Listening to everyday Australians across Queensland, I’ve heard your concerns about the rising cost of health care. When Labor first took over, they increased the Medicare rebate, boosting bulk-billing rates. But by 2025, that effect has faded. According to Cleanbill’s 2025 report, nearly 80% of GP clinics no longer bulk-bill adult patients. The percentage of bulk-billing GPs in Queensland has halved since Labor came to power, and out-of-pocket costs have risen by 9%.
Medicare is crucial for timely medical treatment, helping people get back to work faster. In the US, unpaid medical bills cause 40% of bankruptcies. One Nation won’t let that happen here. One Nation will increase the Medicare subsidy to encourage bulk-billing, funded by cracking down on Medicare and PBS fraud, which costs $3 billion a year. We’ll also delay social security, including Medicare, for new arrivals.
One Nation is committed to practical solutions for the cost-of-living crisis. We’ll reduce overseas student numbers to create more university places for Australians, especially in health disciplines, and expand bursaries for students from rural areas. While Labor offers bandaids, One Nation offers real solutions.
Transcript
In listening to everyday Australians across my home state of Queensland, one of our highest concerns is the cost of health care. This Labor government increased the Medicare rebate when they first took over. It was a long overdue move which increased the rate of Medicare bulk-billing. In 2025 the effect of that increase has worn off, much like the lustre on this government. According to Cleanbill’s 2025 report, nearly 80 per cent of GP clinics no longer bulk-bill adult patients. When Labor came to power, 26 per cent of GPs in Queensland bulk-billed. In 2025 the figure is projected to be 14 per cent—halved. As a result, the out-of-pocket cost of visiting a doctor has risen by nine per cent.
Any economist can easily make the case for Medicare. As a national insurance policy, it matches medical treatment to the time the person needs it rather than to the time they can afford to pay for it. This optimises health care and gets the person back to the productive economy faster.
In the United States, unpaid medical bills cause 40 per cent of all bankruptcies. One Nation will not accept that happening here. One Nation will increase the Medicare subsidy to encourage bulk-billing. This subsidy will be paid for through cracking down on Medicare fraud, estimated to cost $3 billion a year. This figure doesn’t include fraudulent loaning out of Medicare cards. Some areas in Sydney have more adults using Medicare cards than they have eligible adults. One Nation will delay the granting of social security, including Medicare, to new arrivals. That announcement will be made separately. One Nation have already announced a policy to reduce overseas student numbers and create more places for Australian children to go to university in areas where Australia needs graduates, which includes health disciplines. One Nation will expand bursaries for students to attend from the bush or to practise in regional and rural areas. While Labor offers bandaids, One Nation are offering practical solutions to the cost-of-living crisis.
The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has received a Ministerial directive to investigate wage theft allegations affecting coal miners in the Hunter region. Upon inquiring about the investigation’s status, Mr Steve Ronson, the Executive Director of the FWO shared that there are currently 18 cases under investigation, involving 25 workers and 17 employers, with 2 self-reports also being considered. All complaints are being thoroughly investigated, and the process includes holding meetings with various stakeholders.
A dedicated email address has been established for individuals to contact the FWO regarding these issues. So far, meetings have been held with Coal LSL, the Mining Energy Union, and the Independent Workers Union of Australia. Mr Ronson mentioned that the amounts to be calculated have not yet been assessed, with some claims dating back around 10 years. It’s been estimated that the total claim could potentially reach up to $1.3 billion. He also expressed his willingness to accept a submission from One Nation, which has been advocating for this investigation since 2019, marking it as the largest wage theft claim in Australia.
Interestingly, there has been no liaison with the Fair Work Commission, although other entities are welcome to submit material. Early findings from the investigation may emerge by mid this year, but the final report is expected by mid-2026. Status reports might be discussed through the estimates process. Mr Ronson clarified that while underpayments can be investigated beyond the 6-year period under the Statute of Limitations, enforcement is limited to this timeframe. He committed to securing any identified underpayments through the investigation.
Stay tuned for more updates as this significant investigation progresses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you for attending, everyone. First of all, I understand the Fair Work Ombudsman has received a ministerial directive to investigate underpayments of casual black coal miners working under enterprise agreements; is that correct?
Ms Booth: We have been asked to conduct that investigation. On the last occasion, you’ll recall, Mr Ronson gave you a thorough rundown. Since that time our enforcement board has approved an investigation plan. I will turn to Mr Campbell to give you any further updates.
Senator ROBERTS:Before he does so, would it be possible to get a copy of the ministerial directive, please?
Ms Booth: I’m not sure I would describe it as a ministerial directive, although others might be more aware of the protocol in these matters. I believe it was a letter.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I have a copy?
Ms Booth: I see no reason why you shouldn’t. I’ll hand over to Mr Campbell and Mr Ronson to give you more details.
Mr Campbell: Is there a particular aspect of our inquiries that you’re interested in, or are you looking for a general update?
Senator ROBERTS: I’d specifically like, please, an overview of the status of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s activities, and could you in particular describe the process the Fair Work Ombudsman is using to conduct its investigations.
Mr Campbell: I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist.
Mr Ronson: I can give you an update on the status of the investigation. The Fair Work Ombudsman is currently investigating 18 black coal mining industry matters that involve 25 workers and 17 different employing entities. We’ve also received two self-reports from the sector. All the requests for assistance that we’ve received are being investigated, and as part of our project plan we’re meeting with a whole range of stakeholders. We’ve begun meeting with them to talk about the investigation, to enhance and increase awareness and to encourage those in the sector to come forward. We have a dedicated email address to receive any allegations or information from any member of the sector or the community. So far, we’ve had some very constructive and positive meetings. We’ve had two meetings with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, we’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union, we’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia, and we’ve got a whole range of other stakeholder meetings lined up in the next couple of weeks.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I assume that there’s a dedicated process that casual coalminers can now use to lodge complaints about underpayment with the Fair Work Ombudsman?
Mr Ronson: That’s correct. There’s a dedicated email address we’ve set up for the whole project so that anyone in the sector or anyone with information relating to the sector can feel confident that they can go straight through to contacting us through that email, or they can give us a call—whichever way they want to make contact with us. Of course, there’s still the anonymous report function as well, which is available to all members of the community.
Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Independent Workers Union of Australia. I take it that some of the submissions, or complaints, have been lodged through that and some of the others have been individually lodged, for individual work.
Mr Ronson: That’s right. Probably two-thirds have come through the agency of the Independent Workers Union of Australia and the other third are just individual workers in the sector who have requests for assistance that we’re looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate your succinct and direct answers. Can the Fair Work Ombudsman provide the range of possible underpayment amounts currently being looked at by the Fair Work Ombudsman?
Mr Ronson: It’s hard to assess at the moment what potential underpayments, if any, exist. Some of the allegations date back at least 10 or 11 years. There are some individuals who’ve worked in the sector for many years. If the allegations are upheld and if the evidence is obtained, there could be significant underpayments owing to certain workers. But at this stage it’s too early. We’ve requested a series of documents, a lot of information from various companies, that will assist us to begin, if you like, the assessment of these particular claims.
Senator ROBERTS: How many employers—not only mine owners but the labour hire firms—are subject to investigation so far? How many?
Mr Ronson: All up, it’s 17.
Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned that—okay. Will the Fair Work Ombudsman advertise to coalminers in the black coal mining sector, encouraging them to lodge and apply to the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to underpayments they believe they may have been subject to?
Mr Ronson: By ‘advertise’, do you mean increasing awareness, as in media statements?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes: letting them know you’re open for business and you’re aware that this is an issue.
Mr Ronson: Yes, that’s definitely an option available and one we’re considering. There are some other ideas that we have as well about enhancing awareness. For example, there’s nothing to prevent us writing to all labour hire providers and employing entities in the sector. This is one of the suggestions that has been put to us and one we’re currently considering.
Senator ROBERTS: Would that be a wise move in terms of trying to get to the miners? Some of these labour hire firms—some—have been deliberately suppressing this?
Mr Ronson: That’s right—good point. In terms of former workers, that’s a different sort of ‘audience’, if you like. That’s one we’re turning our minds to in thinking about how we ensure people who either are in the industry now or were formerly in the industry are aware of this investigation. The second point I was making, yes, was in relation to employers. That’s something we’ve done in the past. We’ve written, for example, to the ASX Top 100 companies and encouraged them to review their status, and if they self-identify they can self-report any potential noncompliance.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that some of the miners are not aware of it, but it’s a major issue, because we estimate that about 5,000 miners at least have been the subject of Australia’s largest wage theft case, and it’ll cost, ultimately, around $1.3 billion—they’re rough estimates. So I think these people need to be told that there’s an option for them to seek justice and repayment.
Mr Ronson: Yes. As I say, it’s something we’re definitely turning our minds to, and we’re considering what’s the best way to get the word out, if you like.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s hope you can get that out fairly soon. The Fair Work Ombudsman would be aware that One Nation has pushed for investigation into this issue and that One Nation released a detailed report in February 2024. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman taking submissions on how the alleged underpayments have occurred, and would the Fair Work Ombudsman accept One Nation’s report as a submission? We can provide data, companies involved, amounts, enterprise agreements and underpayment.
Mr Ronson: Yes, sure. We welcome all and any information and any submissions.
Senator ROBERTS: So we would make submissions in the same way anyone else would?
Mr Ronson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Would One Nation be involved in any follow-up discussions on the nature of the issue and its resolution?
Mr Ronson: Yes, if there is information that’s material and actionable, by all means, we’ll be in contact.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the Mining and Energy Union, which is what’s left in the coalmining sector after the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union split, are not seeking back pay. They seem to be hiding it because they were involved in agreeing to the enterprise agreements and signing off on enterprise agreements that were paying much less than the award. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman inviting submissions from other organisations and individuals? If so, who specifically has been approached?
Mr Ronson: To date, as I said before, we’ve met with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, and we’re asking that agency to provide us with any relevant information. We’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union; we’ve extended the same invitation. We’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia. As you know, they’re actively involved, and they’re assisting our investigation. We also intend to meet with the Queensland Labour Hire Licensing Compliance Unit; RCSA, the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association, which is responsible for labour hire; the Minerals Council of Australia, with which we have meetings lined up; and safe work bodies in New South Wales and Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you be covering more than the wage theft case and the specific amounts of the wage theft? In other words, will you be covering loss of other entitlements, protections and safeguards?
Mr Ronson: Our jurisdiction only extends to entitlements or conditions that are actionable or have been created under the Fair Work Act and the regulations, so it’s only what is within our remit.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman consulting with the Fair Work Commission on the issue?
Mr Ronson: Not to date. There’s been no need at this stage. I’m confident that we said at our last hearing that we don’t have the power or the capability to question any approvals of any agreements that have been made in the past. Others can take that issue up.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So only the Mining and Energy Union; its predecessor, the CFMEU; and employers, such as mining companies?
Mr Ronson: I’ll defer to the chief counsel as to who in particular can question agreements.
Ms Volzke: I think Mr Ronson has given a reasonable list. I would just say more broadly that one of the issues that I raised at the last estimates is just to remember that we still have that statutory timeframe of six years that applies under the Fair Work Act as well. Obviously, that won’t preclude us from investigating, but it’s important that the miners that we’re looking at also bear that in mind.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’m pleased to say that it wouldn’t preclude you investigating. It may, at the moment, preclude addressing the issues that are raised in the investigation, but it would not preclude the investigation. The premise for my next question is as follows: the black coal award does not allow for casuals. Enterprise agreements were made, and some are still current, but the agreement’s pay rates are demonstrably less than what should be paid under the award if the award allowed for casuals. To an ordinary person, paying casuals less than the award casualised rate—that’s a full-time rate plus 25 per cent—is plainly wrong. That’s the pub test, as people say. And yet the Fair Work Commission endorsed the enterprise agreements. I assume the Fair Work Ombudsman must somehow determine which instrument prevails, being either enterprise agreements that pay less than the casualised award rate or an award rate that incorporates a casualised 25 per cent add-on to a full-time rate. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have an idea as to how this may be resolved?
Mr Ronson: That’s the $64 question, if I can confirm it. I think, as with previous evidence we’ve provided, there remains uncertainty regarding the legal consequences of the Black Coal Mining Award’s lack of provision for employees in these roles as it hasn’t been authoritatively determined by a court. So it remains an open question.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman be issuing a report or reports on its findings of the investigation? If so, what would be the anticipated timeline for such reports? I think the minister made some comment as to [inaudible].
Mr Ronson: At this stage we’re more than happy to provide status updates in this forum as we go along, but we’re hoping that we’d have early preliminary findings towards the middle of this year or just after the middle of this year. I think I said last time, and I think it’s still the case, it could be at least until mid-2026 before we’re in a position to provide a final report. But we will keep this committee posted.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you be in a position to provide interim reports as the investigation progresses?
Mr Ronson: It’s probably easier if we provide status reports, like I have today. The thing about how long an investigation takes is it all depends—
Senator ROBERTS: It depends on the [inaudible] and what you find. I get it. Would any reports you provide be public and unredacted, except of course for retaining confidentiality of workers allegedly underpaid?
Mr Ronson: I see no reason why it wouldn’t be. A report that we provide would be as fulsome and comprehensive as we could publish.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re not expecting names of individuals to be disclosed.
Mr Ronson: No.
Senator ROBERTS: We would expect them to be redacted. Would the reports indicate the employers involved, the organisations involved, the employers and organisations under investigation and any findings that the Fair Work Ombudsman has in relation to the specific employers?
CHAIR: Just before you answer that question, Senator Roberts we’re running an hour and a bit late. I don’t want to cut off your questions, but if there are some that can be on notice that would be helpful. Otherwise, I will come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The way Mr Ronson is answering the questions directly, it won’t be long at all. I’ve only got a few more to go. And I have to move on too.
CHAIR: No worries.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Ronson?
Mr Ronson: The best way of answering your question is: it’s the long held practice of the Fair Work Ombudsman to provide reports of all its major investigations. We’ve published all of them and they’re available on our website. It is our practice and it would be our expectation to do so again.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If the Fair Work Ombudsman were to conclude that underpayments had occurred, and based on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s past experiences, does the Fair Work Ombudsman have ideas of scenarios for compensation for any worker underpayments?
Mr Ronson: Well, we have ideas. As to whether they’re actionable or realisable, that will be determined in due course.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. This is something Ms Volzke raised. What is the effect of the statute of limitations and how would that apply to someone lodging a complaint today? Can they still lodge it?
Mr Ronson: Yes. As the chief counsel answered, it doesn’t preclude our investigations. The provision in the act only relates to enforceability in the event of proceedings, but there’s no reason why we can’t go back historically and look at historic underpayments and, if the allegations are upheld and there is an entitlement owing, to seek to secure that underpayment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman investigating beyond the statute of limitations to ascertain full amounts possibly underpaid?
Mr Ronson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Chair, I want to express my appreciation for Mr Ronson being direct. It enabled me to get through my questions. I also want to communicate to the secretariat that I’ll be on the road, so I won’t be able to ask the Fair Work Commission questions in the hearings, but I will put them on notice. And it’s the same with the coal long service leave.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/A5_eE4rV_cU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-06 09:58:012025-03-06 10:53:49Investigation into Wage Theft for Coal Miners in the Hunter
We had hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) would be a significant improvement over the old Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which was overwhelmed with thousands of immigration appeals, often being assessed by Members who were friends of the Labor government.
The new ART was supposed to be made up of Members based on merit, which would be a significant improvement—provided the new appointments are not again filled with Labor mates.
I proposed the creation of a new Refugee and Immigration Review Tribunal to handle only Migration disputes. This would alleviate the heavy caseload that is delaying decisions in the new ART and help expedite the overall review process.
Transcript
Thank you, Deputy President. We hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal would be a significant improvement over its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The old Administrative Appeals Tribunal was a failure. It was top-heavy with Labor lawyers, making it a Labor lawyer fest with appointments made based on a reward system for leftist-aligned lawyers, and there are plenty of them—lawyers doing the bidding of their Labor masters, pushing poor Labor policies, and enshrining woke and harmful leftist ideals.
The Liberals and Nationals stacked appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, favouring lawyers sympathetic to the LNP. So much for justice under the uniparty! This stacking was a recipe for disaster and a significant reason why Labor’s jumbled and catastrophic immigration policy continues to fail Australians and continues to hurt Australians catastrophically. Look at the number of people who are homeless and who are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in their cars and in tents. If a noncitizen’s visa has expired or has been breached, to slow down the deportation process, the decision to deport could be delayed through an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is a fact, and it was done many times, ensuring that there was a high chance that bleeding-heart Lefties would delay or overturn the decision. Few Australians know that there are currently more than 75,000 illegals in Australia right now. More than 75,000 foreigners are living here in Australia on cancelled or expired visas, taking up homes that could be used by those people who are currently homeless. The whereabouts of these illegals is unknown, and the government doesn’t care, with limited resources to locate these illegals for deportation.
It’s welcome that the current membership of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be declared vacant and that vacancies will be filled on a merit based system. My concerns are that the Administrative Review Tribunal membership will still be loaded with Labor government favourites and that the workload will still create long waiting periods before appropriate reconsideration of major decisions. It would be better to remove the review process for immigration decisions from the Administrative Review Tribunal and consider the reintroduction of a refugee or immigration review tribunal, to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal does not become bogged down with migration appeals, as it is currently. Instead of a delay mechanism for illegals to exploit, abuse and avoid at Australians’ expense, we need to deport illegals. We need to deport more than 75,000 lawbreakers and free up housing for Australians—working families who are currently sleeping in their cars, in tents or under bridges. Australian families deserve roofs over their heads and beds for their children.
Under the One Nation plan, anyone that owns residential property yet isn’t an Australian citizen or permanent resident, will be given two years to sell their property back to an Australian. The two-year grace period will ensure there isn’t a flood of properties onto the housing market.
Let’s get Australians into affordable houses while keeping the market sound.
Transcript
Australians are rightly stunned and confused. Why are foreigners, people from other countries, allowed to buy real estate while Australians are made homeless and sleep on the street? China dominates foreign purchases of Australian real estate, snapping up the most of any country in the world. China snaps up houses and farmland across our country, yet Australians are banned from buying a house in China. Add to that Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, the United States and the United Kingdom. The list of countries that grab Australian real estate goes on and on.
Australians are suffering through a housing crisis, a catastrophe. The average mortgage size has never been higher, with expensive repayments crushing household budgets. A house in Brisbane used to cost three times the average income. Now it’s 10 times. This combination of high house prices and high interest rates means the average Australian is paying more of their wage on mortgage repayments than a homeowner would in 1990, when the Reserve Bank of Australia’s cash rate was at 17 per cent. I’ll say that again. As a proportion of income, mortgages are more expensive today than when the RBA had rates at 17 per cent.
The rental market in Australia is broken. Vacancy rates, a good measure of whether it’s even possible for people to find a rental, have been at crisis levels for years. The average rent for a house in Brisbane has gone from $467 a week in 2020 to $740. For a unit in Brisbane, rent has gone up from $381 to $587 in the same period, since 2020. What’s the government’s response to the hurt Australians are feeling trying to get into a house? Labor will keep letting foreigners buy residential real estate.
While the Liberals signal they might do something about it, their proposal doesn’t go far enough. Peter Dutton doesn’t want to stop foreign ownership of real estate. He wants foreigners to be back here buying up the farm in two years. The Liberals’ temporary pause is not good enough. Australia needs a complete ban on foreigners owning houses in this country. The Liberals won’t do anything about the houses that are foreign owned right now—they can keep them. In 2017, ANZ estimated that foreigners owned up to 400,000 Australian homes. That’s enough for a million Australians to live in, and that number of homes can only have increased since then.
One Nation would implement a true ban on foreign ownership. Under our plan, anyone that owns residential property yet isn’t an Australian citizen or permanent resident will be given two years to sell their property back to an Australian. The two-year grace period will ensure there isn’t a flood of properties onto the housing market. Let’s get Australians into affordable houses while keeping the market sound. When the Liberals would be opening back up purchases for foreigners, One Nation would be completing the greatest transfer of houses out of foreign hands and into Australian hands in history. In this debate, we will hear Labor senators get up and claim that foreign ownership is less than one per cent. We’ll hear them claim it’s foreign investment. That’s a lie. It’s ownership. And their numbers aren’t true.
In that 2017 report I mentioned, ANZ said, based on Foreign Investment Review Board data, foreigners had purchased an estimated 25 to 35 per cent of new Queensland homes. Later in 2017, the government introduced a new annual vacancy fee for foreign owners of residential properties. You won’t believe this next coincidence. After the government started charging a fee on foreign owners, the number of foreign owners declaring themselves to the government dropped from between 25 and 35 per cent to one per cent. It was just like magic! When NAB asked real estate agents directly how many foreigners they were selling to, the percentages were in the double digits. That’s more than 10 per cent. We know that. It’s a fact. The New South Wales government has even recorded foreign purchases at more than double what the federal Labor government claims they are. It doesn’t matter what the real number is anyway. One foreign purchase is one too many while Australian families are sleeping on the street.
Foreign ownership is one part of the housing puzzle. One Nation has comprehensive solutions to all of the levers we need to pull to get Australians into affordable houses. These including pausing immigration to reduce demand, abolishing GST on building materials, establishing five per cent fixed rate mortgages, enabling HECS debtors to get a loan and deporting 75,000 illegal residents now.
On foreign purchases and ownership, we are clear. Only One Nation will implement a real, permanent ban on foreign purchases. Only One Nation will force foreign owners to sell their houses to Australians. Only One Nation will extend the ban on foreign ownership to our valuable farmland, to protect our ability to feed Australians first. Only One Nation can be trusted to truly put Australians first.
Ever wonder how we ended up where we are today, both as a nation and in the West? Curious about what the future holds?
In today’s show, we’re diving deep into the last 60 years to make sense of the present and uncover what’s ahead.
We all have stories about the contradictions, the government lies, and the misinformation surrounding COVID—from exaggerated fears to the low severity of the virus, all amplified by propaganda.
To help us navigate this, we’ve got an expert who can explain it all: Dr. David Martin.
With unmatched experience in medicine, healthcare, national governance, finance, research, and industry, Dr. Martin is one of the most qualified voices to shed light on the truth. He’ll be sharing his knowledge and offering a platform for facts over ideologies.
A data-driven expert, David has been uncovering the truth since the anthrax scare. He’s not interested in opinions, just the facts.
Joining me in this discussion is Dr. Philip Altman, an Australian pharmacologist with a deep knowledge of Big Pharma. With 40 years of experience, Dr. Altman has seen it all.
https://1a-1791.com/video/fwe2/15/s8/6/A/l/w/4/Alw4x.0kob.1.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-27 14:33:182025-03-12 15:49:06Podcast with Dr David Martin and Dr Phillip Altman
The treatment of our veterans has been a national shame for too long.
The government is trying to do something different – trying to simplify and harmonise the many and overlapping rules that govern what veterans are entitled to.
Will their plan or this bill work and achieve that? The only proof will be when it gets up and running.
A worrying development before this bill was passed was a large amendment dropped on the bill late in consideration. It doesn’t give One Nation great hope that the government has done what it needs to fix the treatment of veterans once and for all.
Transcript
One Nation supports measures to simplify veterans’ entitlements. At the moment, it seems to many veterans that they need to be a lawyer just to receive entitlements that should be easily accessible. In this government bill, the Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, it’s difficult to say whether the government’s proposal will meet veterans’ needs for clarity and ease. Until we see the legislation put into action, when the guidance filters its way through to the service agents, as the saying goes: the proof will be in the pudding.
We’re willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to converting three acts, two thousand pages of legislation and more than 800 legislative instruments one act. As other senators have mentioned, it’s not rare for veterans to have claims under all three separate acts. This obviously needs desperate change. Throughout this process, we do not want to see any veterans worse off. One Nation notes with concern submissions that state some changes may have the intention of easier administration not achieving the veterans’ full entitlements. That’s a deep concern. We’ll be supporting the amendments codifying the Senate’s intent that no veteran is left worse off after this bill’s passage.
In relation to the government’s amendment on sheet ED101, we’ve received concerns from the Families of Veterans Guild, as have many other senators, I’m sure. I’ll read them out so that they’re on the record from the impressively confident chief executive officer of the Families of Veterans Guild on this government amendment to its own bill. Why is the government having so many amendments?
The letter is as follows:
After being alerted to the amendment, I’ve read through the detail and have a number of concerns with it which are as follows:
There has been no public announcement or public communication from the Department of Defence or Veterans Affairs about it, and as a result there has been no consultation with the veteran community regarding its content. This amendment proposes a significant structural change to the Defence and Veteran system in Australia. It is arguably a Bill in its own right, and ought to be treated as such. Our view is that it ought to be introduced as an amendment to the Defence Act 1903 and debated accordingly. Instead, it is being added on to the VETS Bill in order to be rushed through the parliament—
Here we go again, Labor rushing. She continues with No. 2:
The intent of the VETS Bill is to harmonise the legislative frameworks that govern the provision of veteran entitlements and supports, it is not to make fundamental structural changes to the veteran system. That is a separate issue—
She says. She goes on to No. 3:
The object outlined in the amendment, “improve suicide prevention”, is extremely broad, unclear, and lacks any insight into tangible work that will be done to achieve the objective. This objective requires significant work to be more specific, focusing on issues we know are challenges in the veteran community like reducing the incidents and rate of suicide among the Defence and Veteran population, and improving the effectiveness of suicide prevention initiatives within this community.
The amendment outlines that the commission only needs to provide two public reports on the status of the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. This isn’t good enough. The reason the concept of the independent body outlined in the amendment received initial support from the veteran community was because for too long recommendations from previous inquiries have been shelved. 700+ recommendations which could have resulted in better health and wellbeing outcomes for veterans and their families were left to collect dust. The amendment ought to compel the commission to report annually to the Parliament, the veteran community, and the Australian public on the status of the Royal Commission’s recommendations until such time as they are implemented and their effectiveness evaluated.
She goes on, under No. 5:
The amendment provides the Minister with the power to direct the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. However, before the Commissioner reports to the Minister (at which point the report is to be tabled) the Minister may vary or withdraw the request. Does this mean the inquiry results are never made public? This point must be clarified.
In No. 6, she says:
The amendment outlines that the commission can inquire into the ‘entire Defence ecosystem’ but doesn’t define what that is. With the amendment providing significant powers to the proposed commission, this must be defined understood and consulted. As it stands, the authority this commission would have could affect more than 5,000 non-profit organisations in Australia who provide support to veterans.
She says, under No. 7:
Veteran families once again are omitted from this amendment, other than a mention that they will be ‘listened to’. The Royal Commission highlighted the important role of veteran families and the significantly implications (including related to mental health) that service and suicide have on them, yet they are excluded from the commission’s remit. Will it require a Royal Commission into the ill health, wellbeing and high suicide rates amongst veteran families before they are taken seriously by their government?
It’s a good question she’s asking. Under ‘our expectations’, she says:
The Families of Veterans Guild supports the establishment of an independent body to oversee the defence and veteran system and the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. However, it fundamentally disagrees with rushing an un-consulted amendment through parliament which could have significant consequences for the system, and the communities within it.
She goes on:
The Guild’s expectations were set by the Minister in his media release on the appointment of the interim Commissioner—
where the minister said:
“Mr Manthorpe will head the organisation and work across government to deliver the establishment of a legislated oversight body by September 2025.
As part of the Albanese Government’s response to the Royal Commission, we have committed $9.5 million of funding, as part of MYEFO, to support its implementation, including:
$5 million over two years to fund the appointment of the Interim Head of the Defence and Veterans’ Service Commission, and to establish a cross-agency taskforce to provide advice to Government”—
that’s the end of the minister’s quote. She goes on:
We expected DVA and Defence to therefore consult with those who could and would be impacted by this amendment. That hasn’t happened.
She said, ‘We are especially shocked by this, considering the unwillingness of the minister and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to support and implement amendments to the vets bill aimed at removing archaic and offensive language, due to concerns it would hold up passage of the bill. Yet an amendment which does bring cost implications and hasn’t been consulted on is deemed acceptable.’ This is the last paragraph: ‘We’d like to see this amendment withdrawn so that it can go through the proper process, including consultation, to ensure it is fit for purpose and reduces the risk of having unintended consequences on and within the defence and veteran community.’ That quote is from the letter from the Families of Veterans Guild, and that’s where it ends.
One Nation is greatly concerned that the government is operating this way and dropping significant changes on the Senate suddenly. We won’t even get time to discuss the bills tonight. We will be voting against this amendment because of those concerns and the lack of consultation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ENiaIhm5Obo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-26 16:25:232025-02-27 17:19:30A Real Solution for Veterans or Just More Empty Promises?
In the North Queensland floods, three Sydney Harbours a day of fresh water flowed out of the Burdekin River into the sea. The government cancelled the Hells Gates Dam on the Burdekin River only two years ago.
How many more houses are going to flood in the future because of this cancellation? How many families will have to leave their town or go thirsty because not enough dams have been built to get us through the droughts.
One Nation says bugger the UN who says we shouldn’t build dams – droughtproof and floodproof as much of the country as possible, and stop that liquid gold uselessly flowing out to the ocean.
Transcript
One Nation is proposing an inquiry into the cancellation of Hells Gates Dam west of Townsville, which this Labor government cancelled for reasons that are still secret today. Some in the Canberra bubble might not be aware that North Queensland is currently very wet. It’s underwater. Hells Gates Dam was proposed on the Burdekin River north of Charters Towers and west of Townsville. Right now, downriver of the Hells Gates proposal, the Burdekin Falls Dam is at 217 per cent capacity, or three times what it’s designed to hold. Right now, a torrent of water is flowing over its spillway. Right now, just under 1,600,000 megalitres is overflowing out of the dam and straight into the ocean. Do you want to know how much is a megalitre? It’s one million litres. That’s 1,500,000 megalitres of rain and water flowing into the ocean. That’s 1,600 gigalitres. This is a lot of water. Using a common cliche, that’s the equivalent of three Sydney Harbours flowing over the dam wall into the ocean every day. Before all the climate scaremongers start to call this unprecedented and blame it all on cow farts, let’s be clear: this is not unprecedented. It’s happened many times before and has been worse. The dam still hasn’t broken its record set in 1991. The Burdekin is seemingly receding after thankfully failing to hit the peak levels recorded in 2009, 1998, 1991 and in many more years in the hundreds before those records began. This is common.
What’s unprecedented, though, is this government’s incompetence in cancelling the Hells Gates Dam—one of the first things it did. Despite the claim of the former climate chief, Tim Flannery, in 2005 that drought conditions would become permanent in Eastern Australia and that ‘the rain that comes won’t fill our dams because of climate change caused by man’s use of hydrocarbon fuels’. Australia continues to be a country of flooding rains. Inevitably, in the iconic Australian cycle of droughts and floods, another drought will come. That’s why we build dams. At least, any responsible government who takes their duty to Australia seriously would build dams. The Greens have stopped that, and you’re afraid to counter them. There will come a season, and Australians will think with envy about the time when an equivalent of three Sydney Harbours flowed out to sea every day from that river, the Burdekin. Those people will condemn the politicians of today, who have done nothing to try to capture a bit more of that liquid gold called water.
We know flooding rains will come again. We know seasons of drought will come again. Why is this government failing to build dams that would help us get through both droughts and floods and help us protect people? We seem to be forgetting that. In cancelling Hells Gates Dam, how many North Queensland homes and farms has the Albanese government condemned to flooding in the future? Every decade, there are fewer. How much blame does the coalition take for failing to start a single nation-building dam in their 10 years of government before Labor? Under the supercharged immigration policy being inflicted on the country, Australia will need much more water. Then I think of the rich farmlands that are potential irrigation areas that can be used and developed. That’s why water is like liquid gold to our agricultural sector. When the next drought comes, our existing water reserves will be sucked dry far more quickly because no government has built water storage to keep up with the massively increased population. Mark my words: the next drought will be a man made disaster. It will be the fault of more than a decade of politicians who were scared of the woke foreign organisations that told them not to build dams. Many politicians seem more scared of being called unpopular than of their grandchildren dying of thirst.
That’s why we need this inquiry—to get to the bottom of why Labor killed the Hells Gates Dam. The Labor Party has given no compelling justification—none—to the people of North Queensland, Queensland or Australia. It’s the Australian economy that will be affected. All that Labor is saying is: ‘It’s gone. Good luck in the next flood and the next drought.’ What happened in the department? What happened in the minister’s office? What possible reason was there for ditching such an important piece of infrastructure for an area that receives so much rain so often? This is what I hope an inquiry would be able to peek behind the curtain on. We would send a strong message that potentially life-saving infrastructure cannot just be subject to government whim without a proper explanation. Lives are at stake. Livelihoods are at stake. A whole region is at stake. A whole state is at stake.
The people of North Queensland deserve better. The people of Queensland and Australia deserve better. As a servant to the people, One Nation will continue to push for Australia to exit the worldwide organisations that try to dictate that we can’t build life-saving infrastructure, like dams. To protect people from floods, droughts and famines, One Nation will continue to push for work for dams that capture our flooding rains and sustain us through the precedented droughts to come. With our plentiful resources, Australia could be unbeaten on the world stage, but we can only make a start on more productively using our resources for the people’s wealth once our life source, water, is secured for future generations.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hughes): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, on a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on Hells Gate Dam, be agreed to. Since we’re past 6.30 pm, a division will have to be rolled over to tomorrow.
The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.
I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?
Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?
Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.
Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?
Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.
Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?
Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?
Mr Binning: We have around 400.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?
CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.
Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?
Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.
Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?
Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.
Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?
Mr Binning: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?
Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?
Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.
Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.
Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?
Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—
Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.
Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.
Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.
Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.
Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?
Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?
Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.
CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.
Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.
Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?
Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—
Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?
Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.
Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.
Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/qWp7hgU1QKk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-20 14:59:142025-02-20 14:59:20Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact
In recent days, the call for conservative unity has been undermined by actions that contradict this goal. Social media, often used as a form of coercive control through lies, can instead be a platform for community and support for those feeling abandoned in a rapidly changing society.
One Nation believes in stead-fast human rights tempered with common sense. Conservatism means treating others with honesty, respect, courtesy, and consideration, not because the government makes us but because it is the conservative way. As a conservative party, One Nation opposes any restriction on free speech, except where it incites violence. This has been my position since joining the Senate. Violence has no place in society or social media.
Recent events have shown the need for integrity and leadership, qualities demonstrated by Senator Babet, John Ruddick, and Topher Field – and I thank them for that. We have an obligation to inspire the best possible outcomes and I am committed to staying focused on exactly that.
Representing Queensland in the Senate is a rare honour shared with only 107 other Queenslanders since Federation, and I am proud of my record and the achievements One Nation has accomplished, including wage justice for casual coalminers, pushing the Labor government to act. We are working to recover over $5 billion for casual workers. Additionally, we introduced a bill to make medicinal cannabis more accessible through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Our work also includes defeating and removing the cash ban bill, defeating the misinformation-disinformation laws, tabling legislation to prevent vaccine status discrimination, and securing a committee inquiry into terms of reference for a COVID Royal Commission. I promised to hound down those responsible and I will honour that promise. We blocked the Morrison government’s so called Ensuring Integrity Bill, and secured a dairy industry code of conduct. We aim to end child labour in supply chains of products imported into Australia.
Senator Hanson’s efforts led to the inclusion of Zolgensma on the PBS for treating spinal muscular dystrophy in children. She also secured an inquiry into family law, resulting in significant improvements. One Nation obtained $500 million for regional road projects in Queensland and funding for many community facilities. We successfully extended community TV licenses twice and are pushing back against child mutilation as a treatment for gender dysphoria.
This is just a sample of our work, much of it successful through collaboration with the government. I look forward to continuing my work in the 48th parliament as a senator for Queensland with One Nation, a party led by Pauline Hanson, who has tirelessly fought for Australians’ rights at tremendous personal cost. Pauline Hanson was Australia’s first political prisoner and after 28 years, she remains a formidable figure, casting a shadow over those who advance themselves as alternatives.
In recent weeks, we’ve outlined One Nation’s plan to increase wealth and opportunity for all Australians. It’s clearly gone over well, because our political rivals have tried to distract from this plan, but our supporters see through it, and our membership has grown. And the best is yet to come!
One Nation’s policies will enable Australians to keep an extra $40 billion through policies like joint tax returns, reducing electricity and fuel excises, allowing pensioners to earn without it affecting their pension and raising the tax-free threshold for self-funded retirees to $35,000. We aim to end mass migration, deport illegal immigrants, and remove GST on building products for five years.
We will also invest in infrastructure projects like Hells Gates Dam, Emu Swamp Dam, the Urannah water project, and extending Inland Rail. These projects will bring logistics benefits and reduce costs for all Australians.
By cutting government spending, we will pay off national debt by an additional $30 billion a year (annual interest will hit $50 billion a year in 2026-27, making interest payments the single largest item in the budget) .
One Nation is committed to putting more money in your pocket and restoring wealth and opportunity for our country. Our commitment to conservative values and practical solutions will continue to guide our efforts in the Senate. We invite all Australians to join us in this mission.
Transcript
I’d be rich if I had a dollar for every time someone asked, ‘Why can’t conservatives all get on with each other?’ The last few days remind me of these nine simple words made meaningless due to the actions of the very parties calling for conservative unity. These events remind us social media is often used as a form of coercive control through lies. It need not be. Social media can instead inform, inspire and save lives through the ability of social media to offer a community to those who feel life doesn’t care about them—Australians who feel abandoned, vulnerable, alone. These may be divorced men, detransitioners, traditional wives, farming families, vaccine injured and so many others being abandoned in the rush to a woke society that degenerates with each day.
I’m concerned that social media may be the baby thrown out with the bathwater unless reason and self-control return to public discourse. Encouraging blatantly false statements for political objectives is disgraceful. After personally pointing out the lie, leaving false posts in public shows it’s wilful. I ask those in this debate to consider Proverbs 15:4. ‘Gentle words are a tree of life; however, a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.’ We have an obligation to lead through example to inspire the best outcomes possible, and I will remain focused on doing exactly that.
One Nation understands that, while human rights are immutable, these are always tempered with common sense. As the saying goes, ‘Just because one can does not mean one should.’ This is the essence of conservatism: to consider we are part of a community composed of other human beings, who we have an obligation to treat with honesty, respect, courtesy and consideration not because the government makes us but because it is the conservative way. As a conservative party, One Nation stands opposed to any restriction on free speech—except one. Free speech stops where incitement to violence starts. That has been my position since coming into the Senate and it remains my position. It matters not who the parties are; violence has no place in a civil society, no place in a conservative society and no place in social media. I want to pay my compliments and extend my appreciation to Senator Babet, John Ruddick and Topher Field, who have in the last few days demonstrated decency, leadership and honesty.
I thank them for that. Representing the state of Queensland in this Senate is a rare honour shared with only 107 other Queenslanders since Federation. I am proud to be contributing to Queensland and to Australia. I am proud that, in seven years in the Senate, I’ve only missed one day of sitting, and that was spent in hospital. I am proud of how I have decided my vote on the 378 bills that have come before the Senate in that time. Positions are decided on the basis of data and empirical evidence and on the basis of what is best for our beautiful country, and I will continue to do so. You may not agree with every position I’ve taken. Then again, if votes were cast only for politicians with whom one is in perfect agreement, no-one would be elected.
I am proud of the work One Nation has advanced in the last six years. This includes, amongst many other things, wage justice for casuals in the coalmining industry. My bill shamed the Labor government into passing their own bill after years of delay, yet the Labor bill deliberately hid and failed to recover more than $5 billion stolen over the years from casual workers. This is something we’re remedying. It also includes a bill to down-schedule medicinal cannabis so that every Australian with a medical need can access natural Australian whole-plant medicinal cannabis on prescription available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Our work also includes defeating and removing the cash ban bill, and defeating the misinformation and disinformation laws. Such laws will never work, since one person’s misinformation is another person’s missing information. It includes tabling legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of vaccine status, a bill to which we will return in the next parliament, as well as securing a committee inquiry into terms of reference for a royal commission into the COVID pandemic. I promise to hound down those responsible, and I will honour that promise. It also includes a bill to end child labour in the supply chain of products imported into Australia; blocking the Morrison government’s so-called ensuring integrity bill, which unfairly targeted unions; and campaigning for and securing a dairy industry code of conduct.
Senator Hanson’s personal representation resulted in the addition of Zolgensma, a drug to treat spinal muscular dystrophy and atrophy in children, to the PBS. Senator Hanson secured an inquiry into family law and the family court, which resulted in substantial improvements to the family law system. One Nation secured $500 million for regional road construction projects in Queensland, as well as Rockhampton stadium, Ipswich raceway, Yeppoon Aquatic Centre, $5 million for a driver training centre in Townsville and $12 million for community radio. We campaigned successfully on two occasions to extend community television licences. We are also leading the pushback against child mutilation as a so-called treatment for gender dysphoria.
This is just a sample of our work, much of it having a successful outcome after working with the government of the day. I look forward to continuing my work in the 48th parliament, if voters so choose, as a senator for Queensland—a senator with One Nation, a party with a leader who has fought tirelessly for the rights of everyday Australians at tremendous personal cost. So-called Liberal Party conservatives colluded with senior Labor Party members to send Pauline Hanson to jail on trumped-up corruption charges to shut her up—she was released on appeal—charges for which her protagonist Tony Abbott has now apologised. Pauline Hanson was Australia’s first political prisoner, and here she is now, after 28 years, still casting a formidable shadow over those who advance themselves as alternatives.
I look forward to engaging the libertarians, the United Australia Party, the Liberals and Nationals, the Greens and the teals in a battle of ideas, and may the best team win. The preferences of our voters will, of course, go wherever each of our voters place them on their individual ballot papers. In a federal election, parties do not allocate preferences, voters do—for whoever you want. Personally, I will be preferencing third parties ahead of the majors, with the Greens and teals last, of course.
In the last few weeks I have set out One Nation’s plan to put more money back in the pockets of all Australians while restoring wealth and opportunity for all. This is our entry in the battle of ideas. It’s clearly gone over well, because our political rivals have panicked and have engaged in a classic straw-man play for almost a week. ‘Don’t look at this amazing plan to restore wealth and opportunity to this beautiful country,’ they say. ‘Instead, look over here at outrage confected with a bill that was decided before it came to the Senate in a Liberal, Labor, Greens and teals party stitch up.’ I have yet to see any criticism of those parties that actually voted for the bill, because this isn’t about the bill; it’s about the outrage and the distraction. I’m pleased to see that so many of our supporters saw straight through it, as did our new members. In the last week, One Nation membership has risen. Thank you.
So what is One Nation’s election platform that has our competition running scared? Let us go over what we’ve released so far, and can I say that the best is yet to come. One Nation’s election platform starts with allowing Australians to keep an extra $40 billion of their money. This includes these costed policies: joint tax returns for couples with one child and one wage earner on the average wage, saving them as much as $9,500; a reduction in electricity prices of 20 per cent immediately and more than 50 per cent in the longer term once new zero-emission coal plants come online; a 26c a litre reduction in the fuel excise; cuts to the alcohol excise, to be announced shortly; allowing pensioners who meet the assets test to earn an income without losing the pension, adding as many as 600,000 experienced, motivated and dedicated older Australians to the workforce; allowing self-funded retirees to earn more before paying tax to encourage further self-funding of retirement. One Nation’s basic policy here is simple: less welfare and more wealth. Other policies include ending mass migration to take the pressure off inflation, especially in housing, and deporting 75,000 illegal immigrants; and removing GST on building products for five years and eliminating the NDIS building code and the six-star energy code as a requirement for new homes, saving as much as $75,000 on the construction cost of a new home. The truth about these building codes is that, in an attempt to be inclusive, we are excluding many young Australians from the housing market. Letting Australians keep more of their own money will be paid for through cutting government spending by $90 billion—all costed—and adding $13 billion in additional gas excise from gas exports. I’ll explain this in more detail closer to the election.
Finally, One Nation will build, baby, build, including Hells Gates Dam, on the Burdekin River, for irrigation and flood mitigation, to protect coastal Queensland; Emu Swamp Dam, to provide water security to Stanthorpe; the Urannah water project, to provide water security, irrigation and flood mitigation to Broken River in North Queensland, while supplying Moranbah with the water necessary for an expansion in employment and development in the area—watch for that announcement soon; Inland Rail, which will be extended along the forestry route to Wandoan, Banana and then the Port of Gladstone, along with an $8 billion container facility to turn Gladstone into Australia’s premier container port and a multimodal just west of Gladstone; and public works in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. That will bring logistics benefits to all Australians. There will be cheaper and quicker goods going in and out of the country, through Gladstone port. The public works will be announced shortly.
Finally, with the cut in government spending, we will pay off our national debt by an additional $30 billion a year, the annual interest on which will hit $50 billion a year in 2026-27, making interest payments the single largest item in the budget. One Nation will put more money in your pocket and restore wealth and opportunity for our whole beautiful country.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/hhMzyNrOWK0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-12 12:56:472025-02-12 12:56:50Conservatives Must Unite: A Call for Integrity and Common Sense
We are experiencing the longest per-capita recession in Australian history. Many people are struggling with little light at the end of the tunnel.
Our plan will provide much-needed relief immediately, slash government waste and help build the big infrastructure that will generate more wealth for Australia.
Press Conference
Media Release
One Nation will take a signature plan to the Federal election slashing government spending by up to $90 billion a year while putting $40 billion back into Australians’ pockets and building infrastructure to generate long-term economic growth and wealth creation.
Party leader Senator Pauline Hanson said without substantial spending reform, tax reform and investment in nation-building, Australians’ living standards would continue to go backwards.
“We’re experiencing the longest per-capita recession in Australian history and many people are struggling with little light at the end of the tunnel,” Senator Hanson said. “Our plan will provide much-needed relief immediately, slash government waste and help build the big infrastructure that will generate more wealth for Australia.
“Our plan includes the policies we’ve already announced for aged and veteran pensioners to earn more without penalty, for income splitting and joint tax return filing for couples with dependent children, and to lift the tax-free threshold to $35,000 for self-funded retirees.
“We’ll pull the levers that Labor could, but won’t. Our plan includes changing the National Electricity Market (NEM) rules to enable and incentivise cheaper coal and gas-fired baseload power while also supporting nuclear energy in the medium term. We aim to slash electricity bills by 20%. We will halve the fuel excise to 26c per litre for 12 months, reserving the option to extend this measure even longer, providing relief for motorists and reducing the freight costs which add to the price of our groceries, goods and services.
“Our plan includes increasing the Medicare rebate to better remunerate GPs and promote bulk billing, and crack down on Medicare fraud estimated to be at as much as $3 billion per year. We will end the rort on natural gas by levying royalties at the point of production, creating a domestic gas reserve, raising up to $13 billion per year.”
One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts said the plan included a comprehensive spending reform agenda focusing on eliminating unnecessary waste and duplication across a range of departments.
“We anticipate saving approximately $30 billion per year by abolishing the Department of Climate Change and related agencies, regulations and programs,” Senator Roberts said. “We expect to save up to $12.5 billion a year by abolishing the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and bypassing the Aboriginal industry that stands in the way of closing the gaps by providing direct grant assistance to those who need it.
“Our plan includes a review of the functions and costs of the Federal departments of education and housing, eliminating duplication with state government departments and getting rid of costly building code mandates such as the requirement for all new dwellings to be wheelchair compliant.
“We’ll return the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) to its original purpose: providing reasonable and necessary support; introducing means-testing; reducing specialist and non-specialist pay rates to sustainable levels equitable with other health sectors. Our plan includes abolishing the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and rolling its essential functions into the Department of Health, and reviewing about $3 billion worth of medications approved for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) during the pandemic.
“We anticipate saving about $1 billion a year by withdrawing Australia’s participation from the United Nations, UN Refugee Convention, World Health Organisation, World Economic Forum, International Criminal Court and other global bodies which threaten Australia’s sovereignty while adding nothing of real value to our country. We’ll also reduce and redirect foreign aid spending to where it will make a difference, saving up to $3 billion, and review and reduce funding for arts and multicultural programs. We must also withdraw from the Paris agreement.”
Senator Hanson said some of the savings would be directed towards paying the principle off Federal debt now at almost $800 billion (net).
“It makes no sense to keep paying interest which may be as much as $50 billion a year by 2026-27,” she said. “We must reduce the debt to reduce this burden, and return the Budget to balance to prevent the accumulation of more debt.
“Our plan aims to put Australia back in the black, and enable the country to start investing in its future. We’ll end Labor’s effective ban on new dams, prioritising their development to open new agricultural opportunities and provide greater water security in Australia. We’ll revive the scrapped Hells Gate dam near Townsville, among others.
“We’ll back the construction of a fully national passenger and freight circuit incorporating the Inland Rail Project, which we plan to extend to Gladstone to facilitate a proposed major upgrade at that port to make it a multi-billion dollar container traffic and export hub.”
Senator Roberts said One Nation was the only party contesting the 2025 election with a suite of policies that put the interests of Australians and their country first.
“Australians deserve no less,” he said. “So many Australians watch Labor, the Coalition and Greens work hard to implement agendas on behalf of the big corporations, the corrupt union bosses and the hateful activists – but never to the benefit of the Australian people.
“One Nation believes in Australia and its people. Our plan is aimed at turning a lucky country into a clever country, and realising the potential of this great nation.”
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/d6b0b7d1659ca2ff000b69752789bb6f4c04c258.jpg?fit=1200%2C798&ssl=17981200Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-12 03:30:002025-02-13 15:04:08Our Plan Will Put $40 Billion Back Into Australian Pockets
