Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Labor’s Policies Are Crushing Everyday Australians

The class struggle in Australia pits the political elites against everyday Australians. I highlighted that Labor’s approach to promoting wealth equality seems to ensure that most of us remain or become poor. The beneficiaries, however, are Labor leaders, union bosses, those profiting from the Aboriginal industry and COVID millionaires.

Labor’s policies are driving up inflation, increased cost of living, higher electricity prices, and destroying the economy, all at the expense of incomes, health and overall economic stability. While political elites enjoy substantial pay increases, everyday Australians are finding themselves falling behind.

The Labor government is failing comprehensively and the losers are young and old Australians and future generations.

Transcript

I wish to thank Senator Lambie for raising this important issue, yet I submit that Senator Lambie may have become a little confused as to what’s really going on in Australia. There are two classes in a class war now: the political class, from the ‘Uniparty’, versus the rest of us—everyday Australians. There are plenty of things going wrong in this Labor government’s attempts at governing this country. 

Labor believes in promoting wealth equality. So did Karl Marx, but the way the government go about it is as if they have been watching some old videos of the Marx brothers. It’s ludicrous. They’re destroying wealth. Labor’s version of promoting wealth equality is to ensure that, in the end, most Australians will be poor. The exceptions will be Labor Party bosses, union bosses and the political elite, including those making a living from the black and white Aboriginal industry and those who profited from the COVID-19 industry fraud. 

Labor are the big achievers in driving up inflation. It’s back to four per cent now; it’s got a four in front of it. As of today they are pushing policies that make even the cost of living out of reach for many Australians and ensuring that energy costs keep rising by trying to force us to rely on unreliable renewables, like wind and solar, that are sending the cost of electricity sky-rocketing. Several years ago, when we were all locked up by governments, pandering to drug companies during the COVID response, the Labor state governments combined with the federal government to print huge amounts of money, with no basis, in a feeble attempt to buy us out of strife that was completely government created. Now we’ve got the inflation. Look at the thousands who lost their jobs and became vaccine injured, and the billions of dollars that were lost to the Australian economy.  

In the meantime, the political elites have given themselves pay rises ahead of inflation rises, and now want to pay a new governor-general a pay rise of 43 per cent. How much of a pay rise do everyday Australians get? Stuff all, as our disposable incomes go backwards by five per cent under this government. Every major problem that Australians face today has stemmed from the decisions made in this building. Labor and the coalition—the ‘Uniparty’—still refuse to make decisions that are evidenced based. Instead, they govern by knee-jerk reaction or brain-snap, instant decision-making to look good, not to do good.  

How nice it would be if the government decided to actually govern for Australians based on data and facts, not spin and looking after mates. As I said, instead of trying to look good, let’s do good. As for affordable housing, how many houses have been built using the much-touted Housing Australia Future Fund? Wait for it: zero, zilch, nada, zip—much the same as the value of Labor promises. We are yet to see workable policy from either side of the ‘Uniparty’ to solve the housing crisis that plagues Australians, including those Australians earning what, historically, would have been considered reasonable incomes. They are housing problems caused by excess immigration, foreign ownership, inflation, COVID restrictions, government restrictions eroding the supply of houses and energy prices.  

The problems in education in Australia stem from the warped curriculums of schools, starting from teaching primary school students about the ins and outs of transexual practices, to slanted views of Australian history that try to rewrite the facts as recorded at the time of writing by explorers and truth-telling observers of the time. Many in our society now want to castrate children and warp children’s minds. Our high schools and universities perpetuate the mistruths and promote political views that our European immigrants immediately recognise as communist, totalitarian extremist views reminiscent of the histories of Nazi Germany and the dark days of Stalin.  

The class struggle that I see in Australia relates to the thuggish actions of some extremist union bosses such as the CFMEU and MEU in the Hunter Valley in Central Queensland, who refuse to actually represent their worker members and steal their wages in secret, dirty deals.  

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I agree this government is failing on multiple levels of policy creation and implementation because it does not make decisions based on data and facts. The losers are Australians, young and old, and our future generations. Today’s class struggle, as I started this speech saying, is between the political class—the ‘Uniparty’, pushing globalist agendas—and everyday Australians, who are the real Australians. 

/5 Comments/by

A Thorough Review of the Native Title System is Critical

,

One Nation advocates for a thorough review of the entire native title system and proposes a sunset clause on native title claims. The current situation is out of hand and sidelines the most crucial stakeholders—the Australian people—from any meaningful consultation in these processes.

Currently, over half of Australia is subject to native title claims, yet less than three percent of Australians have had a voice in this matter. The vast majority of us are excluded from participating in the process. 

While state governments, councils, and the Federal Court are involved, they rarely reflect community views because they do not seek our input. This pattern mirrors the lead-up to the Voice referendum, where extensive consultation, funded by taxpayers, occurred solely with Indigenous groups, neglecting the broader Australian population.  It was this approach that contributed significantly to the Voice’s failure, costing taxpayers a staggering $450 million. Native title claims are similarly determined within a closed circle, deliberately excluding the majority of Australians, including those whom the native title system purportedly aims to benefit.

During my visits to remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, a consistent grievance I’ve heard from Aboriginal Australians across these regions is their inability to obtain land title, while unaccountable land councils operate like robber barons, establishing their own fiefdoms. This sentiment was reiterated by Aboriginal elders who sought me out during recent visits to Maryborough and Gympie.

There’s a hidden agenda at play here. The preamble of the Native Title Act is filled with references to United Nations policies and declarations. This raises questions about whether the Act is serving the UN agenda of undermining private land ownership and restricting land use. Unfortunately, local Aboriginals are denied the opportunity to own land outright under native title and hinders their ability to live on, invest in, develop, farm, or leverage it for business loans.

Native title prevents Aboriginals from enjoying the same land use rights as other Australians, prolonging inequality rather than closing the gap. Land ownership on mainland Australia did not exist when the British colonists arrived, nor was there recognition of individual land rights or inheritance. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction.  It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to mainland Australia — incorrectly. This framework introduces race-based rights, perpetuating racial discrimination in Australia, which contradicts the principles of equality.

The lack of action by Labor, Liberals and Nationals to review and rectify these issues underscores a failure of democratic governance, which should prioritise serving and representing the people, not controlling them.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I move: 

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: 

The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race 

I rise to speak about the racial divisions that continue to be perpetrated by the Liberal-Labor uniparty and their toxic native title system. One Nation ‘s candidate for the Queensland seat of Keppel, James Ashby, is doing a wonderful job holding the Miles Labor government accountable for its failure to meet $30 million worth of commitments to Great Keppel Island. Further, James Ashby deserves credit for exposing the latest native title claim on the island on the weekend. This claim, if successful, would mean that 84 per cent of Great Keppel Island would be excluded from non-indigenous Australians. One of the jewels of Central Queensland and an Australian tourism icon could effectively be closed off for all time from the Australian people, from local businesses and from international visitors. 

This isn’t the first time an Indigenous group has tried to close off Great Keppel Island from the rest of us by using a divisive native title claim. In 2021 the Federal Court denied a native title claim over the Great Keppel Island leases held by Tower Holdings because of pre-existing infrastructure of commercial value. One Nation calls on this latest claim to be thrown out, too, and for the Miles Labor government to honour its $30 million promise to clean up and restore Great Keppel Island. Yet we must go much further than that. We’re calling for a comprehensive review of the entire native title system and a sunset clause on native title claims, because it’s getting out of hand and it’s excluding from any consultation on these processes the most important stakeholders of all: the Australian people. 

More than 50 per cent of Australia is now under native title claim, yet fewer than three per cent of Australians have had any say in it. The rest of us are excluded from the process. While state governments, councils and the Federal Court get a say, they almost never represent community views, because they don’t ask us for our views. We’re not asked, because they don’t want to hear our views. This is what happened in the lead-up to the Voice referendum. There was a lot of consultation, costing a lot of taxpayer money, but only with Indigenous groups. There was none for the rest of Australia. It’s one of the main reasons it was such a spectacular $450 million failure, a flop. Consultation was undertaken in an echo chamber where dissent was absent, where dissent was chastised, where dissent was suppressed. Native title claims are resolved in this sort of bubble as well—a bubble from which most Australians are always excluded, deliberately. Even those people who are specifically intended to benefit from native title are excluded from those benefits. 

I often visit remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, and the No. 1 complaint from Aboriginal Australians right across Cape York and the communities I visited in the Northern Territory is the inability of Aboriginals to get land title while unaccountable land councils act as robber barons building fiefdoms. This was expressed to me again by Aboriginal elders who’d heard I was visiting Maryborough and Gympie last week and came to see me and attended a forum I hosted. There’s another agenda going on in the background. The Native Title Act’s preamble is littered with references to the United Nations policy and declarations. Why is this so? It fits with the UN agenda of attacking private land ownership and locking the land away from use. Unfortunately for local Aboriginals, they’re denied the opportunity of actually owning their piece of Australia by buying it to live on, to invest, to build, to develop, to farm or to use as collateral for a business loan to set up a business. 

Native title holds Aboriginals back from doing what all other Australians can do with land. It works to maintain the gap, not close it. When British colonists arrived there was no form of landownership on the mainland. There was no recognition of individual landownership, security or passing the land onto heirs. Land title existed only in limited form, in some Torres Strait Islands. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to the mainland of Australia—incorrectly. Native title perpetuates racial discrimination in Australia by creating rights based on race. This is wrong and must be reversed. The whole concept is consistent with Labor’s policy of waste and arrogance and disdain for Aboriginals and all Australians as part of a global agenda. 

Labor is one part of the uniparty. The Liberals and Nationals have done nothing to review this act to fix things for all Australians. Democratic government is supposed to work for the people and serve the people. Instead, in recent decades the uniparty governments have worked to control the people. They push a global agenda to control people and steal property and transfer wealth to the party’s corporate globalist masters. We need a comprehensive review of native title urgently so that we can get back to helping Aboriginals get some land. 

/10 Comments/by

Our Dystopian Future of Digital ID Prisons

,

The ink isn’t even dry on Minister Gallagher’s Digital ID Bill, yet abuses are already surfacing. Digital ID is supposed to be voluntary, with an alternative method of identification available, however this is not happening.  Federal and State Government departments, alongside crony corporations, are mandating Digital IDs and failing to offer paper alternatives. This blatant disregard for their own legislation reveals the government’s true intention: to force everyone to get a Digital ID for greater control.

Thanks to Minister Gallagher and Prime Minister Albanese, we’re falling into a dystopian future of digital prisons.

Transcript

In the break, opposition leader Peter Dutton joined Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to support a uniparty age ban of 16 on social media. When Minister Gallagher introduced the digital ID, she promised that every Australian over 16 would need a digital ID and that it would be voluntary. The ink was not dry on that legislation when the uniparty advanced this idea for a compulsory social media age limit, a simple idea raising many red flags. The issue is not who signs into social media; the issue is who’s using the account. This requires the device camera to always be on, to check the user’s image against their digital ID to prevent, for instance, younger siblings from taking over the session. Penalties for spreading misinformation, or opinions, as they used to be called, can then be levied against the correct person, with a photo of you making the post to prove it was you.  

The uniparty campaign to stamp out wrong-think on social media will require a camera in every adolescent’s bedroom, running every moment their computer, tablet or phone is in use. Hacking into cameras is easy. This proposal will be a paedophile’s paradise and will increase crimes against children. Using social media in public— cafes, public transport, shops—will be a nightmare. Social media companies will need to run artificial intelligence to work out which image is the person operating the device and which is someone in the background. 

To answer the question, ‘Is this person over 16?’ will require every Australian’s biometric data. Who knows what else this identification and surveillance AI will do without our knowledge? The uniparty that introduced this bill under Mr Morrison and passed it under Mr Albanese will produce unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefit. One Nation believes in the primacy of parents over the state. Parents must be free to raise their children as they choose, not as the government dictates. 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. The Digital ID Act was passed with the promise that it would not be compulsory, per section 74(1). Your act includes a provision that alternative methods of establishing identity must be provided, in section 74(1A). My electorate office is receiving complaints from members of the public who are being required to obtain a digital ID in order to, in one instance, get their own medical report as part of a job application. This was a real-world application, not an online application. Minister, what options are available to a person who is not offered an alternative method of identity verification, as the act requires? Where can people complain, and what penalties are imposed on an entity who fails to follow your legislation?  

Senator GALLAGHER: I thank Senator Roberts for the question. As you’d know, Senator Roberts, the digital ID legislation has not come into effect yet. It doesn’t come into effect until 1 December this year. Essentially, we’ve legislated the existing system, which was unregulated. That’s what we’ve done with that legislation.  

There is a requirement, in the legislation, to continue to provide alternative opportunities or ways for people to engage with government for their personal use. Of course, businesses already engaging with the tax office do use the myGovID system, but, for your personal use, the law is very clear that there must be alternative ways provided for the community to engage with government. That has been made very clear across government. 

I would say that, if you want to forward me that constituent’s issue, even if it’s de-identified, I’d be very happy to look at it, but we have been very clear that it is a voluntary system, it is a safe system and it is a secure system. It’s simply a means of verifying yourself in a way that gives you control of your own documentation. So, instead of having all your ID documents photocopied or emailed around the place, you are the one verifying your identity and you’re able to hold those documents to yourself. It’s actually a much safer way of engaging with government than paper based systems, and I am very hopeful that more people will take it up once the legislation and the regulator are in place. Of course, once that legislation is enacted, there will be a regulator. The ACCC will perform that role. So there would be the ability to make complaints and have those complaints investigated. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The entity responsible was the Queensland state government. Will you now instruct the Queensland Labor government to follow the legislation and ensure an alternative option is allowed or will you do so after the legislation is enacted? 

Senator GALLAGHER: The legislation does enable a national digital ID system, or ecosystem. There are private sector digital IDs and there are also state government versions. But what the legislation means is that those state governments can apply for accreditation through the national system, and we are hopeful that they will do that. In fact, in a meeting I had on Friday with states, they are all certainly indicating that they will be part of that national system. But, for a state based system which has its own processes for engaging on rates and other things, that is a matter for the Queensland government and would have to be taken up with the Queensland government. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, was the failure to include penalties for not providing alternative verification options a failure of this government or was the imposition of a mandatory digital ID the plan all along? 

Senator GALLAGHER: The legislation is very clear. It’s a voluntary system—that is, people, for their personal engagement with government, have the right to choose whether they use a digital ID or they use the more traditional way of engaging with government. In terms of penalties, the legislation does set up the ACCC as the regulator of the system. That would be the way that complaints and other issues would be assessed. So there is a system in place. I don’t have the legislation right in front of me, but we were very clear that putting the digital ID ecosystem in legislation is actually about ensuring that it is safe and that consumers’ needs are fundamental, are front and centre and are protected through a regulated system. At the moment, I have a digital ID, but it doesn’t exist under a regulated system. All that the legislation did was take a lot of what’s happening now outside of a regulated system and regulate it. 

 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to digital ID. 

The Digital ID Act was presented to the Senate and to the Australian public as a convenient way to establish identity and that it would not be compulsory. It has taken precisely two weeks to discover that’s a lie. Already federal and state government departments are demanding digital IDs be created for the most mundane tasks. A constituent of mine in Queensland who attended a health clinic to undergo a physical before starting a job with the Queensland government for which a medical was mandated was told he couldn’t have the results of his physical until he got a digital ID. This is a real-world transition. The clinic knew who he was because he had to prove his identity before starting the physical. The digital ID requirement came from the Queensland government. In this case, there’s no earthly reason for a digital ID except that the public service have taken it upon themselves to impose a digital ID on every person in the country. Without penalties, there will be no attempt to provide the alternative method of verification that the minister promised. 

COVID proved the power of using employment for the purposes of blackmail, and it’s a lesson the government has embraced. The digital ID website, digitalidentity.gov.au, rolled out the new webpages for the digital ID within days of the legislation passing. The public education campaign on TV and online started within just a few days. The regulations upon which so much of the bill relies are finished and on public display already. All the ducks were in a row to introduce a digital prison in Australia before the Senate even voted and well before the new law’s implementation date in December. No wonder the government did a dirty deal with elements of the crossbench, guillotined the debate—there was no debate—and delivered government the powers they crave. What a disgraceful display. What an abuse of the social contract between the government and its requirement to act in the best interests of the public. One Nation will repeal the digital ID and legislate privacy protections for all Australians. 

Question agreed to. 

/9 Comments/by

Government Miscalculates Governor General’s Salary

,

This Government is spending money recklessly, treating it as if it were mere monopoly money. This is partly because of their reliance on career bureaucrats for advice, individuals who have enjoyed very high incomes within the Canberra bubble for so long that money has lost its value to them.

They are probably surprised by the public’s outraged reaction to their decision to raise the Governor General’s salary from $495,000 to $719,000.

Such a large salary increase in the middle of a cost of living crisis showed a severe lack of awareness. Canberra bureaucrats aren’t experiencing the cost of living pain felt by the broader population, as they are insulated by their excessively hire salaries.

Rather than meeting the public outcry with a mea culpa and reducing the salary, Minister Gallagher huffed and puffed. She failed to grasp simple maths (an increase from $495,000 to $719,000 is a 43.2% rise), conflagrated the situation by raising the previous Governor General’s military pension and then accused me of misleading Parliament.

In truth, the Government and their bureaucrats were just looking after a mate and got called out for it.

Transcript

The Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 is yet another display of poor judgement from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. To increase the salary of the Governor-General by 43 per cent in a cost-of-living crisis is an insult to everyday Australians who are struggling with the Albanese government’s cost-of-living crisis. 

The salary of the Governor-General is fixed for the period of her term, so the rise by $214,000 dollars to a new salary of $709,000 is the only increase in the next five years. A 43 per cent pay rise suggests that the government knows inflation is going to get much worse. Not only will Ms Mostyn be earning $709,000 but the role also includes two homes: Government House in Yarralumla and Admiralty House in Kirribilli, right on Sydney Harbour. The role includes free travel, free food, servants and a pool. The Governor-General receives a pension which is legislated at 60 per cent of salary or $425,000 for life—not a bad pension. 

The appointment of Ms Mostyn is a controversial choice. The tradition for 124 years has been to select our Governor-General from the ranks of the judiciary, the military, state governors and senior politicians. This reflects the skill set a governor-general needs to lead the Australian people in a time of civil crisis or war. The Governor-General is, of course, commander of Australia’s armed forces; the Prime Minister is not the commander of Australia’s armed forces. Ms Mostyn comes to the role with a background in activism. It’s an appointment which may serve to politicise the role of the Governor-General, and that’s sad to see. 

The Commonwealth of Australia deserves more respect than the Prime Minister has shown with this appointment and with this obscene pay rise. One Nation opposes this bill. 

Transcript

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, if a salary rises from $495,000 to $719,000, what percentage increase is that? 

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure under which part of the portfolio this comes, but I think it relates to the Governor-General’s salary and the bill that this Senate passed this morning. The point I was making there was that it is misleading to suggest that a salary is increasing from the figure that you have used, Senator Roberts, to that high figure, because what it does not take into account is the other income streams that were available to former Governors-General. So this is an adjustment, yes, but it’s an adjustment being made because the incoming Governor-General does not have a military pension that will supplement the income stream and because the Governor-General’s salary has been traditionally linked to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That salary is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. 

I think the point you were making this morning in debate and the point that Senator Waters, surprisingly, was making in debate was this was some significant pay increase in the order of 43 per cent, when that is not correct. Former Governors-Generals have had two income streams, particularly if they’ve been in receipt of a pension. This legislation we passed today was to ensure that a commensurate salary be provided for an incoming Governor-General who only has one income stream. So it is not accurate to say that a position has had an increase of that order. It is simply not correct. It is misleading, it is disingenuous and it’s seeking a popular headline, which I agree is easy to get if people don’t understand the detail that underpins that decision. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The answer is 43.2 per cent. Governor-General Jeffery’s salary was $365,000. Quentin Bryce, Labor’s last appointment, was paid $394,000, $20,000 less than the then salary of the High Court Chief Justice. General Cosgrove was paid $425,000, and then General Hurley was paid $495,000. Minister, how much was outgoing Governor-General Hurley’s salary reduced for his military pension? 

Senator Gallagher: I don’t have those figures at hand, but I do understand that the salary that has been agreed to and passed by this chamber this morning and by the House earlier in the week is in line with the salary that the current Governor-General has been earning with the income streams available to him. It might be slightly adjusted for the fact that it lasts over five years, because, once the Governor-General commences in the role, no further adjustments can be made to salary. But it is in line with what His Excellency Governor-General Hurley is earning at this point in time. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The incoming Governor-General’s salary is now $70,000 above the High Court Chief Justice’s salary. The Chief Justice gets, as you said, periodic increases to adjust for inflation. The Governor-General does not. Noting that today’s inflation announcement shows inflation increasing again, this huge pay rise seems designed to compensate Sam Mostyn for inflation and has nothing to do with military pensions. Minister, earlier today, did you mislead the Senate to cover up the real reason for this huge pay increase, surging inflation? 

Senator Gallagher: I can assure Senator Roberts that, no, I did not mislead the parliament and I have been clear—indeed, I was clear in the last answer that I gave—that there is some adjustment for future increases based on the fact that the Chief Justice has a salary determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Governor-General’s salary cannot be increased by that, so there is work done, based on some analysis about what that should appropriately be. But, no, it’s not based on today’s inflation forecast, and it’s incorrect to continue to say that it has nothing to do with the fact that His Excellency currently is in receipt of a military pension in addition to the salary that he draws as Governor-General. The simple reality is that the legislation that passed this chamber addresses the fact that there is one income stream, and this allows them to be paid in accordance with what’s currently being paid. 

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today regarding the incoming Governor-General’s salary. 

Since 1974 the parliament has approved the salary for each incoming Governor-General. The salary level has conventionally been commensurate with that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The last time a Governor-General was paid less than the Chief Justice was in 2008, when Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed Quentin Bryce with a salary $20,000 less than that of the Chief Justice. Precedent does call for consideration to be ‘given to any pension received by the incumbent for previous employment’—for the incumbent, not for the person coming after the incumbent. 

The annual salary during Michael Jeffery’s term was $365,000. Quentin Bryce’s salary was $394,000. General Peter Cosgrove was paid $425,000, which included a small reduction because of his military pension. General Hurley was paid $495,000. General Hurley is in receipt of a military pension as a result of his lifetime of military service. Sam Mostyn is not entitled to a military pension for her lifetime of service to the culture wars. The huge increase offered to Sam Mostyn takes her salary to $70,000 above that of the High Court Chief Justice, despite Labor themselves setting a precedent that less can be paid in hard times, such as in 2008, during the global financial crisis. 

In 2024 we have the crisis of the Albanese government’s runaway inflation. The inflation rate has increased again to four per cent, announced a few moments ago. This persistent high inflation gives a hint as to why the incoming Governor-General got such a large wage rise. The government knows what bad economic news is coming for everyday Australians in the next five years and sought to insulate its appointment from that ruinous inflation. This Labor government simply doesn’t know the value of money and is clearly confused when the public call the government out for it. Sam Mostyn has got a huge increase in salary. Her pension is now hugely increased, and she will have that pension for every day of every year of her life. 

Question agreed to. 

/2 Comments/by

One Nation’s Vision Promises Growth and Prosperity for a Secure Future

,

Inflation, unemployment, mortgages, rents, and the cost of living—including energy and grocery prices—are all on the rise.

One Nation policies promise growth and prosperity for everyone, ensuring a secure future.

Transcript

The response from Treasurer Jim Chalmers to yesterday’s increase in the inflation rate was, ‘There’s more work to be done.’ Oh, really? I would think the Treasurer has done quite enough already, thank you very much. Inflation is increasing, unemployment is increasing, mortgages and rents are increasing, the cost of living—including energy prices and grocery prices—is rising, and building costs are increasing. Bankruptcies are at a record high, with construction companies heavily featured. GDP per person is falling, and the economy as a whole is almost in the red.  

Taking these indicators together shows that Australia is in the early phases of stagflation, the scourge of the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments. A One Nation government would immediately reverse the economic mismanagement of recent Liberal and Labor governments. We would grow Australia out of stagflation. We would shut down the department of climate change, withdraw from the UN Paris Agreement and rebuild our energy infrastructure with the lowest-cost power generation: hydro, coal and nuclear. We would terminate environmental and economic vandalism coming from pumped hydro and offshore wind by refusing industrial wind and solar generation on productive farmland and in native forests. We would take the government’s jackboot off our farmers’ throats and support our agricultural sector to once again feed and clothe the world. 

We would immediately freeze the issue of new permanent visas and review the skills list, to ensure those who arrive have the skills we need to support economic growth, and we would send home some people who are currently on resident visas. We would build Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, build a national rail circuit and a national shipping fleet, and push steel parks at Abbot Point and Port Hedland. We would close down insane pumped hydro projects and green energy subsidies. We would use the east-west rail line to support Aboriginal communities, mining and agriculture across the Top End and Central Australia. 

The government can only offer stagnation and decay. One Nation policies, though, represent growth and prosperity for all, for a secure future. 

/by

Labor’s Destruction of Democracy

,

The disrespect by Labor towards the Senate Estimates process is reprehensible, especially for a government elected on promises to be ‘transparent and accountable’.

As a representative of the people of Queensland and Australia, it’s my duty to uphold the sanctity of this Senate as the House of Review. The government’s audacity in cherry-picking what information it deems fit for our consumption reeks of contempt. This blatant obstructionism frustrates the very essence of our democratic institutions.

The culture of secrecy by Labor extends far beyond the Senate Chamber. Orders for document production are routinely disobeyed, undermining the integrity of our oversight mechanisms. It’s time we punish these acts with the sanctions they deserve.

/by

Free Speech Defends Every Other Human Right

,

Thousands of Australians came out to protest this Labor government’s digital identity bill and the evil agenda behind it. The Online Safety Act, the Identity Verification Services Act, the Digital ID Bill and the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill are designed to identify, apprehend, punish and imprison anyone who resists this slide back into feudalism and serfdom.

Everyday Australians recognise that this bill threatens their freedom, privacy and our way of life. If this entire serfdom agenda was presented to the Australian people in an election and they were asked – “Is this the future you want?” What do you think their answer would be?

Transcript

Last weekend across every capital city, as well as in Cairns and Mackay in my home state of Queensland, thousands of Australians came out to protest this Labor government’s digital identity bill and the evil agenda behind it. Everyday Australians recognise that this bill is an attack on their freedom, privacy and way of life. The Brisbane rally in King George Square, in the heart of the Greens electorate of Brisbane, drew more than a thousand everyday Australians. The crowd displayed a level of awareness of national and international issues that must be making those who mock One Nation nervous. The public are waking up to the plan that successive Liberal and Labor governments have had and are implementing to use Australia as a crash test dummy for the crony Communist seizure of the wealth and human rights of everyday Australians, the purpose of which is to transfer even more wealth into the hands of the world’s predatory billionaires by using the Online Safety Act, the Identity Verification Services Act, the Digital ID Bill and the misinformation and disinformation bill to identify, apprehend, punish and imprison anyone who resists this slide back into feudalism and serfdom. 

Free speech defends every other human right. The witnesses to the Digital ID Bill inquiry, including the Human Rights Commission, drew attention to the lack of privacy and human rights protections in the bill. The committee ignored the evidence before them and returned a glowing recommendation to pass the bill in a report likely authored in the bowels of Geneva or New York, with almost identical legislation appearing in other Western wealthy nations at the same time. Then the bill passed through the Senate, with the debate guillotined—not one word of debate to air Australia’s views on this hideous, far-reaching bill. One Nation has a petition to immediately repeal this evil bill. So far 70,000 Australians have signed it.  

The Albanese government now need to do something now that they have so far refused to do—listen to the public, to the people. Repeal the Digital ID Bill or take the whole serfdom agenda to an election and ask the Australian people: is this the future you want? 

/by

One Nation Priorities

,

Here are some bold ideas you won’t hear from anyone but One Nation.

1. Ensure cheap power by turning on coal-fired stations, building more, and ending solar and wind subsidies.

2. Stop inflation by halting excessive money printing.  

3. Guarantee cheaper housing and rents, prioritising young Australians.

4. Secure cheaper groceries by supporting farmers and building dams.

And lastly, use our natural resources for Australians first.

One Nation is committed to putting Australians first and freeing them from unnecessary restrictions.

Transcript

Here are things you won’t hear from anyone in the budget, except for One Nation because we’ve got the guts to say what you’re thinking. 

Firstly, guarantee cheap power—turn the coal fired power stations back on, build more coal fired power stations, and remove solar and wind subsidies. It’s the only thing that can save us right now. Secondly, stop inflation. Stop quantitative easing—printing excess money. A trillion dollars was concocted during the COVID response, which is a major cause of the inflation we’re still fighting today. Thirdly, we’ll guarantee cheaper houses, cheaper rents and get young people into their first home. Don’t just cut net overseas migration: start deporting. Prior to COVID, there were 1.9 million visa holders who needed housing and who were fighting Australians for a roof over their heads. That has increased to 2.3 million today, plus 400,000 tourists and others. Ten per cent of our population is on visas and needs extra housing. We will ban foreigners from buying Australian property. They’re currently snapping up nearly one in 10 new Aussie homes. 

Fourthly, get cheaper groceries—build dams and help farmers produce tonnes of fresh, healthy produce for Australians. Give farmers water and the right to use their land, and we’ll never have to worry about grocery bills again. Fifth, use all of our natural resources we have right here for Australians first. There’s no need to become a green superpower, and we never will. We’re already an oil, gas, coal and uranium superpower. The government won’t do this because some foreign, unelected organisation in Zurich or New York will claim that we’re not complying with our international obligations. 

Governments on both sides have forgotten that their first obligation is to Australians and no-one else. One Nation knows this. We’ll put our trust in Australia’s people and release them from the nanny state that tells them everything they can and can’t do, which will enable people to abound and flourish. That’s our promise of what would be a One Nation budget. We will always remind members of parliament to put Australians first. 

/by

$50 Billion Deficit Understatement Amid Improbable Cost Assumptions

The cost of running the Federal Government is an important issue for One Nation. We believe that a smaller government is better and strongly advocate for reducing its size to align with the constitution.

I’m an avid reader of the budget volume that lists out the cost of Government. This year, the figures don’t add up. The budget appears to be assuming there will be no increase in the cost of Government for the next four years.

In a period of high inflation, which will be at least 13% over forward estimates, an assumption that the Federal Government administration cost (wages, office expenses, etc.) will not go up in those four years is, at best, improbable and at worst, dishonest.

I asked the Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher to “please explain”. Aside from small savings from reducing the use of contract labour, there are no explanations for the figures presented in the budget. The outcome is that the deficit over the forward estimates is more than likely understated by as much as $50 billion.

Transcript

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and will reference Budget Paper No. 4: Agency resourcing, page 186, department expenses table. The government has been conducting a program of reducing spending on external providers—contractors; consultants—and hiring employees directly instead, to perform those duties, and One Nation supports that. These conversions, from external providers to employees, save taxpayers money, being the difference between paying a public servant to do that work and paying a consultant, partly balanced out by the increased costs of office expenses, travel and so on. Minister, how much has this program saved in 2023-24, and how much will it save over forward estimates? I note that, as I understand, the budget papers have another 2,502 conversions projected. 

Senator GALLAGHER: Thank you for asking me a question about Budget Paper No. 4. That is the budget paper that Finance has responsibility for. We have worked hard to make conversions, as you say, and to reinvest and put increased capability into the Public Service. What we did find out from the audit on employment was that the real size of the APS when we came to government was much larger than had been publicly reported, so we are taking steps to rebalance it and to put public servants into jobs that labour hire had done. 

In the last budget, I think the savings were in the order of $800 million in terms of the conversions that were being made. In this budget we’re finding a further billion dollars in reductions to agencies’ departmental expenses because of the investments we’re making in the Public Service. Obviously, we are making additional investments in the Public Service for additional responsibilities that they have, but what we’re doing is painting a very honest picture of the price of delivering improved services. 

Those opposite, I know, are going to do what they always do and say they want a smaller Public Service, but they should then explain why 41,000 veterans who didn’t have their claims allocated now have their claims allocated and now are getting access to pensions. It’s a direct result of our investment in the Australian federal Public Service. We weren’t seeing those results, whether it was in Immigration, DFAT, Services Australia or Veterans’ Affairs. We see that on the payments side now because veterans are getting access because they are being dealt with. Because they’ve got public servants dealing with their claims, they are getting access to the money that they deserve. 

So it’s a piece of ongoing work, Senator Roberts. If there’s further information I can provide to you, I will. But we are finding savings from the program at the same time that we’re making additional investments. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The table shows many departments costing less to run in 2027-28 than they do today, despite ongoing inflation, and rents, electricity and expenses far exceeding the savings from operations. The department of infrastructure is down from $554 million in this budget to $452 million in 2027-28; Health and Aged Care, $1.6 billion down to $1.1 billion; and Services Australia, $5.7 billion down to $4.5 billion. Minister, please explain from where these huge claimed projected savings will come. 

Senator GALLAGHER: In terms of the savings that we’ve applied through this budget, it’s an extra billion dollars onto the $3 billion that we had built into the budget, so that gives you a total of $4 billion. There are additional savings that come through the conversions of expensive labour hire into permanent Public Service work, and so that is part of it. I think it’s probably a question we can go through at estimates, as well, because I don’t have that page in front of me. But there are savings, and we take that money from departments; they don’t get that funding. So that is a saving that is realised at the time that that budget decision is taken. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The $155 billion provided in the budget as departmental expenses in 2024-25 is projected to grow to $169 billion in 2027-28 almost entirely from increases in defence and the NDIS. How could your forward projections show flat or reduced costs for, in effect, the entire government except the NDIS and defence, when the budget puts inflation over that period at 13 per cent? Does your budget dramatically understate projected deficits? 

Senator GALLAGHER: No. The budget papers, as they’re released—Budget Paper No.1, which goes to providing the UCB, is based on all of the information that runs through all of the budget books, and that would include departmental expenses. There is extra investment going into defence and into the NDIS. As you would expect, they are two of the five fastest growing areas of the budget. The NDIS is the second and I think defence would be the third or fourth, and so they would be seeing increases. But the budget UCB takes into account all of those decisions. It may be reported slightly differently in different tables, based on different accounting standards, but the UCB is an honest reflection of the state of the Commonwealth’s finances. 

/by

Let’s Have More Transparency

The purpose of this Bill is to abolish the current Administrative Appeals Tribunal and establish a new tribunal with improved criteria for member appointments, ensuring a transparent process.

Under the new system, positions would be advertised and candidates selected based on their qualifications and experience, with an appropriate interview process.

This approach seeks to alleviate concerns regarding past politicisation of tribunal membership.

Transcript

The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and the associated bills, which relate to the replacement of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with a new administrative review tribunal, are long overdue. 

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has developed a reputation for inefficient and delayed decision-making, holding up the highly emotive process of considering mostly visa reviews and applications. The appointment process of tribunal members has been less than transparent, with many appointments being clearly politically based and with many appointees being barely qualified for their positions. That has raised a number of questions and a lot of talk. The new tribunal will offer transparent appointments based on merit and will ensure that decision-making will be less questionably based on perceived biases or lack of understanding of the issues. That’s a clear issue in the profession. Positions will be advertised and appointments made based on record and performance at an interview. Applicants must have relevant knowledge, skills and experience, and their qualifications need to be stated. 

A significant problem in considering the bills, though, has been the time involved in assessing the voluminous amount of material, which something that previous speakers Senator Shoebridge and Senator Scarr both mentioned. That is particularly so in terms of accessing the voluminous amount of material in the context of the huge number of consequential amendments that need to be made to more than 138 acts and the consideration of the impact of these changes. That’s no light task; it’s not a five-minute task. 

It’s been suggested that the new bill does not adequately offer persons with immigration challenges enough access to legal support when presenting their case for review. The bills reintroduce the Administrative Review Tribunal. This is generally considered a good move as it can assist in avoiding long and expensive court actions. It’s hoped that the Administrative Review Tribunal will be sufficiently resourced to avoid the enormous backlogs that have prevented timely and final resolution of primarily .migration and refugee matters. It’s been said that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal merits review system was failed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which did not function effectively, efficiently or transparently. In 2022-23, more than 19,000 migration and refugee matters came into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This represented 46 per cent of all applications that came into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There were over 54,000 matters still outstanding at the end of the financial year. It’s hoped that this backlog will be more effectively dealt with by the new Administrative Review Tribunal. 

I need to point out that the mass of material within these bills that we’ve had to go through has been difficult to take in at short notice. Sadly, this is becoming a standard practice of this Albanese Labor government, making it difficult for crossbenchers to efficiently and, sometimes, effectively perform their functions. We heard about the hoops that Senator Scarr had to jump through. That’s not acceptable. Senator Shoebridge also mentioned the same problem. The process of developing this bill and getting it through scrutiny has been catastrophic, as one of them said. We have also seen a number of bills guillotined under the Labor-Greens-Teals-Senator Pocock coalition. That coalition has been pushing things through this parliament, suppressing orders for the production of documents and guillotining debate. We’ve had bills with enormous consequences for this country—some of the most far-reaching ever—rammed through this parliament with not one word of debate. I’m talking now particularly about the digital identity bill, which went through recently. That bill was amended quite substantially, and there was not one word of debate about the bill, nor about any of those amendments. So the process of coming to where we are with the Administrative Review Tribunal was flawed. Senators Scarr and Shoebridge echoed that. But the changes are needed. As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, my team and I have weighed the pros and cons. Based on all of this, I somewhat reluctantly decided to support the bill. Having listened, though, to Senators Scarr and Shoebridge, who are lawyers and who I respect, I will be reflecting and may change my mind. But, at the moment, we are highly critical of the government’s process in developing this bill and putting it through what amounts to less-than-perfect, inadequate scrutiny. I do say the changes are needed at the moment. I reluctantly support the bill. 

/by