These bills are a complete betrayal of Queensland, Australia and our democratic process. The establishment parties are so terrified of One Nation, the only real opposition, that they’ve resorted to “shuffling” the speakers list to bury our voices.
This is nothing more than another dirty, backroom deal between Labor and the Greens, who are prioritising TikTok-ready virtue signalling over the needs of everyday Australians.
Shockingly, this environment bill doesn’t even define what “the environment” is.
This government wants to build homes while simultaneously destroying the timber and coal industries. How do they expect to build without wood or steel?
Following the National Farmers’ Federation’s lead, I want to know why this bill introduces “closer controls” on land clearing that will actually increase bushfire risk, hike up food prices, and destroy rural communities.
One Nation says no. We will repeal this nonsense and replace it with honest stewardship based on data and outcomes, not feelings.
– Senate Speech | November 2025
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Minister, these bills are a betrayal of Queensland, a betrayal of Australia and a betrayal of democracy. As an aside, before I start my question, on the first list of speakers to this bill in the second reading debate, I was speaker No. 9. The other One Nation senators were further down the list. On the revised speakers list, I was third last, Senator Bell was second last and Senator Whitten was last. No chance at all of getting to speak! One Nation is the party the other parties fear. We are the real opposition.
Minister, another day another dodgy deal between the Labor Party and the Greens, which, as usual, sells out everyday Australians to advance the government’s overarching agenda of virtue signalling and TikTok video production. From the moment the deal was done, this government has chosen to make a mockery of parliamentary process. What matters to the Labor Party is not the outcome. No, it’s the so-called win. Yet all Australians lose. The Greens are the spiritual bedfellows of the ALP in this regard. No sooner is the ink dry on this dirty, backroom deal than they immediately move the goalposts. The Greens now want one set of rules for Australia’s natural environment and a whole new set for Australian Aboriginal environment. I thought all our land was unceded and belonged to Aboriginals. Surely, the Greens motion doesn’t in fact acknowledge that Australia belongs to Australians, regardless of skin colour. Who knows! One could go mad thinking too much about Greens motions. Certainly, they don’t do much thinking about them.
It will be left to a One Nation government to clean up the mess this bill will create, and we shall clean it up. One Nation will repeal this bill and replace it with protections to our natural environment based on sensible, honest stewardship—on outcomes and on data, not on feelings. Our second reading amendment set out some of our objections to the bill. Given time constraints, I’m not going to repeat these now, Minister.
Liberal senator Duniam has an amendment coming up which has a fair crack at fixing one of the major errors of this bill. This is an environment bill that does not define what the environment is! Senator Duniam’s amendment sets out what areas, which most Australians would agree, are the actual environment—World Heritage areas, listed wetlands, the Great Barrier Reef and so on. One Nation will support that amendment.
One area of our environment which the government and the Greens misunderstand completely is forestry logging. The whole point about logging is that it provides timber for use in Australian home construction—the same homes the Labor-Greens government are promising to build, apparently without timber! Oh, and, yes, apparently they’ll do that without steel frames either, because they want to stop coal.
The National Farmers’ Federation has provided a question to the minister, which is as follows because they’ve said it very well:
As stewards of more than half of Australia’s environment, farmers understand the importance of doing the right thing by the land—
it is in their own interests—
They’ve also historically borne the brunt of complex federal environmental laws, often at odds with state obligations.That’s why the NFF has supported genuine reform, but not this deal.Our key concern is the announcement of ‘closer controls’ of ‘high risk land clearing’. The specifics of this remain unclear—
what a surprise!—
and we are urgently calling for clarity.The introduction of reduced regrowth thresholds to the long-established ‘continuing use’ provision will promote poor environmental outcomes and increase bushfire risk—
which, as an aside, will increase fire damage, hurting the natural environment and the human environment. The NFF quote goes on:
It will interfere with routine vegetation management of regrowth to prevent bushfires, keep land productive, and manage weeds.The misunderstanding of agricultural practices is bitterly disappointing.
That’s the end of the quote. Minister, why does this bill include measures which will ‘increase bushfire risk’ and place lives in danger; reduce the health of our forests; reduce food production—and, from that, increase food prices for all Australians—destroy the timber industry; destroy the communities that rely on timber; and damage the home construction industry, which will be left to bid in the international market for timber which is already in short supply and is from countries with lax environmental protections?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/i6rFKYiCkLo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-04-07 16:36:042026-04-07 17:24:57Virtue Signalling vs. Australian Jobs
Judge for yourself: does the head of the department overseeing security and immigration seem reluctant to answer simple questions? Do her answers give you confidence?
Secretary Stephanie Foster refused to say how safe Australians currently are. Instead, she tried to deflect the question to ASIO, only belatedly mentioning that the government had allocated $102 million to assist with security for Jewish sites.
Minister Watt and the government haven’t received the message: One Nation will not vote for legislation that packages necessary legal provisions we support with “bundled” provisions that strip away basic rights such as free speech and instil needless control over the people.
The answer to terrorism is not to take away the basic freedoms of Australians; the answer is to stop terrorists from entering Australia in the first place. Based on Minister Watt’s response today and Minister Ayres’ response yesterday, it’s clear that Labor is growing concerned about the surging support for One Nation.
Rather than misleading by omission and spreading falsehoods about One Nation, wouldn’t it be more effective if the “Uniparty” — Liberal and Labor — started serving Australians?
Telling the truth can be tough. However, as One Nation does, it’s better for the long-term interest of the country to raise difficult truths and facts. Instead of dragging others down out of fear, Labor should try lifting itself up.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: These questions are for Home Affairs. What is the risk to Australians of a terrorist attack on Australian soil since the Bondi atrocity at the hands of Islamic terrorists of Middle Eastern extraction and the failed bombing attempt by homegrown white supremacists?
Ms Foster: You’re absolutely right that is a question for the Home Affairs portfolio, but the threat assessments are actually done by ASIO. Director-General Burgess will be appearing later today.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask him similar questions. Isn’t it pertinent that you should know as well?
Ms Foster: That’s a specific role assigned to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you interact with ASIO and AFP to coordinate activities?
Ms Foster: We do. In terms of actually formulating that assessment, that’s a role that belongs with them.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you whether or not you formulate the role. Thank you for explaining that ASIO does that. I thought they did that. What I’m asking is: do you know it? I can ask you questions about your department’s response based on the level of threat.
Ms Foster: I’m hesitating because an amount of the assessment work is classified in nature. I’ll need to take the question on notice before I answer about what is my state of knowledge of the classification level of the material that I have.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know whether or not your department knows what the level of risk is right now. What’s the rating?
Ms Foster: That’s the question I’m being cautious of. When agencies make assessments about threat, that can often be drawn from classified sources. It’s on the public record that the Director-General raised the threat level for terrorism to ‘probable’ on 5 August 2024. That’s the national terrorism threat level, which as he explains means a more than 50 per cent chance of that occurring.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask him this question as well, and thank you for that answer. My understanding is that the risk level rating has to be increased immediately after an attack. Has it been increased? What I’m getting to, Secretary, is: what are you doing differently now compared with before Bondi?
Ms Foster: Again, publicly, the director-general has affirmed that the national terrorism threat level remains at ‘probable’, that he did not, on the basis of information available to him, change that at the time. In terms of what we collectively have done since Bondi, you’ll see a very significant range of activities—obviously some of which you participated in in the debates on the bills which were passed a couple of weeks ago.
Senator ROBERTS: How safe are we now, living in Australia?
Ms Foster: I can only give you my previous answer, which is that it is the director-general of ASIO who makes assessments of Australia’s national terrorism threat level, and he will be appearing later today. But I’ve given you the publicly stated information to date. Mr Hansford has just reminded me that, in terms of another very significant action since Bondi, there is the allocation of a $102 million investment in security for Jewish institutions, places of worship and educational facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you do anything to educate everyday Australians or citizens of Australia as to what we can do to enhance our safety?
Mr Hansford: We—as in the Commonwealth—have a range of actions, including information on the national security website and a range of information that can help people to be informed about security issues in Australia. We also play a leadership role, and I co-chair the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee that has met post Bondi a number of times to talk about how we prepare, knowing what we know about Bondi from the law enforcement and policy community across Australia. We’ve had discussions around how law enforcement and policy agencies can respond to and learn from what’s happened in Bondi, cognisant of the inquiries that are underway.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound very concrete to me. What about things like tightening up immigration standards regarding who we let into the country?
Senator Watt: We recently passed some laws to strengthen the minister’s powers to cancel visas of people promoting hate, and your party voted against those laws.
Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things that we did not like in the bill.
Senator Watt: So you voted against what you were asking for?
Senator ROBERTS: We voted against the other provisions of your bill.
Senator Watt: Which were to make it easier to ban association with Neo-Nazis. Was it that bit that you didn’t like? What was it that you didn’t like?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we could talk for hours about the specifics of that bill. This is a time for you to answer my questions; it’s not for me to answer your questions.
Senator Watt: The problem with One Nation is that you call for things to happen and then vote against them. You’ve done that now on hate speech and hate crime.
Senator ROBERTS: We do not vote against tighter immigration.
Senator Watt: You voted against same job, same pay, when you called for better labour standards.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you increase the immigration vetting standards?
Senator Watt: You voted against cheaper medicines when you wanted things done for poorer Australians. At some point, Australians are going to see through One Nation and observe that you make promises that you don’t keep when you come to Canberra. You did it again recently, by calling for hate preachers to be banned and restricted and then voting against laws that would do that. You called for migration screening and then voted against it. So I’ll leave it to Australians to see through what One Nation does rather than what One Nation says.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you think Australians are fools and not seeing what you’re doing right now? We’ve asked for tighter immigration standards. Will you answer the question: will you provide tighter immigration standards to keep terrorists out?
Senator Watt: We just did that, and you voted against it.
Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things in your bill.
Senator Watt: But we did what you were asking for, and you voted against it—
Senator ROBERTS: Correct, because of the other things.
Senator Watt: just as you always vote against the things that you say need to be done, and we’re onto you.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re happy to leave it in the hands of the Australian people.
Senator Watt: The Australian people, over time, will be onto you.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you call out ideologies that promote terrorism?
Senator Watt: We’ve done that, and we’ve just passed laws.
Senator ROBERTS: It took a long while for you to call out ideologies—
Senator Watt: We’ve done that. We’ve gone and done more than just call it out; we’ve passed laws. We’ve just passed laws. We don’t just call things out; we pass laws to restrict hate speech and hate preachers, and you vote against those laws.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, until the Bondi attack, only one party was calling out ideological Islam, and that was us. Now, all of a sudden, we’ve got more doing so.
Senator Watt: That’s not true.
Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister didn’t.
Senator Watt: There’s a long series of statements from the Prime Minister and ministers in this government. They have condemned some of the hate speech that we’ve seen in the community, whether it be from Islamic preachers or white supremacists; there is a long series of those statements. But we don’t just call things out. When we come to Canberra, we pass laws to restrict that kind of activity. So I invite you to work with the government to restrict that kind of activity, rather than just pretend that you care about these issues.
Senator ROBERTS: Secretary, do you have adequate resources to do what needs to be done?
Ms Foster: The Department of Home Affairs has a very substantial budget and staffing level, and I am able to deploy those resources to the government’s priorities.
In the recent estimates session, I questioned officials from the Attorney-General’s Department about the Legal Services Directions – the rulebook that dictates how the government must behave when involved in legal proceedings.
The government isn’t supposed to play dirty. Under these rules, they are required to act as “model litigants”, meaning they must be honest, fair, and efficient.
The Department isn’t a “police force.” Government agencies are largely responsible for reporting their own mistakes. The Department just “supports” them in fixing those errors.
I asked officials if these rules were followed during the Brittany Higgins settlement and the ongoing cases of Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown. Their response: they stated that Comcover (the government’s insurer) is handling the cases and “complying absolutely” with the rules.
When asked why the government hasn’t “accepted” court findings that cleared Reynolds and Brown of wrongdoing, officials dodged, stating they simply “note” the judgments but see them as separate from the Higgins settlement.
When I asked about legal costs or why the government isn’t mediating with Fiona Brown, the Department passed the buck to the Department of Finance.
The big question? Is the government actually following its own rules, or is the system designed to let them off the hook?
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again today. What are the Legal Services Directions? Could you explain that, please?
Ms Jones: The Legal Services Directions are established under statute in order to provide an overarching framework for the conduct of legal proceedings that the Commonwealth is party to. I have the experts to the right of me who can talk to that in detail.
Mr Ng: Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts. As the secretary has indicated, the Legal Services Directions are made by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act, and they govern, in part, the conduct of much of the Commonwealth legal services.
Senator Roberts: There are requirements for sound practice in the provision of legal services to the Australian government?
Mr Ng: That’s correct. One of the aspects that they cover is in relation to, for example, how the Commonwealth is to conduct itself in litigation. One of the appendices to the Legal Services Directions reflects those model litigant obligations.
Senator Roberts: Are they binding, and on whom are they binding?
Mr Ng: The application of Legal Services Directions applies in full to non-corporate Commonwealth entities. There are aspects of the directions that apply to corporate Commonwealth entities, who are in a different category. Also, they won’t apply to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which are not covered. They’re referenced in a couple of points, but not directly covered.
Senator Roberts: Does noncompliance have to be reported? If so, by and to whom?
Mr Ng: There are provisions under the Legal Services Directions where noncompliance with the directions is reported to the Office of Legal Services Coordination within the department. It remains the responsibility of agencies, relevant agencies or named agencies, to assess those allegations of noncompliance, but the department maintains an overarching role in supporting those agencies to assess and deal with the complaints that they may have received.
Senator Roberts: So it’s the department’s responsibility?
Mr Ng: How I would characterise it is that agencies have a responsibility to notify our department of possible or actual breaches of the Legal Services Directions and to assess their compliance with that. The department has a role in that, in supporting those agencies in meeting their obligations and in addressing noncompliance. Absolutely, the department has a role, but the agencies themselves are the ones who, of course, are responsible, and are running their own cases, where some of these complaints may arise.
Senator Roberts: Who enforces noncompliance?
Mr Ng: The Office of Legal Services Coordination is not a regulator as such. Our role here as a department is to support agencies in the assessments they make. They submit what are called agency notification forms to the department which identify both the allegation of the breach and, where there are instances that the agency themselves has assessed as noncompliant, the corrective steps that are taken and the corrective steps they intend to take as well. The department plays a role in engaging very closely with those agencies to ensure that those steps are taken.
Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions applied in the Brittany Higgins mediation and settlement?
Mr Ng: The matter you refer to is a matter that was managed by Comcover; that is probably the first thing to say in that instance. Comcover, as a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, is required to comply with the Legal Services Directions, and that was managed in accordance with the Legal Services Directions.
Senator Roberts: So they did comply. Are the Legal Services Directions being applied in Linda Reynolds’s and Fiona Brown’s cases?
Mr Ng: Both of those cases are, again, managed by Comcover, within the Department of Finance. Comcover is obliged, as I outlined earlier, to comply with the Legal Services Directions in all aspects of the management of those cases.
Senator Roberts: Were they complied with?
Mr Ng: I’m sorry; I’m just trying to clarify your question, Senator. Is it whether there are allegations of noncompliance? What is it that—
Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions being applied?
Mr Ng: From the department’s perspective, Comcover are complying absolutely with the Legal Services Directions, noting that they’re managing those claims.
Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against Fiona Brown were without foundation?
Ms Jones: It’s not a matter for us to accept the findings of court judgements. We note the judgement, but those proceedings dealt with issues that were separate to the settlement that we had a role in administering.
Senator Roberts: What are the total legal costs incurred to date by the Australian Government Solicitor in external legal assistance for the federal government in relation to Fiona Brown’s claim against the Commonwealth?
Ms Jones: I think we’d need to take that on notice. It’s a matter for Comcover. In fact, I would request that question be put to Comcover. They are the instructing agency.
Senator Roberts: What external legal assistance has been engaged, and from whom? What rates have been agreed, and who approved any extra rates? Ms Jones: Again, that is a matter for Comcover. They are the instructing agency. S
Senator ROBERTS: Who does Comcover report to?
Ms Jones: The Department of Finance. They’re a division within the Department of Finance, although set up as a separate entity.
Senator Roberts: The bureaucracy is so big that we can’t comprehend it all. Why is the Commonwealth not mediating with Fiona Brown?
Ms Jones: We couldn’t provide a view on that. I think that goes to the conduct of that matter, which is a matter for Comcover.
Senator Roberts: Moving to Linda Reynolds—
Mr Ng: As it’s an ongoing legal proceeding, of course it would not be appropriate for us to comment.
Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against then minister Reynolds were, in the words of Justice Lee, ‘without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact’ and, in the words of Justice Tottle, ‘objectively false and misleading’ and ‘dishonest’?
Ms Jones: I return to my previous comment. It’s not a matter for us to accept or not accept comments that are made by judges in the course of their decisions. Those proceedings addressed separate issues to the issue of the settlement of Ms Higgins’s claims.
Senator Roberts: Have these judgements that I just referred to given you cause to review your actions in relation to then minister Reynolds over the Brittany Higgins settlement?
Ms Jones: I think I’d just repeat my previous comment that the settlement in relation to Brittany Higgins’s claims went to related but slightly different issues than to the matters that were the subject of the two judicial observations that you’ve referred to.
Senator Roberts: Is the current Reynolds litigation being handled as an exceptional case or as a major claim, and who made that determination?
Ms Jones: I think—
Ms Chidgey: It’s a matter for Comcover again. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, Senator.
Mr Ng: Also, it’s been reported as a significant issue under the Legal Services Directions.
My exchange with the Professional Services Review (PSR) during the December 2025 Senate Estimates only deepened my concerns regarding the integrity of their review process. It is becoming increasingly clear that their ‘peer review’ is a mere box-ticking exercise, dominated by lawyers rather than the medical peers the legislation intended.
I questioned why lawyers, rather than the doctors themselves, are drafting the reports. While the PSR claims lawyers only “put together” the doctors’ views to ensure procedural fairness, it appears to me that the heavy lifting, sometimes over 150 hours of drafting, is done by legal staff, while committee members may spend as little as seven to 10 hours reviewing the final product.
I raised the issue that there is no legal requirement for committee members to share the same subspecialty as the GP under review. A GP in a niche field like aerospace medicine could be judged by practitioners with zero experience in that specific group.
I questioned Professor Dr Dio and Ms. Weichert on the lack of basic legal protections, such as the absence of a presiding judge, the inability to cross-examine the committee on their views of “general body” standards, and the lack of a formal merits review.
Several questions were taken on notice, specifically around providing detailed log of hours spent by both staff and committee members on reports over the last three years. We need to see if the time spent by doctors actually justifies calling this a “peer-reviewed” outcome.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: At the December 2025 Senate estimates, Professor Dr Dio, you indicated that lawyers prepare their reports from the review scheme but that the committee members review the reports. In what way does the PSR monitor the performance of the committee—including if the committee has read the entire report and the material presented to it before signing it off?
Prof. Di Dio: The committee diligently reads the draft reports and the final reports, and we have staff who liaise with the committee at various stages after draft reports and final reports have been sent to them. So should for any reason a committee member not do their duty and read in the draft report, the legal officer in charge of giving service to that committee would firstly of course remind the committee members to review the report, and if they do not, they would then come to me. But that’s a theoretical possibility, because I cannot recall that happening.
Senator ROBERTS: The PSR committee process is supposed to be a peer review process performed by doctors. Why then don’t the doctors write their own reports? If administrative support is needed, why are lawyers drafting their reports instead of administrative or secretarial staff, which would come at a lower cost to the department?
Prof. Di Dio: Because the reports are incredibly important. We are passionate about according natural justice and procedural fairness to all practitioners under review. It is my view that the best way to do that is to have the best qualified, quality people writing those reports. Reports of this nature would be best written by people who are very good at supporting doctors in providing their reports.
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Best qualified’ to me would seem to be the doctors—and then trimmed up or modified by the lawyers.
Ms Weichert: The lawyers are writing up what the doctors have formed a view about as part of that committee process, as part of the hearing process, the concerns they have put to a person under review and the things that have come back—the lawyers are just putting it together. They are the doctors’ concerns or the medical practitioners’ concerns. It is they who sign off on the report, who approve the report. They are the peer review committee members’ views.
Senator ROBERTS: If it can be shown that a lawyer spends over 150 hours drafting a report, but a committee member only spends seven to 10 hours reviewing the material and reading the report, is this truly considered by the PSR to be a legitimate peer review?
Ms Weichert: That’s not taking into account any of the time that was spent in the hearing, in questioning and the time that the committee members have turned the matter throughout the process.
Prof. Di Dio: A hearing might take eight days; it might take 50 or 60 hours. The prehearing reading might take many, many hours. The contemplation of what happened during the committee hearing might take the committee members many, many hours to turn their mind to it.
Senator ROBERTS: Over the past three years, as an average, what percentage of the total services reviewed has the committee found the services provided by doctors to be inappropriate?
Prof. Di Dio: I will have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: This question is about general practitioners. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners recognises 37 specific interest groups as subspecialities. If a GP is under review by the committee, is it correct that there is no legal requirement for the committee members to share the same subspecialty? For example, if a GP practices solely in aerospace medicine, there’s no legal requirement for the committee to have any experience in aerospace medicine, because they all fall within the category of general practitioners. Why is there no subspeciality matching?
Prof. Di Dio: The subspecialty matching is that members of the committee are general practitioners. But the PSR strives to find general practitioners who have experience in those matters. I can assure you that for some practitioners who are in craft groups that are exotic, as you say, like me—I have particular special interests—we try to match those as much as we can. But, under the law, a general practitioner can review a fellow general practitioner.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it correct that the legislation allows just three committee members to decide what is unacceptable to the general body of general practitioners? In deciding what the general body of general practitioners find unacceptable, do the committee members have to have any regard to any external resources or consideration of other doctors? Do the lawyers draft that part of the report as well, about what the general body of doctors think?
Prof. Di Dio: One of the things that we train committee members to do, to absolutely and scrupulously give fairness to the practitioners under review, is try as much as possible to ask one question at a time to avoid the risk of the practitioner missing the opportunity to respond to any and all of the questions put to them. I’d be very grateful if you could ask me the first couple, and I’ll go through them with you systematically.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it correct that the legislation allows just three committee members to decide what is unacceptable to the general body of practitioners?
Prof. Di Dio: Yes. Ms Weichert: It’s at least three. There are certain circumstances where there could be additional committee members appointed, but it is usually three.
Senator ROBERTS: In deciding what the general body of general practitioners find unacceptable, do the committee members have to have any regard to any external resources or consideration of other doctors?
Prof. Di Dio: The committee members have to have regard to all of the evidence before them so that they can—
Senator ROBERTS: All of the evidence before them?
Prof. Di Dio: Yes. The committee members welcome from the practitioner any materials that they wish to submit as further evidence either before, during or after the hearing.
Senator ROBERTS: While PSR committees are intended to operate as expert peer-review bodies, concerns include the absence of a presiding judge, the lack of merits review, the inability to cross-examine the committee on what they believe to be the views of the general bodies, the downweighting of significant evidence, limited engagement with defence submissions and a lack of transparency. Why do PSR procedures deny these basic elements of procedural fairness and justice, and how does the PSR contend that the peer-review function is being properly exercised in their absence?
Prof. Di Dio: Could you ask the six points one at a time, and I’ll gladly respond to them.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re intended to operate as expert peer review bodies. Concerns include the absence of a presiding judge.
Prof. Di Dio: The process is a peer-review process. So, if somebody is trying to find out whether I’ve engaged in inappropriate practice, then the best placed people to do that are my peers, not a judge.
Ms Weichert: And, ultimately, we are applying the scheme as it is set out in the Health Insurance Act, so that provides for a committee—
Senator ROBERTS: That may be the problem. The lack of merits review?
Prof. Di Dio: Under the act, there is no formal merits review; however, we try as much as we can to build fairness into this process by having multiple opportunities to respond and make submissions—multiple opportunities.
Senator ROBERTS: The inability to cross-examine the committee on what they believe to be the views of the general bodies?
Prof. Di Dio: The committee is there to ask questions and find out if the practitioner under review has engaged in inappropriate practice. It’s not the committee that is under review.
Ms Weichert: But the person under review can put forward their information when they’re answering the questions and the information that they would like the committee to consider, and that will occur as part of the process.
Senator ROBERTS: The downweighting of significant evidence?
Prof. Di Dio: What do you mean by that?
Senator ROBERTS: As I said, ‘the downweighting of significant evidence’—
Prof. Di Dio: I don’t understand what you mean.
Senator ROBERTS: with significant evidence being put cursorily or downgraded.
Prof. Di Dio: What significant evidence? Who has reviewed something cursorily or downgraded it? I don’t understand.
Senator ROBERTS: If there is significant evidence put before the committee, it’s downgraded in terms of the verdict.
Prof. Di Dio: I don’t understand what you mean by that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Limited engagement with—
Prof. Di Dio: I would gladly take that on notice if it’s clarified for me. I just don’t quite understand. I’m not in any way being disrespectful.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I can’t understand how you can’t see that, because the words seem to be selfexplanatory.
Prof. Di Dio: Are you suggesting that, during a committee process, a practitioner under review gives significant evidence and the committee then downgrades or chooses to ignore it?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Prof. Di Dio: I’m not aware of that occurring.
Senator ROBERTS: Limited engagement with defence submissions and a lack of transparency?
Prof. Di Dio: ‘Limited engagement with defence submissions’—again, practitioners under review can make submissions. Those submissions are welcome, and they are reviewed.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Next question—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I interrupt you for one quick second. There are media in the room, and I need to give a short statement. The media have requested permission to film and take photos of proceedings, and the committee has agreed to this. I remind the media that this permission can be revoked at any time. The media must follow the direction of secretariat staff. If a witness objects to filming, the committee will consider this request. The media are also reminded that they are not able to take images of senators’ or witnesses’ documents or of the audience. Media activity may not occur during suspensions or after the adjournment of proceedings. Copies of resolution 3, concerning the broadcasting of committee proceedings, are available from the secretariat. My apologies, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. A former PSR director has been found liable in the Queensland court for misfeasance in public office for failing to perform her statutory duties. Given these matters raised, why should the PSR’s legislation, governance and current officeholders not be subject to a comprehensive independent review?
Prof. Di Dio: We did have a comprehensive review in 2023 called the Philip review, which made findings. We have acted on all of those findings, including the appointment of associate directors to the scheme.
Senator ROBERTS: The former director was found liable for making a decision without adequately considering submitted materials. Isn’t that exactly what’s still happening?
Ms Weichert: We do not consider that to be happening.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What percentage of the department’s budget is spent on the committee review process, and how many cases per year go through a committee process?
Prof. Di Dio: I can’t tell you the exact amount— An incident having occurred in the committee room—
Senator RUSTON: You might want to turn your device off, Malcolm; you’ll have Bridget McKenzie after you! Prof. Di Dio: It might save us all a bit of time!
Senator ROBERTS: Only if it’s in super-rational mode—other than that, it’s just filled with garbage. Can you take that percentage on notice?
Senator CAROL BROWN: It hallucinates from time to time. You have to be careful.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I might just turn it off.
Prof. Di Dio: I woke up this morning, and ChatGPT told me I was going to have a stress-free day, so I think it was hallucinating! Without notice, I can’t tell you exactly what percentage of the budget is spent on committee hearings, but we can take that on notice and give you an accurate reading.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Prof. Di Dio: The second part of your question was—
Senator ROBERTS: How many cases per year go through a committee process? Prof. Di Dio: It changes from year to year, but we get approximately 100 to 120 cases per year referred from Medicare, which in turn represents about 30 per cent of the cases that Medicare reviews. Of those cases, a ballpark figure of approximately 10 per cent get no further action under section 91, about 80 per cent get an agreement with the director or the associate director under section 92 and about 10 per cent get referred to a committee. So maybe 10 practitioners get referred to a committee in a year.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I need to put on record that we’re not debating whether or not the PSR should be there. They are process which I now understand are legislated. That’s what the problem is for us and for doctors. It is very concerning. Take this as a question on notice. Please table a log of the hours spent on each of the draft and final reports by the PSR staff combined and each of the committee members for the last three years of PSR committee matters. It’s expected that this log will table around 60 rows for each of the cases it reviewed over that period.
Prof. Di Dio: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much for appearing. See you next time.
Easter is a time to reflect on the values of sacrifice, renewal, and truth. A moment to pause and find strength in the greatest story of hope ever told.
For many, Easter is the heart of everything we believe, built on two big moments: Good Friday and Easter Sunday.
On Good Friday we take a moment to remember the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. It was the ultimate act of selfless love and bravery. A day to remember the “price” he paid for us.
Easter Sunday is a time of celebration. It’s the Resurrection. It’s victory of light over darkness and life over death. It’s the ultimate proof that no matter how tough things get, a fresh start and a new beginning are always possible through Christ.
During this time, I particularly want to pray for our farmers in Queensland and across Australia. You are the backbone of this country, working the land with a toughness that shows what true faith looks like. We see how hard you work, and we appreciate everything you do to feed our nation.
Easter is about hope and the courage to face challenges head-on. It reminds us that after the sacrifice of Friday, the joy of Sunday is coming. May you find peace, rest, and a renewed spirit this Easter season.
“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” — John 1:5
Have a safe, happy, and free Easter.
Malcolm Roberts
Senator for Queensland
My Easter Address in the Senate 👇
Transcript
Easter is a time to celebrate Jesus’s resurrection and the joy of Christianity. We live in a time when Christianity is under attack. I spoke of those world events earlier this week. Remember, though, John 10:10, which says:
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I — Jesus — came that they may have life and have it abundantly.
Our young are returning to Christianity’s message of hope and joy in God. Our scripture says exactly that in Romans 15:13. It reads:
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him.
Christianity is a world free of artificial separations—no cis white privilege. No-one sees your skin colour. No-one carries a diversity card, and the only pronouns are the ones God gave us. It’s the original world of real inclusion—values that characterise One Nation.
In the past year alone, Bible sales rose 19 per cent, with most of the growth in physical hardcover editions. These are quality bibles being purchased to retain and hand down. In the UK, the Catholic Church recorded a 21 per cent rise in baptisms to their highest level in 11 years. Adult first holy communions increased 44 per cent, and adult sacraments of initiation rose 60 per cent. Baptists recorded the highest baptism rate in 10 years. Fifty-seven per cent of churches are reporting growth averaging 13 per cent. Alpha UK are cross-denominational Christians. They run Welcome to Christianity courses, which grew 35 per cent in 2025, to over 10,000 groups.
This Easter I invite all Australians to visit their families, make a call that may be months or years overdue, contact a relative who has slipped out of touch and celebrate life and our beautiful country. Happy, safe Easter to everyone.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/TheTomb.png?fit=1070%2C617&ssl=16171070Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-04-02 14:03:282026-04-02 14:25:07Beyond Friday is the Promise of Sunday
