose to talk about it. We certainly provide advice, as we’ve done to this committee many times and in many other fora, about what we’re observing and what our science is telling us is likely to come down the pipeline, and also where we have higher or lower confidence about what is or isn’t coming. They would be my general comments.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you correctly—just before we go to Dr Braganza—that cyclones are not becoming more intense?  

Dr Johnson: No, I didn’t say that. I said that in our outlooks we think there’s a reasonable likelihood—Dr Braganza will be able to quantify this in more specific detail—that the Australian region is likely to see fewer cyclones, but there’s a likelihood that they’ll be more intense rather than less intense. Dr Braganza is our lead in this space and I’d rather he answer these detailed questions that you might have.  

Dr Braganza: For tropical cyclones, the bureau, as Dr Johnson has pointed out, has consistently communicated that we have potentially seen a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones in our region, in particular in the east. We haven’t communicated that we’ve seen any significant change in intensity. Categorising changes in tropical cyclones is difficult. We’re limited to the satellite era. Prior to the satellite era, categorising tropical cyclones for severity and even whether or not they’re a tropical cyclone in the mid latitudes becomes difficult. There are data limitations in trends in tropical cyclones. The bureau has been entirely consistent in how it’s described those and entirely transparent in the data limitations. We have not communicated that we have seen large changes in tropical cyclones that are due to climate change. We don’t communicate around these individual weather events that they were caused by climate change. For tropical cyclones there are multiple aspects to the weather event. When we talk about intensity, we’re often talking about wind speed. Wind speed is just one aspect of a tropical cyclone. There’s also rainfall intensity and there’s storm surge intensity. Due to sea level rise and increased warmth in the atmosphere, we expect increased heavy rainfall and increased storm surge activity from all such events, not just tropical cyclones. There are also events such as east coast lows and others. Observational data is what it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to comment on this, because you don’t have the table in front of you, but I’ll just go through chapter 12 and table 12.12, emergence of climate impact drivers in different time periods. That’s with regard to the future. The white colour indicates that there’s no confidence in what they’re saying or what they’re projecting. In terms of already emerged and ‘worst case scenario’ in the future by 2050 and by 2100: mean precipitation, no confidence in the data. No trend has emerged. River flood is the same. Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood is the same. Landslide is the same. Aridity is the same. Hydrological drought is the same. Agricultural and ecological drought is the same. Fire weather is the same. Tropical cyclones is the same. Coastal flood is the same. These are often taken advantage of by politicians and the news media; there’s no evidence for their comments attributing them to climate change caused by humans.  

Dr Braganza: I’ll have to take that on notice since I don’t have the material in front of me. Some of the phenomena you’ve called out again in terms of establishing observed trends is limited by sample size. You’re talking not about weather events necessarily; you’re talking about impact events such as the size of a flood following heavy rainfall. There are possibly data limitations involved, but I would have to see exactly the material that you’re referencing. 

/4 Comments/by

End Bracket Creep – the Stealth Tax!

,

One Nation moved an amendment to a tax bill to end bracket creep, demonstrating our commitment to ending the Liberal-Labor stealth tax, who use inflation to push people into higher tax brackets.

The last time we moved to end bracket creep, both major parties and the Nationals claimed they were against it, yet they voted against our amendment. Why? Because they lie! They like bracket creep because it’s a stealth tax – a secret tax. Both depend on bracket creep to quietly take more money from workers.

One Nation wants to reform taxation and put more money in people’s pockets. At this election, vote One Nation #1

Transcript

Here we go again—bracket creep. Australians rightly complain that politicians from both major parties have no vision for our country’s future prosperity. It’s all just short-term budgets that never look beyond the next election. That’s why, tonight, One Nation is moving an amendment to the 2025 budget that would benefit our children’s children and everyone in Australia today. If successful, our amendment would remove the secret tax, the stealth tax, known as bracket creep. Bracket creep is where the government quietly takes more tax from Australians because of inflation. The government uses inflation to take more tax out of every Australian. This simple amendment to end bracket creep would save Australians tens of billions of dollars each year. It’s another One Nation plan to put more money back in your pocket. 

So let me explain. As inflation continues, wages increase to try and keep up. A salary might go up from $100,000 to $120,000, yet, because of inflation, you can still only buy the same things because prices have risen. Despite being able to only buy the same things, your tax bill goes up because, on paper, the salary has gone up and been pushed into a higher tax bracket with a higher rate of tax. Inflation pushes up the salary you need to survive every year, yet the tax thresholds stay in exactly the same place. As salaries increase, they enter a higher tax rate bracket. This is bracket creep. One Nation would end it. We would index the income tax thresholds to inflation so you do not enter a higher tax rate bracket, making sure Australians don’t pay a higher tax rate because of inflation. 

Tax reform is mentioned a lot in parliament. Here’s a genuine opportunity to do it. Australians are being squeezed from every angle. The current tax system is bleeding Australians dry while letting foreign multinational corporations rip off the country. Tonight, One Nation is proposing a policy that will tip the balance back towards helping Australians because we believe in putting more money back in Australians’ pockets. At the election, vote One Nation No. 1. 

How They Voted

The Liberals, Nationals and Labor claim to support tax bracket indexation, yet twice I have moved an amendment to introduce it, and both times they have voted it down. The major parties want to dishonestly continue their thieving stealth tax.

/4 Comments/by

Standing With @BillboardChris: Protecting Our Kids with Compassion & Support

Grateful to be able to offer my support to Billboard Chris in person at Parliament House today after the concerning events in Queen Street Mall Brisbane.

As I’ve said many times in Senate speeches and other forums, gender dysphoria should be met with compassion and understanding, not a scalpel or hormone drugs.

Our children need support during adolescence, not automatic affirmation that could lead to irreversible harm. Given that children are not mature enough to consent to treatments that will result in permanent infertility and damage, a total ban on such treatments for anyone under 18 is necessary.

We must protect our children as they navigate this challenging period in their lives.

I stand with Billboard Chris and commend his dedication to ending this abuse of our children.

Above all, free speech and the right to peaceful protest must be safeguarded at all costs.

/4 Comments/by

AFP’s Efforts Against Hate Crimes

,

Last week at Senate Estimates, I asked the Australian Federal Police (AFP) about the measures that are in place to protect Australians that are in a country that is guided by a Christian influenced Constitution. The AFP clarified that while they don’t monitor social media, they will review evidence to determine if any hate crime offence has occurred.

Greens’ Senator Shoebridge challenged whether our Constitution is really influenced by Christianity, however the Chair ended this line of discussion, stating that the preamble of our Constitution referenced “Almighty God”. (It’s worth noting that the country was overwhelmingly Christian when the Constitution was drafted.)

The AFP took on notice my question about the total number of arrests that have been made to date, however so far, there have been two charges for displaying terrorist symbols and ten for advocating terrorism. My question regarding deportation of non-citizens convicted of hate crimes was also taken on notice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you and your people for appearing here today, Mr Kershaw. According to our Commonwealth Constitution’s opening sentence Australia is constituted as a Christian country. What’s being done to charge those preachers in mosques of preaching hatred and threatening violence and use of physical force against Christians here in our country and bringing such hate preachers to justice?

Mr Nutt: Senator, I can take that one. Obviously, we’re very concerned where online hate speech and other actions of hate occur in the community. We obviously work in partnership with our state and territory colleagues, who are often first responders to certain offences. The AFP does not monitor the internet. We certainly review any allegation that relates to hate speech targeting any protected group against the Commonwealth offences that are available to us and we assess the content in those circumstances. That often involves obtaining legal advice. These offences change over time, in terms of what an offence may look like, decisions of court and those sorts of things, so we always ensure that, at the time, we are looking at not only current but past conduct and that we evaluate that conduct against not only the offences but the standards and decisions of courts in the jurisdiction where the offences occurred.

Senator ROBERTS: Have any such preachers of hate in Australia been charged, and, if not, why not?

Mr Nutt: I don’t have statistics relevant—

Senator ROBERTS: Can you get them?

Mr Nutt: I’m happy to take that question on notice. I take it you are just referring to the AFP, because that’s all we can respond to.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Chair, I have a point of order. I think in the circumstances this country finds itself, to leave on the record uncorrected the statement from Senator Roberts that the Constitution establishes Australia as a Christian country is unconscionable. Can I say the preamble to the Constitution references the ‘blessing of Almighty God’. As far as I can remember Christianity does not have a monopoly on the concept of ‘Almighty God’, and we shouldn’t allow that on the record.

CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, order.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a Christian God.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Maybe for you, Senator.

CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, thank you. You’re welcome to go and post those thoughts on Facebook. Senator Roberts is able to make his views known, and people can take them at his word, knowing his past reputation for—I’m not saying that you are misleading the parliament, but you have your views and they’re well known, and I think people can take your statements together with your previous statements. Senator Shoebridge, I don’t think anyone would be concerned at all about statements about the Constitution in this Senate. People say a lot of different things that aren’t true from time to time. People can just read it. It’s a document. I think we can move on. Senator Roberts, do you have any other questions?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. There have recently been faith based crimes committed in Australia involving fire bombings, graffiti painted on buildings, cars damaged and hate symbols displayed. How many arrests have been made, and what is being done to identify the criminals and bring them to justice?

Mr Nutt: Again, I’m happy to take those matters. Again, we can only speak on behalf of the AFP. Certainly, there are Commonwealth offences not only in the recent legislative amendment on 8 February, which has been described as the hate crimes bill, but other offences including in the prohibited hate symbols and other measures act. This legislation is available to our state and territory colleagues as well, and they can use those offences where state offences don’t apply.

Since 8 January 2024, when the prohibited hate symbols act came into effect, we have not charged anyone in relation to prohibited Nazi symbols under 80.2H of the Criminal Code Act 1995; however, we have charged two individuals in respect of the prohibited terrorist organisation symbols—that is, the intentional public display of proscribed terrorism organisation symbols—and we’ve also issued a direction under section 80.2K for the display of a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol. We have not charged anyone in terms of the trading of symbols, but we do have a number of investigations on the books with respect to prohibited terrorist symbols generally.

In terms of advocating terrorism, which, again, is the current version of the offence which came into effect in December 2023, we haven’t charged anyone. This is around advocating terrorism under section 80.2C of the Criminal Code. However, under the previous version, which was available between 2021 and 2023, we charged 10 persons for advocating terrorism under section 80.2C of the Criminal Code. As I mentioned, there was some updated hate crimes offences that came into effect on 8 February this year. Those offences are yet to be utilised by the AFP.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this question is for you. Will noncitizens convicted of hate crimes be subjected to deportation?

Senator Farrell: I’ll have to take that question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Back to the AFP. Do AFP officers need to get permission from a higher authority before making an arrest, or may an AFP officer exercise their discretion to make an arrest for a crime unfolding in front of them?

Mr Kershaw: Normally, depending on the nature of the event—if it’s a public order matter and some other particular matters—a senior officer can direct someone to be arrested, but there is also what we call the ‘Office of Constable’, which is an independent office that goes way back in the day to the UK, where an individual officer is held liable if they make the arrest. It’s their decision, independent of anyone else. So you could have a situation where one officer may gather some facts and say, ‘I’m okay to arrest that person,’ and another officer may say: ‘I’m going to use a summons. I’m not going to arrest them. I’m going to treat it differently or give them a caution.’ We, as senior officers, have to respect that and understand that. Discretion is really important, and we teach that and we train that with our officers.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there an ongoing training program for AFP officers in relation to rapidly evolving legislation relevant to the issues I’ve raised today? Mr Nutt alluded to a number of pieces if legislation that have come in, in recent years.

Mr Nutt: There are others at the table, in terms of those who are responsible for our legislative reform area. But our legislative reform area provides guidance to staff, which then gets incorporated into relevant training programs. We also work closely with the Attorney-General’s Department, which has responsibility with respect to Commonwealth legislation, and it provides materials not only to us but also to our state and territory partners on guidance in the application of Commonwealth offences, particularly new ones.

I won’t speak on behalf of the Attorney-General’s Department, but when we have new legislation that relates to areas of mutual interest with our state and territory police we provide that advice to them by essentially circulating the Attorney-General’s Department’s material. In certain circumstances—for example, in the espionage and foreign interference arena—we develop a training course and provide it to the state and territory police to assist their officers and for them to incorporate it into their own training program. We aren’t responsible for training state and territory police.

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. There has been a lot of violence displayed on the internet and on TV—news et cetera—for the last 12 months or so. When will Christian, Jewish and other followers of faith be able to feel safe in our own country, knowing that the police will protect them from harm?

Mr Nutt: Perhaps where I’ll take that question is that we’ve had some success with a relatively new offence relating to the possession and communication of violent extremist material. This offence focuses on material that portrays terrorist acts. It is also material that aids—in terms of education—in the carrying out of violent acts in the advancement of a religious, political or ideological cause.

Since this offence was introduced, it has been quite effective in the early identification of individuals who are consuming and potentially acting on violent extremist material. You may note that in the last week we had our first conviction under these provisions. We were very concerned about the violent extremist material that that individual had. We’re concerned because of the nature of the material and how accessible it is—building on what the commissioner has already said, in terms of the role and responsibility of internet service providers and the like in preventing the spread, distribution and access to violent extremist materials—and more broadly around end-to-end encryption. When it comes to our young people and vulnerable people more generally, we have noted the digital algorithms that may come into play of people’s internet activity and developed what has generally been considered to be echo chambers where someone looking up something may be pushed along or drawn along a path. The result being increased exposure to violent extremist material. We’re quite concerned about that as an issue.

Senator ROBERTS: To build on your answer—and thank you for the answer—I’m guessing the AFP does a lot more intelligence work these days as a proportion of its overall crime fighting than it used to because of the internet.

Mr Nutt: It’s always a mix.

Ms Barrett: I’ll also take the opportunity to reference Special Operation Avalite, which we stood up in December. That specifically targets antisemitism in this country. We have charged six people since we stood up that special operation. But I want to take this opportunity to thank the community. When we stood up the special operation, we went particularly to the Jewish community and asked them to assist us and to work together in partnership with us in relation to how we could specifically target the right areas. So I want to take this opportunity to thank the community for their partnership with us.

Senator Farrell: Senator Roberts asked a question earlier and I took it on notice. The question that you asked the Attorney-General needs to be directed to the Department of Home Affairs.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s the quickest answer I’ve ever got on questions on notice.

/0 Comments/by

Australia’s Living Standards Decline

,

Throughout my entire time in the Senate, I’ve consistently spoken on the need to restore Australia’s productive capacity through the construction of new infrastructure.

It’s a simple metric: the living standard of each Australian is expressed as our gross domestic product divided by the population. With 5 million new Australians in the last 10 years – 2.5 million under this Labor government – our gross domestic product is being split into more slices for the new arrivals faster than it is growing.

As a result, the standard of living for individual Australians is going backwards and has fallen by 8% since Labor took over. Did anyone hear Prime Minister Albanese promise in his 2022 election campaign to reduce the living standards of everyday Australians by 8%?  I didn’t.

The answer to falling living standards is to reduce immigration.

The Government must also embrace the other side of the equation, which is building new infrastructure to enhance our productive capacity.

This video explains One Nation’s ‘build baby build’ policy, which we are taking to this election.

Transcript

I thank Senator Rennick for this opportunity to speak about One Nation’s policies and note that, in March, his statements and policies are becoming increasingly loaded with One Nation policies that we released earlier the month before, in February. In that, it’s like Labor and the LNP too, who are copying elements of our policies. 

For the entire time I’ve been in this Senate, I’ve spoken on the need to restore Australia’s productive capacity through the construction of new infrastructure. It’s a simple metric: the living standard of each Australian is expressed as our gross domestic product divided by population. With five million new Australians in the last 10 years, 2½ million of those under this Labor government, our gross domestic product is being split into new slices for the new arrivals faster than it’s growing. As a result, the standard of living of individual Australians is going backwards and has fallen by eight per cent since Labor took over. Did anyone hear Prime Minister Albanese promise in his 2022 election pitch to reduce the living standards of everyday Australians by eight per cent? I didn’t. The answer is clearly and certainly to reduce immigration, although the government must embrace the other side of that equation as well, which is building new infrastructure to grow our productive capacity. 

One Nation are taking a platform to this election that includes building a national rail loop to take hundreds of thousands of truck movements off the roads, making freight handling cheaper and more efficient, reducing supermarket prices and making Australia more competitive. That’s vital in a large country with a small population; logistics is tops. Our platform also includes a new northern rail crossing from Port Hedland to Moranbah and the Port of Gladstone in Queensland to open the east Pilbara and the north-west minerals province in Queensland to the international market, facilitating exports worth hundreds of billions of dollars and tens or hundreds of thousands of breadwinner jobs. There’s also a multifunction corridor to take water, power and internet along the new northern crossing railway to bring town services to more than 100 remote communities across the Top End; Hells Gates Dam in Far North Queensland to provide flood mitigation, water security and hydropower; and the Urannah water project and pipeline, amongst others. What will be the source of these funds? There will be $90 billion from cutting waste and duplication, itemised. See our website; it’s fully costed. 

Each year, we will put $40 billion of that back into people’s pockets. For example, couples with children income-splitting will save almost $10,000 a year. It’s fully costed. Each year, we will invest $20 billion in infrastructure to increase productive capacity to increase our children’s wages. Each year, we will pay down record debt of $30 billion, which is estimated to become $50 billion the year after next per year, to reduce interest. Only through building our productive capacity can we hope to provide for the millions of new arrivals, generate new government revenue from increased economic activity and restore wealth and opportunity to all who call this beautiful country home. 

/8 Comments/by

Securing Borders, Protecting Jobs and Prioritising Australians

, , ,

It’s time to take back control of our borders, protect Australian jobs, and ensure a future where Australians come first.

One Nation will:

🔸 Deport 75,000 illegal migrants – those that have overstayed their visas, illegal workers and unlawful non-residents that undermine national security, drive down wages, and take advantage of public services meant for Australians.

🔸 Make migration net negative, which means more leave Australia than arrive – and the population decreases.

🔸 Stop the skilled visa rorting that allows cheap foreign labour to undercut Australian workers.

🔸 End the student visa loopholes that turn study into a backdoor to permanent residency or low-wage labour.

🔸 Stop the Administrative Review Tribunal being abused with endless, weaponised appeals that clog the system and delay rightful deportations. Immigration enforcement must not be held hostage by legal loopholes.

🔸 Reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas a proven, effective policy that prevents permanent residency through the back door and deters illegal arrivals.

🔸 Deport any visa holder who breaks the law. Weak law enforcement policies have put Australians in danger for too long. If you commit a crime, you lose your visa and the right to stay.

🔸 Introduce an eight-year waiting period for citizenship and welfare, ensuring new arrivals contribute before they take.

🔸 Refuse entry to migrants from nations known to foster extremist ideologies that are incompatible with Australian values and way of life.

🔸 Withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention. because Australia will not be dictated to by foreign organisations when deciding who we accept into our nation on humanitarian grounds.

Media Release

Media ReleaseDownload
/3 Comments/by

Empowering Remote Australia

,

I travelled to Alice Springs to talk about actually supporting Australians in remote communities, not dividing us on race like the PM tried to do with his voice referendum.

One Nation will abolish the racially divisive indigenous departments that costs tens of billions a year and hasn’t closed the gap one bit.

Here’s what we’ll do instead.

The Northern Rail link is a 3,000 km proposal across the entire top of Australia.

The important part for remote communities is what will run right next door to that rail line: high speed internet, electricity and a water pipeline.

Those three essential utilities will allow us to turbocharge central Australia, for everyone who lives remotely.

Instead of handouts – One Nation will build real infrastructure that will allow remote Australia to make themselves richer. The best form of welfare is a job – we’ll build the infrastructure to create those jobs in rural Australia, based on need not race.

Real wealth for the future, of all Australians.

/1 Comment/by

$5 Tax Cuts Dead on Arrival Thanks to Inflation

, ,

One Nation has a plan to put serious money back in your pocket with big ideas and genuine reform that our children’s children will benefit from.

Australia needs meaningful vision, not election campaign bribes.

Media Release

While the Budget’s $5 a week tax cuts will be ‘dead on arrival’ due to inflation, the Senate will tonight vote on meaningful reform to eliminate bracket creep and provide real relief. 

Inflation and bracket creep will outstrip the tax changes leaving Australians worse off and paying more tax for decades unless a One Nation sponsored amendment to index thresholds is supported in the Senate. Senator Roberts said: 

‘Australians and especially young people have been screwed on tax and the latest changes are already dead on arrival. 

‘A cup of coffee will be $7 by the time the $5 tax cuts arrive. Bracket creep means Australians will be paying tens of billions more in tax.  

‘Unless bracket creep is eliminated the typical full-time worker will be pushed into paying the second highest tax rate at 37 cents a dollar within two terms. 

‘Bracket creep is the government’s dirty little secret. Inflation means Labor will quietly pocket tens of billions of dollars in extra taxes. 

‘Due to inflation wages increase and Australians move into higher tax brackets while only being able to buy the same things yet pay a higher tax rate. 

‘Australians don’t deserve to pay for inflation twice and the budget shouldn’t benefit from inflation.’ 

One Nation will move a Senate amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Cost of Living Relief) Bill 2025 scheduled for a vote on Wednesday night. 

Media ReleaseDownload

/2 Comments/by

One Nation’s Plan for Economic Growth and Self-Reliance

,

This budget is a mockery of governance that seeks to make Australians reliant on government handouts. It ensures that power is no longer vested in ‘We The People,’ instead it’s in ‘Them the Bureaucracy.’

The world has been here many times before and clearly, Treasurer Chalmers has failed to study history. The more the government borrows—$44 billion in this budget—the less private enterprise has available to invest and grow the economy for all who are here. The more the government spends, the less is available for private enterprise to create real jobs, making everyone more reliant on the government.

One Nation is offering the Australian people a comprehensive economic plan to restore wealth and opportunity for every Australian. One Nation will immediately return $40 billion into the pockets of everyday Australians, funded through savings of $90 billion. This plan includes paying off an additional $30 billion a year from our national debt and investing $20 billion a year for 10 years in infrastructure to grow our economy. In my budget reply, I explain how this will be achieved.

Transcript

This budget that we’ve just had delivered is a mockery of governance that seeks to make Australians reliant on government handouts, ensuring power is no longer vested in us, the people, but instead is vested in them, the bureaucracy. The world has been here many times before, and clearly Treasurer Chalmers has failed to study history. The more government borrows—$44 billion in this budget—the less private enterprise has available to invest and grow the economy for all who are here. And there are too many here: five million new arrivals in the last 10 years—five million. There have been 2½ million under this Labor government in just the last three years. This is the major reason for the cost-of-living and housing catastrophe. The more the government spends, the less is available for private enterprise to create real, productive jobs and the more reliant everyone becomes on the government. 

One Nation is offering the Australian people a comprehensive economic plan to restore wealth and opportunity for every Australian. One Nation will immediately return $40 billion into the pockets of everyday Australians, funded through savings of $90 billion, which will also enable us to pay off an additional $30 billion from our national debt and invest $20 billion a year for 10 years in the infrastructure to grow our economy. Here’s how we’ll be putting more money in people’s pockets—more money in your pocket. No. 1 is reducing electricity prices by 20 per cent to save $6 billion. Currently the system of priority dispatch turns coal-fired power stations off during the day to make room for solar and wind. Operating a coal plant this way causes damage which shows up in much higher maintenance costs and breakdowns, increasing the price of coal fired electricity. One Nation will turn priority dispatch around and run coal plants to at least 80 per cent capacity 24/7. We expect this power will be sold into the grid at around $55 per kilowatt hour, compared to the average price last quarter across all types of power of $120 per kilowatt hour. That’s less than half of what it has been. This should reduce power prices by 20 per cent immediately, and, over time, as we build new coal plants, it should cut power prices by 50 per cent. The government pays for the electricity it uses, so this will reduce the government’s electricity costs by $3 billion and save consumers and businesses $6 billion a year. That’s more money in your pocket. 

No. 2 is income splitting to save $8 billion. One Nation will introduce income splitting, allowing a couple with at least one dependent child to split their income between both partners. If there’s only one breadwinner earning the average wage, the family will save $9,500 a year in tax. That’s $9,500 that stays in your pocket. This measure will cost $8 billion a year, offset in part from tax on the resulting higher economic activity. And we expect more parents to be able to afford to stay home and mind their children, reducing government subsidised childcare. 

No. 3 is $13 billion a year in excise cuts. One Nation will cut the fuel excise by 26 cents a litre for three years and then review it to see if it continues. The ACCC monitor fuel prices daily, and I’m confident the reduction will be passed on to consumers. Fuel is an input cost right across the economy. Lowering fuel prices lowers commuting costs for consumers and transport costs across the economy, including for groceries, saving consumers and industry $8 billion a year. That’s more money in your pocket. We will remove the GST on insurance policies, saving consumers $3 billion a year. And we will remove the excise on alcohol sold in hospitality venues. This will save consumers more than $1 billion a year. That’s more money in your pocket. This policy is not about drinking; it’s about supporting hospitality venues and offering Australians a safe place to drink in a social environment—a community. 

No. 4 is increased funding for the ACCC. In February One Nation called for an increase in funding for the ACCC to enable a thorough investigation of supermarkets, airlines and insurance companies for profiteering and dishonest business practices. I note that Treasurer Chalmers tonight in the budget has required the ACCC to spend $38 million on policing supermarkets, which will be hard after he cut the ACCC’s budget by $48 million. One Nation will provide whatever it takes to investigate and prosecute illegal behaviour from supermarkets, airlines and insurance companies. Prices must come down, and profit margins should not be excessive in these essential industries. 

No. 5 is increasing Medicare funding by $3 billion a year. One Nation will prosecute fraud in the Medicare and PBS system, which the government knows is happening yet does not have the courage to solve. We will impose longer wait times before new arrivals can access Medicare and review drugs being offered under the PBS that received emergency-use authorisation during COVID. 

This $40 billion of more money in your pocket will be paid for with the following spending cuts to cut government waste. We will abolish net zero and climate change measures. One Nation will withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto protocol and the Paris Agreement. We will end net zero. We will abolish the department of climate change and their agencies, schemes and boondoggles. Existing solar and wind contracts will be honoured. No new subsidies will occur. Today’s budget reveals that the whole climate scam costs the government $35 billion a year. The cost to the private sector is anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion depending on who’s doing the numbers. This is a massive cost on Australian households that One Nation will abolish. 

One Nation will return the NDIS to its original purpose, helping the severely disabled, and introduce means testing, saving $20 billion a year and improving care. 

We will withdraw from the World Health Organization and ban the World Economic Forum. For too long Australia has been held hostage to unelected, unaccountable, corrupt foreign bureaucrats at the World Health Organization and predatory billionaires operating their puppet organisation, the World Economic Forum. It’s a cabal which, during COVID, transferred $5 trillion from everyday citizens into their own pockets. One Nation will withdraw from the UN World Health Organization and will only provide cooperation where we believe it will assist in world health. We will withdraw from the World Economic Forum and the World Bank, saving around $1 billion a year in contributions, administration and in the costs of implementing policies such as One Health, which can only be described as anti-human.  

We will end mass immigration. There are 75,000 people in Australia illegally, right now, mostly with expired visas. One Nation will deport them all. There are 1.1 million people here with student related visas, which are students and their families, who can now accompany students. Australia only has 480,000 student places, so clearly there are people who are rorting the system, at our cost. One Nation will send home any student and their family who is not following the terms of their visa, which are to study and to complete their course. 

One Nation’s policy will initially result in a negative net immigration of 90,000 a year, meaning more people will leave than enter, because with around 220,000 departures a year we will only allow 130,000 people a year to enter. Ninety thousand more people will leave than enter. This will put downward pressure on the cost of housing and free up homes for Australians who are currently living in tents or who are underhoused. Unlike under Liberal and Labor policies, all people who enter will be skilled.  

Education is a state responsibility. Yet we have federal bureaucrats telling state bureaucrats telling regional bureaucrats telling headmasters telling teachers what to teach—too many mouths to feed along the way and harming educational outcomes. The Program for International Student Assessment, PISA, is an OECD program which assesses reading, mathematics and science literacy of 15-year-old students. Australia is not in the top 10 nations, and our latest ranking shows a score below the OECD average. We will abolish the federal Department of Education, including the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority and NAPLAN, saving $2 billion a year, and return education to the states in accordance with the federal constitution.  

Last year the Allianz insurance company found Australian businesses were spending $27 billion on DEI and related mental health measures in 2024-25. While One Nation supports legitimate mental health concerns, there’s clearly a significant cost involved in DEI. If half of this $27 billion is for DEI, and the government is a quarter of that, then DEI is costing taxpayers $3 billion a year and adding $10 billion a year to the cost of goods and services in Australia. One Nation will abolish woke and bank these savings for taxpayers and the Australian public.  

Next, One Nation will end foreign multinational gas companies rorting the natural gas royalties. We will change from where royalties are levied from profits and switch to point of production—that makes perfect sense—and create a domestic gas reserve, raising up to a $13 billion a year from offshore sales.  

We will reduce foreign aid, saving $3 billion a year, with the remaining aid being targeted to those in need instead of being a slush fund for political influence.  

We will abolish the white and black Aboriginal industry. As already announced, we will replace the national Indigenous grants agency, the Aboriginal units across every department and agency and associated programs and boondoggles. We will replace that parasitic mess with direct grants and essential remote infrastructure based on need not race, saving $12½ billion and getting better care to the Aboriginals in the community.  

Taken together, these savings will total $90 billion a year, with $40 billion going back to taxpayers and $20 billion going to infrastructure, which I discussed this afternoon. One Nation’s plan is a real economic plan, designed to lower the cost of living while expanding the economy and restoring wealth and opportunity for all Australians. 

/3 Comments/by

Bridging the Gap: One Nation’s Vision for Thriving Remote Communities

This is how you close the gap. It’s what One Nation has always said – treat people based on need not race.

When that happens fundamental needs come out. For people to have purpose they need to be able to contribute and hold a job. For a job you need industry and industry needs basic things: power, water and internet.

The 3,000km Northern Rail link sometimes referred to as the Iron Boomerang would bring all of these fundamental things and allow remote communities to thrive like never before.

This is what is possible when we address needs instead of separating people based on race.

/by