“I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around XX and XY ….”
— Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, during Senate Estimates.
How can you advise the court on sex-based rights if you don’t understand the science? Seriously!
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to go to Dr Cody, and the intervention in Tickle v Giggle, please. Thank you for appearing, Dr Cody. Tickle v Giggle is the case of someone who was born a biological male being stopped from joining a women-only app. What are you arguing in your intervention? How much are you being paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men to be allowed into women’s spaces?
Dr Cody: The role that we have within the case Giggle and Tickle is intervention, or amicus curiae: helping the court to understand the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the amendments from 2013, and also how the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women applies, whether or not there are special measures, and their understanding of section 5 and section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We were given leave by the court to assist them to understand those issues and also the constitutionality of the Sex Discrimination Act. In terms of the cost, we have two counsel who were briefed. Both agreed to appear on a capped fee basis, so that’s a reduced fee. One was paid $13,000, and the other one was paid $10,000.
Senator ROBERTS: What I actually asked, Dr Cody, was how much are you paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men?
Dr Cody: My salary is similar to that that you mentioned for Commissioner Sivaraman.
Senator ROBERTS: About $400,000 a year, plus 15.4 per cent super?
Dr Cody: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Just so I can be clear, your position is that the law means a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman can enter a female-only space?
Dr Cody: I would question whether or not Roxanne Tickle is not a man. She is a trans woman. She has gone through various processes and has transitioned, and she’s a trans woman. So she has access—or sought access and was provided access—to the Giggle for Girls app, and then was taken off the access to the Giggle for Girls app.
Senator ROBERTS: What sort of chromosomes does she have—XX or XY?
Dr Cody: I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t?
Dr Cody: No, I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Can someone who was born with XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes—a male change to a female?
Dr Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist. There are many variations of chromosomes. There are hormonal variations, there are chromosomal variations, there are genitalia variations—there are a lot of variations which are along a spectrum.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex—if born a man, they are a man; if they’re born with XY chromosomes, they’re a man and they stay a man?
Dr Cody: No, I would not agree.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t agree? If a woman took a case to court today trying to stop a person with a penis who identified as a female going into a women’s bathroom, which side would you be arguing for if you were there as a friend of the court?
Dr Cody: No. I would need to know more facts. I can’t make a judgement on that in particular.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your previous answer, you talked about XX and XY and how you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?
Dr Cody: The issue around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.
Senator ROBERTS: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Someone born female is XX.
Dr Cody: Not always.
Senator ROBERTS: No?
Dr Cody: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an example of when not?
Dr Cody: Because there are also people who have innate variations of sex characteristics, so they may be identified as male at birth, but in fact later find out that they have XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes. So it is more complex than just XX being female and XY being male.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll agree with that, but it’s a very, very tiny proportion of the population. Someone who was born a man, a boy, has XY chromosomes and cannot change to XX—is that correct?
Dr Cody: If their chromosomes are XY, then I don’t believe their chromosomes can change. But, I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change it.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?
Dr Cody: I’m not taking a side within a court case. Our role is as amicus—that is, to provide clarification and help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.
Senator ROBERTS: So how can you clarify if you don’t understand?
Dr Cody: I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around the XX and XY, unless the evidence is before the court. So my role is to assist the court with understanding the legal argument.
Senator ROBERTS: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?
Dr Cody: What would you like me to explain, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: What your position is.
Dr Cody: On which issue?
Senator ROBERTS: The Human Rights Commission’s position on biological males in female spaces. Could you please explain your position on that.
Dr Cody: What do you mean by ‘biological males’, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: Someone born as a male, XY chromosomes.
Dr Cody: If they are a man, and depending on which space they are wanting to enter and why that space has been created—if it’s a special measure, for example, for ensuring the quality of women—then there may be good reason to exclude men from that space.
Senator ROBERTS: What would be some of the reasons?
Dr Cody: For safety reasons, for example.
Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of safety reasons?
Dr Cody: There is certainly a reason why men would be excluded from a domestic violence refuge for women.
Senator ROBERTS: Female prison?
Dr Cody: Female prisons are also made for women, and therefore men would be excluded from a women’s prison.
Darwin Port under CCP control for 99 years! While PM Albanese calls Communist China a “friend,” they harass our aircraft, wage trade wars and control our most strategic northern port. Their actions speak louder than words.
One Nation stands firm: Australian assets MUST be in Australian hands. Our sovereignty and security are NOT for sale!
No more election promises – hand back Darwin Port now!
Transcript
Australians are sick of the benefits of our natural resources and critical infrastructure being siphoned off to foreign multinational companies. Chinese company Landbridge will operate the Port of Darwin for 99 years. Make no mistake; that means it’s under Chinese Communist Party control. While Australia differentiates between private companies and government, there’s no such separation in communist China. Every company is a direct arm of the ruling communist party and serves its purposes, so the Chinese Communist Party is running Darwin port.
It’s not just a profitmaking venture; it’s Australia’s most strategic major northern port. Darwin in general is crucial for our Defence Force’s deployment. It’s crucial for securing our borders and millions of square kilometres of northern ocean. The security implications of having a potential foreign adversary decide how the Darwin port is developed and used over the next 99 years are obvious. Australians should own Australian assets, especially ones as critical as our Darwin port.
To be clear, One Nation supports Australians with Chinese heritage, and they have been living here as Australians since our gold rushes in the 1880s, and we support the Chinese people. We oppose, though, the government of China, the Chinese Communist Party, with their totalitarian abuse of humans, censorship and rule though fear. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this week said communist China is a ‘friend’. Let’s see what our friend has said about Australia. During our diplomatic freeze for asking where COVID came from, a Chinese government official said, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’ and said phone calls would be meaningless. In 2020 communist China issued 14 demands of Australia, criticising us for not censoring the press and for having honest conversations about China’s activities. They’ve illegally waged trade wars on Australian lobsters, beef and barley, trying to coerce Australia because we dared to ask where COVID really came from
This year communist China’s navy circumnavigated Australia, conducting unannounced live-fire exercises that diverted aircraft flights. This week Chinese aircraft harassed and released flares in front of an Australian aircraft over the disputed Paracel Islands, the latest in a string of similar dangerous incidents. It’s very weird behaviour for a friend! They seem to mean it when they say, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’
The United States seem to know the strategic value of northern Australia better than our own government does. They’ve been encouraging us to develop and fortify our infrastructure there so that we may have a chance of defending ourselves in a conflict. A US official reportedly said:
We are surprised this issue has not yet been settled, and we are closely watching what the Albanese Government is doing. There has been some concern that getting back control of Darwin Port is no longer a priority for Australia.
It’s hard to disagree.
Before the election we heard again and again, as early as February this year, that a big decision was around the corner. Since the election, we’ve heard nothing—another broken election promise. In July, Prime Minister Albanese met with President Xi, of China, and had the chance to sort it all out. Instead, when asked if he raised the issue of the port, the Prime Minister said he didn’t need to—gutless.
Should this foreign government have a 99-year hold on our most strategic northern port? On security reasons alone, One Nation’s answer very clearly is no. Putting aside the security and sovereignty issue, there’s basic common sense. As I’ve outlined, Darwin port will essentially be under the control of the Chinese Communist Party government for 99 years. They will operate, develop and profit from Darwin port for nearly a century. The communist Chinese government will reap the profits from Australia’s most northern strategic port.
There’s a reason a foreign government would seek to get a stranglehold on a critical asset like Darwin port for 99 years: to develop it, of course, and then squeeze every dollar they can out of it to return a tidy profit back to their treasury reserves. If anyone is reaping some kind of profit from critical infrastructure in Australia, it should be the Australian government and the Australian people. At the minimum, it should be a publicly owned, wholly Australian company. This extends to Australian farmland, water, critical power infrastructure and residential homes. All critical assets in Australia should be in our Australian hands, not in the hands of a foreign government or foreign multinational corporation. Labor, get some courage and integrity and put Australia first.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/CYtif1hLSOA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-30 09:44:322025-10-30 09:44:40CCP Darwin Port Election Promise Still BROKEN!
How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control.
Last weekend, UK streets filled with thousands of people opposing Digital ID. The rally was prompted by their Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, declaring that Digital ID would be made mandatory by 2029.
His excuse?
Digital ID stops illegal migrants from working.
It was a claim that no one, not even left-leaning TV broadcasters, believed. Keir Starmer was grilled for days on end and never managed to make a single coherent argument about why Digital ID would ‘solve’ any of the major problems facing the UK.
Digital ID has no ability to stop the zodiacs full of illegal migrants washing up on British beaches. Nor can it resurrect the manufacturing industry and give desperate working-class towns back their industries which have been gutted by Net Zero policy. It also won’t stop their Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, threatening to raise income taxes on the poorest of Brits.
…sounds like Australia.
What Digital ID might do is allow the government to control what people think, write, and say online.
Indeed, many joke that you’re more likely to be jailed in the UK for political speech than serious criminal activity. Currently, the UK is making more than 30 arrests per day for ‘offensive social media posts’ and over 12,000 across the year.
The bulk of these offences relate to politically-contested ideas that ‘offend’ people.
It is much the same in Australia where high-profile takedown notices show no attempt to apply an equal level of ‘safety’. The stabbing of a religious figure in Australia and the murder of a woman in the US were targeted for censorship by the eSafety Commissioner, although not thousands of violent images and video coming out of foreign accounts aimed at radicalising Australian users.
We believe it is undeniable that politics plays a role in digital censorship and that destroying privacy will only make people more afraid to speak their minds.
Just as ‘child safety’ was used to implement wide-spread social media censorship, many rightly fear that Digital ID will give the government excessive visibility and control over the actions of citizens.
Privacy was a valued asset in democracy because it was recognised as necessary to limit the power of government.
Suspicions are raised, for example, when official UK Labour press releases started calling Digital ID ‘a boarding pass to government’.
As the director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch said:
‘[Digital ID] is fast becoming a digital permit required to live our everyday lives. Starmer has sold his Orwellian Digital ID scheme to the public on the lie that it will only be used to stop illegal working but now the truth, buried in the small print, is becoming clear. We now know that Digital IDs could be the backbone of a surveillance state and used for everything from tax and pensions to banking and education. The prospects of enrolling even children into this sprawling biometric system is sinister, unjustified, and prompts the chilling question of just what he thinks ID will be used for in the future.’
Today, politicians are exploiting public fears – Covid, terrorism, migration, crime, child safety – to coerce citizens into giving up essential privacy protections.
‘If you accept Digital ID now, it may be the last real choice you ever make.’ – UK protest sign
‘The systems involved are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people,’ said Sir David Davis.
Digital ID is the very definition of ‘mission creep’ where earlier calls to online safety and an upgrade to ailing government computer systems has been jumped on by data-hungry entities within the government.
The UK have used mass migration as their excuse – what of Australia? Our Labor-Liberal uniparty has decided to use children.
As we approach the December Under 16 social media ban, the widespread implementation of Digital ID is beginning to take effect.
Already, social media companies are taking steps to verify the identity and age of users – a necessary step if they are to avoid the crippling fines proposed by the Labor government.
Regardless of the specifics for each platform, the escalation of ID verification and near-total collapse of anonymity online has changed the relationship citizens have with the online world and – perhaps – the reach of the law.
Anonymity online has been used as a protection for political speech.
Australians have used their online accounts to add to the digital political conversation without fear that their employer might sack or demote them for something as simple as disagreeing with ‘pronouns’ or ‘Net Zero’.
This is necessary, given the rise of ‘Woke’ puritanical speech obsessions implemented by many employers.
The use of Digital ID and other forms of verification dramatically increases the risk for those Australians who wish to continue engaging politically.
We have seen how frequent data hacks have become and there is now a real possibility that people might be blackmailed for what they say.
Gmail confirmed that 7 million of its email accounts had been compromised. (People often use email to verify their identity for social media.) This was part of the enormous data link that involved 183 million accounts across Google and Apple. Earlier this month, Discord reported its proof-of-age ID data had been breached. These are the very same pieces of sensitive personal information that government wants all social media companies to collect.
Proof-of-age ID data is some of the most sensitive and can include driver’s licence or passport.
Forcing this data into the hands of more organisations is a public safety and privacy issue that has not been properly considered by the government as it rushed into so-called ‘child safety’ protections.
The only reason Discord was holding this proof-of-age data was, as they state, to satisfy UK and Australian age verification laws.
According to Proton, ‘Typically, Discord required a user’s selfie and then used software to scan the photo and estimate their age. Discord would then delete the photo at the end of the process. The system that was allegedly hacked was part of its appeals process.’
Essentially, when the photographs failed to correctly guess an age, users could back up their claim with government ID.
Everyone is talking about the Discord hack because it is a warning – a real-world ramification of rushed age verification laws that, without explicitly stating, require the widespread use of Digital ID.
Discord stresses it was only ‘a limited number of users’ except this reportedly equates to 70,000. That is a lot of people left vulnerable from information that never should have been surrendered.
It’s this under-handed spread of Digital ID via online safety rules that deeply concerns us.
Effectively, adults are being told that if they want to keep engaging online, they have to sign up to some form of Digital ID. We are social creatures. We have friendship groups online. Australian businesses rely on social media to operate and compete. Interfering in this space turns Digital ID from ‘optional’ into a heavily coerced requirement.
It’s like saying the Covid vaccines were ‘optional’.
Optional … but the government will ruin your life if you say no.
Digital ID spreads across the West by Senator Malcolm Roberts
How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Digital-ID.jpg?fit=2218%2C1190&ssl=111902218Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-30 07:32:202025-10-30 07:32:37Digital ID Spreads Across the West
During this session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, I raised with them that in 2021, the Coalition government abandoned plans to build an all-weather, all-season paved runway in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Minister Watt confirmed that there are currently no plans to build such a runway and noted that Australia continues to rely on a blue ice runway during summer – leaving our bases largely isolated from the outside world for most of the year.
I pointed out that China is expanding its presence in the region, having already established three bases within the Australian Antarctic Territory. I also raised concerns about the recent reduction in the number of planned programs; however officials denied any funding cuts, asserting that Australia is meeting its obligations in Antarctic research despite China’s growing influence.
When questioned about China’s policy of conducting dual-purpose military and civilian research at its stations, the Department responded that military research would breach the Antarctic Treaty. China does not appear to share such concerns.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll be quick. In November 2021, the then coalition government made the poor decision to abandon the proposed construction of an all-weather paved runway near the Davis research centre in Antarctica due to perceived concerns of potential disruption of bird and seal colonies. It was a very poor decision, in my opinion, that missed the opportunity for Australia to advance its claims to usage of their allocated portion of Antarctica under the existing Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959. That will be up for renegotiation in some years hence or sooner if the treaty is challenged. My understanding is that there’s no formal expiry date. My first question is: will this government, the Labor government, reconsider and confirm the building of an all-weather runway to open up the Antarctic to year-round access via an eight-hour flight and replace total reliance on sea access that may take weeks?
Senator Watt: I’m not aware of that being considered. The officials can elaborate if they have info on that.
Ms E Campbell: At the moment, there are no plans for an all-weather runway, but we do have a really strong and capable blue ice runway. We have four-hour flights that go to Antarctica through the summer, and that’s a critical support for our stations and access. It’s at the Wilkins runway, which is about four hours, by tractor train, from Casey Station. I’ve had the pleasure of going on that flight a couple of times. It is a wonderful asset for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that an all-weather runway would radically reduce the operating costs and logistics of accessing Australia’s research stations. It would be the first and only all-weather runway on the continent and provide access to speedy evacuation in medical or other emergencies.
Ms E Campbell: We certainly use the blue ice runway for access to the station.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by blue ice?
Ms E Campbell: It’s a runway set up on the glacier just above Casey Station. We land jets on that runway in the summer months. To your point about ‘cheaper and effective’, my understanding—and it was before my time in this role—is that one of the reasons that the previous government decided not to progress with the all-weather runway was cost.
Senator ROBERTS: In the context of changing geopolitical dynamics, especially when China is expanding its influence in the Southern Ocean and in Antarctica, what else is Australia doing to protect its interests from encroachment in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica?
Ms E Campbell: We’ve got a really strong program in Antarctica. We talked previously about our science voyages and the step-up in our science work in Antarctica. Elements such as inspections, which we’ve talked about, are part of our influence in Antarctica. Going to international meetings, rebuilding our stations—these are all really strong parts. We can certainly provide references to the strategy and action plan. We’ve got a million year ice core where we’re travelling 1,200 kilometres inland with a traverse tractor to drill for ice. We’ve also reestablished the ability to go across our territory and explore new areas, which is really exciting.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that scientific programs have been cut. Why is the supply of critical food and medicine no longer assured? Has the government not heard of the phrase: ‘Use it or lose it’? That’s important for my next question.
Ms E Campbell: I don’t accept that we’ve cut funding. The government has invested more than ever. Funding has gone up.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no cut to scientific funding?
Ms E Campbell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. China is currently the most active national player in the Antarctic, yet Australia has the largest designated proportion of area claimed of the Antarctic continent, at 42 per cent—so over 40 per cent. It is referred to as the Australian Antarctic Territory and, in landmass, is the largest territory of Australia. China has five research bases there, and it’s soon to be six, with three of the bases it’s built within the Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia has only three bases in the territory and a fourth at Macquarie Island. Am I correct so far?
Ms E Campbell: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Chinese research stations have a dual purpose, supporting both military and civil functions. Common sense suggests that this will influence a Chinese call for a recognised claim for a part of the Australian Antarctic Territory, at our expense. Australia must do something soon to reclaim its senior role in Antarctic affairs. Will this government do what the coalition failed to do and build this vital runway to protect our claim to our territory?
Ms E Campbell: I might correct a couple of points of fact. First of all, you said at the beginning that—and I did say it was right—China was the most active player. China is certainly very active in Antarctica, as are many other countries. I think the US would say they have been the most active player, and I think we’re close behind. There’s not evidence that there is a dual-use function of Antarctic stations, and that would be a breach of the treaty. There has been no finding—
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘dual use’?
Ms E Campbell: You talked about dual military and scientific use. That would be a breach of the Antarctic Treaty, and there is no evidence that that has happened.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you think that would bother China?
Ms E Campbell: I think you’re asking my opinion. Under the treaty, that would not be allowed.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’re leaving it to the Chinese?
Ms E Campbell: That’s not what I said.
Mr Sullivan: They’re your words, Senator, not Ms Campbell’s.
President Trump recently called on vaccine manufacturers to support their claims regarding the safety and efficacy of their products. It was these assurances that led him to launch Operation Warp Speed to develop the COVID vaccine and has defended the product in the years since.
It now appears President Trump is open to reconsidering his position on vaccine safety. I hope he does. A critical review of the claims made by vaccine manufacturers is likely to show a very high level of data tampering, misrepresentation, and outright lies.
This will mostly be around vaccine quality, not design. Many of our vaccines are produced as cheaply as possible and contain high levels of heavy metals, such as aluminium, which act as a preservative. These are causing harm to our children.
I hope the President reaches the same conclusion I have – that the mRNA platform is dangerous and should never have been used as the basis for the COVID vaccines developed under Operation Warp Speed.
Transcript
The significance of this is stunning. President Trump has been misled on the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines for a very long time. From this post it sounds like he has been kept in the dark and fed lies. I look forward to the president realising that and taking action to defend the health of all Americans by banning the mRNA vaccine platform.
In further developments last week Robert F Kennedy Jr, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced significant changes to the authorisation of mRNA COVID-19 so-called vaccines. It’s important to understand this was not a banning of mRNA—not yet anyway. It’s important to clarify the new measures. The Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, approved updated COVID-19 shots for the autumn season in America and imposed new restrictions, effectively ending their emergency-use authorisations. This is only a partial victory for mRNA critics such as me. The measures did terminate emergency-use authorisations that had allowed this dangerous, killer product to be given to anyone over six months of age.
What some claiming victory may have missed is that mRNA shots for COVID were given normal approval for a limited range of people. This includes anyone over 65 and anyone from five to 65 with an underlying medical condition. Moderna was approved for children over six months with an underlying medical condition. Is it a massive reduction in approval? Yes. Is it a ban? No. President Trump’s statement overnight suggests there are more developments to come.
Last week I spoke of many new peer reviewed studies which show how this harm is occurring right through the human body. Tonight I will talk about the data, which shows this harm is occurring. We have proof of the harm, and we have the science showing causality. The Defense Medical Epidemiology Database is part of the United States Defense Medical Surveillance System. It enables queries of de-identified medical data coded in the International Classification of Diseases classifications for active duty personnel, filtered on demographics and occupational categories. In 2021 whistleblowers reported significant increases in medical conditions compared to 2016 to 2020 baselines, prompting congressional scrutiny and resulting in a finding of data-handling errors. In 2023 outdated 2021 DMED data confirmed elevated diagnoses, including hypertensive disease up 23 per cent, ovarian disfunction up 35 per cent, pulmonary embolism up 44 per cent, Guillain Barre syndrome up 15 per cent, oesophagus cancer up 13 per cent and breast cancer up seven per cent. Myocarditis was up 151 per cent. Remember the sample set here is millions of people of the United States military. These are—or were—healthy, fit individuals and their families.
The harm is getting worse. Data for 2023 to 2025, using the same pre-COVID baseline, shows persistent elevations, terrifying elevations, over pre-COVID levels. Myocarditis is up 154 per cent; digestive organ cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and up 43 per cent in 2024; brain cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and 43 per cent in 2024; and blood coagulation defects up 25 per cent in 2021, 58 per cent in 2022 and then 32 per cent in 2023 as injection rates fell. That’s pretty damning. It shows that those who call this poison the clot shots are not entirely wrong. It gets worse, much worse. Conditions which may be potentially vaccine related and are certainly COVID-response related are up. Suicidal and homicidal ideation was up 46 per cent in 2021 and 86 per cent in 2024. Obesity was up 27 per cent in 2021, 69 per cent in 2022, 162 per cent in 2023 and 262 per cent in 2024. It’s okay though. Novo Nordisk has Ozempic on the market to fix that obesity problem. Who owns Novo Nordisk? Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, Vanguard and Norges. I call them ‘BlackRock Inc.’. This gaggle of rapacious wealth funds invest the wealth of the world’s predatory billionaires.
Who owns Pfizer, the cause of this obesity epidemic? You guessed it, BlackRock. They own the problem and the solution. Did someone say COVID was just a— (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/hDtj01FBV-o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-28 09:56:102025-10-28 09:56:18Is Trump Finally Seeing the Truth About mRNA Vaccines?
During this Estimates session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked questions comparing award rates of pay with those in enterprise agreements (EAs). I was told that EAs use a multifactor approach on a case-by-case basis, with no strict requirements.
Mr Furlong said that a key issue in comparing EAs with the Award in the coal miner cases was that the Award did not include provisions for casual employees. I pointed out that it appeared the FWC could authorise an EA “on the papers”—that is, on written material only—when the employer and union were in agreement, even if the arrangement cheated workers due to a cosy relationship between the parties.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Mr Furlong!
Mr Furlong: You too, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a series of questions for understanding the relationship between awards and Fair Work Commission endorsed and authorised enterprise agreements. Does the Fair Work Commission have a requirement to ensure that pay rates under enterprise agreements are, at minimum, the same as or higher than pay rates under the appropriate competitive award? I’ll be specific: if an award requires a cleaner to be paid $30 an hour as a full-time employee, could the Fair Work Commission endorse or authorise an enterprise agreement that paid the same cleaner $25 an hour as a full-time employee?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve traversed several times before, if an application is made to the commission to approve an enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Act requires the commission to approve the agreement if it is satisfied the requirements in sections 186 and 187 of the Fair Work Act have been met. This includes a requirement that the agreement passes the better-off-overall test.
Senator ROBERTS: Passes the which test?
Mr Furlong: The better-off-overall test.
Senator ROBERTS: The BOOT; yes.
Mr Furlong: Yes. In terms of the minimum rate of pay, the agreement cannot provide less than the base rate of pay in the applicable award. In terms of penalty rates, it’s a holistic view of it. It won’t be a line-by-line analysis.
Senator ROBERTS: So an enterprise agreement could not pay less than—if it’s a straight enterprise agreement and doesn’t roll over and everything else, it could not pay less than the award rate?
Mr Furlong: In terms of what the minimum rate of pay is, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. There are no tricks in here; I’m just trying to learn. Do you agree that when calculating a full-time employee rate and adding all entitlements, holidays, allowances etcetera that generally you would add around 19 per cent of the full-time rate?
Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on that, Senator. It’s members of independent statutory office holders, members of the tribunal who apply the better-off-overall test in what they consider and, ultimately, approve in agreements. I can’t talk about what they—the legislative scheme provides the things that they need to consider before approving enterprise agreements, but it is a case-by-case basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Taking that cleaner again, the one on 30 bucks an hour, by adding entitlements of 19 per cent to the effective pay rate, the benefit would be around $35.70. So if it’s not 19 per cent, what percentage would they use?
Mr Furlong: I think what they would do is look at the underpinning modern award and then consider that whilst they’re considering the enterprise agreements in front of them for approval, and then they’ll make a determination based on those two documents and on the relevant case law—whether or not it satisfies the better off overall test and the other pre-approval provisions. On that basis, a member will make a determination if the agreement should be approved and whether or not the agreement should be approved with undertakings.
Senator ROBERTS: So there wouldn’t be any requirement to pay the casual cleaner at least the award rate plus 19 per cent? There wouldn’t be any hard and fast requirement?
Mr Furlong: There’s no hard and fast requirement that—I understand where we’re heading to—if a modern award does not contain a casual rate of pay, then it doesn’t preclude an enterprise agreement containing casual rates of pay.
Senator ROBERTS: Say that again?
Mr Furlong: If the underpinning modern award does not prescribe a casual rate of pay that does not preclude an enterprise agreement being approved that does contain a casual rate of pay.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you think the Fair Work Commission would assess whether or not the enterprise agreement was not paying less than the award, if it was a casual?
Mr Furlong: In the approval decisions, the members outline their reasons for approving or dismissing applications for enterprise agreements. In relation to the Chandler Macleod agreements that I think we’re referring to here, I think it was—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m referring to a lot of them, but, anyway, keep going.
Mr Furlong: The members, including the senior deputy president who approved a number of these agreements, outlined the reasons for the decisions to approve those instruments—those enterprise agreements—at the time. I can provide copies of those decisions on notice, if that would be of assistance.
Senator ROBERTS: That would be of assistance. The Fair Work Commissioner or the member, as you call them, so long as she or he has valid reasons and lays them out in writing, they could approve a casual rate of pay less than the award rate of pay—a permanent employee’s rate of pay under the award, a casual rate for a casual employee could be less than that.
Mr Furlong: I can’t talk to the decisions of members of the commission. Those decisions stand for themselves. Whilst I’m trying as hard as I can to be helpful, the decisions of members to approve enterprise agreements rest with the member who makes the decision. Obviously, their reasons for approving or, as I said, dismissing those applications are outlined in the decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: So, so long as the decisions are justified, that’s it?
Mr Furlong: No. There are appeal rights. If an enterprise agreement has been approved, and there is an aggrieved party who has standing to have that decision reviewed, then they can certainly do that, and it will be reviewed by a full bench of the commission. But, ultimately, if the agreement has passed its normal expiry date— they continue to operate until they’re replaced or repealed—then a party or person who’s covered by that enterprise agreement can make an application to the commission for that industrial instrument to be terminated, at which point they will return to the terms and conditions of the underpinning award.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to an appeal later but, just for now, does an appeal require going to the court?
Mr Furlong: In the first instance, the appeal will be made to the Fair Work Commission, and then it will be dealt with by a full bench of the Fair Work Commission that will be constituted, generally, by three members.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of Fair Work Commission endorsed or authorised enterprise agreements that pay employees: (a) below-the-base award full-time rate; or (b) below-the-base full-time rate plus entitlements or below the casual award rate?
Mr Furlong: I’m not personally aware of instances that are occurring. We approve somewhere between 4,000 and 4½ thousand enterprise agreements a year. The process for approving enterprise agreements is the application is made. It is then reviewed by an expert team, a specialist team, who hold skills and specialist knowledge around the assessment of enterprise agreements. They complete a checklist and then give that checklist and other supporting documentation to a member. The member, with all of that information available to them, will then do a number of things. The agreement, as made, will appear on our website to invite contradictors. If there’s another party or someone who has reason to believe that the agreement shouldn’t be made, then there is an opportunity for that to occur. And that does occur regularly, particularly when they are demarcation issues associated with particular registered organisations or trade unions. A member could receive submissions or information through that process. They could seek further information from the parties, they could deal with it on the papers or they could call the matter on for a hearing if it were particularly complex.
Senator ROBERTS: If an employer and a union came to the Fair Work Commission with a proposed enterprise agreement that paid below any of the scenarios I’ve just outlined, is it incumbent on the Fair Work Commission to undertake an independent analysis to ensure that the enterprise agreement rates are above the relevant award? Can the Fair Work Commission just endorse the enterprise agreement on the basis that the union and employer agreed to the underpayment?
Mr Furlong: The member needs to be satisfied that each of the requirements under the Fair Work Act has been met. So, to speak plainly, they can do it on the papers if they are satisfied that the information that they have in front of them and the agreement have been supported—or endorsed, for want of a better word—by a trade union. That will, obviously, carry some weight in their determination.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand it would. Can I take you to the example of the enterprise agreement between the shop workers’ union and Coles, which was overturned in 2017 after the efforts of a lone employee, Penny Vickers. That enterprise agreement had been endorsed, or authorised, by the Fair Work Commission and paid Coles employees below requirements. In the face of the employer and union—it was arguably collusion; it was certainly agreement—it was the efforts of a lone employee, Penny Vickers, that protected employee rights against the might of the legal teams of the union and the employer. My question is: where a Fair Work Commission authorised endorsed enterprise agreement pays below award rates and both the employer and union have cooperated or colluded on the underpayments, who has the capacity to challenge this? Is it only lone employees, or can someone else—me, for example—mount a challenge to the Fair Work Commission?
Mr Furlong: That’s a very good example of when an application is brought by someone who is covered by that enterprise agreement. They brought that application post, I think—I’ll have to take that on notice; it’s been a while since I’ve actually looked at the specifics of that case. I’ll have to take on notice who has standing to make an application to terminate an enterprise agreement. It’s certainly someone who is covered by the agreement or an employer organisation that has representational rights for that employee.
Senator ROBERTS: I might not have representational rights if I want to intervene.
Mr Furlong: I haven’t looked at this section of the act for quite some time, so I’m not too sure who has standing. Is there anyone else at the table on this? We might have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you. I have two more questions, Chair.
CHAIR: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission authorised or endorsed an enterprise agreement that paid employees less than award rates, could this arguably be a case of the Fair Work Commission engaging in maladministration or some other error of law? Are there processes within the structure of the Fair Work Commission that enable such a review of underpaying enterprise agreements to be undertaken?
Mr Furlong: I’ll just return to my earlier evidence that, if someone believes that a decision of the commission has been made in error, there are those appeal rights, and they should exercise those rights.
Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission overturned its original ruling, would it arguably be a case of the Fair Work Commission, in the first ruling, engaging in maladministration?
Mr Furlong: For the independent statutory office holders exercising powers provided to them under the Fair Work Act, it doesn’t relate to the administration of public servants. I just want to return you to my evidence that the correct mechanism for dealing with this would be through an application for the agreement approval decision to be reviewed and overturned.
Senator ROBERTS: If it were found that the Fair Work Commission didn’t consider the right factors when approving or authorising the enterprise agreement, would that be maladministration?
Mr Furlong: Do you mind if I take that question on notice?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. This is my last question. You are aware of my interest in black-coal miners and the One Nation report that sets out, in forensic detail, how casual mine employees are underpaid in comparison to the award. I assume you’re aware that the Fair Work Ombudsman is investigating the underpayments.
Mr Furlong: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Ombudsman were to conclude that coalminers have been and are being underpaid in comparison to the award, are there processes whereby such underpayments could be stopped and historical underpayments could be addressed by the Fair Work Commission with a view to compensating coal employees for the underpayments they suffered?
Mr Furlong: My understanding of the evidence that was provided by the Fair Work Ombudsman earlier this evening is that the reference instrument that they’re relying on for their calculations to determine if there’s been an underpayment is the enterprise agreement, not the underpinning award.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, but, to come back to my question, if they’re being underpaid in comparison to the award—if that were the reference document—then could the Fair Work Commission address that by compensating coalminers?
Mr Furlong: I’m not aware of the Fair Work Ombudsman actually doing the calculations against the award, because that’s not the industrial instrument that applies to the employment of these casual coalminers that you’re referring to. My understanding—and I obviously can’t speak on behalf of the ombudsman; I can only relay my understanding of their evidence from earlier this evening—is that the assessment won’t be against the mining award; it will be against the enterprise agreements that were approved at whatever point in time.
I raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Raelene Sharpe, the facts of a recent State case in which the sentencing judge stated that a convicted paedophile received a reduced sentence because the offender came from a culture where sexual offences against children were more tolerated.
I asked what the prosecution’s stance would be if such an offence were to come before a Commonwealth court and was informed that a Commonwealth judge would also take cultural factors into account during sentencing.
I found this deeply concerning, as I believe sexual offences against children are among the most serious crimes. In my view, an offender’s cultural background should not diminish the gravity of such offences.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?
Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?
Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?
Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.
Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed?
Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZrAxvPbJ6jo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-27 18:21:592025-10-27 18:22:07No Excuse for Abuse: Protecting Children Must Come First
This exchange during Senate Estimates with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) sums up just how bad Estimates has become under the Albanese Labor Government.
The TGA is well aware that Senators only have a few minutes to ask questions, and they understand that the more they can stall, the less likely it is they’ll have to say anything that could cause problems for their Minister—regardless of the truth. Because of this, the Minister will not require the “witness” to answer the question, nor will the Committee Chair—both of whom are Labor Senators.
My first question was a genuine attempt to clarify misinformation circulating online about aluminium intake. The answer was a simple “yes.” Keep that in mind when you watch the video. Instead of confirming the obvious and allowing us to move on to another question about aluminium in vaccines, the opportunity was taken to stall for time by debating whether the question should even be asked at all. Dr. Lawler, Deputy Secretary of the Health Products Regulation Group within the Department of Health, oversees the agencies and committees the Government uses to spread responsibility, avoiding accountability. He was exactly the right person to direct these questions to.
The data I presented was straightforward: the level of aluminium in vaccines is unsafe for infants by an order of magnitude. Yet the TGA spent a great deal of time on their pre-prepared responses insisting that vaccines are safe. They refuse to accept any data showing that this level of exposure is causing health issues in infants. I then asked whether our vaccines had been subject to gold standard testing—a term used on many occasions by “witnesses” attending Estimates to defend COVID vaccines – yet suddenly, the gold standard is no longer relevant to … vaccines! Suddenly, testing a product against a double-blind placebo (saline) is now considered “unsafe,” despite this being the standard for a century?
In reality, what Big Pharma has been doing for years—and what the TGA has allowed them to do in Australia—is to compare new vaccines (or medications for that matter) against existing ones, rather than saline. If the harm detected is the same as that already being caused by the “placebo” medication, it’s deemed safe. This is not how things should be.
I will continue this line of questioning until we get a proper inquiry into the level of heavy metal contamination in infant vaccines.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again, especially Professor Lawler. Before I start, can we deal with a statement I hear on the internet all the time—that you get more aluminium in your food than you do in vaccines. Aluminium in food is ingested at 0.3 per cent. In vaccines, it’s ingested at 100 per cent. Individual results may vary. Is this a fair statement?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure where you’re seeing that. I don’t have the information you’re referencing in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you whether it’s accurate.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that is necessarily a question for the TGA to respond to. We can provide you with information on the process that we undertake in terms of the evaluation and authorisation of therapeutic goods, including vaccines. Is this a claim that the TGA has made?
Senator ROBERTS: No. That’s my understanding. What is the TGA’s recommended maximum daily intake of aluminium for a child aged six months, please?
Prof. Lawler: By mouth as a recommended daily intake?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe that the TGA sets a recommended daily ingestion of aluminium, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the daily maximum for a child of six months that can ingest aluminium in food?
Prof. Lawler: I would suggest that those are probably questions best posed to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The US Food and Drug Administration recommends exposure of five micrograms per kilogram in infants. At six months, the average weight of an infant is seven kilograms, making the maximum daily exposure 35 micrograms. The Infanrix hexa vaccine contains 825 micrograms of aluminium per dose, which is 24 times its safe daily limit. Do you accept injecting children at 23 times the safe level? Do you accept that this unsafe aluminium exposure is a contributing factor to aluminium derived autism?
Prof. Lawler: I will throw to Dr Dascombe in a moment. I will answer a couple of the things there in reverse order, if I may. The first is that, in answer to your second question, no. I don’t believe that there is a recognised regulator—I’m happy to be corrected—that does.
Senator ROBERTS: Rather than relying on someone else, do you have any data or research?
Prof. Lawler: I’m just trying to answer your question. I don’t believe that there is another regulator. I’m just using that as back-up. We have seen no credible safety signal that aluminium load either in single or scheduled immunisation delivery is a contributor to autism. The second thing I would say is that I am not sure this is the forum, nor do we have the time, to clarify the distinction between injected and ingested aluminium. They are quite different biomechanical processes. I don’t think the two are comparable. I will ask Dr Dascombe to add to that answer.
Dr Dascombe: I echo the comments of Professor Lawler. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed any safety signals relating to any vaccine and autism. This is also supported by the weight of scientific evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the TGA guidance for the injection of multiple vaccines into a six-month-old at the same time causing amplified aluminium? Each of those doses has aluminium adjuvant, a preservative, so each of them is 24 times the daily safe limit.
Prof. Lawler: My apologies for breaking in, Senator. There are a couple of points on that. It is not the practice or the role of the TGA to make recommendations on immunisation schedules. That sits within the province of ATAGI, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. I would also highlight that we have frequently responded to questions around the aluminium load in the vaccination schedule and their consequences. Most recently, but perhaps more recently, is a Senate question on notice 24-003075. We have discussed it in this place a number of times.
Senator ROBERTS: You see the problem. Just one vaccine can be 24 times over the safe daily limit. You are recommending injecting multiple of them at the same time. These infants could be getting over 100 times the safe limit and you just keep on injecting them right in there and then claim aluminium poisoning isn’t the reason they come down with autism in some cases the very next day. How can you justify this?
Prof. Lawler: I will answer those questions in reverse order, if I may. I will answer the second. There is no indication that the vaccination schedule is linked to autism. Indeed, it has been highlighted not just today but previously. There’s no credible evidence that there is a linkage between vaccination and autism. As I just indicated in my previous answer, it is not the role of the TGA to recommend vaccinations. We assess them for safety, quality and efficacy. It’s the role of ATAGI to recommend the vaccination schedules.
Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you tell the pharma companies to reduce the aluminium preservatives down to safe levels so you can get parents to trust your vaccine again and the parents can trust your advice again?
Prof. Lawler: There are a couple of elements in your question. We evaluate the submissions from sponsors and evaluate the process of manufacture and quality control to ensure that the balance of risk versus benefit is appropriate. That is a determination that we make not only in the authorisation but also in the post-market monitoring through our pharmacovigilance of any therapeutic good with the inclusion of vaccines. In terms of trust, we recognise that there is an active campaign to undermine the trust of regulators, the TGA particularly. We undertake to restore or bolster the trust of the public, which I have to say was during the pandemic and is still, despite some narratives, at a high level. We seek to do that through education and guidance. We do that through being very clear and transparent about what we do and by addressing dis- and misinformation when and if it occurs.
Senator ROBERTS: How many vaccines in the Australian schedule have been subject to a gold standard trial, meaning specifically a randomised double blind placebo control study where the placebo is saline and not another vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: I recognise that you weren’t here before lunch. We had a conversation with Senator Antic regarding the use of the term ‘gold standard’. We recognise that the use of a placebo control randomised double control trial—there are a number of different terminologies used—is of a very high standard and presents robust and dependable evidence. The challenge, of course, is whether something constitutes a gold standard in the way that you have used it. It actually very much depends on context. We use controlled or blinded trials or placebo trials when we are interested in determining the difference between a control arm and an intervention arm. This is really effective when we’re looking at incremental improvements in therapies or when we’re looking at the introduction of new therapies. The challenge we have, of course, is that when there is an established therapy that has been shown over decades using both documented and real-world evidence to be both safe and effective, it is ethically questionable—and, in some instances, ethically indefensible—to use a placebo in that non-intervention arm. I will give you two examples, if I may. We have vaccine preventable diseases, and we have a very clear demonstration of reduction in not only mortality but morbidity in those diseases. Let’s choose polio and small pox, diseases that have had a specific impact for many decades and have led to untold suffering. One of them has been eradicated by the use of vaccines and one of them has been virtually eradicated. If we were to introduce placebo controlled trials for those drugs, that would be horrendously unethical. We would be essentially and knowingly infecting children with a disease that could kill, paralyse or maim when we know that there is a way of preventing that. That’s not ethically defensible.
Senator ROBERTS: What you are saying is that there has been no double blind placebo control study where the placebo was saline and not another vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: No. What I am saying is that would not be an appropriate approach to be taking today with the vaccines we use.
Senator ROBERTS: Has it been taken in the past?
Prof. Lawler: I also would highlight that the introduction of vaccines occurred some time ago. And also—
Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done?
Prof. Lawler: I will let you finish.
Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done, then, the tests?
Prof. Lawler: Whether these—
Senator ROBERTS: A double blind trial?
Prof. Lawler: Well, we’ve actually already taken on notice to provide concrete evidence on which of those vaccines has been subjected previously to blinded control trials.
Senator ROBERTS: How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?
Prof. Lawler: Dr Anna Peatt from the national immunisation division will respond to that.
CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.
Dr Peatt: Senator, could you please repeat the question? I didn’t quite hear it.
Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?
Dr Peatt: Senator, I would have to take that question on notice. I don’t have that available with me today.
Senator ROBERTS: Was close to 35 per cent of the multibillion-dollar COVID vaccine supply binned or trashed?
Dr Peatt: I would have to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you specifically to tell us whether or not it was 35 per cent.
Dr Peatt: I don’t have that figure in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you to just say what the figures are. Can you confirm that is 35 per cent of what we bought?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/uj4SbhAiGMU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-22 18:08:302025-10-22 18:08:37A Case Study in Avoidance
During Senate Estimates, I asked the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) about the issue of late reporting by Aboriginal corporations. I was told that of the 3,312 Aboriginal corporations registered with ORIC, 2,940 were late in submitting their required reports and 1,162 reports for the 2024 financial year had not yet been lodged.
Of the reports not yet submitted, 84% were from small corporations with an income of less than $100,000. ORIC advised that out of the approximately 3,300 corporations, 60 had been listed for prosecution, with 27 already prosecuted. Penalties imposed ranged from deregistration and winding up to personal litigation against directors.
The most common reason cited for non-submission of financial reports was apathy. As part of their response to this issue, ORIC is now offering training for all relevant parties to help improve compliance.
– Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to ORIC, the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. Thank you for being here. It has been widely reported that many Indigenous corporations have not submitted reports required under statute. How many Indigenous incorporations are in breach of requirements to submit their required reports for this period?
Ms Stroud: As at 6 October, I can confirm that, of the 3,312 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, 2,940 are required to lodge one or more annual reports—some have exemptions. Of those 2,940 corporations required to lodge one or more reports, I can confirm that 1,162, or 39½ per cent, have not yet lodged their 2024 reports, which would’ve been due in December 2024, noting that the 2025 reports are not due till the end of this year. For context, though, I would add that, of those 1,162 corporations that have failed to lodge last year’s reports, 84 per cent are small corporations. They are corporations that have a consolidated growth income revenue of under $100,000 each year and are only required to lodge a general report. Corporations that are large and, rightly so, are those that should be subject to greater public scrutiny and funding body scrutiny, represent two per cent of those corporations that have not yet lodged their reports.
Senator ROBERTS: My rough mental arithmetic is about 250 that are not small corporations have failed to lodge a report.
Ms Stroud: I’ll give you that number—it’s 241.
Senator ROBERTS: I was pretty close. That’s a lot. It might only be two per cent, but it’s actually about eight per cent of the total of corporations. How many board members, on average, are on a corporation board?
Ms Stroud: I don’t have that figure on hand. I can take that on notice. I can tell you that, across the 3,000 odd corporations, there are 17,649, in total, director positions. That doesn’t account for that some directors might sit on multiple corporations. Under the legislation, corporations can have up to 12 directors and over 12 requires an exemption to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: Say that again about the exemption, please.
Ms Stroud: To have fewer than three or over 12 directors on a board requires an exemption.
Senator ROBERTS: How many Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are overseen, helped or serviced by these boards?
Ms Stroud: Sorry, I wouldn’t be in a position to answer that question. I can tell you that, of the just over 3,000 corporations, they are made up of just shy of 245,000 members, again, that’s not accounting for that some members might be members of multiple corporations.
Senator ROBERTS: What was that number again?
Ms Stroud: It is 245,594, to be exact. Those 3,300 corporations, as I mentioned before, can be very small corporations with under $100,000 in assets or $100,000 in income through to large corporations. They do everything from cultural heritage protection to land and water management, schools, health services and other vital social services. I wouldn’t be in a position to even estimate the total reach of those services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and beneficiaries.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve mentioned that 2,940 are required to report, and 3,300 is the total number. So about 360 are not required to report.
Ms Stroud: Eighty-eight per cent of corporations are required to lodge some form of annual report.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your concise and direct answers. Thank you for that. Why have these breaches occurred? I know for small corporations it’s probably lack of—well, you tell me.
Ms Stroud: There are a number of reasons why corporations don’t lodge their annual reports. We encourage corporations, wherever possible, to reach out to us and let us know to help us understand the reason for it. It can be turnover in boards, difficulties of getting the services of auditors, disruptions in corporations or it can be just apathy and negligence of directors’ duties. Why we encourage corporations to reach out and let us know—and be on almost an update plan with us so that we can keep on top of when we can expect reports—is that we take that into consideration with our prosecution work. We have referred 60 corporations to CDPP for prosecution for failing to lodge reports. Twenty-seven corporations have been prosecuted. They are medium and large corporations, so, again, they’re corporations with over $100,000 annual revenue and those from which the public would rightfully expect a higher degree of accountability to their members and to their regulator and also to their funders. That’s why medium and large corporations are those which we refer for prosecution where they persistently fail to lodge reports for a couple of years. We now deregister corporations.
Senator ROBERTS: What happens when they’re deregistered?
Ms Stroud: If a corporation is deregistered, it no longer exists. There are challenges with deregistering corporations, particularly those that hold assets. There might be a corporation that holds assets but is ordinarily not conducting business and continually failing to lodge its reports. We’ve recently sought legal advice on alternative measures for those corporations, including winding up. We’ve also flagged to the public that, where a corporation continually fails to lodge its reports and has been subject to prosecution and still refuses, we will consider civil prosecution against individual directors.
Senator ROBERTS: So the directors can be liable?
Ms Stroud: It’s a lengthy and expensive exercise for ORIC to peruse civil litigation against directors that continually fail, hence why we flagged it in our recent regulatory posture. It’s done so because, where a corporation is prosecuted for failing to lodge its reports, it’s an offence of the corporation, and the corporation is what pays the fine if the court imposes one. Our intention now is that, where directors sit behind that, we will civilly pursue individual directors. I’ve also got with me Deputy Register Andrew Huey, who can help answer your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any suggestion of fraud being involved or incompetence being involved, or is it just apathy? You mentioned apathy. What would be the defining characteristics?
Ms Stroud: For the small corporations—again, that’s 84 per cent of corporations not lodging reports—I would say it is a capacity and capability issue, or challenge, and a degree of apathy around reporting. We have no evidence that there is an immediate and direct correlation between medium and large corporations failing to lodge their financial reports and evidence of fraud, noting that, when corporations do lodge their annual reports, a quality check by us has been done, directors have signed off on it and directors have done their declaration to accept responsibility for it. That is one way of identifying where there might be red flags. But, in the main, evidence of corruption, fraud, mismanagement or negligence of director duties or abuse of director duties comes through other avenues—through referrals, reports of concerns and complaints.
Senator ROBERTS: Finally, apart from keeping track of it, what changes in oversight will you introduce to ensure the integrity of the management of these Indigenous corporations? Have you got an overall plan for raising the standards?
Ms Stroud: We have refreshed our two-day guidance training. It’s for directors sitting. Current directors are given priority. Members and relevant staff can also attend the training, and we’ve also introduced a new one-day ‘understanding your finance’ training, which is designed for directors to understand how to read financials and have greater confidence in asking questions, knowing what to look for and holding their management staff accountable for financial reporting to them.
Senator ROBERTS: Building understanding to build confidence?
The Fair Work Ombudsman, when considering 33 cases involving claims of underpayment among coal miners, stated that it was using an Enterprise Agreement (EA) as the base document. This EA is being challenged as invalid and void due to alleged fundamental deficiencies and fraud. The EA pays less than what comparable workers receive under the Award.
I challenged the Ombudsman’s office for betraying workers who were clearly being exploited by their employers, in collusion with the CFMEU. This exploitation was enabled by a highly questionable decision made by a Commissioner, who appeared not to have fully considered the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) before approving the proposed, inadequate EA.
It appears the Commission can approve an EA “on the papers” when the union and employer are aligned, without a thorough examination of the agreement’s impact on workers.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Great. Thank you very much. We’ll open with questions, then, and I’ll start the call with Senator ROBERTS.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. We’re getting pretty familiar, Ms Booth.
Ms Booth: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are pretty simple tonight. What is the total number of matters being investigated in the coal sector? I’m particularly interested in those matters that came out of the One Nation analysis, in which labour hire payments to coal workers were and are below what would be an award casualised rate, if such a thing existed—it doesn’t, but if it did. Can you confirm for me again how many matters are in that category? My recollection is that there were around 14 individuals.
Ms Booth: As of 26 September this year, we had 33 cases under investigation and had finalised an additional 13 cases in the black coalmining industry. That is in Mr Campbell’s jurisdiction, so I will pass to him.
Mr Campbell: I’ll obviously assist you with questioning on this subject. We have Steven Ronson here to assist with details as well, given the nature of your questions. We are happy to go into any detail you like.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll let you get on with resolving the cases and the complaints.
Mr Campbell: That works for me.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Can you give me a rundown on the number and types of entities that have been consulted in relation to those matters—specifically the labour hire companies and the mine owners, perhaps—and what sort of feedback and cooperation you have received?
Mr Ronson: Of those 33 cases that Ms Booth referred to, there are 25 employing entities. There are 25 different companies, if you like, that are being investigated.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Booth, can I come back to you: what was the total number you said?
Ms Booth: There are 33 currently under investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Thirty-three? I thought you said three! Thank you. I know that the analysis we published states that there are large underpayments, based on a comparison to what would or should be a casualised award rate. But there’s a trick, because the coal award does not have casualised rates, as we’ve discussed at length. That being the case, are you investigating the matters and assessing whether underpayments have occurred compared to what would be a casual award rate if such a rate existed?
Ms Volzke: As I think we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, these issues and some of the complexities arise in relation to the absence of casual operation rules under the award. What we’ve done is proceed on the basis of the information before us in determining what, if any, underpayments might be payable in relation to each of those matters that we’re investigating.
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the base rates, so to speak, because you’re talking about casual?
Ms Volzke: If there’s an enterprise agreement in operation in relation to a particular employee, then it would be the enterprise agreement that, notionally, we would be looking at. Obviously, if there weren’t one, there might be contracts of employment et cetera as well. It’s obviously going to depend on the particular circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’m getting to is this: would you compare it with the base rate of permanent employees doing the same job and add 25 per cent to take into account a lack of other conditions of employment?
Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about before, because the award doesn’t provide for that for those employees— who, I think, in that cohort, mostly had enterprise agreements relevant to their employment. That would be the document that we would look to test against any potential underpayments.
Senator ROBERTS: So the enterprise agreement, which we think was not fair, would still be the base rate that you would compare it to?
Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about previously, as the independent regulator, we apply the law as it stands. Where agreements have been made and approved by the Fair Work Commission as valid enterprise agreements, then those are the industrial instruments that we will use to determine any underpayments.
Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission has approved an enterprise agreement that is grossly underpaid compared to the award, you would go with the enterprise agreement.
Ms Volzke: I can’t comment on the fairness or otherwise, but what I would say is that, where it has been lawfully made and is in operation for the particular period of time that might be in question for a particular employee. That’s the instrument that we test those underpayments against.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you identified instances where labour hire casual employees have been paid below the full-time award rate? If so, that would clearly constitute underpayment.
Mr Ronson: I’m not aware that that’s the case so far, but I’m happy to take that on notice just to double-check.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ongoing underpayments is the next topic. Minister, we have been following the same job, same pay applications in the coal sector, which, on our observation is a very slow process. By the way, I led the development of same job, same pay in the Senate. Given that there are a significant number of coal operations not yet subject to the same job, same pay regime, One Nation would assess that there are still large numbers of casual labour hire coalminers that continue to be underpaid when compared with the casualised award rate. Would you concur with that assessment? I guess you would not.
Mr Ronson: I think the best way of answering that question would be that what we’ve tried to do in the course of this investigation is heighten awareness of our investigation. We have a dedicated email address specifically for these cases alone, so that anyone who’s working in the sector, or has worked in the sector, can request our assistance. Yet, as we’ve explained, I suppose each case will fall on its own merits. We investigate each case as to what we find. We follow the evidence in that particular case.
Senator ROBERTS: At the nub of this issue, from the very start, has been the claim by many casual coalminers—and I agree with them entirely; so do some experts in industrial relations—that the enterprise agreements under which they’re working are dodgy. They’re grossly under the award rates. But what you’re saying is that’s become the new benchmark. That’s what I got out of Ms Volzke and you.
Mr Ronson: What we’re saying, as Ms Volzke put, is that we’ll apply the law as it is. If the enterprise agreement is in place for that particular worker, that’s what we apply.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t look at the roots of the enterprise agreement—that it’s below the award rate with a lack of the casual premium.
Mr Ronson: We will look to see whether the enterprise agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission. If it has, and if it’s a valid industrial instrument and it’s operative, we will apply it.
Senator ROBERTS: So you won’t look into whether or not it passes the BOOT test?
Mr Ronson: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that the 33 matters we’re focused on, and that you’re investigating, are of coalminers who have worked across a range of labour hire companies in a range of mines, would it be fair to say that the numbers of labour hire coalminers who have potentially been underpaid is probably very significant—that is, that large numbers of coalminers worked, and are continuing to work, under exactly the industrial instruments of the individuals you are investigating? Our estimate is that the number would easily exceed 5,000, possibly 10,000. Would that be a reasonable guess?
Ms Volzke: The premise of that question is something that we wouldn’t agree with, for the reasons that we’ve spoken about. Where there are enterprise agreements that applied and were validly approved by the commission, that is the document or instrument that we use to determine whether or not there have been underpayments. The other thing, and I know we’ve spoken about this previously, is that it’s not necessarily the case that, because the award doesn’t provide for operational casual roles, it means that a particular employee would therefore be full time. It might, for example, be that they are award free, in which case their entitlements are by reference to the national minimum wage, for example. Another outcome might be a technical breach of the award that doesn’t necessarily carry consequences. As we spoke about previously as well, the original 15A definition of casual employment that was inserted back in 2021, I think, applied with retrospective application, which was close to a designation approach to casual. It would capture many of the historical complainants in this particular cohort that we’re talking about.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems to me that miners are not getting justice for a trick that was pulled on them by the mine owner, by the labour hire firm, which includes in one case an Australian offshoot of the world’s largest labour hire firm, Recruit Holdings from Japan, and by the mining division of the CFMEU, which is now back to being the Mining and Energy Union. You’re going to endorse it because they came up with a Fair Work Commission approved document.
Ms Volzke: We’ve also spoken previously about who has standing to determine or challenge whether or not an agreement has been validly approved. It’s somebody who’s aggrieved by that, and that doesn’t extend to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Certainly it would be open to another party if they so wish to challenge that.
Senator ROBERTS: Good luck getting a law case cheaply in this country. We’re aware that, in your investigations, the Fair Work Ombudsman has a six-year time restriction on being able to litigate to require compensation for underpayment. You’ve indicated, Ms Booth, in prior Senate estimates hearings that you have not restricted your investigations to the six-year limit but have gone back much further. Is that correct?
Ms Booth: That is my recollection of the evidence we gave.
Mr Campbell: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ve discussed in these hearings in the past that the underpayments that we have assessed occurred because of the absence of a casualised rate in the coal award. We’ve discussed that to some extent. I’d like to look at it from another angle. If your investigation finds the practical evidence that supports our analysis in the 33 matters that you are investigating, I assume that there may be legal difficulties in successfully prosecuting for compensation because of this legal trick, which is what I’m hearing now. It may be legally complex to have the courts agree that underpayments were illegal. Is it that underpaid casual labour hire coalminers are victims of a legal trick? Could that be a reasonable point of view?
Mr Campbell: I don’t think that we’d come to that view. We wouldn’t make a decision around the enforcement outcome we’d seek to impose in a certain circumstance until the conclusion of the investigation. The statute of limitations we’ve talked about previously goes to enforcement by way of litigation, for example, but there are other ways that we can seek to resolve a historical matter, which is also something we’ve discussed before, where we’ve found evidence of that contravention or an enforceable entitlement. We haven’t got to that point in these matters, so it remains open to us to consider how we will resolve them.
Senator ROBERTS: Would the Fair Work Ombudsman’s task of seeking compensation be more straightforward if legislation existed that resolved the legal trick? We refer to clarifying that casualised labour hire coalminers should be and should have been paid 25 per cent more than the full-time rate under the coal award. Yes or no—would legislation make it easier?
Mr Campbell: I don’t think we’ve got an opinion on that.
Ms Booth: I think you’re asking us, if the law were different, would we apply the different law?
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask the minister. Minister, we congratulate the government on eventually requesting the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate gross underpayments of casual labour hire coalminers. It’s taken about 6½ years. The investigations from the Fair Work Ombudsman to date appear to be heading in the direction where the underpayments that we assessed were occurring may be confirmed on the evidence of the cases being investigated by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Further it is likely, we believe, that any potential compensation may be legally difficult to enforce, which is what I’m hearing, because of a trick using enterprise agreements to get around the fact that the black coal mining industry award does not allow for a casual rate for comparative purposes. It’s our view that the most likely way to obtain justice for casualised labour hire coalminers would be to have legislation that resolves the legal trick we referred to, clarifying that casualised labour hire coalminers should be and should have been paid at least 25 per cent more than the full-time rate under the award. Assuming that the evidence from the Fair Work Ombudsman that supports the underpayment analysis is forthcoming, would the government be interested in considering such legislation for wage justice for these coalminers? If so, One Nation would be very keen to work with the government on such legislation and to lend our full support. Would the government consider that?
Senator Walsh: The government has passed a suite of reforms to our workplace laws to get wages moving in this country, including the closing the loopholes legislation that established the same job, same pay principles and the secure jobs, better pay legislation. We’ve improved rights for casuals, we’ve reinvigorated bargaining, we’ve done a lot of work to close the gender pay gap and we’re really focused on improving the rights of Australians to be paid fairly for the work that they do. You’re referring to matters that I think are best addressed by the team that’s at the bench in terms of matters that the Fair Work Ombudsman has apparently been investigating.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re not allowed to talk about policy and legislation. That’s what I’m asking.
Senator Walsh: You referred, I think, in your question to a report that may be coming. Is that correct?
Ms Booth: We haven’t concluded the investigation at this time.
Senator ROBERTS: You talk about rights, Minister. When you look at the people on a dodgy enterprise agreement compared with those on the black coal mining industry award base rate plus 25 per cent casual loading, you see that this is clearly Australia’s largest wage theft case, and that means that workers have been betrayed. This has been signed off on by the Mining and Energy Union, or the CFMEU mining division, by the labour hire companies, including the largest in the world, by mine owners and by the Fair Work Commission. Workers have got no protection whatsoever. If this goes through, workers have got no protection. There are thousands of them in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. It’s blatant exploitation. Will the government step in, subject to the report?
Senator Walsh: From a government perspective, it seems appropriate to wait for the report of the Fair Work Ombudsman and give it due consideration when the report’s concluded.
