During my time with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) in Senate estimates, I raised serious concerns about the handling of the Robodebt referral. The inspector’s report revealed that Commissioner Brereton declared a conflict of interest because he knew one of the individuals involved—yet despite that, his involvement in the decision-making was extensive.
The inspector found maladministration under the NACC Act. Mr Brereton contributed to discussions, settled meeting minutes, helped formulate reasons for the decision, and even shaped the media statement. That’s not how a conflict of interest should be managed. To make matters worse, the press release contained a false statement about investigative powers—an error acknowledged by the commission. For a former Supreme Court appeals judge, that’s a serious mistake. This isn’t about one error; it’s about trust.
Australians need confidence that the NACC operates with integrity and independence. When conflicts of interest aren’t properly managed, that confidence is undermined.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: In relation to the robodebt referral, Mr Brereton declared that one of the people who was subject to the decision not to investigate was a person he knew well.
Mr Reed: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Where did he know this person from?
Mr Reed: The letter that was tabled here didn’t identify that person’s name. The inspector has investigated that matter, and her report was produced on 30 October last year. It goes into a reasonable amount of detail about how that conflict of interest was managed, and it made a finding of maladministration against the commissioner.
Senator ROBERTS: Maladministration?
Mr Reed: That’s correct, under the NACC Act.
Senator ROBERTS: Despite declaring the conflict of interest, his involvement in the decision-making was comprehensive. That’s what the inspector said.
Mr Reed: That’s what the inspector found.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m now quoting the inspector, who said Mr Brereton contributed to the discussion at that meeting, settled the minutes of that meeting and was involved in formulating the reasons for the decision and also the terms of the media statement.
Mr Reed: And all of those facts are on the record in the inspector’s report.
Senator ROBERTS: And the decision to not investigate someone who had a close association with him; that is correct too?
Mr Reed: Sorry, I think I missed the point of the question.
Senator ROBERTS: The decision to not investigate someone that he had a close association with was his decision?
Mr Reed: The decision taken in relation to robodebt was not a decision of the commissioners; it was a decision or a matter—it was under assessment. It wasn’t an investigation; it was under assessment. That matter was allocated to a deputy commissioner because of the conflict of interest. What the inspector found was that he hadn’t managed that conflict of interest effectively—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying.
Mr Reed: and, therefore, the decision about robodebt was made by a deputy commissioner, not by the commissioner.
Senator ROBERTS: Is my understanding correct that the press release on the decision not to investigate robodebt contained a false statement that another commissioner had the power to investigate those people, and did he, Mr Brereton, suggest including that when he helped formulate the media release?
Mr Reed: All of that was covered in the inspector’s report and—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I know.
Mr Reed: the commission acknowledged, as part of that, that that was an error in that statement.
Senator ROBERTS: From a former Supreme Court appeals court judge who would have known this?
Mr Reed: People make mistakes.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a hell of a mistake. He would have known this. It would have been ingrained in him.
Mr Reed: This has all been explored in the inspector’s report. We’re going back over old ground here.
Senator ROBERTS: The inspector said his involvement in the robodebt decision to not investigate his mates was an error of judgement, would you just acknowledge?
Mr Reed: I don’t think those are the words that were used.
Senator ROBERTS: Was it an error of judgement?
Mr Reed: No. I don’t think ‘mate’ was referred to in that report, but I might be wrong.
Senator ROBERTS: So what would you call it? A colleague? An associate?
Mr Reed: It was a colleague from a former life.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been through Mr Brereton’s former position in the appeals court in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That’s arguably the second highest tier of court in Australia. Is he really trying to make us believe, through you, that, given his experience, he would make such a consequential error of judgement?
Mr Reed: The error has been acknowledged, and it’s on the record, so I’m not quite sure where this is heading.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s heading to a loss of confidence in the NACC. That’s where it’s headed.
Mr Reed: I think it’s unfair that one matter, one aspect of the work of the commission, one of the first decisions that was announced about an assessment, as distinct from an investigation, somehow undermines the NACC for the rest of time.
Foreign governments are acting against Australians right here on our soil—and that’s why One Nation support the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025. This bill finally allows foreign states and their agents to be listed as terrorist organisations when they plan, assist, or advocate attacks against Australia. It’s about protecting Australians from intimidation, bullying, and terrorism.
The bill also creates new offences to stop anyone helping these entities, while allowing legitimate engagement where required. Yes, the reversal of the onus of proof is serious, and we’ll keep scrutinising it—but in this case, it’s justified to prevent deadly acts of terrorism. Australians of all backgrounds deserve protection.
One Nation backs this bill because every Australian deserves protection from terrorism and foreign coercion.
Transcript
One Nation has called out foreign governments and their agents who act against Australian citizens and even against our country right here in Australia. These include China, some Islamic nations and some members of the former Soviet Union. The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 would amend the Criminal Code to enable listing of certain foreign states or foreign state entities as terrorist organisations. Currently, this is not possible with the law, because foreign states or foreign state entities are not able to be listed as terrorist organisations. Two lawyers, including a barrister, and their staff have scrutinised this bill for One Nation, and our senators have considered and discussed the bill. The bill would authorise the Governor-General to list in a regulation foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism. That’s wonderful. The precondition to this occurring is that the minister for the Australian Federal Police, who is the home affairs minister, must believe on reasonable grounds that the foreign state or entity has engaged in, prepared or planned, assisted or fostered the doing of a terrorist act targeted against Australia or, in addition, if the entity has advocated doing a terrorist act that was targeted at Australia. The minister can only act with the agreement of the foreign affairs minister.
Secondly, the bill creates new offences which would criminalise conduct in which these entities engage and criminalise the conduct of persons who would seek to assist or support these activities. Additionally, it provides for appropriate defences for people who the law requires, for example, to engage with a listed entity or engage with an entity for a legitimate purpose. One aspect that has raised some concerns, though, is the reversal of the onus of proof that will apply when some defendants raise certain defences, where the defendant must establish the defence on the balance of probabilities. For example, a defendant may have the onus of establishing that they took all reasonable steps to disassociate themselves from a particular terrorist entity. The reversal of the onus of proof is a major event in legislation and should not be done lightly. Nonetheless, it appears justified here because of the nature of the offending behaviour.
We in One Nation have noticed this increasing trend in Labor-sponsored legislation over the last few years, and that sounds alarm bells to those who are responsible for scrutinising good policy. We’re very concerned about this trend. At times, this is a precursor to control and may reflect today’s Labor’s propensity to control. This reversal of the onus of proof must be carefully scrutinised on each occasion on which it’s raised. On this occasion, the government has justified this approach because of the preventive nature of measures that are being enabled to protect the Australian community from targeted acts of terrorism and the high risks of death or injury associated with such acts of terrorism. This bill’s additional protections are reasonable in the overall circumstances, given that radicalised Islamic extremists perpetrate relatively frequent terror attacks and Chinese Communist Party agents intimidate and bully law-abiding Australian citizens of Chinese dissent here in Australia. One Nation believes that Australian citizens of all backgrounds must be protected. We support this bill.
Australia was once the lucky country—rich in opportunity and security. Today, families are working harder yet going backwards. Young Australians can’t afford homes or start families. Homelessness is rampant. This is managed decline.
Globalist agendas and net zero policies are stripping wealth from citizens while predatory, parasitic billionaires profit.
Farmers are under attack using the guise of “climate change” – reducing their ability to produce the food and fibre that’s needed to sustain and clothe the global population.
We’re seeing foreign-owned insurance rackets, radical content in children’s spaces, a growing war on Christianity, digital ID rollouts and censorship laws. Australia is being pushed toward a future of fear, surveillance, and thought policing.
Mass migration has overwhelmed infrastructure and law enforcement. One Nation will implement net negative migration—deporting visa rorters, overstayers, and offenders, and limiting new arrivals until Australia catches up. Our fight isn’t about race—it’s about patriotism, fairness, and preserving our identity.
One Nation will repeal Digital ID, Net Zero, and DEI measures, protect women’s spaces, enshrine free speech, and defend your right to protect your family. Australian wealth will stay in Australia to create jobs for Australians.
One Nation provides strong leadership and a clear vision. We will restore opportunity, security, and freedom for every Australian.
Australians have had enough. It’s time to put Australians first.
Transcript
For 30 years, Pauline Hanson has warned Australians the life they had growing up was slipping away. We were once a country so rich in resources, in harmony and in security that we were called the lucky country. Our national slogan was ‘She’ll be right’ because it always was. It’s now clear from talking to everyday Australians attending One Nation’s branch launches that Australia is no longer right. Australians are working harder and still going backwards. Social cohesion is unravelling in the face of over immigration, mass migration. Our children do not have the opportunities my generation enjoyed. Buying a home, starting a family and enjoying a life of peace and abundance is not in the future of most young Australians. This is called managed decline. Homelessness in Australia is rampant in a way that just a few years ago would have caused outrage. People now walk past the tent cities and rough sleepers, and, rather than outrage, they give thanks that they have been spared so far.
Farmers are being demonised using net zero junk science, reducing their ability to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. The United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero is about transferring wealth from everyday citizens into the pockets of predatory parasitic billionaires who are being protected with a growing security state designed to control us not protect us. We now have ruinous electricity bills, racketeering from foreign owned insurance companies, perversion disguised as tolerance and sex instruction manuals written for young children available to read in the children’s section of public libraries. There’s a war on Christianity, often coming from fake Christians in very high office, and there’s an agenda underway to advance Islam over Australia’s national security interests. For everyday Australians these are all shock points causing and awakening. For those who haven’t yet been shocked, your time will soon arrive. Look around—internet age-gating and compulsory digital IDs are rolling out as we speak. Mis- and disinformation censorship laws are current being stage-managed into existence in the Labor-Greens stitch-up, based on the Morrison-Littleproud Liberal-Nationals government’s designs. This bill is designed to usher in a new age of fear—of late night knocks on the door and of family members being snatched up and sent to prison for thought crimes, as the UK and parts of Europe have been doing for years now.
Australia is now suffering mass migration, with many coming here to build Australia and so many arriving to take a slice of what has already been built. Attendees at our branch launches tell me they no longer feel safe in their own homes. Their children are not safe playing outside, and our women are not safe walking after dark. Every day, with every new poll, it’s clear that we the people are waking up to the global agenda that the Labor Party, the Greens, the Teals and the globalist Liberals are promoting—an evil agenda designed to make the world’s predatory billionaires even more rich and powerful.
Let me make my position very clear: immigration grew this country. Greek, Yugoslav, Italian, British, South American and Vietnamese arrivals all rewarded Australia for the opportunity we gave them, through their loyalty, hard work and endeavour. Some of them made their way into state and federal parliament—a wonderful example of the opportunity available to new Australians in their own home.
I hope the changing political landscape in the near future will bring together Australian nationalists of all backgrounds and races to save this beautiful country from the greed of crony capitalists and the tyranny they’re spreading. Recent well-attended protests must have the billionaires and their political and media lap dogs terrified, as they should be. The common sense of the Australian people has thrown off the shackles of political correctness. People are realising the water around them is almost to the boil and action is necessary.
One Nation offers strong leadership to restore opportunity, wealth and abundance for all. We will repeal the digital ID, social media age ban, all net zero measures and all DEI and related measures so our women are safe in women’s spaces and so Australia can once again know what a woman is. One Nation will enshrine freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and your right to defend your family in your own home, with force where necessary—castle law. Australian wealth will be invested in Australia, creating jobs for all who are here to work.
I notice Prime Minister Albanese has just promised to loan almost $2 trillion of Australian superannuation money to America, to make America great again. What about Australia? President Trump is doing great things in America and for peace around the world. Wouldn’t it be great if our Prime Minister visited Australia and did the same thing here? When I hear misguided people talking about White Australia, one way or the other, I wonder if they have given this phrase enough thought. The world’s crony capitalists are all white and almost all male. Their tokenistic campaigns like net zero, transgenderism, DEI and feminism and their war on masculinity all stop at the door of their palaces of power in London, Geneva, Zurich and New York. Let me be clear: One Nation does not confuse skin colour with patriotism. Ours is not a conversation about skin colour. It’s a conversation about loving our country, pulling your weight and following our laws.
In the Senate yesterday, I heard Senator Mehreen Faruqi use the phrase ‘white people’ derogatorily. I must direct a rhetorical question to Senator Faruqi. Senator, you realise your party is white, yes? The left see race where none exists or where it’s irrelevant to the matter being discussed, and that’s the definition of racism. The Greens are racist. How about we all stop talking about white people and instead discuss our real problems, starting with managed decline.
Today, another Greens senator, another white male who is part of Greens party leadership, called every Australian who attended the recent marches for Australia ‘scoundrels’. Every day Australians concerned about where their country is heading are, according to Greens leaders, ‘scoundrels’. Marching under Australian flags? Scoundrels. Protesting peacefully instead of using violence, as the left often do? Scoundrels. If Palestine and Pakistan matter more to you than Australia, if you hate this country so much, might I recommend One Nation’s one-way airport express—we’ll take you to the airport, leave you there and put you on a plane. The Greens preach hate, division and separation to cripple people in victimhood, dependence and hate. That’s how today’s Greens get votes. Thirty years ago, Senator Pauline Hanson saw all of this coming. That’s why our party is called One Nation: to unite, liberate and strengthen all Australians as individuals and as communities and to strengthen us as a nation. We will defend the Australian ideal of one community made of people from many different backgrounds and religions, working together to lift all Australians.
Our vision has nothing to do with skin colour or religion within the limits of social harmony. After all, every human has red blood. One Nation tells the truth and strengthens every Australian with the truth. We believe it’s fine to bring your own culture with you providing it fits in with and around our Australian culture. Do not try and change our culture, our way of life, to make room for yours. If you have come here to leech off our welfare and take for yourselves the wealth our forebears have created over hundreds of years then you can join the Greens at the airport.
We will remigrate hundreds of thousands of people who have deliberately broken their visa requirements, finished studying or rorted the visa system and taken advantage of Australia. This includes deporting people who have deliberately broken their visa conditions, students who have completed their study and never left and the families who came with them. Since when did accepting students turn into accepting half their family permanently? It includes students who came here to study and never did study and visa holders who have committed an indictable offence. We will implement net negative migration and limit new arrivals until infrastructure and law enforcement can catch up with Labor’s flood of new arrivals. Net negative. We will reverse Labor-Liberal mass migration—reverse decades of it since John Howard doubled immigration. We will still allow a small number of workers with skills we need, especially in building trades, but that will be many less than the number of people who leave—net negative migration.
The Prime Minister of Australia supports President Trump putting America first yet continues to put Australia last. I’ve heard the same message over and over at public meetings in recent years. Australia has had a gutful. Shut the gate. Tighten standards. Be careful who we let into the country—only producers. Preserve Australian identity and heritage. Australians wants our country back.
PM Albanese called communist China a “friend.” Let’s be clear: China produces Australia’s yearly carbon dioxide output every 12 days and is building more coal-fired power stations—98 gigawatts last year alone, one-and-a-half times Australia’s entire electricity market. Yet Australians are being forced to sacrifice our living standards, pay skyrocketing power bills, and lose manufacturing jobs on the altar of net zero. I asked Minister Wong what penalties she’s threatened against China for doing the opposite of what her government demands from Australians. The answer? None.
Instead of holding China accountable, this government is destroying our cheap, reliable coal generation to satisfy foreign dictates from the UN, the World Economic Forum, and the Paris Agreement. Minister Wong admitted the market has turned against coal because of policy instability—but that instability was created by the very politicians pushing net zero. They claim this is about “opportunity” and “prosperity,” yet Australians are paying the price while China powers ahead with coal.
Net zero is not about facts or fairness—it’s about control. The government says the world is moving, but the truth is China is moving in the opposite direction, using our coal while we shut ours down.
This hypocrisy is costing Australians jobs, wealth, and affordable energy. One Nation will keep fighting to end this madness and put Australia first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Last week, Prime Minister Albanese called communist China a friend. A recent study shows that, in every 12 days, China produces Australia’s yearly carbon dioxide output. Each year, China increases its carbon dioxide output. China has 66 coal-fired power stations for every one of Australia’s and is building more. Australians have been asked to sacrifice our living standards, power bills and manufacturing jobs on the altar of net zero. Minister, what have you threatened to levy on China if they don’t do the same thing your government is asking Australians to do—to stop using our coal? Or are the climate dictates turning your government into hypocrites on the world stage?
Senator WONG (Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): Thank you, Senator. I would make a few points. The first point I’d make about our commitments to reduce emissions is that we are making commitments as a country because we recognise the economic imperative of transforming our economy in the context where so much of the global economy is doing the same thing. I appreciate, Senator, that you and I just simply will not agree on this. We see the imperative to transform our economy and take advantage of the opportunity renewable energy brings. We see what is happening across the world, and we want to ensure that Australia has the opportunity to continue to be a prosperous and strong nation in that context.
We simply have a different view on why, as a country, we should not turn our back on climate change. We should not turn our back on renewable energy, and, frankly, we should not turn our back on facts. The facts are that the world is moving. The facts are that coal-fired power is declining in this country. Was it 24 out of 28—24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing under the coalition. That gives us a very clear view about what the transition is.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: If the Prime Minister’s friends in communist China can use Australia’s coal and you won’t tell them off, why can’t Australia use our coal here? Are you too scared of communist China to hold them accountable?
Senator WONG: Senator, 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing within the decade under the coalition. At that time, eight had already closed, including Hazelwood, because they were too old and at the end of life. The absence of a stable policy framework meant that investors voted with their feet—or, in this case, the money—and didn’t invest.
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I rise on a point of order: relevance. We’re talking about China, not the coalition.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. The minister is being relevant to your question.
Senator WONG: I am making the point that, whatever you may think—and I disagree with a great deal of what you say—about why you support coal, the market is not supporting coal. I mean—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister Wong, did you want to continue?
Senator WONG: No.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Come to order. Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Your friends in communist China began and resumed construction of 98 gigawatts of coal power last year alone. Many of these will use Australian coal. That is one-and-a-half times Australia’s entire national electricity market capacity in one year. Why is your government destroying our cheap coal generation in our country to satisfy foreign dictates from the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and Paris Agreement while communist China does the opposite—China, not Malcolm Roberts?
Senator WONG: Again, I disagree with almost everything you have just put to me in that question. What I would respond to specifically is the point about the why. You see, we are not doing this because other people are telling us to do this; we are doing this because we believe it is the right thing for the country, the right thing for future generations but it is also the right thing for our economy. Amidst all of the interviews that were done recently by the coalition in the last 72 hours, Senator Bragg made a very important point when he was talking about net zero and the policy debates of the coalition. He said, ‘The debate is over. What I am saying is, in terms of the economic debate around the world, it is over. Capital markets have made their minds up. There is a wall of money going to renewable energy.’
One Nation backed Senator Kovacic’s call for action on CFMEU corruption, criticising Labor for failing to deliver on its promise to clean up the union. Fifteen months after pledging reform, the government has instead seen its own anti-corruption appointee sacked over bribery allegations.
Meanwhile, violence and criminal influence within the CFMEU remain. Recent media reports reveal bikies and gangsters still hold significant power inside the union. Labor made this possible by abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) in 2022—no surprise, given the CFMEU is one of Labor’s biggest campaign donors.
On top of corruption, Australia faces its largest wage theft scandal: over $1 billion allegedly stolen from coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. Thousands of workers have lost entitlements and protections, with some owed more than $200,000.
CFMEU bosses colluded with labour hire firms and mine owners, stripping miners of rights while regulators looked the other way. The union’s influence even extends to boards controlling insurance and leave schemes, creating deep conflicts of interest.
Transcript
Firstly, One Nation wants to thank Senator Kovacic for her matter of public importance. I will quote it:
The Prime Minister promised to tackle CFMEU corruption, yet 15 months later one of the very people hired to stamp it out has been sacked over allegations of bribery and corruption, demonstrating that Labor’s mismanagement is only protecting the problem, not fixing it
One Nation agrees, because we support workers. We are the workers’ party today. Labor has had many conflicts of interest in its dealings with the CFMEU over many, many years. It abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission oversight in 2022. Labor gave the CFMEU free rein to just go for it. Channel 9’s 60Minutes program on Sunday showed that violence is continuing as usual from union bosses involved in the CFMEU despite the administrator. Here are some quotes. ‘The people who were running it are still running it, not the administrator.’ ‘The CFMEU remains a harbouring ground for criminals and thugs.’ ‘They are untouchable.’ ‘Bikies and gangsters still have a strong reach into the CFMEU and they thrive within the CFMEU.’ Thugs have a stronger position now within the CFMEU than before the administrator was appointed.’
The CFMEU is a major donor to Labor’s election campaigns. Now consider Australia’s largest wage theft case, with casual coalminers in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley losing their entitlements, losing their pay and being grossly underpaid. I want to thank Stuart Bonds from the Hunter for raising it back in 2019. We’ve been pursuing it ever since. That’s because I have been a coalface miner. There are 5,000 to 10,000 victims of the CFMEU in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, individual miners owed as much as $211,000, some more than $40,000 per year. It’s more than $1 billion in wage theft, with workers stripped of protections, workers’ compensation bypassed, coalminers insurance out, safety complaints not followed through and workers stripped of entitlements, long service leave and leave in general.
There is a web of conflicts, with the boards of Coal Mines Insurance, Coal LSL and Coal Services all having 50 per cent members directors of the CFMEU. It gives them access to miners’ contact details. All of this was due to collusion of the CFMEU union bosses at the time, maintained now by the mining and energy union, in collusion with the world’s largest labour hire firms and large foreign mine owners, which the Fair Work Commission endorsed and approved. Now the Fair Work Ombudsman is saying that it will assess whether or not it is wage theft against the new enterprise agreements that were passed as a wage scam, with the CFMEU leading the way. It’s disgraceful!
In Senate estimates, I asked questions about the Brereton Afghanistan inquiry and its implications for integrity in public office. When Mr Brereton wrote his report, he declared that command responsibility for alleged war crimes did not extend to senior officers or headquarters. That raises serious concerns.
I pressed officials on whether Mr Brereton had close associations with those officers and whether this pattern of judgment affects his fitness to lead the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The response confirmed that while his association was professional, he continued to provide advice on the inquiry—even after becoming commissioner.
Australians deserve confidence that those tasked with fighting corruption are beyond reproach. Transparency and accountability are not optional—they are essential.
What do you think? Should prior involvement in controversial inquiries disqualify someone from heading an anti-corruption body?
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: When Mr Brereton wrote his Afghanistan inquiry report he declared that command responsibility and accountability for war crime allegations does not extend to senior officers and headquarters, joint taskforce 633 and the joint operations centre. Did he know any of those officers well, or did he have a close association with any of those officers?
Mr Reed: That report was produced before the National Anti-Corruption Commission began and therefore—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to—
Mr Reed: I’m not in a position to be able to tell you about—
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?
Mr Reed: I can’t advise you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?
Mr Reed: No, I don’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice to ask Mr Brereton, please?
Mr Reed: I’m not sure. Is it relevant?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is, because it’s going to the commissioner’s fitness for the job of heading up the NACC and establishing whether there’s a pattern of behaviour here. There seems to be a pattern of behaviour, from what I can tell.
Mr Reed: I’ll pass to my colleague Rebekah O’Meagher.
Ms O’Meagher: Thank you, Philip. If it assists, in terms of the previous line of questioning, the commissioner has put it on the record that, in terms of that association, it was a professional one, not a friendship. It was a historic—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not doubting that.
Ms O’Meagher: professional association. As to the reasoning of how that error of judgement occurred, those referrals came to us in the third day of our operation as the commission, and the commissioner has explained that he maintained involvement—not decision-making but involvement—because it raised issues in terms of the breadth of corrupt conduct under the act. That was the reasoning. He declared what the conflict was on multiple occasions. He stated how he was going to manage it. And another deputy was the decision-maker for the referrals.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC received any referrals or complaints in relation to the Afghanistan inquiry that Mr Brereton conducted?
Mr Reed: It’s not something I’m going to be able to answer here.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice please?
Mr Reed: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Has Mr Brereton recused himself from the complaints against the Afghanistan inquiry, or does he need the inspector-general to tell him to do that again?
Ms O’Meagher: The commissioner has stated that he will recuse himself, and he has recused himself, from all matters involving that IGADF.
Senator ROBERTS: Has he continued to provide advice to the inspector-general of the ADF on the Brereton report? He has, hasn’t he?
Mr Reed: That’s what we were talking about earlier—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.
Mr Reed: and the answer is yes. But it was advice, not regular or structured but infrequent.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm, Mr Reed, if there have been any complaints to the NACC about the Brereton report? He’s not advising the NACC?
Mr Reed: If it was a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission about the IGADF—
Senator ROBERTS: And the Brereton report.
Mr Reed: he would recuse himself from that matter.
During a session with CSIRO at Senate Estimates, I raised serious questions about Australia’s pandemic preparedness and biosecurity.
The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza took a decade to develop, yet it was shelved during COVID. I asked CSIRO whether this plan is being updated and what lessons have been learned.
I also pressed CSIRO on their handling of live viruses—rabies, Ebola, and others—and sought assurances that Australia’s highest-security facility will never repeat the mistakes of Wuhan. CSIRO advised of their world-class biocontainment standards and of their 40-year record without a breach.
Finally, I asked Professor Sutton about his recent comments suggesting future pandemic responses could avoid harsh lockdowns. His view: policy decisions should be “less restrictive” than what we saw during COVID.
Australians deserve transparency and accountability on pandemic planning. I’ll keep asking the tough questions.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions now go to pandemic preparedness. This is the Australian—
Senator Ayres: We’re off the horses and ferrets now, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the rats and the birds.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve got three minutes.
Senator Ayres: We’re now going to move on to the main event.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza was developed over 10 years, concluding in 2019, just in time for COVID. But it wasn’t used; it was binned. As your department is pandemic preparedness, Professor Sutton, are you working on updating this plan and correcting whatever reason caused it not to be used?
Dr Hilton: Again, Professor Sutton is not responsible for the ACDP, which is our centre for pandemic preparedness. Professor Sutton is responsible for our research unit, named health and biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the CSIRO handle live viruses? Your achievement page mentions lyssavirus— including rabies and Ebola, for example. If you have live viruses, which ones do you have?
Dr Hilton: So are we back to horses and weasels and ferrets?
Senator ROBERTS: Just viruses.
Dr Hilton: Yes; we hold a number of—
Senator ROBERTS: I treat this pretty seriously.
Dr Hilton: So do I.
Senator Ayres: I’m trying, Senator.
Dr Hilton: I just want to make sure we’re going back to your first line of questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going through whether or not you handle live viruses.
Dr Hilton: I think we’ve established that. We do handle live viruses.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you assure the committee that CSIRO will not slip up in the way the Wuhan Institute of Virology did in the escape of their Frankenstein COVID experiment?
Dr Hilton: I would not characterise it in that way. CSIRO takes its responsibility for biosecurity exceptionally seriously in all of its facilities and works closely with regulators to ensure that it maintains the highest standards.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: What won’t escape?
Senator ROBERTS: Live viruses.
Dr Hilton: Any live viruses? I will give you assurance that we work assiduously to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity as an organisation, across our sites.
Senator ROBERTS: Highest standards—can you give me an assurance that they won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: Senator, we maintain our facility to the highest standards of biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Taylor: Senator, I can add that the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness is one of three facilities in the world that has the highest biocontainment. It is quite unique in its capabilities. Its box-in-a-box design means that, even if the facility fails and if electricity fails, there are triple redundancies in the system. It is world renowned for its secure capabilities. That is why we handle high consequence live viruses there, and that’s its purpose. It’s done that for 40 years without a biosecurity breach.
Senator ROBERTS: Obviously you won’t give me an ironclad guarantee, but that’s fine. In Professor Sutton’s podcast interview, conducted recently, he made the statement that the government could consider not introducing the intrusive COVID social restrictions—lockdowns for instance. Is his opinion based on the work you have done at CSIRO or could you expand on what aspects of the social restrictions should be reconsidered? If Professor Sutton can’t answer it, perhaps you could do it.
Dr Hilton: I think that would be one that Professor Sutton could shed light on—to the interview.
Senator Ayres: He’s been champing at the bit to respond!
Prof. Sutton: That reflection was really based on the fact that it’s a matter for future governments as to the policy settings in response to any future pandemic. It’s not for me to say what the settings could be, but I could certainly imagine a future in which policy decisions could be less restrictive than we’ve experienced historically.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. See, that wasn’t so difficult.
Prof. Sutton: Not at all.
Dr Hilton: It was a pleasure.
CHAIR: Thank you for your rapid-fire approach, Senator Roberts.
I spoke with the CEO of the National Blood Authority, Adjunct Professor Ms Adriana Platona. She confirmed that the Australian Government owned the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories before it was privatised. She also stated that the National Blood Authority was established in 2003.
I asked her what steps had been taken to ensure the safety of concentrates containing Factor VIII. I did not receive a satisfactory answer—rather, I was given an attempted history lesson. Ms Platona went on to explain that the National Blood Authority was created as a result of the negative issues experienced by recipients of blood products during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. She said that an apology had been issued. I question whether an apology alone is enough to compensate victims who were infected with Hepatitis C and HIV?
Ms Platona stated that there have been no contaminated blood incidents since 2003. I suggested that the Commonwealth Government surely had legacy responsibilities, at which point the Deputy Secretary of the Department, Ms Penny Shakespeare, intervened. She said that these issues were primarily the responsibility of the States and Territories. I pointed out that in March 1953 the WHO recommended that dried plasma should be taken from small pools of 10–20 donors only, for safety reasons. Apparently, by the mid-1980s in Australia, plasma was mass-pooled from large numbers of donors, contrary to WHO recommendations. I asked why this had occurred – which had to be taken on notice.
I then asked whether it was considered an acceptable risk—of high probability—that haemophiliacs would contract Hepatitis Non-A, Non-B, and Hepatitis C during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Again, I did not receive a satisfactory. I asked whether adequate compensation would be paid to the victims, as has happened in the UK, but was dismissed, and then my session was cut short by the Chair.
I will continue to seek justice for the victims of this terrible blunder by the Commonwealth and their continued denial of responsibility.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got several issues here that I’d like to discuss—National Blood Authority about tainted blood, the pelvic mesh, the Lyme disease, ATAGI following on from Professor Lawler’s comments. So I’ll start with National Blood Authority, please. Is Dr John Rowell here? No. A lot of people are plagued with tainted blood, a heavy burden. At CSL’s 2024 annual general meeting, Chair Brian McNamee stated that, prior to its privatisation, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Is that correct?
Prof. Platona: The National Blood Authority was formed in 2003 as a statutory legislative agency. I’m very happy to answer questions about the National Blood Authority’s role and work since 2003.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m wanting to know if you could confirm that before the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was sold off to the public, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.
Prof. Platona: I believe that is correct, sir.
Senator ROBERTS: What steps did the Australian government take to regulate the safety of the Factor VIII and IX concentrates manufactured by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the seventies, eighties and nineties?
Prof. Platona: As I said in the first statement, the National Blood Authority was formed in 2003. I’m happy to answer questions about the work of the agency since then. You are referring to matters that precede the formation of the National Blood Authority by several decades.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me—I know it was a long time ago, but a lot of people are severely suffering now. Whose responsibility was it at the time, Ms Platona—is it Professor?—
Prof. Platona: Yes. Ms Platona is fine.
Senator ROBERTS: to ensure the safety of the Factor VIII and XI concentrates? This has relevance to what you’re doing now.
Prof. Platona: Indeed. The National Blood Authority was formed, as I said, as a result of some negatively affected people in the seventies, eighties and nineties. My predecessor provided a lot of context in response to your question in November 2024 on Hansard, as to the steps that led to the formation of the National Blood Authority, the apology, the formation of what is now the national Red Cross Lifeblood organisation, the apology that Red Cross Lifeblood made in 2014, and a number of actions by state and territory governments to deal with, really, the failings of the blood transfusion in the past. I do not want you to think at all that I don’t think about the lives of the people that Haemophilia Foundation, for example, is working to support—not at all. I’m the officer that has got the Public Service Medal for making the direct antiviral medicines available. Those hepatitis C treatments are now considered to be best practice and curative. So I do want to acknowledge the hard circumstances of the people affected by the disease.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. Did you want to say any more on that?
Prof. Platona: I’m keen to do a good job, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How can you do a good job for people with tainted blood? It was the government’s responsibility.
Prof. Platona: Since the organisation was formed in 2003, to date there has been no contaminated blood incident.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you not have any legacy responsibilities from your predecessors? The Commonwealth government is responsible.
Ms Shakespeare: Prior to 1991, the Commonwealth’s role was largely through providing funding to state and territory governments to operate blood services. States and territories regulated the blood supply system in Australia until, as Ms Platona has explained, the National Blood Authority was established in 2003, and it now provides that national coordination. I think we also had the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. After that, there were changes to the way that blood was regulated as well. Before that, the regulation largely would have been occurring through state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: But it was overseen by the Commonwealth. Let’s go through the history, and correct me if I’m wrong, Ms Shakespeare. In March 1953, the World Health Organization released a report that recommended dried plasma should be prepared from small pools of no more than 10 to 20 donors. This was ignored, and, by the mid-1980s, factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, significantly increasing the risk of hepatitis and HIV. Why were these early recommendations ignored? You weren’t around then, but that was a federal responsibility.
Ms Shakespeare: We can try and take on notice if there’s anything in the archives about what happened in the 1950s, but it is a little bit difficult for us to talk to you about what happened at that time.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take these on notice then, please. It was in the mid 1980s. Factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, which went against the prevailing wisdom. Could you find out, Ms Shakespeare—and I thank you for your attention—if it was considered an acceptable risk that there was a high probability of haemophiliacs using factor concentrates that would be infected with hepatitis Non-A, hepatitis Non-B, hepatitis C in the seventies, eighties and nineties?
Ms Shakespeare: Senator, what I can tell you is that the first specific test for hepatitis C became available in late 1989. Australia was one of the first countries to commence using the test, in November 1989, with implementation completed by February 1990. Similarly, we were one of the first countries to introduce HIV patient screening in May 1985. When tests have become available to make sure that the blood supply was safe and could be monitored for those particular medical issues, we’ve implemented that as early as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m wondering how to help these people.
Ms Shakespeare: I think Ms Platona has spoken about some of the assistance that has been provided, and I can go through some of the help that has been provided. There was a review of the blood arrangements in 2001 that was conducted by a former High Court judge. The recommendations from that review were provided to all Australian Health Ministers and led to the establishment of the National Blood Authority and the centralised coordinated arrangements we have to ensure a safe and adequate blood supply that we still have today. We have haemovigilance—
Senator ROBERTS: Can I interrupt?
Ms Shakespeare: Of course.
Senator ROBERTS: That would assume that, prior to that, the blood wasn’t considered to be safe.
Ms Shakespeare: Decisions will have been made based on the state and territory governments’ delivery of blood products about the introduction of testing when it became available, when those tests were developed. As I said, compared to other countries, Australia was one of the first adopters and introduced those tests at a very early stage. But we didn’t just stop there. We’ve been establishing arrangements to make sure that the blood products that we provide to people today are nationally coordinated, that we’ve got consistent arrangements and that we don’t have differences between regulation and provision in different states and territories. The national haemovigilance program for Australia has been developed. That’s a set of surveillance procedures covering the entire blood transfusion chain, from donation and processing of blood to their provision and transfusion to patients. We have monitoring, reporting, investigating and analysing of adverse events related to donation processing and transfusion, and development and implementation of recommendations to prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of adverse events. So we’ve got a whole haemovigilance program that now operates that’s been developed and implemented through the National Blood Arrangements. For people that have acquired hepatitis C the direct-acting antivirals, which were listed on the PBS in 2016—at that time that was the largest single PBS listing that had ever been made. We have future-generation directantivirals that are now provided through the PBS. If I can give an example, in 2023-24, we had 9,167 scripts of a drug called glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, which is a current-generation treatment for hepatitis C at a cost to government of $161 million. In the same year, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, another medicine to treat people with hepatitis C, had 10,953 scripts at a cost to government of $131 million. So we’re providing access to those treatments. Now that covers anybody with hepatitis C. It doesn’t matter how they acquired it, but it would certainly benefit those who acquired it through the blood system before the testing was available.
Senator ROBERTS: For some of these people with tainted blood, their lives have been really shot. Perhaps you could look at the camera—and I’m not trying to put pressure on you, or Ms Platona, or the minister, but what do we do for these people? Where do they go for compensation? Britain compensated their people with tainted blood, long, long, long ago; they admitted it and got on with the job. How do these people recover? How do these people get compensation if they can’t? I know you’ve given a list of drugs. What do we do?
Ms Shakespeare: Those are curative, in many cases, direct-acting antivirals, which will be of significant benefit to people with hepatitis C. I should also say that the Australian government contributes to the hepatitis C litigation settlement schemes, which were set up and are managed by the state governments for people that were infected through the blood supply system before we had the National Blood Authority established. That offers financial settlements for people who contracted hepatitis C between 1985 and 1991. So there has been compensation made available and the Australian government contributes to that.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to have to share the call. We are tight on time.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your interest, Ms Shakespeare.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/So4yc2UKSho/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 16:20:322025-11-13 16:20:35Decades of Neglect: Victims Still Waiting for Justice
In a recent Senate hearing, I questioned the government on its decision to include a standing appropriation—an open-ended budget allocation—in its Pacific Banking Guarantee legislation. This approach bypasses the annual appropriation process, removing Senate oversight and public transparency.
The Pacific Banking Guarantee is a scheme whereby the Federal Government guarantees the operation of banks across the Pacific. If these banks encounter financial difficulties, the Federal Government will bail them out. Why this is the business of the Australian Government escapes me. Why banks such as the Commonwealth and ANZ require a Federal Government guarantee, despite earning profits exceeding $15 billion annually, is a question they refused to answer. The Guarantee itself is worth no more than $2 billion—even in the unlikely event of a total loss. This Guarantee has been provided to give the Big Four banks a competitive advantage over other banks and financial institutions. With this Guarantee, they can borrow money at lower rates, thereby increasing their profits and creating an “I owe you one” sense of obligation to the Federal Government. I assume Minister Bowen intends to leverage this influence to “encourage” investment in wind and solar energy, despite the questionable economic viability of such ventures.
This is how government operates: influence-trading using taxpayers’ money.
Standing allocations cannot be questioned, and the only way to halt this flow of money to our major banks is through legislation that overturns the allocation. Given that the Greens have supported big banking in this country throughout the Albanese Government’s term – alongside the Government itself – any effort to restore accountability to the Pacific (big) Banking Guarantee is going to fail.
This reflects the contempt of the Albanese Government. The ALP is proving to be even bigger corporate lapdogs than the Liberals were.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills requested a justification for why this bill includes a standing appropriation rather than being included in the annual appropriation bill, which would give the Senate oversight. Please explain why a standing appropriation is required.
Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks, Senator Roberts, for the question. A special appropriation is more suitable for meeting possible liabilities than annual appropriations. While the likelihood the Commonwealth will need to make a payment is very low, we may be urgently required at any time to meet liabilities arising under a guarantee, which may fall outside the usual budget cycle. This means the annual appropriation process may not be available within the timeframe any liability falls due.
Without a special appropriation, it is possible parliament will be recalled to pass an urgent appropriation or the Commonwealth can risk defaulting on its liabilities. The special appropriation is not proposed to have a direct dollar limit, as this provides the Commonwealth with flexibility to ensure it achieves a significant national interest objective, securing an Australian banking presence in the Pacific over the long term.
The Commonwealth would not provide an unlimited guarantee, however there may be circumstances where the maximum amount guaranteed under the appropriation could change. This includes if the Commonwealth entered into a new agreement with another Australian bank and the legislation limits on the types of guarantees the government can provide to guarantees—only from an ADI banking business in the Pacific region. Specifically, the legislation limits the guarantee to only the ADI’s Pacific operations.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s an open-ended budget allocation. The guarantees being provided by this government are commercial-in-confidence. This means the Senate will not have oversight on what the government is agreeing to. Is that correct?
Senator CHISHOLM: In terms of reporting obligations, any Pacific banking guarantee, including the ANZ agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank’s compliance with its obligations. This includes regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities and the compliance with bank commitments as well.
Senator ROBERTS: The duration of the ANZ guarantee is 10 years, meaning this government is binding future governments. Can the federal government withdraw from a guarantee at any time in those 10 years? If so, is there any sunset clause or time limit to the guarantees?
Senator CHISHOLM: It’s a commercial agreement that’s been entered into with the Commonwealth. There is no sunsetting clause.
Senator ROBERTS: I am told the World Bank is also working on a plan to assist correspondent banking intermediaries in the Pacific. Why didn’t you join that international effort, and will you use what they come up with as a way of sunsetting this arrangement?
Senator CHISHOLM: Any Pacific banking guarantee is expected to complement the World Bank’s Pacific Strengthening Correspondent Banking Relationships Project, the CBR project. The government strongly supports the World Bank’s work on this in terms of the work they are doing in the Pacific.
Senator ROBERTS: If you have strong confidence in the World Bank, why not let the World Bank do it?
Senator CHISHOLM: Phase 1 of the World Bank project will establish a correspondent banking relationship provider of last resorts, which countries can call upon should they lose their financial correspondent banking relationship in a particular currency. It is intended to be a fallback for when there is no other commercially viable option.
Senator ROBERTS: This bill does not specify what is being guaranteed, so let me ask. Does the guarantee extend to the Australian government guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations?
Senator AYRES: Senator Roberts, we’ve just had a small changeover. I’m just trying to ensure that I can give you accurate information. The Commonwealth provides a limited guarantee to ANZ, under this legislation, in connection with banking operations in nine markets across the Pacific and Timor-Leste.
Those markets are Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga and Vanuatu. The guarantee only covers certain eligible liabilities, and it is only triggered if certain trigger events occur and result in a loss to ANZ. The Commonwealth has only provided the guarantee for certain eligible liabilities in order to minimise the risks and potential costs of any Pacific banking guarantee to the Commonwealth and to mitigate any potential competition or market distortion risks in Pacific financial markets and the Pacific banking sector.
To preserve the non-distortionary mechanisms in the guarantee, the government will not be disclosing the specific terms of the guarantee, including the types of exposures that are covered. If it assists Senator Roberts, the government was, of course, provided with extensive commercial advice on the guarantee, including around the risks, and commercial risk assessments found the likelihood of a default to be very low.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your statement that you’d like to give me accurate information, but you didn’t answer the question. I take it that you can’t answer the question of whether or not the Australian government is guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations.
Senator AYRES: I’ll try and answer a little bit more directly, if it assists. The reason that I answer it in the way that I do, Senator Roberts, is that the advice that is provided and the terms of the guarantee are, of course, commercial in confidence, for policy reasons, in particular so that they don’t distort the banking and financial services markets in the Pacific. I’ll get the team behind me to correct me if I answer this incorrectly.
The question about the support that the Australian government provides to Pacific island countries is quite different to this set of arrangements, which is about ensuring that banking services are provided and that there is trade, the free movements of goods, investment and all of the things that go with having banking services provided with the facilitation and support of the Australian government. I hope that assists; I’m not sure that it will. If you’ve got further questions, I’ll endeavour to answer them.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t answer the question, but I’ll come back to it later. Minister, Australian banks like the ANZ raise money to lend in the market, issuing bonds and debt securities. If the intended use of that capital is to issue government-guaranteed loans to Pacific nations, which this bill would allow, does that not give banks like the ANZ a competitive advantage in the capital market? And is any oversight intended of the capital raising of Australian banks to make sure they are honest in their representations to the capital market?
Senator AYRES: Any banking guarantee in the Pacific, including this agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank’s compliance with its obligations, which include regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities, and to ensure compliance with bank commitments. There are measures undertaken in order to deal with that concern, which is at present, I would argue, theoretical.
I hope that the financial markets in this area lift to a point that is consistent with the kind of development, growth, investment and trade that the Australian government is working with our Pacific partners to facilitate. That is in their interest and in our interest for that to occur. The kinds of measures that you’re talking about—I’ll put that backwards—do not have a distortionary effect on capital markets or on financial markets.
There is extensive work that sits behind this that has been directed towards achieving that outcome. ANZ has made a number of commitments to its Pacific operations in the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu in exchange for this guarantee that includes maintaining face-to-face banking services and enhancing the ANZ Bank’s services, including digital services. That is important for people and businesses and economic growth and investment in each of those states.
It supports ongoing access to correspondent banking services in the Pacific and international money transfers, including the Australian dollar but also the New Zealand dollar and the US dollar. It will also maintain fee-free remittances for ANZ customers. That is important for facilitating more trade and more transactions. It will involve investing an additional $50 million to enhance the ANZ’s digital banking offering in the Pacific, excluding in Papua New Guinea, again, mobilised by some of the issues about making sure that the effect here is to support providing banking services where they are at risk.
The uplift that is engaged there will impact the ANZ’s retail banking operations everywhere, except for Papua New Guinea, where ANZ today currently only offers institutional banking services that play an important role for the mining sector and other parts of the Papua New Guinea economy. Alongside this, there are efforts to continue to support and promote financial inclusion and literacy, and ANZ will continue to support Pacific countries in terms of their infrastructure financing, in line with the bank’s credit risk policies.
That is the nature of the impact of the guarantee, in terms of capital markets. It should not be conflated, of course, with the efforts that the Australian government engages in through EFA and various efforts to support infrastructure development and economic development more broadly in the Pacific. This is about supporting the banking infrastructure—maybe I shouldn’t say ‘infrastructure’, because it’s confusing—the banking retail network and digital services that sit alongside that throughout the Pacific states.
Senator ROBERTS: I noticed that, in starting that answer, you used the words, ‘I hope that the financial markets lift’—I hope—to the trade, yet, in Australia, we had severe breaches of the law by senior banking and financial institution officials and no-one went to jail—no-one! You also said that you’d like to maintain face-to-face banking services in the Pacific islands, yet we can’t get that here in Australia. Minister, is this bill just putting more money in the pockets of the big four banks by lowering their borrowing costs relative to other banks?
Senator AYRES: The short answer to that question, Senator Roberts, is no. It does not achieve that objective in any practical way. It’s not one of the principles that’s engaged here. Australia does have a very well-regulated banking sector, and that is a national asset for Australia. That is important for our capacity to deliver investment and growth and financial transactions and security for borrowers and lenders and projects.
In times of financial stress, our well-regulated banking sector is a fundamental part of Australia’s economic resilience in what is a pretty challenging world that we live in. That is not related to what is being provided for here. There will always be, as you’ve alluded to, bad actors, bad things happening, malfeasance, errors, omissions or whatever in any system. I have no argument with that. That is what the regulatory sector is designed to deal with. This situation is about extending banking services that might not otherwise be extended to a part of the world that needs banking services, and it is in Australia’s interest for those to be provided.
This ensures that, through arrangements supported by this legislation and also by the commercial and non-distortionary measures, it’s provided in a way in which there is no disadvantage to the Australian banking sector—and, when I say ‘banking sector’, what I mean is the kind of services that customers and businesses would need and expect from the Australian banking sector. Quite the contrary to the final suggestion in your question, this is not a matter of the government paying an amount to the ANZ; in fact, it’s quite the reverse.
The ANZ pays an annual fee with respect to the guarantee, and the Department of Finance and the Commonwealth’s commercial advisor have provided advice on the annual fee. That fee amount, for some of the reasons that you’ve alluded to in some of your previous questions and in order to ensure that it doesn’t have a distortionary effect, is commercial in confidence and cannot be disclosed publicly. The guarantee isn’t a subsidy. It’s not a bailout. The government will not be providing any direct funding to Australian banks for their Pacific operations.
Senator ROBERTS: That sounds like a protection fee. Let’s get this straight. Banks have no risk—they have a guarantee if they have any losses—so banks cannot lose, so that sounds like a protection fee. Minister, who drafted your bill for you? The banks?
Senator AYRES: Certainly not. That is certainly not the case. This bill is drafted, this arrangement has been struck, in order to support regional communities in Australia and Pacific nations to access banking services. That is in Australia’s national interest. That is fundamentally what is engaged here. For Pacific nations, remaining connected to global finance is one of their highest priorities because it supports their own economic development and their economic resilience. Investment in capability; investment in new businesses; microfinance for small businesses; and making sure that project finance can be accessed for the kinds of mining, development, manufacturing and other projects that deliver good jobs, stable investment, national economic growth, regional interdependence and economic resilience in the region—all of that is in Australia’s national interest.
Those are the questions that are being engaged here. In terms of regional Australia, this government has secured commitments from the banks that previous governments have failed to secure—a moratorium on regional bank closures from the four major banks, as well as an agreement to increase their commitment to, and their investment in, Bank@Post. I grew up in a little country town. I know how important those services are. And I know you would not be so mischievous as to suggest that there is a relationship between the services provided to regional Australians through their banks and the government’s determination to protect that—
CHAIR: Minister, I hate to interrupt you, but it’s 1.30.
A good idea has many parents—just look at the push to suspend costly National Construction Code changes. One Nation proposed it first, saving $50K per home. Now the Liberals and Labor are claiming credit.
Yet the real crisis is homelessness, driven by mass immigration policies started by the Liberals and turbocharged by Labor—over 500,000 arrivals a year while Aussies sleep in cars.
Only One Nation has a comprehensive housing policy. We would cut demand by stopping illegal immigration and visa abuse, ban foreign home ownership, slash construction costs by ending net zero and overregulation. On the finance side, One Nation would roll HECS debt into home loans and allow super to fund deposits.
It’s time to put Australians first.
Transcript
A good idea or a popular idea has many parents. A bad idea or an unpopular idea is an orphan. Well, look at this! One Nation came up with the idea of holding the National Construction Code changes—stopping them, suspending them—to save $50,000 per house in construction costs. That was One Nation, before the election! Now we see Senator Bragg taking ownership of it for the Liberal Party. Then we see the Labor Party coming up with the idea at the roundtable. Where did it come from? One Nation. We have a homelessness crisis in this country. Every major provincial city in Queensland has homeless people sleeping in cars. Working mums and dads are sleeping in their cars. They come home to see if their kids are still there. Why? Because the Liberal Party started mass catastrophic immigration under John Howard, and the Labor Party has turbocharged it now with over 500,000 new immigrants per year.
That’s what’s driving the homelessness crisis. And only One Nation has a comprehensive policy for housing—working on the demand side, working on the supply side, working on the cost side and working on the finance side to reduce demand. To stop immigration, we would deport immediately 75,000 people who were here illegally and deport students who were not in compliance with their visas. On the supply side, we would stop foreign ownership of houses in this country—just stop them! We’d give them two or three years to sell and get out. Free them up. Many of those homes are locked. On the cost side, we would reduce regulations, stop the National Construction Code changes, and end net zero to reduce the price of energy. On the finance side, we would roll HECS debts into home loans and allow access to super accounts to get a deposit. Why can’t your super account invest in your own home when it can invest in other people’s homes? This is bloody ridiculous!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZfR0Bo7i2yE/sddefault.jpg480640Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 14:59:562025-11-13 15:00:05Your First Home Shouldn’t Be a Dream
