Scientific Proof or UN Propaganda?

,

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”

The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.

It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.

To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.

We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.

I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.

— Public Hearing | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.

Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?

Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.

Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.

Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.

Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?

Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.

CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.

CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?

CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—

Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.

CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?

Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.

Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.

CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.

CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?

Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.

Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—

CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.

Ms Scaddan: That is noted.

CHAIR: It’s noted.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Scaddan.

/3 Comments/by

Your Taxes, Their Blunder: The BOM Mess

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has managed to spend $96 million of your money on a new website including live radar images that is a step backward.

I’ve been hearing from countless Australians who are not happy with the “new and improved” site. It’s harder to navigate, requires more clicks to find basic data and has stripped away the topographical detail that people actually rely on.

If a private company delivered a product this bad after spending nearly $100 million, heads would roll.

I asked the BOM: has anyone been fired, demoted, or even counselled for this failure?

The answer was a lot of nothing really. I did manage to get one win for common sense: The Bureau has committed to keeping the old radar site active until the new one is actually fit for purpose.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Let’s go back to the new weather radar. Implementation of the new weather radar has been a failure. Has anyone been fired for wasting $96 million of taxpayers’ money?

Senator Watt: We went over this at the last estimates hearing. I think you were talking about the change to the bureau’s website rather than a weather radar.

Senator Roberts: The new website.

Senator Watt: Yes. It was explained at the last hearing that the portion of money attributable to the website costs was partly about an overall systems upgrade across the bureau’s meteorology systems in general. So, with that introduction, Dr Minchin might want to—

Senator Roberts: Minister, it has tarnished the reputation of the BOM.

Senator Watt: I understand that.

Senator Roberts: It has made a lot of people unhappy with the BOM’s service, so I’m wondering if anyone’s been counselled, demoted or had a note put on their service record for this failure.

Senator Watt: I’d need to have Dr Minchin answer.

Dr Minchin: Senator, I’m not aware of anyone being fired or demoted on this basis.

Senator Roberts: Chastised?

Dr Minchin: Senator, as I think you may be aware, I joined the bureau about three weeks after the website was launched. My focus as CEO is on moving forward, and, as I said at last hearing, I accepted that the website redesign had not met all users’ needs and that we were working hard with the team on addressing the feedback that we’ve received. We’ve received significant feedback from the Australian community and we are actively working on making releases to the website to improve it to meet people’s expectations. My philosophy on this as CEO is that I have a very committed team, who are working incredibly hard to meet the Australian public’s expectations. That doesn’t mean we get it right all the time, and I’m very confident that the team is totally focused on the task of improving Australians’ access to weather information, including through upgrades to the website as it goes forward.

Senator Roberts: I accept, Dr Minchin, that sometimes it’s not appropriate to chastise until you know the source of the problem, but has anyone been questioned about it? Have you done an investigation into it? It seems to be significant funds, and you’ve got to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. What reassurance can you give us that it won’t happen again?

Dr Minchin: What I can say is I don’t believe the website is a complete failure, and I’ve been public in saying that before. I think what has happened is it’s met 80 to 90 per cent of its intended outcomes and it’s missed the boat on a few key user experiences for some parts of the community, and we are working hard on addressing those. It’s clear the radar is part of the assessment. We moved quickly to adjust the view of the radar to improve that. We’ve made adjustments to the navigation of the website and we have a number of other rollouts happening over the next few months that will improve that. I can absolutely assure you that the team within the bureau are really dedicated to their task and are totally focused on improving the situation so that all Australians can have access to the weather data that they require.

Senator Roberts: Have you required contractors to complete the fixes for free, owing to their failure, or are you throwing more money from taxpayers at the problem? Are you rewarding contractors for failing?

Dr Minchin: You’ve categorised this as a contractor failure. The contractors have done what we asked them to do. What I think is very clear is we did not get all of the user experience testing and did not capture all of the subsequent detail and feedback that we’ve received from the community. So we’re working hard on addressing that. That will inevitably require investment, but that investment was already planned for as part of the website release. We always knew that there would be fixes that would be required. What probably caught the bureau a little bit unawares was the extent of the feedback that we received, but we’re working through that very actively.

Senator Roberts: It was pretty strong. If we look at topography, the colour graduations used to be based on topography, and now the national parks are just all green. Did the people who did the map understand topography?

Dr Minchin: Sorry, Senator, are you referring to the radar map?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I’m sorry.

Dr Minchin: The background to the radar map is a compromise, always, of the features that are of interest for the community—primarily about the townships. We are adjusting that. Just as one example of an upcoming upgrade, we will be bringing that into line with our iPhone and Android app that actually shows a background of the reach of the radars as well. So it will be clear where radar coverage exists and where it does not within the country. That’s an evolving process. I should also highlight that the public can choose their view of what appears on that map through various choices in the settings of the map view.

Senator Roberts: I’m told that the old map, which did show topography colour gradations, is appearing to visitors who search something like ‘weather Brisbane’, rather the new site, but the address is the new site. Have you gone back to using the old site for certain functions?

Dr Minchin: I think what you’re referring to is that there are a number of third-party providers who provide our radar data and other information through their applications. They receive those through our FTP service. They don’t access it directly from the website. In some cases they choose to visualise that data differently to the way that the bureau chooses to do that. I think that’s actually a good thing, meeting different user needs out in the community. They’re still accessing the same information, but it is, as I said, coming through our registered user services, which are not through the website itself.

Senator Roberts: Usability of the website is poor. Users are complaining that it takes multiple clicks to see what used to be available at a glance. What timeframe can you give people for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site?

Dr Minchin: There are ongoing releases happening over the next few months. We accept, as I said, that some users have found aspects of the website difficult and have been providing feedback on that. Another good example is navigation. We’ll be rolling out the ability to navigate by postcode in one of the next releases. We’re continually bringing those updates on board so that, as we get feedback about what is useful to the community to make their experience with the website better, we’re acting on that and we’re rolling that out with regular updates.

Senator Roberts: So what timeframe can you provide for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site, so that people will know?

Dr Minchin: I don’t accept that we’re trying to reach the standard of the old site, because the old site was a problem. It was very difficult to navigate. It was inaccessible to many sectors of the community. Website updates will never finish. As new information and new products come on board, we will continue developing the website. But we are hoping to address most of the major tranches of concern in releases over the next six months.

Senator Roberts: The old radar is still available on the ‘reg’ subdomain, I’m told. Will you give an undertaking that the old site will remain available until the new site can be made to work?

Dr Minchin: We certainly will not be turning off our ‘reg’ capability until we are confident that the Australian community are comfortable with our new radar capability. Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Foreign Control on Australian Soil: A Big Fail

,

I asked Minister Wong about Labor’s failed promise to return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands.

Before the election, Anthony Albanese was happy to call foreign ownership of our ports a mistake. Now that he’s the PM, he has gone quiet.

When I pushed for a timeframe, Minister Wong couldn’t provide a date, nor a plan. All we got was more “we’re working on it.”

The PM didn’t even raise the Port during his recent trip to China! Is he too scared of retaliation from the Chinese Communist Party?

We have a foreign power (the CCP) controlling our most strategic northern port on a 99-year lease. This was a catastrophic mistake by the Coalition, yet Labor is proving they are too weak to fix it.

Australian assets must be held exclusively by Australians to ensure our national interests are protected.

It is time to put Australians ahead of Beijing’s feelings.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

*Awaiting Transcript*

/2 Comments/by

Labor’s Migration Reality

,

The Labor Government keeps telling you migration is coming down. The data tells a different story.

Right now there are about 2.9 million people here on temporary visas and another 1.8 million on permanent non‑citizen visas — a total of roughly 4.7 million non‑citizens.

That’s 4.7 million people competing for a home, clogging your roads, and filling your GP waiting rooms. Our infrastructure cannot cope with the scale of this influx.

This isn’t ‘sustainable’ — and it’s a disaster for the Australian way of life.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I’d like to discuss migrant numbers and stock data. Can I go to the number of temporary visa holders in the country first. The temporary visa holder stock data says that, at 30 September this year—which is the latest data, apparently—there were 2.9 million temporary visa holders in the country, and 2.53 million when excluding tourists and crew. Can you confirm, please, that that’s the largest number of temporary migrants in the country ever recorded in the month of September.

Mr Willard: I will just find those figures. The 2.925 figure you provided is correct. I’m not able to confirm it’s the largest number ever; I’d have to take it on notice and check every other month.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could—thank you. So we have the government saying that migration is coming down but we actually have what we understand to be the highest number of temporary migrants in the country for this season on record. The total number of migrants in the country certainly hasn’t gone down, has it?

Mr Willard: That figure has increased. Just so we’re clear, that’s temporary visa holders, so that includes people like tourists. It also includes, as I think you mentioned, crew visas, and it includes New Zealanders, who are in fact the largest cohort. The visa that New Zealanders have, through the trans-Tasman agreement, is technically a temporary visa.

Senator ROBERTS: But the 2.53 million figure excludes tourists and crew. That’s what you confirmed.

Mr Willard: Yes. I’d have to do the maths, but that looks about right.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding of what you said. So we’ve got a high number of migrants, and it hasn’t gone down. Now let’s turn to permanent visas. At the last hearing, the department confirmed there were 1.8 million people in the country on permanent visas. Do you have an update on that figure, or is that still the same?

Mr Willard: I do have that figure. I think it is about the same, but I can’t give you the precise number. I might
have to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So, adding the 2.9 million temporary to the 1.8 million permanent, there are now
4.7 million visa holders in the country who are not Australian citizens, correct?

Mr Willard: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a record for the number of visa holders in the country?

Mr Willard: Again, I’ll have to take that on notice to check the records.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it is, but I’ll wait for it to be confirmed by you. Can you give a breakdown, please, of the categories of permanent visas and their numbers, as per your latest data.

Mr Willard: Bear with me, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s okay. No need to rush. We just want it accurate.

Mr Willard: You asked for permanent visa holders?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes—categories of permanent visa holders.

Mr Willard: I’ll run through the figures here. The largest category is the resident return visa. I think last time we were at estimates we spoke about this visa. This is a visa that permanent residents can get once they’re at the initial travel period on their first permanent visa.

Senator ROBERTS: So they can return to the country.

Mr Willard: It’s called resident return, but essentially it’s a permanent resident renewing their travel rights on their visa. That’s 855,000. These figures are to 30 September 2025. There’s the partner permanent visa, which is 205,000. There’s the skilled migration visa, which is 447,000. There are parent visas, which are 38,000. Then there’s a range of other visas—child, other family, other permanent, and special eligibility, which are all smaller amounts, but there’s a range of other visas there as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you publish the number of permanent visas on issue like you do with the
temporary visa stock?

Mr Willard: We publish the Migration Program numbers every year, in terms of the Migration Program
outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that including the permanents?

Mr Willard: It includes all the visas issued in the context of the Migration Program for that particular year.

Senator ROBERTS: But not the total number of permanents?

Mr Willard: It doesn’t include the total number. We do publish a paper called ‘The Administration of the immigration and citizenship programs’, which has a lot of data. I’d have to come back to you as to whether it has that specific number in it.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me why you don’t publish the number of permanent visas on issue, like
you do with the temporary visa.

Mr Willard: Sure. I can take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

A Betrayal of the Uniform

,

This is our last chance to act before we stand at cenotaphs across the country, yet the government seems content to push a bill that belongs in the dustbin.

I’ve watched the inquiries. I’ve heard the testimony. I’ve felt the genuine pain and shock from our veterans and those currently serving. They feel betrayed. Defence morale is absolutely shot to bits right now, and a big part of that is a government that gives the “top brass” carte blanche while ignoring the men and women on the ground.

The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal deserves better, and our soldiers certainly deserve better.

The bureaucratic games must stop! Start showing respect to those who wear the uniform.

P.S. Finally clearing up speech videos from late last year. While the date may have passed, the message is still relevant today.

— Senate Speech | November 2025

Trancript

Senator ROBERTS: I support Senator Pocock’s motion to suspend standing orders because it is urgent and it’s serious. I watched the inquiry. I felt the pain from veterans, from the serving men and women and from the DHAAT—the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. The veterans are shocked at what is going on. After serving the country, they’re shocked, they’re in pain and they’re in anguish. It’s the same with the enlisted men and women right now. It’s the same with the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. As Senator McKenzie pointed out, we have Remembrance Day coming up in five days. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please refer your remarks to the suspension. 

Senator ROBERTS: We have five days. This is the last sitting day before Remembrance Day. That’s why it has to be done today. That’s why it’s urgent. There are two more reasons. One is that Defence morale is shot to bits over this issue and over many other issues, because the government is just listening to, and giving carte blanche to, the Defence top brass. My final point is that the minister and the government need to be saved from themselves. This is a stupid bill that’s coming up. It needs to be condemned and consigned to the dustbin. 

/3 Comments/by

Choice Is Not a Gender Pay Gap

,

It’s been illegal to pay a woman less than a man for the same job for several decades. Yet the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) continues to release “gender pay gap” reports that refuse to compare like-for-like roles. They use raw averages that ignore the reality of human choice, i.e. the fact that many women choose to prioritise family and motherhood over “climbing the corporate ladder” or working 80-hour weeks.

This isn’t about equality; it’s a globalist agenda using flawed statistics to devalue the family unit and sow division between men and women.

We need facts, not manufactured grievances.

It’s time to stop the spin and start respecting the choices Australian families actually make.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Now, we’ve discussed the fact that it’s been illegal to pay men and women differently when they are doing the same job for 60 years, the fact that your gender pay gap data doesn’t even compare people working in the same jobs and the fact that you can’t achieve gender equality on your own measurements at your own agency. We’ve done that at length in these hearings, yet just days ago you released more data and didn’t include any of these caveats in your commentary to the media. Why are you presenting Australians with data without context?

Ms Wooldridge: Senator, I assume your question is to me. We very clearly provide clarification on the information that we are providing when we release our scorecard. I think we’ve now done 11 scorecards over the years, and the data expands, but consistently the gender pay gap methodology has been the same, which is average remuneration for women and men and a comparison between the two. It doesn’t seek to do an equal pay for equal work comparison in the like-for-like jobs. In fact the data that employers report to us does not enable us to do that calculation. If there’s unfair pay for equal work, that’s dealt with by the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Our remit is to calculate different data, which is the gender pay gap, looking at those averages across the nation, across industries and within employers.

Senator ROBERTS: That—as we’ve discussed and I have a strong opinion on—is completely misleading. It doesn’t show a gender pay gap. You’re taking the easy way out and just using averages. It’s misleading. Can I confirm that you still haven’t achieved gender equality at your agency. What’s the latest update on average earnings for men and women at the Workplace Gender Equality Agency?

Ms Wooldridge: To reiterate, as I did last time, the gender pay gap calculation we use is an internationally used methodology. It’s used by governments and nations around the world to do comparisons, and we believe that, being very clear what the methodology is, it is a valid mechanism to make the comparisons. We don’t pretend that it is a like-for-like comparison. We’re very clear on what it measures, that it’s a proxy for gender equality and that it’s a mechanism to then look in more detail for where the inequality lies. We do encourage employers. As you’ve said, under the law they need to do equal pay for equal work. That is a part of it, but it’s not the whole amount. I have no further figures to update you with from when we talked about this about six weeks ago in terms of WGEA’s numbers. We do have staff changes from time to time, which changes the proportion of men and women in our agency and the gender pay gap calculation, but what we talked about six weeks ago is still the same case.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re using flawed methodology to distort and misrepresent because it’s international, even though it’s not accurate, and it’s definitely not statistically valid for presenting your case. Let’s move on—

Senator Gallagher: No, Senator Roberts. I accept that that is your view that you are putting; that is not a view that is shared by the government, me or any witness here this morning.

Senator ROBERTS: So you support the inaccurate use of data—statistically invalid methods?

Senator Gallagher: I reject that it is inaccurate. I accept that you and I disagree on at.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, so do I. I’m going to quote Janet Albrechtsen, a very successful woman, who said: The gender activists and their supporters have concocted a shallow stereotype about women in order to complain about a gender pay gap. They assume we want to work like men. I didn’t. Millions of other women don’t either. There is no shame in that. We put aside, slowed down, switched careers—and big pay packets—to raise our children. Motherhood is not the only driver, either. And I’m sitting next to a woman who proudly is a mother and said so in her first speech just a few months ago.

Senator Gallagher: I think you’ll find there are plenty of—

CHAIR: There are plenty of proud mothers sitting around this table, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. Thank you. I’m so pleased to hear people come in. Janet Albrechtsen continued: From the instant they receive their HSC or ATAR scores, and for the rest of their lives, many women appear to make very different choices to men. What do you say to that?

Senator Gallagher: I’ll jump in first. Everyone is entitled to their view on this. We live in a country where we have free speech. People have a view about data and policy, and sometimes that differs. I think that’s probably pretty reasonable. The view I take is that, in our striving for gender equality, we should enable everyone to have legitimate choices, and should that be that they take time out to care for their children then that’s fantastic. We shouldn’t penalise them for that, but there should be a whole range of choices available to men and women equally. I think there’s plenty of evidence that shows that there is inequality based on gender across our economy. Where that exists we should be trying to close it to ensure that you, Senator Roberts, if you were a child today, and Senator Collins, if she were a child today, would have exactly the same opportunities. That’s what our policy is about.

Senator ROBERTS: Hear, hear—and we should be presenting the facts as they are. Have you considered that for your data to show a zero per cent difference between gender we would have to have women knocking off work at 5 pm, giving birth at night and being back at work by nine the next morning? You’re making no allowance for families who want to take time away from work to raise their children and not just be a cog in a corporate machine their entire lives.

Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with that either. I think in this report it showed that there had been an increase in fathers taking time for those shared caring roles. That was about a three per cent increase on the previous year’s data. That, again, is a welcome move. Shared parenting shouldn’t be considered controversial. But we haven’t given men the same opportunities to have those caring arrangements in the past, and that is changing. I think there is growing acceptance that that is a legitimate choice for men in their careers as well. So I’d don’t accept the assertion, but I think some of the data in this shows that we are making progress.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I want to take up that last point. There’s a minister for women, but there’s no minister for men. I personally think there should be no minister for any particular gender, but surely if there’s one for women there must be one for men?

Senator Gallagher: Senator Whitten was in here earlier. He asked exactly that question, and I responded. He read out a series of statistics that he used around men’s health in particular. We have, for the first time in any federal government, a Special Envoy for Men’s Health, Dan Repacholi, who’s doing an amazing job. If you read any of his speeches and look at the work he’s doing across the country in enlivening this area of policy, it shows that the government considers this an area for further work. Again, the more we involve men and boys in the discussions that we have around the inequality that exists—and it may be inequality for men—and the more we drive gender equality, the better the country will be—if we are all treated equally, which is what we’re trying to work on.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you entirely, and that means presenting the data in an accurate fashion, not misrepresenting it. I notice—and I’m not saying all of the people in this room are with your department—there are no males here with you.

Senator Gallagher: There are men who work in the Office for Women.

Senator ROBERTS: Very, very few. There are nine women in the room supporting you, including yourself,
but no males.

Senator Gallagher: Yes, and any man that wants to work at the Office for Women is more than welcome. People have free choice about where they work as well, and they make those choices. I would say more women apply for positions within the Office for Women than men, but there are men, and they are valued colleagues.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any truth to the notion that some people hold, including myself—and you’re saying you’re following an international measurement standard, even though it’s wrong—that this is part of a globalist agenda to destroy the family, put down women and sow division?

Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t accept that at all. As I said, everything we’re doing in this space is something I think you would agree with, which is how we ensure that a little girl in the hospital down the road who’s born today and a little boy who’s born today grow up with the same opportunities, whether it be the education choices they have, the job choices they have, and how they manage family life and those caring responsibilities. We want everyone to be treated equally. That’s what this is about.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree, so why are you using data that misrepresents the situation?

Senator Gallagher: I’ve already addressed that. I don’t agree with the assertions. I accept that you disagree with us, but we think the data is robust and sound and that it’s important data to report.

/by

Mainstream Education: Parents are Losing Faith

,

In this session with ACARA, I wanted to get some straight answers on why so many Australian families are walking away from the mainstream school system.

One Nation has always stood for parental choice, so I asked them: is the new “Version 9” curriculum so complicated and full of the wrong priorities that parents are losing faith? To my surprise, ACARA admitted they aren’t even looking into it. They aren’t doing any research into why families are leaving or how the curriculum might be at fault.

ACARA writes the national plan, yet the states have the “sovereign right” to chop it up and change it. When the implementation becomes a burden for parents and teachers, ACARA basically washes their hands of it and says it’s a state problem.

I also wanted to make sure there wasn’t a “crackdown” coming for parents who chose to home-school their children. I got a direct “no” on that. They aren’t pushing for more audits or extra red tape, mainly because they don’t have the power to.

It’s clear to me that while the ideas start in Canberra, the real pressure on our families is coming from the states. You deserve an education system that works for your family, not one that ignores your concerns.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again today. ACARA is responsible for a national curriculum intended to be taught to all young Australians. How does ACARA account for a growing shift away from mainstream schooling towards homeschooling? Does ACARA accept that implementation burdens and content choices in version 9 of the curriculum are contributing to a loss of faith in the school sector’s ability to teach our children? We know that the COVID mandates—the lockdowns and so on—drove a lot of parents to take their kids out of school. I understand that, but please tell me any impact from version 9.

Mr Gniel: Version 9 is currently being implemented through the jurisdictions, through their own implementation plans. As you know, ACARA doesn’t have any role in terms of monitoring the actual implementation of the curriculum; that’s not part of our remit.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it left to the states?

Mr Gniel: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Do the states have choice as to how much of the national curriculum they implement?

Mr Gniel: All ministers approved the Australian national curriculum, but they approved it with their sovereign right to adopt and adapt for their own communities, where that’s required. It’s important—and this goes to Senator Sharma’s points before—that we have in the Australian Curriculum an agreement about what we see as the most important parts for our children to understand, but there is that flexibility at the jurisdiction level.

Senator ROBERTS: Is ACARA currently conducting or commissioning research on homeschooling trends, motivations and outcomes, especially the relationship between curriculum engagement and school withdrawal?

Mr Gniel: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?

Mr Gniel: We don’t have any jurisdiction over homeschooling. The Australian Curriculum that is signed off is for all children. As I said before, the implementation is at the state and territory level. I would expect they are doing some of that because, as you mentioned—and I’m aware of it too—there have been some increases in homeschooling, so it’s an important area to be considering.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought you might have got some indirect analysis.

Mr Gniel: No, we don’t at this stage. We would expect that to come through the feedback from the jurisdictions, though, as we ask about what we can do to improve the curriculum. All those resources that are provided to homeschooling parents are provided at the state and territory level.

Senator ROBERTS: I know that remote schooling, homeschooling and broadcasting over the air have got very high standards and a fair bit of flexibility.

Mr Gniel: You’re right, and some of that’s been around for a long time.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s good, solid stuff. You used the words ‘at this stage’. One Nation fully supports parental choice. Can ACARA confirm it’s not proposing to crack down on homeschooling?

Mr Gniel: ACARA has no role within homeschooling.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not going to—

Mr Gniel: The short answer is no.

Senator ROBERTS: Has ACARA provided advice to ministers or jurisdictions advocating increased regulation or compliance audits for homeschooling families?

Mr Gniel: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s ACARA’s view on the appropriate balance between parental choice and national standards?

Mr Gniel: We don’t have a view on that. We—

Senator ROBERTS: Left to the states, is it? You just leave it to the states?

Mr Gniel: Sorry, I’ll just finish what I was going to say.

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry.

Mr Gniel: Can you repeat the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Could you state ACARA’s view on the appropriate balance between parental choice and national standards?

Mr Gniel: No; we don’t have a view.

Senator ROBERTS: What steps has ACARA taken to ensure that the Australian Curriculum version 9 is usable by home-educating families. For example, do you provide guidance, exemplars and flexible learning sequences so that families are not driven away by perceived complexity, so they can have full and informed choice?

Mr Gniel: The Australian Curriculum and all the supporting materials are freely available to all Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any guides or supporting materials for parents?

Mr Gniel: At that level, that would be something the jurisdictions would—

Senator ROBERTS: The states; okay. Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers.

/by