The Deportation Failure: 102,000 People Lingering

,

I questioned officials from the Department of Home Affairs on the government’s failure to deport over 100,000 individuals who have no legal right to be here.

There are 101,976 individuals who were refused a protection visa and have yet to be deported. Some of these cases date back as far as 1994.

I highlighted a recent case where a South African man was raided and detained at dawn just 24 hours after his visa was cancelled. The government clearly has the capability to enforce our borders and laws. So why, out of over 100,000 people here illegally, did the government only involuntarily deport 5 people in a single month? That’s a 0.005% deportation rate.

When I asked for an honest explanation, Minister Watt did what he always does: he resorted to name-calling and labels to avoid the discussion.

Australians deserve an immigration system that actually enforces the law, not one that picks and chooses when to act while tens of thousands stay here illegally.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to change the topic to deportation. According to your ‘Monthly update: onshore protection (subclass 866) visa processing – October 2025’, the total number of individuals that were not granted a final protection visa that have yet to be deported at the end of the period is 101,976. How many of those 101,976 rejected refugees or unlawful noncitizens are currently seeking merits or judicial review from a court or tribunal?

Ms Foster: We could go through that data for you. I’d just note, for the rest of the committee, that we just had a series of questions and that exact data was provided to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Should I just go through the Hansard? To save time, I’ll go through the Hansard.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Your reporting has a caveat that the 100,000 number includes anyone who has been rejected for a protection visa since 1994. Do you have any data on the distribution in terms of how old some of those applications were? For example, do you have any data on how many people have not been deported after being rejected for a protection visa more than five years ago or more than 10 years ago? How many are still lingering here?

Mr Thomas: We’ll have to take that on notice to get that breakdown for you.

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got that data?

Ms Foster: It’s to get the particular breakdown that you’re asking for and so that we can see if we can do it by year—year groups.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Ms Foster. It would be appreciated if it’s done by year, because some people seem to be lingering forever. Do you have a breakdown of how many of the hundred thousand are included in the temporary visa stock data? I would assume anyone who is in the country illegally without a visa is not included in the 2.9 million, but I’d like a more specific number—on notice?

Mr Willard: On notice. I’d note that, in that temporary visa figure—that includes bridging visas. Many of these would be on bridging visas, but—

Senator ROBERTS: If you could break that down too, please—

Mr Willard: I’ll have to break it down.

Senator ROBERTS: Break that down. This is my last question, Chair. In November, a South African man whose visa was cancelled after attending a Neo-Nazi rally in Sydney was detained by immigration agents in a predawn operation, according to the media, and faces deportation. That was just one day after the visa cancellation by Minister Burke. I highlight that, as it shows that you obviously have the capability to raid houses, detain people in the dark and get them deported. But you don’t appear to be using it. Out of the more than 100,000 people here illegally, your October report says you involuntarily deported fewer than five that month. That’s a 0.005 per cent deportation rate. Why aren’t you raiding these houses and deporting people who have no legal right to be in Australia?

Senator Watt: I thought you said earlier that you don’t associate with Neo-Nazis, but you seem very concerned about the fact that the government decided to deport one.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re hiding from a discussion—an honest discussion—by labelling me?

Senator Watt: No, no. I’m happy—

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, you’re making this a habit.

Senator Watt: I’m happy—

Senator ROBERTS: If you haven’t got the data and you haven’t got the logic behind it, just say so, and we’ll get it on notice.

Senator Watt: I’m happy for the officials to answer your question.

Senator ROBERTS: Good.

Senator Watt: I’m just a bit perplexed about why, on the one hand, you say you don’t associate with Neo Nazis but you seem very concerned about a Neo-Nazi being deported.

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the fearful—

Senator Watt: You called them a Neo-Nazi. You just called them a Neo-Nazi.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s what the media called them. So does that make me a Neo-Nazi because I’m discussing—

Senator Watt: I’m not saying you’re a Neo-Nazi. I’m just questioning—

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re implying it, Senator.

Senator Watt: No, I said earlier that you didn’t seem to be very happy when I said that you associate with Neo-Nazis—

Senator ROBERTS: Because what you said was not correct.

Senator Watt: and other extremists, but here you are, asking about the deportation of a Neo-Nazi.

Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the fearful, the stupid and the gutless.

CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Senator Watt: Thank you for that free character assessment, Senator Roberts.

Senator SCARR: Chair, please return us to some order—questions being asked and answers being given.

CHAIR: Thank you for that very helpful direction, Senator Scarr. If we can proceed in an orderly question and-answer fashion, that would be of much help to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to do that.

Ms Foster: Senator Roberts, we provided some data in response to the previous questioning about the numbers of people who are removed each year. If it would be helpful, we could quickly reprise that data.

Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like, Ms Foster, is to know why one person, regardless of who he or she is, was able to be detained in the middle of the night, their house raided, but the other 102,000 were not.

Senator Watt: What makes you think that no others were treated similarly?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, in the answer to my question, perhaps you could tell me.

Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: My answer is—

CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Senator Watt: Well, you make—

Senator SCARR: Questions are being asked now by the minister of members of the committee. Again, can I ask that we return to orderly—

Senator Watt: Well, okay. There’s a simple reason for that.

Senator SCARR: Sorry, can I finish my point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: These are simple questions, Minister.

Senator SCARR: Can I finish my point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: They’re very simple.

CHAIR: Senator Scarr, yes, you can finish your point.

Senator SCARR: We’re running out of time. Can I just ask, Chair, that we return to the orderly process of questions coming from the committee members and being answered by the representatives at the table.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator Watt: May I make a point of order.

CHAIR: Can I respond.

Senator Watt: Sure.

CHAIR: It’s within the rules for the minister to respond to questions being asked by senators, but I would encourage the minister to answer the question rather than pose one.

Senator Watt: Sure. I’ll frame this not by asking a question. Senator Roberts has just suggested that the government has chosen to deport one person, who participated in a Neo-Nazi rally, and has suggested that the government does not deport—was it 102,000 other people?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why can’t you do the same—

Senator Watt: I’d be interested to know what evidence Senator Roberts has for that suggestion.

Senator ROBERTS: Your answer will be sufficient.

Senator Watt: I’m disputing your suggestion.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, then give me the data. That’s all I’m after, Minister—the data.

Senator Watt: You’re not very good at listening to data when it’s presented to you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the judgement on my questions. It’s now very, very clear what I’m requesting from you.

Senator Watt: Perhaps the officials could advise you with some facts, if you’re ready for that, about whether the government does deport other individuals rather than one neo-Nazi.

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s not my question. That’s not my question, Chair. My question is: why don’t you raid other people’s houses and get them out of the country as well?

Senator Watt: This is the point. You’re suggesting that doesn’t occur. Would you like facts?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I would—the number of people raided.

CHAIR: In a second, I will invite the officials to respond to your question, Senator Roberts, but I am going to call final question for you, before I need to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: That is my final question.

Ms Sharp: Senator, for the first three months of this financial year, 943 people were involuntarily removed from immigration detention. In many instances, they would have been detained from their home prior to being placed in immigration detention and then removed. In the previous financial year, we had 3,457 involuntary removals from immigration detention.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Sharp. Can you tell me the number of houses that were raided and people detained, on notice?

Ms Foster: In many cases, in fact, most cases, those people were in the community, and were detained by Border Force officers, and then taken into detention in order to be removed.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the number, please?

Ms Foster: We can have a look at that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I found that easy in the end, thank you.

Senator Watt: I look forward to you using those facts, Senator Roberts.

/1 Comment/by

Insurance Profits Soar While Australians Struggle

,

During Senate Estimates in October, I raised an issue that’s hurting Australians — insurance costs.

Health Insurance: Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from insurers, yet those same insurers are posting record profits — over $5 billion. Why are hospitals being starved while insurers rake in billions?

The ACCC Chair acknowledged the challenges but said they haven’t actively investigated this. She noted that private hospitals face rising costs and tough negotiations with a small number of insurers — a clear sign of limited competition.

Home and Car Insurance: On paper, there are 11 home insurers, many just brands under the same company. Suncorp owns AAMI and Apia; CGU and NRMA are both IAG. That means only eight real players. Car insurance is even worse — 12 brands, yet only six actual companies. When I asked the ACCC if this lack of competition worried them, they expressed their concern and said that they’re reviewing IAG’s proposed acquisition of RACWA because it could remove an important competitor.

Australians are furious about insurance premiums skyrocketing in areas that have never flooded, and never will, based on speculative climate change claims. Insurers argue that future flooding risk justifies massive hikes, even though extreme weather trends are flat. I asked if the ACCC has looked at how insurers justify these increases in a low-competition market. The answer? No.

All five publicly listed insurance companies share the same major shareholders — BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Norges Bank. These global asset managers hold significant stakes across insurers and banks. I asked if the ACCC considers the impact of these interlocked holdings. They said they’re aware of the investors yet will only act if they see evidence of coordinated conduct.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Insurance is the second most painful item on the consumer’s shopping list after groceries. There’s a lot of pain. I’ll go to the hospital aspect and then to the competition aspect. Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from the health insurers. We’ve been told this by many. Why are private hospitals being starved out of existence when the health insurers have recently recorded record profits of more than $5 billion?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There will be a number of factors there. They’re not questions, I believe, that we have actively looked at. Some relate to the level of competition among private hospitals, but they need to negotiate with a small number of private health insurers. That leads to difficulties for them in that bargaining situation. We’re also aware that the private hospital sector, from recent events, has been facing significantly increased costs at the same time as they are having to undertake complex negotiations in relation to coverage from private health insurers.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ll do is I’ll go to the lack of competition that you talked about with the insurance companies and come back to this and the hospitals. There are 11 companies in Australia offering home insurance. We’re going away from health to home. Of these, Suncorp, AAMI and Apia are the same entity and CGU and NRMA are the same entity, meaning there are only eight companies offering home insurance. Is that what you meant by limited competition in insurance?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There I was particularly talking about health insurance. But you are right that, partly as a result of prior acquisitions, a number of the groups have multiple brands, but it’s actually one insurance company behind it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Similarly, there are 12 insurance companies doing car insurance. IAG owns CGU and NRMA and has underwriting ties to RACV. Separately, Suncorp, AAMI, Apia, Bingle and GIO are all the same entity. This means there are only six companies in the car insurance market hiding behind several different logos. So it’s the same. Are you worried about the lack of competition in the retail insurance market?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are certainly very focused on this. We currently are assessing, under the informal merger assessment regime, a proposed acquisition by IAG of the RACWA, which is the Western Australian Royal Automobile Club. We have put out for public response a statement of issues concerned about the removal of the Royal Automobile Club. Our preliminary view set out in that statement of issues is that they provide a very important competitive constraint.  

Senator ROBERTS: We know that, in the home insurance market, insurance companies are putting up premiums on homes and businesses in areas that are supposedly affected by flooding despite never having flooded. In fact it will never flood. The argument is that, owing to climate change, which we’re told is coming sometime in the future, your property is now likely to flood, so premiums are going up, and they’re going up exponentially. I wonder if you use flags like these. Suncorp is making so much money out of insurance that it sold its bank in order to grow its insurance business. That tells you how profitable it is. Have you looked at the basis on which insurance companies are increasing premiums in a low-competition environment using specious claims of global warming when extreme weather events have not changed? There’s been no trend. It’s just flat.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We haven’t looked at that specific issue, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: The answer for people is not to change insurance companies—they can’t, because they’re all the same. They’ve got similar policies, similar conditions and the same shareholders. Specifically, all five publicly listed insurance companies in Australia have the same shareholders. I’m not trying to verbal you, but I think I asked you if you had heard of BlackRock, and you said no. Was it you?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have heard of BlackRock.  

Senator ROBERTS: Maybe I misunderstood. That’s why I checked; I don’t want to verbal you. The most notable common shareholders across all five entities based on top 10 holdings are BlackRock, a global asset manager which owns five to eight per cent of insurance companies. With State Street, it’s the same deal. They’re a global adviser with six to 16 per cent. That’s even more. Vanguard Group is the same type of entity, with five to six per cent. Norges Bank Investment Management has only two per cent, but they have a combined controlling interest, and these funds apparently are interlocked. Are you aware of these significant holdings that basically control our insurance companies?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: What you are describing in terms of global funds managers and global funds does not surprise me in relation to who would look to invest in insurance companies. As to your comment that they’re interlocked, a number of those will be operated and will be advised and managed independently. It’s possible what you’re referring to is that they have either financing or shareholding agreements relating to the particular investment. Those elements are not ones that we would be aware of.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have many more questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: I can put some on notice.  

CHAIR: That would be great.  

Senator ROBERTS: I just have a couple more questions. Are you aware that the banks are similar to the insurance companies—Westpac, NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth? Basically we’ve got one bank, it seems, owned by the same controlling shareholders, the same entities that I just mentioned. We have four banks that hide behind four logos, but they have similar policies, similar conditions, similar products and similar strategies. They’re effectively controlled by BlackRock, Vanguard et cetera.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: In relation to the four banks, I’m also aware that there are both individual Australian shareholders and Australian super fund investors in them as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration given to investigating BlackRock’s behaviour, for example, or State Street’s, Vanguard’s or Norges’s and their connections with each other?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Where there are situations where the ACCC sees both common shareholdings and interlocking directorships, we take that into account if we see conduct that we think indicates concerted action, but we would need to see conduct that we considered indicated concerted action between the relevant companies.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put five questions on notice.

/1 Comment/by

Ongoing Investigation Into Taipan Helicopter Tragedy

,

During Estimates in October, I asked Comcare about its investigation into the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays — a tragedy that claimed four lives. I wanted clarity on the scope and depth of their work.

Comcare confirmed the investigation is still open, with active lines of inquiry. They explained that a specialised investigation team was assigned, supported by subject matter experts for technical aspects. I asked about the range of expertise and the number of interviews conducted and agreed to provide those details on notice.

The investigation focused on obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act. Comcare gathered evidence from witnesses, documents, and technical specialists. I referred to Senate-ordered documents showing potential Category 1 and Category 2 offences and asked what those mean. Their legal officer explained that Category 1 involves reckless breaches of safety duties while Category 2 involves breaches without recklessness.

I noted Defence’s reputation for strict procedures and asked if they violated their own standards. Comcare said that wasn’t the primary focus, though they may have considered it as part of broader safety controls.

Finally, I asked if they were disappointed the prosecutor decided not to lay charges despite evidence of serious breaches. Mr Duke admitted he was personally disappointed but said Comcare accepted the decision and remains focused on achieving safety outcomes. He stressed the investigation was thorough and comprehensive, and they were satisfied they did everything within their powers to prepare the brief.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

/by

A Masterclass in Buck-Passing

,

This is my Senate Estimate session in December with the CEO of Snowy 2.0 and Minister Watt, where we witnessed a masterclass in buck-passing and dodging, when asked about the future of the Tomago aluminium smelter.

Tomago employs thousands of people both directly and indirectly. It relies on cheap coal power from the Eraring Power Station to reduce its production costs to compete with cheap Chinese aluminium.

With Eraring scheduled to close in 2028, Tomago has advised that the renewable power currently available for order is substantially more expensive, making the plant not economically viable.

The Albanese Government has held several press conferences in the Hunter region in the last few months, assuring locals that the government “has their backs” and that the power will come from firmed renewables from Snowy Hydro. Specifically, this extra power is intended to come from Snowy 2.0 upon its completion and from the new gas plant in Kurri Kurri. However, this solution will not work.

Tomago uses 8,400 GWh of power annually. Snowy Hydro will contribute 375 GWh, and the new Kurri Kurri gas plant 2,500 GWh, bringing Snowy Hydro’s total generation to 5,800 GWh. Even if all existing customers sourced their power elsewhere and Snowy sold Tomago every watt of power they had, it would still fall short of the required amount needed. Given that Eraring generates 14,000 GWh, the solution is obvious: Eraring must remain open.

When questioned on this, Snowy Hydro CEO Mr. Barnes did his best not to upset Minister Watt by deferring to the Department. The Department advised that these discussions “sensitive” and declined to provide further information.

Most alarming was the admission that Snowy 2.0 isn’t an energy provider, it’s more of an “insurance company,” designed to run only 10% of the time, with their power being used to backup the grid in case of an emergency.

If Snowy Hydro sold its entire power to keep Tomago operational, the grid will not have that emergency source of power, inevitably resulting in blackouts. This highlights the lie that Snowy Hydro can “save” Tomago.

The government claims to care about jobs in the Hunter Valley, yet when asked what the plan was to replace the baseload power being lost, they had nothing to say other than they were at the “sensitive stage of discussions.”

The net-zero transition is a disaster that is wrecking breadwinner jobs. One Nation will extend the life of Eraring until new baseload coal power can be built at Bayswater, followed by a refit of Eraring to ensure further operation.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’ve got simple questions about Snowy. First, with reference to media reports on 24 November this year regarding a role for Snowy Hydro in saving the Tomago
aluminium smelter, the report states that Snowy Hydro will provide Tomago with electricity subsidised by the taxpayer from 2028. Are those plans advancing? How much power will be supplied, and how much will the subsidy cost taxpayers?

Mr Barnes: It’s always flattering to have the role of Snowy recognised, but that’s a question for the department. We’re not acting on that right now.

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t tell me about Tomago’s advancing?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What about your role in that?

Mr Barnes: We’ve provided some limited advice to the department.

Mr Duggan: I answered this question earlier. The stage of discussions at the moment is sensitive from the point of view of commercial negotiations, so, in the interests of that, we’re not providing any more information at this stage around the process.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The next question is about reviewing Snowy Hydro’s generation capacity. I would have thought you were selling all the power you generate. How much spare capacity does Snowy Hydro have currently?

Mr Barnes: We currently have 5,500 megawatts of generation capacity.

Senator ROBERTS: That is 5.5 gigawatts.

Mr Barnes: Yes. We’re obviously building 2.86 gigawatts with Kurri Kurri and Snowy 2.0. We sell to multiple channels, whether it’s residential customers from our retail brands, large industrial customers or the
wholesale market more generally—our competitors and anyone who participates in that market. The contract duration varies, so we don’t necessarily have a 10-year home for all of our capacity, so our spare capacity does vary, but we are, of course, currently in the process of building 2.86 gigawatts, which we haven’t sold.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In fiscal year 2024, Snowy Hydro generated 3,937 gigawatt-hours in total. Even if your gas plant, the Hunter power project, is fully online by 2028, that’s only another 2,900 gigawatt-hours. Snowy Hydro 2.0 is only another 375 gigawatt hours. They won’t be available in 2028; you just said that’s going to be finished at the end of 2028. Can you give me an honest assessment of how much power you will have available for Tomago in 2028?

Mr Barnes: I won’t reference it to Tomago, but—

Senator ROBERTS: How much is available?

Mr Barnes: To describe how Snowy Hydro works: we’re a provider of what you might call last-resort capacity. Our average capacity factor, or the amount of time our plant runs relative to its capacity, is only 10 per
cent of the time. We expect, for example, Kurri Kurri to run for less than 10 per cent of the time. So we’re not really an energy provider; the energy provision is from the solar and wind that we enable. We have now contracted more solar and wind than we will produce from the Snowy 1 hydro scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: You mean receive it?

Mr Barnes: That is to receive it and be able to sell to customers packaged as a firm supply. We’re not really an energy provider; we are the provider who’s there when, currently, a coal plant fails, the wind is not blowing or the sun’s not shining. Energy provision isn’t really our game. Being there when another plant isn’t available is really our game. We enable energy to come to market.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being honest with me. Very few people will actually admit would you just admitted—that Snowy 2.0 is not an energy provider.

Mr Barnes: No, we act more like an insurance company.

Senator ROBERTS: Or a battery.

Mr Barnes: We back that insurance with physical assets.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You have the generation capacity in the Snowy scheme, but you’re limited by water, and of course we need to balance water with real environmentalism—environmental needs for water as well. Minister, as coal comes out of the grid, will the government be forced to change the rules to allow more water for hydro and less for the environment?

Senator Watt: I don’t really think that’s a question in this outcome. I’ve only just arrived here, but I presume all those sorts of issues were canvassed with the department earlier in the day. If you’ve got questions for Snowy Hydro, now is probably the time to ask those, but those are much broader policy issues that the relevant officials aren’t here for.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Barnes, your water need is one of the vulnerabilities of Snowy 2.0. The catchment area for the upper reservoir is very small. I know you’re going to recycle water, but nonetheless that surely must be a concern. I think someone identified it in the past as a concern that you will need to take water from other places, which means either farming or the environment.

Mr Barnes: Snowy Hydro is obviously subject to water regulation. We don’t make those rules, so we comply with those rules. The purpose of the Snowy scheme is to capture, store and release water to provide reliable
irrigation flows and support the electricity market. As you know, Snowy 2.0 is a recycling plan, so it doesn’t actually rely on those inflows. As I say, there are a couple of current reviews underway on the balance of environmental flows versus flows for irrigation and the electricity market, but we don’t make those. We are subject to water license compliance, which is the instrument that governs us 100 per cent each year.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that you don’t govern the water requirements and that you’re governed by regulation, but you foresee any need for increases?

Mr Barnes: Again, it is not really a question for Snowy Hydro. We will be subject to whatever regulation is put in place.

Senator ROBERTS: That would tend to indicate that maybe Snowy 2.0 is not terribly secure.

Mr Barnes: Like I say, Snowy 2.0 is a recycling plant, so it doesn’t really rely on any changes to inflows or outflows from the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the proposal to use Snowy Hydro to keep Tomago open complete nonsense?

Senator Watt: As you may be aware, I’ve been a little bit focused on some other matters over the last few days, involving EPBC reforms!

Senator DEAN SMITH: I thought that was last week!

Senator Watt: It was. I was on the job again on that today in Tasmania, as you may have seen. So I will ask Mr Barnes to say what he can about that matter. You might get better information out of him than you might out of me, but I’m not sure what he’s at liberty to discuss.

Mr Barnes: What is the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Is the proposal to use Snowy Hydro to keep Tomago open complete nonsense?

Mr Barnes: Again, it is not one for me to comment on. I think it’s a process for the department and the
government.

Senator ROBERTS: So Snowy Hydro can’t comment and the minister can’t comment?

Mr Duggan: I will repeat what I said earlier, which is that in earlier evidence we indicated that discussions with Tomago are ongoing. They’re through the industry department, not through this portfolio. We’re supporting them, but they are at a sensitive stage of discussions and therefore I wouldn’t feel at liberty to provide further information on the process, as that may upset those commercial discussions.

Senator ROBERTS: I will reiterate that Snowy Hydro 2.0 is only 375 gigawatt-hours and Snowy Hydro’s gas is almost half of Snowy Hydro’s generated power, so there seems to be not much room for error there.

Mr Duggan: This is, again, probably a question more for the industry department about those discussions with Tomago.

Senator Watt: We would love to have a chat with you about that later in the week.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The Eraring Power Station produced 14,000 gigawatt-hours in fiscal year 2023. Minister, will you take over Eraring, extend the life of Eraring and keep Tomago smelter open to save the thousands of jobs it supports at the smelter and in the Hunter?

Senator Watt: I’m not aware of any of those discussions, but, again, we’re here to answer questions about Snowy Hydro in this part of the program. I’m sure Minister Bowen will have more to say about that in coming—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very concerned about the jobs in the Hunter though.

Senator Watt: As are we. You will be aware of the work that this Labor government has done to protect those jobs, as has the New South Wales Labor government.

Senator ROBERTS: And threatening coal.

Senator Watt: Well, it is a coal-fired power station that is coming to the end of its life whether we like it or
not.

Senator ROBERTS: It was brought forward, and now it’s been shoved back again. On the night of the election win in New South Wales state election in 2023, the incoming energy minister dropped a very big hint that they wanted to prolong the life of Eraring, and now they aren’t doing that.

Senator Watt: You’re talking about decisions of the New South Wales government. I couldn’t comment on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Your Labor government. Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Air Force vs. Civil Careers

,

I questioned the Defence Department about some serious allegations regarding a “protection racket” between the Air Force and major airlines like Qantas and Virgin.

I’ve seen internal emails suggesting the Air Force has been whispering in the ears of HR departments to delay start dates for pilots who are trying to transition to civilian careers.

It’s absolutely unacceptable to place invisible barriers in front of veterans who have served their country and just want to provide for their families.

While the Air Marshal denied any wrongdoing and insisted retention rates are “healthy,” I’ve pushed for a lot more detail. They’ve taken my questions on notice, so I’m currently waiting on the answers.

We need full transparency on these backroom deals to ensure our pilots aren’t being held captive by their own employer.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll move on to Qantas’s and Virgin’s interference. There are significant allegations that the Air Force is deliberately colluding with Virgin and Qantas to try and force, or pressure, those airlines to delay starting dates for former Air Force pilots, to keep them locked in a job in the Air Force that they don’t want to be in anymore. After serving our country, pilots shouldn’t be subjected to invisible barriers that stop them from getting a job in the civilian world. In late 2017, the director of personnel for the Air Force opened a line with Qantas ‘to establish a working relationship at the HR recruitment level’ and to discuss ‘recruitment, retention and leave without pay’. I’ve got an excerpt from a freedom-of-information request. It’s an email from Mitchell Beck, squadron leader air operations 1, director of personnel for the Air Force. It was sent on 22 January 2018, and the subject is ‘RAAF Virgin meeting 18 January 2018’. In that it is confirmed: ‘We, the Air Force, discuss methods of delayed start dates for RAAF pilots, such as when the member is leaving from a critical job. Virgin may be receptive to a delayed start of six to 12 months.’ That is the Air Force seeking to coerce airlines into arbitrarily delaying someone starting a new job for up to a year because the Air Force wants to keep the pilot in a job they didn’t want to be in. How can you justify taking away service members’ ability to earn a living and feed their family in the civilian workforce for an entire year?  

Senator McAllister: Chair, I think officials will be in a position to provide some advice to the senator about the broad policy position. It is very difficult for officials to respond to the quotes that have been provided by Senator Roberts without seeing them or understanding their provenance. I wonder if committee members might consider providing copies of materials they rely on to form questions, because it is challenging for officials to respond if they don’t have them in front of them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it boils down to—  

CHAIR: Do you have a copy for the witnesses?  

Senator ROBERTS: I haven’t got it with me.  

CHAIR: I’m also mindful of time. Have you got a few more questions on this issue?  

Senator ROBERTS: Very short. Is the Air Force working with Qantas and Virgin to delay the transition out of the Air Force for their pilots?  

Air Marshal Chappell: We’re not working with airlines to delay anyone’s careers. I would have to understand the emails you’re referring to from 2018 in significantly more detail in order to give you an answer, given all of the factors that are involved in career management, initial obligations of air crew and many others. Can I take it on notice and, if possible, understand or get copies of the emails you’re referring to so I can best respond to your questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: I will undertake to get the FOI quotes. If you can take it on notice, I would like to know the formal and informal arrangements between the Air Force and Qantas or Virgin.  

Air Marshal Chappell: Thanks, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Also can you table any MOUs, emails, minutes and briefings in relation to these meetings from the past three years.  

Adm. Johnston: We’ll take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Were any names or any lists of serving or separating pilots shared with the airlines?  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the package on notice.  

Adm. Johnston: We just don’t have that information.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. You could take on notice under what privacy authority those names were given, and whether any contact influenced hiring decisions or start dates.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the questions on notice without necessarily accepting any of the assertions in your questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Fine. How many cases by year since 2017 involved Air Force contacting an airline about a pilot’s application, start date or employment status, and what were the outcomes? If you could take that on notice.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What conflict-of-interest and post-separation controls apply to personnel staff liaising with airlines? You can take that on notice. Does Defence accept that such liaison without transparent policy and consent risks a perception of covert influence over civilian hiring to manage retention? Why did you do it? It seems to be a bandaid situation.  

Adm. Johnston: We will take all of those on notice. We need to get the details of what you have in front of you to make sure we answer them reasonably.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re being hit with excessive retirements from the Australian defence forces across the board. We know that. We are wondering if this is just a bandaid solution.  

Adm. Johnston: Our separation rates are well below average, rather than elevated, at the moment.  

Air Marshal Chappell: Over the last 12 months to the end of June, the financial year, Air Force grew by 824 personnel.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am pleased to hear that at last.  

Air Marshal Chappell: The evidence a little earlier would have illuminated the broader Defence story, which is very similar. Air Force is now above 16,000 personnel. We are continuing to grow, and separation rates are continuing to fall and stabilise at very healthy levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: Please provide on notice a full briefing in relation to the nature of the relationship between the personnel division and the airlines, how this relates to separating pilots, and under what authority Air Force is seeking—if you are seeking—to interfere with the post-separation employment of pilots.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take those on notice without accepting any of your assertions.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I said. None of this should be happening. In the wake of the royal commission, I think you should be stopping any conversations with the airlines that interfere with employment of pilots who separate. I would like you to comment on that.  

Senator McAllister: That’s not really a question, Senator. I think it commences with the assertion that something is happening. Officials have, a few times now, asked you for the opportunity to consider the materials you are relying upon before providing a response.  

Senator ROBERTS: And I said I would get it.  

CHAIR: That’s been taken on notice. Thank you very much

/by

Protecting Corporate Mates, Not Consumers

,

Why is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for their corporate mates with every piece of legislation?

This Bill – the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025 – is another step toward letting powerful corporations, including foreign multinationals, continue to gouge Australians. By removing the regulator from the ACCC’s oversight, Labor is effectively hiding the energy market from competition and consumer protections.

This isn’t a market; it’s a bureaucratic racket designed to transfer wealth from hardworking Australians to parasitic billionaires under the cover of the “Net Zero” scam.

Worst of all, regulators will no longer be required to disclose their personal financial interests. This is a green light for cronyism.

We know over 80% of Australians are paying too much for electricity, yet Labor protects the profits of their wind and solar mates over the welfare of Australian families.

I will always put everyday Australians before corporations and will continue to fight for lower power bills for every Australian.

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the over 300 community groups across Australia fighting the rollout of industrial-sized wind and solar projects — the so-called “renewable” energy projects. The only thing renewable about them is that they have to be replaced every 15 years.

Among the many Australians standing up across our country, I recognise:

  • Katy McCallum, Steven Nowakowski (what a man!), Grant Piper, and Emma Bowman.
  • Bill Stinson, Sandra Burke, Steven Tripp, Andrew Weidemann, and Katherine Meyers.

These people are for Australia, for the regions, and for every citizen.

I also recognise a list of true champions for Australia: Colin Boyce, Llew O’Brien, Ben Abbott, Alex O’Brien, Michaela Humble, Michelle Hunt, Lynette LaBlack, and Rafe Champion.

Finally, my thanks to:

  • Neil Kilion, Sasha McNaughton, Caroline Emms, Nikki Kelly, Alex Nichol, Martine Shepherd, and Scott Baxter.
  • The Bob Brown Foundation (thank you, Bob!), the IPA, Rainforest Reserves, and the Centre for Independent Studies.
  • Ben Beattie and Aidan Morrison, two giants of the energy sector.

Transcript

Why is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for their corporate mates with every piece of legislation? This bill before us, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025, will likely pass without a whimper. You won’t hear much about it from either side of politics. Yet it’s another step towards a handful of powerful corporations, including foreign-owned multinationals, continuing to gouge Australians at every turn. This legislation separates the Australian Energy Regulator to establish them as fully independent and separate. The Energy Regulator currently lives in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s house, the ACCC. The ACCC supplies staffing and resources to the Energy Regulator to help it discharge its functions. While the bill frames the ACCC’s oversight as a problem, having the competition regulator ultimately responsible for energy market oversight is a very good thing. 

Ending energy market oversight is terrible. The energy market so-called ‘market’ is one of the most prescriptive and rigid areas of bureaucratic government. It’s not a market; it’s a racket—a bureaucratic racket. The risk for corruption and monopolisation is extreme. The Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, operates our entire electricity grid. It sounds like a government agency, yet somehow it’s a private body. No-one’s allowed to lodge a freedom of information request with them. They don’t turn up to parliamentary hearings for Senate estimates. They hide from scrutiny. That’s the key word for net zero with this government and the previous Liberal-National government—’hide’; hide the cost, hide the lack of policy basis, hide the damage, hide the lack of a plan. 

Now look at the AEMO board. Employees of for-profit energy and transmission companies dominate the AEMO board. We’re supposed to just trust they’re effectively prescribing rules and directing billions of dollars in taxpayer money purely for the public good, not for energy company profits—bloody ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. This is setting up government as a vehicle for wealth transfer from us, the people, to parasites—parasites not working in Australia’s national interest, hurting Australia and hurting Australians. 

With this bill, the government is taking the Energy Regulator out of the competition regulator. The ACCC’s role in energy markets is in the context of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which aims to—listen to this—’enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision of consumer protections’. That’s a great goal. Why would we want to make the Energy Regulator more independent of that and put it beyond scrutiny and put it in hiding? If we’re trying to figure out if that’s a good thing to do, the first question to ask should be this: are there any competition problems in the energy market? If the answer is yes, maybe the competition regulator should have final oversight, like it does right now. 

So let’s look at the ACCC’s work on the electricity market. The first shot across the bow was the ACCC’s 2017 preliminary report eight years ago. In that report, the ACCC said: 

The ACCC has published a preliminary report into the electricity market highlighting significant concerns about the operation of the National Electricity Market, which is leading to serious problems with affordability for consumers and businesses. 

What? That’s what they said eight years ago. The ACCC thought prices were ‘putting Australian businesses and consumers under unacceptable pressure’. Since then, prices have become much, much worse. One can only wonder why. Market participants harp on about pulling the Energy Regulator out of the competition regulator while the ACCC highlights ‘significant concerns’ about how energy corporations are actually acting, behaving.  

Another headline from the ACCC, in December 2024 in the Financial Review, said, ‘More than 80 per cent of Aussies paying too much for their electricity.’ There was another story in May this year, ‘”Super complaint” filed with ACCC over misleading energy plans’. I’ll quote it: ‘CHOICE’—that’s CHOICE magazine, the consumer group—’has sent its first-ever super complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, over allegations that retailers in the Australian energy market have engaged in dodgy and misleading pricing tactics that leave customers paying $65 million more than they should.’ 

So, returning to our overall question, are there any competition issues in the energy market? Should the competition regulator be involved in monitoring every aspect of those issues? The answer to both is a resounding yes. 

The ACCC will wrap up its ongoing reports into the electricity market in August. After that, there’s a real risk that competition in the electricity market will continue to deteriorate and deteriorate and deteriorate even further. What will that mean? It will mean higher prices and poorer service for Australians. Less competition means bigger profits for Labor’s big corporate mates in the energy sector, who are often foreign owned multinationals or parasitic billionaires. That’s what this bill represents—wealth transferred to the wealthy; a step towards higher profits for multinational corporations who want to gouge Australians even more under the cover of the renewables scam. 

Indeed, under the new Australian Energy Regulator, workers will no longer be required to make disclosures of their personal interests, as everyone in the ACCC is obliged to. This is as good as a green light for everyone with a conflict of interest to get involved in the new Energy Regulator—and you, the government, are doing this. The risk of corruption, cronyism and favouritism will be so big it will make the director of the National Anti-Corruption Commission blush. The Albanese Labor government has long signalled its intention to put the profits of its corporate wind and solar mates above and beyond competition—and above Australian workers and above Australian families and above Australian small businesses and employers and above Australia. 

Why doesn’t today’s Labor realise that its official, registered name is the a-l-p—Australian Labor Party? It seems to have forgotten and ditched Australia. Why do they continue to ditch Australia? And there’s no ‘u’ in Labor, because the l-a-b-o-r party does not represent you. 

Upon coming to government in 2022, Labor almost immediately transferred the energy regulator part of the Competition and Consumer Act out of Treasury and away from the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Bowen. Can you believe that? It happened—the fox guarding the henhouse; the fox destroying the energy sector and making it a racket for Labor’s private mates to gouge Australians. If there’s a battle between lower prices and profits for wind and solar, everyone in this chamber knows where Minister Chris Bowen’s loyalties lie. Can Australia trust that Minister Bowen will choose competition and lower prices over net zero and the profits of parasitic renewables grifter-billionaires? Absolutely not. Based on his behaviour to date, every day of the week Minister Bowen will choose the profits of these renewables scammers over Australians and over Australia. 

The net zero dream is that you’ll pay $8,000 for a home battery and $60,000 for an electric vehicle and the grid will pay you nothing to drain it overnight to stabilise their dodgy market, their racket. That’s called ‘consumer energy resources’ and ‘virtual power plants’. Without them, the net zero pipedream just collapses. 

Competition doesn’t even come into consideration. This corrupted state control and abuse of consumer rights is a built-in feature of the net zero scam from the Liberal-Nationals and the Labor-Greens—citizens directly paying 70 per cent of the cost of the transition to net zero. You pay; they control and they use. In other areas, some people reliably estimate taxpayers and electricity consumers are paying 100 per cent of the $1.9 trillion transition to the UN-World Economic Forum net zero. The ACCC would have a heart attack at the anticompetitive proposals being rushed into the energy racket. That’s the real reason this bill seeks to take the Australian Energy Regulator out of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Australians’ power bills will continue to go up, as will the profits of foreign multinational companies involved in the net zero scam. That’s where your money is going. One Nation believes consumers should come before corporations. Ditch the net zero scam and its anticompetitive nonsense—its racket. What proportion of solar and wind complexes do Labor mates and industry super funds own, I wonder? We know it started pretty high with Greg Combet as minister. Labor, stop looking after your mates who own the industrial wind and solar complexes and stop handing over to them billions from taxpayers and electricity consumers. Put Australians first and lower power bills. 

I now add two brief comments. Firstly, when states owned electricity generators, energy benefited from a key constitutional tenet that our founding fathers wisely built into our Commonwealth Constitution—competitive federalism, a marketplace in governance between the states. A marketplace in governance is vital for accountability, vital for states’ rights and vital for Australian sovereignty and independence. John Howard’s Liberal-National government destroyed this when it created the so-called national electricity market, which is really a central bureaucratic energy racket, destroying accountability and now lining it up for fleecing Australians to foreign multinationals. 

Secondly, I acknowledge over 300 community groups across Australia fighting the rollout of industrial sized wind and solar projects, so-called renewable energy projects. The only thing renewable about them is that they have to be replaced every 15 years. Among many Australians across our country, I recognise Katy McCallum, Steven Nowakowski—what a man!—Grant Piper, Emma Bowman, Bill Stinson, Sandra Burke, Steven Tripp, Andrew Weidemann and Katherine Meyers. These people are for Australia and for the regions and for every Australian. I also recognise Colin Boyce, Llew O’Brien, Ben Abbott, Alex O’Brien, Michaela Humble, Michelle Hunt, Lynette LaBlack and Rafe Champion. This is a list of champions for Australia. I also recognise Neil Kilion, Sasha McNaughton, Caroline Emms, Nikki Kelly, Alex Nichol, Martine Shepherd, Scott Baxter, the Bob Brown Foundation—thank you, Bob!—the IPA, Rainforest Reserves, the Centre for Independent Studies, and Ben Beattie and Aidan Morrison, two giants of the energy sector. 

I recognise every person involved in exposing the horrific damage from industrial solar panels and industrial wind turbines, from the growing spaghetti network of high-voltage transmission lines carpeting regional Australia, from the big battery energy storage systems and from hideous, uneconomic, exploitative, environmentally damaging pumped hydro, destroying the fabric of our nation, white-anting the five pillars of our Australian community, our society: productive farmland, the source of our food; rural landscapes; wildlife habitats, our precious natural environment being torn apart by solar and wind and transmission lines; our communities; and our Australian way of life. 

To everyone involved, I say thank you. From Lakeland on Cape York to Chalumbin in North Queensland to Central Queensland, Wide Bay and Burnett, southern Queensland, New South Wales Central West, northern New South Wales, southern New South Wales, coastal New South Wales, across Victoria, Tasmania’s Robbins Island and so many more across our wide, beautiful regional Australia, I continue my admiration and continue to pledge my support for your honesty and integrity, your courage, your embracing of accurate data and your informed commitment to putting Australia and Australians first. Thank you very much. We support you as you continue your battle. 

/by

Aussie Families First, Not the Taliban

,

Another session of Senate Estimates with the Department of (DFAT) and more questions into where your hard-earned tax dollars are actually going.

At a time when Australian families are struggling just to keep the lights on and put food on the table, this Labor government has poured more into Afghanistan ( $310 million since 2021) which includes a recent $50 million. Why are we sending millions to a country controlled by the Taliban? The department claims the money goes through the UN and “established partners” to help women and girls, rather than the regime. Yet let’s be real — the Taliban are violent oppressors who have been known to steal grain and manipulate aid.

The government admitted they’ve had to cancel programs in the past because of the exact risks I raised. Now, they say they rely on “independent reporting” to ensure the money reaches the right spot.

They need to prove to me — and to you — that this money isn’t just propping up a corrupt, illegitimate regime.

The Minister expressed that 22 million people in Afghanistan are in “dire need,” however I reminded her that our own constituents are doing it tough too and we have a responsibility to Australians first. I reminded them how we got here. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan based on the “weapons of mass destruction” lie from Bush, Blair, and Howard. We sent our brave young men and women into a conflict built on a vacuum of evidence, created a massive mess, and now we’re expected to keep paying for it indefinitely?

It boggles the mind that no one in this Parliament seems willing to hold the people who made those original, disastrous decisions accountable.

I will continue to demand the data and the evidence. We cannot have a government that makes “weighty decisions” to send our money overseas without absolute transparency.

– Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The next set of questions is about Afghan support. At a time when Australian families are finding it very hard to pay vital bills and put food on the table, why has this Labor government given $50 million to Afghanistan, which is controlled by the Taliban?  

Senator Wong: I’ve seen some misinformation in the public sphere about this, and I’m very happy for others to explain the support we are providing, particularly to women and girls.  

Ms Storey: We’re aware of reports and concerns in the community around the Taliban seeking to interfere in the provision of humanitarian assistance. We are confident that our humanitarian support, which is actually $310 million since the fall of Kabul, including Ministers Wong’s and Aly’s recent announcement of $50 million on 29 January. This has a particular focus on meeting the needs of women and girls and on nutrition, healthcare and protection assistance. We work with established partners, such as UN agencies, to ensure that our support reaches those most in need. We work with longstanding partners to ensure our aid supports those most in need; so, in other words, it does not go to the Taliban. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has stated that it takes extremely seriously any allegations of malpractice and corruption and ensures these are promptly investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who would accuse the UN of corruption! The Taliban government, which is violent, oppresses women and sells the grain, we’re told, given to them by charities and makes the local men work in return for grain that was donated by governments from the West. The Taliban are not our friends; I’m sure you agree. Ask any soldier who served there what he or she thinks about this. The Taliban government is corrupt and most foreign aid is stolen, so it’s reported, and not passed on to those in need. So, you rely upon the UN and other agencies to make sure that our aid reaches the right spot?  

Ms Storey: That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: How confident are you?  

Ms Storey: I can take that on notice to provide you with more extensive detail. I need to reiterate that we do not regard the Taliban as the legitimate representatives of the people of Afghanistan. While there are some who have this view, there are also many who express strong support for the provision of humanitarian support to the people of Afghanistan because of the very dire and deteriorating humanitarian situation in the country.  

Senator Wong: Could I just add to that? Firstly, the situation in Afghanistan is dire. You’re right; the Taliban is not our friend, which is why we have been so clear about our view in relation to the Taliban and also why we have taken action—a world-first sanctions framework, the imposition of financial sanctions on senior Taliban socalled ministers for their involvement in the oppression of women and girls. We are very clear we do not recognise the Taliban. You’re right; we have had previously to alter our provision of aid and discontinue programs for the sorts of reasons you have outlined. What the department has sought to do is to recognise the Daini and also how is it through other partners that we can provide assistance to people who need it, whose need is so great. Independent reporting and regular donor engagement such as has been described are in place to confirm that our UN partners are delivering aid effectively, accountably and in line with humanitarian principles.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are they going to get it? That is my question. 

Senator Wong: I have a photo in my office, actually, of two girls walking to school, which was taken by an Afghan man whom I met at an event where we had to talk about what we had done and show what we had done, particularly for women and girls, but we had to discontinue the program for the very reasons you outline. But we’re seeking to provide some assistance with the sorts of protections that the department has outlined.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re going to provide me reassurance on notice—  

Ms Storey: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: that the money is getting to the right place?  

Ms Storey: The minister noted that independent reporting and regular donor engagement that does confirm the partners are delivering effectively. We can provide you with a little more information on that, certainly.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much has the government given to Afghanistan since 2021? Is it $310 million or more?  

Ms Storey: Yes, it’s $310 million in total. That’s committed and provided. That includes the most recent announcement of the $50 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: I ask these questions because some of our constituents are pretty upset with Australia; we’re doing things pretty tough at the moment, but people in Afghanistan are doing it even tougher.  

Ms Storey: Almost the same size as the Australian population, 22 million in Afghanistan, is assessed to be in dire humanitarian need. I know that this is a balance that we must take.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the thought comes to me that our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was based on the so-called evidence of weapons of mass destruction from England, America under Bush and John Howard in Australia. Then we were told by all three leaders and their nations that there was never any evidence. We have gone into those countries, jeopardised our own people, boys and girls, and created a mess and now we have got more of a mess. Is there any thought given to stopping the mess in the first place and making sure we only enter conflicts where there’s justification?  

Senator Wong: There’s a lot in that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: There is. It’s a simple answer, yes or no?  

Senator Wong: Historically, you might recall the position then Labor opposition had in relation to the Iraq War. I’m not sure I can do your question justice in terms of a full and comprehensive answer, but I think there are two points. One is committing Australian men and women to conflict is the most serious decision a government can make. It is a decision that should be made soberly and—  

Senator ROBERTS: With facts 

Senator Wong: on the basis of facts and a very clear assessment of our national interests. It is the most serious and weighty decision a government can make. The second point is we cannot assure stability in other countries from where we are. We can contribute to it, but ultimately peace and stability require many elements in country and in the region. It is a reminder of why, whether it is in the Middle East particularly or more broadly we keep as our objective contribution to peace and stability.  

Senator ROBERTS: It boggles my mind that, as far as I know from reports through the media, no-one in the parliament has questioned the original decision to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and held people accountable.

/by

Data vs. Dogma: My Session with Dr Karl

,

Just wrapped up another two days of public hearings in Canberra on the Greens-Labor inquiry into “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy”.

This is my session with Dr Karl. What do you think of his behaviour?

He asked me whether I thought the past 10 years have been the hottest on record globally I replied directly “No, I don’t”. He responded with mockery and ridicule, then shifted the topic to what he claimed is a “99.999% consensus.”

By the way, consensus is a political tool. Instead, science is decided using data. I replied with actual data.

Later Dr Karl admitted science is “never settled” – when it suited his Newton/Einstein analogies. Yet he refused to acknowledge the actual historical climate records from our own 1880s.

It seems that he’s more interested in “elitist” condescension than hard facts. Notice how he has many tricks for avoiding answering questions or changing the topic.

Real integrity requires debate, not evasiveness and dismissiveness.

– Public Hearing | 16 February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: I might go to Senator Roberts.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Senator Roberts, good afternoon.  

Senator ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Dr Karl. Can I call you Dr Karl?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Or Karl; it doesn’t have ‘Dr’ on the birth certificate. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll call you Dr Karl. You may remember that I issued a challenge to debate, and you were the only person who took it up. Then we met on South Bank because you wanted to explain to me why you were going to pull out of that debate. We spent about three-quarters of an hour together, back on Sunday 26 March in 2017. Can you recall that in South Bank?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: I remember the event; I didn’t keep a record of the date. My memory is not that I was trying to explain where I was coming from or why I didn’t want to do a debate. My memory is quite different. I wanted to understand where you were coming from, and you explained it to me and we had that talk, off the record, so I’m not at liberty to reveal what you told me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s talk about science—  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: and some definitions. I just want to get your confirmation or otherwise. When done properly in accordance with the scientific method, science uses rational thought and logic to investigate and explain our physical world—is that correct?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Ish. When you’re talking quantum mechanics, which is real, it doesn’t work. But that’s a good mark 1 definition, sure, as a first approximation. Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Science is the systematic, objective, rational study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the empirical data.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: What’s that word ’empirical’? I’ve noticed that you love that word ’empirical’ to pieces.  

Senator ROBERTS: I sure do.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you define it for me, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you define the word ’empirical’ for me, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. It’s measured or observed data.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: But, if you’re saying ’empirical data’, it’s just like saying ‘data data’. Okay. Go on. 

Senator ROBERTS: Empirical data is measured or observed. There are many other things in social sciences which are not.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Well, come on. We’re talking physics here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. So you agree.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Yes and no, but go on. Mostly. That sounds like a good start, except for the word ’empirical’, but go on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Scientific proof involves using solid data as evidence in logical scientific points to prove cause and effect. So it’s not only having physical data; it’s putting it within a logical scientific point that proves cause and effect.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Are you building a little assembly where you’ll suddenly say, ‘And therefore climate change isn’t real,’ and I’ll fall over unconscious?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do you think that?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: You’re laying out a boilerplate set of logical debating steps. Hit me with the next one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you agree or not?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Overwhelmingly yes, depending on the data, because it doesn’t apply to quantum mechanics.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m assuming the data is accurate—data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Let’s see if we can agree on something. Do you agree that the climate records show that the last 10 years have been the hottest on record worldwide?  

Senator ROBERTS: The last 10 years in Australia have been cooler than the 1880s and 1890s in Australia.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Hang on—worldwide. Do you agree that the last 10 years have been the hottest years on record worldwide?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: I feel like I’m talking to a schoolchild who says seven times two is not 14 but instead seven times two is a bicycle divided by the square root of a banana.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s one way of making out that I’m a fool.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: No, but all the scientists disagree with you; 99.999 per cent of the scientists disagree with you.  

Senator ROBERTS: So now you’re into consensus, which is a political tool. Let’s continue.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Hang on. Consensus is a political tool?  

CHAIR: Scientific consensus is not a political tool.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is this correct: scientific proof is—  

Dr Kruszelnicki: So, if all the scientists agree that seven times two is 14, that’s a political tool?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s obviously a stupid comment, in my opinion. Einstein said it takes one person to prove him wrong, even if 100 agree with him.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: He’s dead right.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Scientific proof is the basis for understanding nature and the physical world. Is that correct or not?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Pretty correct, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Science is never settled; it’s always enhanced in the future as new knowledge is unearthed and science is debated. A key point of science is debate.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Yes and no. With regard to gravity, the big step forward was Newton. Newton finally understood what was going on, but his theory of gravity could not explain why the closest point of approach of the planet Mercury to the Sun would tick around slowly over the decades. They measured this, and they couldn’t work out why. They had to hypothesise a planet. It was Einstein’s theory of gravity that then explained what was going on. So Newton was not disproved, but he was a small subset of a bigger, more comprehensive theory. In the same way, with Einstein, his theory may well also become a small subset of a bigger theory. You don’t go back. There’s no way we’re going to disprove Newton’s rule that the force between two bodies equals G times m1 times m2 all over r squared. There’s no way that’s going to get disproved. 

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true, though, that, some hundreds of years ago, people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth? That was the science.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Some did; some did not.  

Senator ROBERTS: Then it was proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so science is always advancing.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: And do you know why?  

CHAIR: That was before there were 40,000 climate scientists studying climate sciences.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: It’s because they were able to get optical instruments to look at the phases of the Sun upon Venus, and Venus had phases, if you know what that is—so sometimes there’s more of it on one side than the other—and the only way to explain that was by a central sun.  

Senator ROBERTS: We could have a long, long talk about the intricacies, but those are the only questions I had.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Excellent. Can I ask you a question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you just refresh for me: thinking of the atmosphere as a one-kilometre line with nitrogen making up roughly 800 metres and oxygen making up roughly 200 metres, can you take me through where carbon dioxide sits in that line, by your estimation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Carbon dioxide is 0.04 per cent of Earth’s atmosphere.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: So how much of that line—one kilometre long—does carbon dioxide roughly make?  

Senator ROBERTS: My maths doesn’t come to—is it a kilometre or a mile?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: We’re going for a kilometre.  

Senator ROBERTS: A kilometre—0.04 per cent.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: There’s a million millimetres. I seem to remember you once saying, firstly, with the carbon dioxide bit of that one-kilometre line—with oxygen making up roughly 200 metres and nitrogen making up roughly 800 metres—that the carbon dioxide was so small that you could barely see it with the naked eye. The supposed addition, you said rather poetically, was kind of like how, if you rubbed your fingernail against some concrete, the little bit that rubbed off would be the addition of carbon dioxide that has been measured. Is my memory incorrect?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that last bit?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Is my memory incorrect?  

Senator ROBERTS: What did you say that I said?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: My memory is that you said the carbon dioxide level was so small you could barely see it with the naked eye—  

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t see carbon dioxide, it’s colourless. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Correct, but on that one-kilometre line, what length? My bad—you said the length was so small, it was barely visible to the naked eye, whereas, for example, the length of nitrogen was roughly 800 metres—easily visible. Is that correct, or is my memory wrong?  

Senator ROBERTS: What was that about a fingernail?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Then you said that the additional carbon dioxide that has been added was roughly equivalent to getting a fingernail and rubbing it on concrete, and the little bit of fingernail that came off was that one-kilometre line, or the extra bit of carbon dioxide.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, that wasn’t me. I don’t know who said that.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: No worries. Thank you for clearing that up. 

/6 Comments/by

Where Is Your Money Going?

,

You work hard for your money and you’ve got every right to know exactly where those tax dollars are going, especially when the government hands it out as overseas “aid.”

This is my Estimates session with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) on aid to the Middle East.

The department says Australia doesn’t pay the Palestinian Authority (PA) directly. Instead, they funnel the cash through United Nations’ agencies like UNRWA and UNICEF.

They confirmed that our money does reach the PA indirectly. For instance, we’re paying for UNDP programs that help them set up their local elections.

I asked questions about the “Martyrs Fund” (families of suicide terrorists). DFAT said they believe the Palestinian Authority has scrapped the laws behind those payments and moved to a “general welfare” system.

I’ve put on notice a request for a full calculation of every cent of these “indirect” payments made over the last five years. I’ll be looking at those figures closely.

We need real accountability for every single dollar given in overseas aid.

– Senate Estimates | February 2025

Transcript

Coming Soon

/1 Comment/by

Prioritising Australian Safety

,

The safety of Australians is the first priority of any government. Following the horrific Bondi atrocity and the attempted Australia Day bombing in WA, I questioned the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on what they are doing to bridge the gaps between ASIO, Home Affairs and the AFP, and what specific new steps are being taken to prevent future acts of terrorism?

The response from the Commissioner and the Deputy was that while their “architecture” is mature, there is nothing specifically new being implemented in response to these recent events. They are relying on existing “enduring relationships” and a new National Security Investigation Team to monitor “hate extremism.”

While they claim information sharing is “excellent,” we cannot afford to be complacent. “Strong and enduring” relationships are good, however they don’t replace the need for constant improvement when lives are at risk.

I will continue to monitor these “joint arrangements” to ensure they are actually delivering the protection all Australians deserve, NOT just more bureaucracy.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: We can rotate the call. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given the role of the Australian Federal Police to enforce Commonwealth laws and to protect Australians, what further steps have been taken to open up the lines of communication between ASIO and the AFP and between the AFP and Home Affairs to prevent future acts of terrorism post the Bondi atrocity and the attempted bombing in Western Australia on Australia Day this year?  

Ms Sirec: The AFP has long and enduring relationships with in particular ASIO. Our counterterrorism construct has been in for a significant amount of time and the information sharing is excellent. Equally with the various Commonwealth agencies, in particular Home Affairs, there are enduring and constant relationships and information sharing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have any additional arrangements been made?  

Ms Sirec: The relationships there are strong and enduring. When we do set up new capabilities such as the National Security Investigations apparatus, there’s a restrengthening of relationships there in particular even with the states and territories. The AFP brokers relationships of the Commonwealth with states and territories as well. It’s a very mature apparatus and architecture.  

Senator ROBERTS: But nothing specifically new?  

Mr Nutt: I’d go further to not only what the commissioner has said but also the deputy around the announcement of the National Security Investigation teams as a new initiative and also, as the commissioner said in the opening statement, around working with state security investigation or intelligence units on intelligence security investigations. One of the key aspects of that is looking for any intelligence or investigation that involves hate extremism that could transition into a joint counterterrorism arrangement, which has been in place for a very long time. Again, it’s another mechanism that supports existing arrangements nationally.  

/1 Comment/by