Legalised Wage Theft

,

Once again, I am calling out Fair Work officials.

This time it is for the blatant contradiction between their own statements and the Ombudsman’s findings.

I pushed Mr Furlong to reaffirm that enterprise agreements cannot legally undercut award entitlements — then confronted him with written evidence from the Ombudsman claiming the exact opposite, that an enterprise agreement “overrides” the Black Coal Award.

I pressed further, pointing to the Penny Vickers case to show this pattern isn’t new. Unions and big businesses have used enterprise agreements to “legalise” underpayment before, and only whistleblowers exposed it.

Despite every attempt to deflect, the failure is undeniable. The Fair Work system has allowed wage theft before, it’s allowing it again, and regulators refuse to confront it.

I won’t let them hide behind the process.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Furlong, and your colleagues for being here and minister. 

Senator Watt: It’s great to see you again, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Same here, Minister Watt. 

Senator Watt: We spent a lot of time together last week. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, on 9 November 2022, I asked you a question in Senate estimates, specifically: 

Can an enterprise agreement remove the entitlements that the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards provide employees? 
 
You replied simply, ‘No.’ Clear. So you recall this? Now you are aware, I believe, that the Fair Work Ombudsman has been investigating allegations of the underpayment of coal workers where the enterprise agreements have underpaid in comparison to the black coal industry award. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: I am broadly aware that they were conducting an operation in relation to that, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking to put you on the spot for the verdict.  

Mr Furlong: Very broadly, I understand it.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are aware. You answered. The ombudsman has recently completed a number of investigations. I will quote from one of those investigations where the ombudsman has stated in writing to the coal worker who lodged the complaint: ‘As the Fair Work Ombudsman has determined that’—the named person’s—’terms and conditions are governed by the’—named labour hire enterprise agreement—’we do not consider that the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010 applied’—to the named person’s employment. ‘Consequently’—the named person’s—’wages and entitlements during the relevant period should not be derived from the award but from’—the named labour hire enterprise agreement. Would you agree that on the surface and to an everyday person the Fair Work Ombudsman’s statement that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the fair work requirements—in this case, the award—override the EA?  

Mr Furlong: I think that they’re actually perfectly consistent. An award will persist unless there is an enterprise agreement that is in place for a workplace. But an enterprise agreement, in terms of the minimum hourly rate of pay, can’t be less than what is stipulated in the underpinning modern award.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s what I was looking for. Are you aware of the SDA case involving Penny Vickers?  

Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that case.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me refresh your memory. In 2016, Penny Vickers, a shelf-filler at the giant supermarket chain Coles, exposed huge underpayments of Coles workers. The underpayments occurred because the union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, had signed an enterprise bargaining agreement with Coles that ‘legalised’ the underpayment. The independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, had authorised the agreement which gave it legal cover. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I’m aware of the circumstances broadly.  

Senator ROBERTS: The union and big business did a deal. The deal enabled Coles to pay workers less than they should have been paid when they worked on weekends. Penny Vickers took on the union and big business giants and successfully had the underpayment deal overturned in the Fair Work Commission. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: And it was not just Coles. I initially thought it had been just Coles. It was not just Coles that had been in on the union deal. Other huge retailers were also in on the deal, including Woolworths, Bunnings, Target, Kmart, Big W and others. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: No. I’m interested to know—and Mr Corcoran might be able to assist you with this—if the application that was brought to the commission was post the nominal expiry date. Mr Corcoran, can you remember the circumstances of the case?  

Mr Corcoran: Not completely, but I think it might have been within the nominal expiry date of the agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Media reports suggest that, by themselves, just three of these big businesses were underpaying workers by around $150 million a year back in 2016. Are you aware this is extreme wage theft well beyond payroll errors?  

Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that or reviewed that decision. I don’t feel like I can reasonably respond to these questions without going back and reading the decision closely.  

Senator ROBERTS: This was, of course, a huge scandal that sent shock waves through the retail sector in particular—I can remember it was in the papers once it got exposed—and forced the rewriting of retail enterprise agreements almost across the board. Yet, if it hadn’t been for the tenacity and persistence of one person, Penny Vickers, and of the media, including, I believe, Judith Sloan and Rob Gottliebsen, the underpayments would never have been exposed. Mr Furlong, I put it to you that the Fair Work Act has failed. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer- 

employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and the cost and harm of small businesses?  

Mr Furlong: As you’re aware, Senator, my role doesn’t extend to matters of policy. Those questions should be addressed to the department in the normal course of things.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I caught the tail end of your question. I’m happy to have a go at answering it if you’d like to put it to me again.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Fair Work Act has failed. It’s been needlessly complex over many, many years. It’s not understood by workers. It’s not understood by small business. It’s not understood by many employers without a lawyer. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer-employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and of small businesses?  

Senator Watt: I, of course, have a different view about the Fair Work Act, especially after the reforms that our government has undertaken. It’s very clear that, due to the reforms our government has put in place to the Fair Work Act, wages are rising, more agreements are being reached between workers and their employers and industrial action is lower than it was under the coalition. So, in a range of ways, I think that the Fair Work Act has been very successful for Australian workplaces. I know you and your colleagues from One Nation voted against those reforms. I did note, Senator Roberts, on the weekend, the interview with Senator Hanson, where she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage. Is that a general One Nation position?  

Senator ROBERTS: Workers are going backwards. The cost of living is rising faster than wages. Workers are going backwards under your government.  

Senator Watt: Actually, I don’t know if you saw this, Senator Roberts, but just today the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision in the annual wage case, which granted a pay rise for the lowest paid workers in the community of 4.75 per cent, which is ahead of inflation. Senator Hanson on the weekend said that she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage, so I presume that means One Nation doesn’t support that pay rise.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Fair Work Commission has made its decision.  

Senator Watt: But it sounds like your party didn’t support that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move back to Mr Furlong. I’ve asked this question once. Having listened to me talk about Penny Vickers and the illegal enterprise agreement that was reversed, would you agree that, on the surface and to an everyday person, the Fair Work Ombudsman statement that I talked about, with the black coal mining industry award, that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the Fair Work requires, in this case, that the award override the enterprise agreement?  

Mr Furlong: I haven’t seen the Fair Work Ombudsman correspondence that you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I read you quotes.  

Mr Furlong: But I haven’t seen it. I haven’t had the chance to review it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you undertake then, Mr Furlong, to make inquiries of the Fair Work Ombudsman as to why they have taken that view and whether the view is right or wrong and report back to me on this question on notice?  

Mr Furlong: I’ll certainly take up the opportunity to read the correspondence, but, in terms of my role at the commission, I’m required to support the president in the efficient operation of the tribunal. I have two statutory roles. I can certainly look at it and read it, but I’m not too sure what statutory power I could rely on to actually make any sort of commentary around whether or not the provisions of the act have been complied with in these circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong.  

CHAIR: Are you ready for me to rotate?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

———————————————————————————————————————————— 
 
CHAIR: I’m going to go to Senator Roberts—to give you a moment to see if that’s possible. I’ll come back to you after that. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, I’ve got a constituent who wants to ask you a question, so I’m going to ask it for them. You’ll probably have to take it on notice, because I don’t think you’ll know the answer off the top of your head, based on what you said earlier. Section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act provides:  

FWA must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions …  

The use of the term ‘must’ imposes a mandatory legal obligation on the commission. My question is: does the commission have the liberty to bypass, dilute or ignore this statutory duty?  

Mr Furlong: I’m happy to provide a detailed response on notice. We—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

From Iran to Australia: A Defiant Warning

,

On a motion supporting the people of Persia and the safety of all in the Middle East and globally, I read a letter from Janet Shay, an Iranian woman who escaped the Islamic regime, converted from Islam to Christianity and now lives safely in Australia.

Janet calls for honest debate, the freedom to question belief systems, and for clear distinctions between those who live peacefully and those whose convictions threaten public safety.

She urged the government to apply consistent standards, learn from Iran’s experience, and put Australians’ security first.

Her message is clear: It’s not good enough for our government to call behaviour ‘Terrorism’ when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it’s inside.

The safety of Australians must never be sacrificed because politicians are too afraid to have difficult conversations.

Transcript

This morning, I received an email from a constituent who was born into the Islamic regime in Iran. Her parents were Muslim yet converted to Christianity, and they were successful in fleeing Iran and moving to Australia. These are her words, based on her lived experience and that of her family: 

My name is Janet Shay. I’m an Iranian-Australian. 

Yesterday, on the 1st March 2026, the Leader of the Islamic Government of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed. 

The Iranian people have waited 47 years for this moment. 

This is a historical and joyful time for Iranians and for the world. 

Although I am joyful for them, and hopeful that soon I may visit my family the graves of my loved one in Iran, I am deeply concerned for us here in Australia. 

I’ll say that again: she is ‘deeply concerned for us here in Australia’. She continues: 

In 2025 Prime Minister Albanese declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC) a terrorist organisation. Thank you Prime Minister. 

However, declaring a group a terrorist organisation means very little if the ideology that drives that group continues to be taught and defended on Australian soil without consequence. 

What does our government intend do about those living among us who actively promote and defend the same ideology that endorses killing of apostates, abusing women and the sexual violation of children. 

On the 14th of December 2025 there was an attack on Bondi: on Australian soil, against Australians. The Prime Minister said sorry. Ok. 

But sorry is not honesty about what we are dealing with. An ideology cannot be called terrorist overseas but acceptable when it’s in our own country. 

See, the people protesting in Iran are not afraid of being politically incorrect, to NAME what they endured under Islam. They are not going to be gaslit into calling it a misinterpretation. 

So I’ll follow in their footsteps and speak plainly. 

There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want: 

safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims. 

The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith. 

These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims. 

The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people. 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear— 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sterle): On a point of order, Senator Shoebridge. 

Senator Shoebridge: The inflammatory language here of ‘good Muslims’ and ‘true Muslims’—attacking the Muslim faith in the way that this senator is—is contrary to the standing orders. I’d ask you to have him withdraw that commentary and ensure that the debate we have in this chamber does not lead to that Islamophobia that we just heard from Senator Roberts.  

Senator Hanson-Young: Or hate speech. 

Senator Shoebridge: Or, as my colleague says, hate speech. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, I don’t quite see it as you do, but I’m going to check with the Clerk to make sure. The Clerk has concurred with me. You have the floor, Senator Roberts. 

Janet Shay continues: 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Quran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values isn’t irrational.  

Christianity is openly mocked in our country without legal protection from criticism. Nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. 

But when Islam is questioned the conversation shuts down and the person asking the question is called ‘the problem’. And the question about Islam NEVER gets answered. 

She says: 

Australia, we have the right to read, question and think for ourselves. Go to your local library. Pick up a copy of the Quran. Read the Hadith, the recorded words and example of their Prophet Muhammad. Draw your own conclusion and decide if Islam should be shielded from scrutiny in a democratic nation. 

Demand that our government clearly distinguish between those who wish to live freely alongside us and those whose convictions oppose the safety and freedom of Australians. 

And let us build our immigration, our policy and our national values accordingly. 

That is not hatred. That is not phobia. That is us protecting ourselves. 

It is not good enough for our government to call behaviour Terrorism when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it is inside. 

The people of Iran were duped into accepting an Islamic government and have paid for it in blood for 47 years, while the world stood by and didn’t listen. 

Do not let Australia learn that lesson the way Iran did. 

Long live a free Australia. 

Thank you, Janet Shay. I will return to this topic later today—the interests of Australian people at a time of threats to our security. This is what matters. The security of Australians is paramount to One Nation, and it should be paramount to every member of the Senate. 

/0 Comments/by

The Aboriginal Industry Is Failing Aboriginal Kids

In March, I warned that the plight of Aboriginal children remains an indictment on governments past and present, while taxpayer funds are being swallowed by a sprawling “Aboriginal industry” of consultants, activists and bureaucrats that delivers little to the communities it claims to serve.

The gap is widening because there are too many people feeding off the system.

Adding yet another commission will only deepen confusion, waste and dependency, instead of delivering the basics children need.

Cut the bureaucracy, stop the hiving-off of funds, celebrate Aboriginal potential, and direct support based on real need, not race, so Aboriginal kids get real outcomes and taxpayers get accountability.

— March | Senate Question Time

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The plight of Aboriginal children is well documented. We know that from so many people. Senator Pauline Hanson has been raising this issue for around 30 years. Senator Nampijinpa Price has done an exceptional job as well, and Senator Kerrynne Liddle and indeed the minister there. The plight of Aboriginal children is an indictment on parts of our society and especially on the government. I’m not just talking about the Labor government; I’m talking about previous uniparty governments and the Liberal-National coalition. 

I was visiting Badu Island a few years ago in the Torres Strait. A wonderful young councillor stood up and said, ‘While there is a Closing the Gap initiative, the gap will widen, because so many people are feeding off the Closing the Gap campaign that they have become dependent on it.’ I’m talking about the parasites who are pushing some of the Aboriginal industry. They’re white as well as black. The bureaucracy is massive and self-perpetuating. So many of the campaigns are to keep bureaucrats in a job. The bureaucracy is massive, and that means no accountability, and there is the heart of the problem. We now have an Aboriginal industry. 

Basic management shows that this commission will have negative effect. It won’t help. It will hamper and hurt. The aim is to look good, not do good. There are so many things we see every year in the House of Representatives. The Prime Minister—it doesn’t matter who it is, whether Liberal or Labor—and the opposition leader stand up and tell us things about how Closing the Gap is going backwards, and we’ve still got work to do, but it’s all rosy. It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. 

Minister, surely basic management shows that a system that is clogged like the Aboriginal industry is, with so many people feeding off it—consultants, activists, politicians, lawyers, academics—will be only clogged up further. What are your intentions for managing this properly so that it doesn’t clog up the system? 

Senator McCARTHY: Thank you, Senator, for the question. I certainly reject the assertion about ‘Aboriginal industry’ being a negative, Senator Roberts. We have, in fact, just this morning, certainly come together with the Coalition of Peaks—bodies that are clearly defined in the way that they work with local communities on the ground.

You mentioned Badu Island in the Torres Strait. I certainly commend our new convener—the joint convener, with me, on the joint council—and that is Donnella Mills, a Torres Strait Islander woman who is very passionate about wanting to ensure that, on the ground, in terms of local people having local solutions and support, they are supported by community controlled organisations. And those community controlled organisations are accountable, Senator Roberts.

They’re accountable every year, just like any other business in this country that’s provided with either federal or state or territory funds. They are accountable. They’re accountable to the parliaments. And they are certainly accountable to this Senate. That accountability is about transparency, Senator Roberts. So I would just caution you, if I may, around the language that you use that really stereotypes, in a very negative way, the good work that is being done by First Nations organisations and individuals across Australia.

I’ll just take this moment, Temporary Chair, if I may, to acknowledge the commissioner, Commissioner Hunter, in the gallery, and members of the Coalition of Peaks, and those who came this morning for the launch of our latest peak body.

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Coalition of Peaks, Minister. There’s part of the issue. This is a massive bureaucracy. You’ve got to have representatives of the peaks. There’s no audit. And I’m speaking now on behalf of taxpayers, as well as Aboriginal children and Aboriginals. 

I’ve been to every one of the communities, white and black, on Cape York, and I’ve asked: What’s Close the gap? What do they know about Close the gap? What do they think about Close the gap? Some of the communities there don’t even know about Close the gap, because they’re not getting the benefits of the funding that’s coming from the taxpayers; it’s getting hived off by the parasites, white and black—activists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists, academics, politicians and bureaucrats—along the way. 

How is this additional bureaucratic load, this additional constipating layer in the middle, going to strengthen coordination across government? It’s adding more people into the middle of this government mess. As I said, it’s not just your mess; it’s previous governments’ messes as well. 

Then these are going to be ‘advising the Commonwealth’—this is from your own bill. ‘Advising the Commonwealth’? How many more people do you need to get advice from? This is getting ridiculous! People across the country, especially Aboriginal people, are laughing at this. Some of them are crying at it. 

And then there’s the third activity: ‘undertaking and commissioning research into systemic issues and barriers’. There’s no doubt there are systemic issues and barriers. We can see them. Why do you need yet another group of researchers? This is just going to confuse the mess again. 

Then there’s ‘providing and commissioning educational programs’. Children won’t know which way is up, they’ll have so many different messages from so many different bureaucrats—so many different parasites. 

Next there’s ‘undertaking public advocacy’ to promote the rights and interests of children and young people. We’ve got so many people in parliament doing that. We’ve got so many people outside parliament doing that. You’ve got so many bureaucrats, tripping over each other, doing that. 

They’re ‘to amplify their voices and strengths’. Oh, really? Really? It’s not working so far. The nanny state is not working so far. 

As to engaging with children: how many more people are going to engage with children? These kids will have their heads spinning. What about basic needs? Get to the core of the problem. There are, clearly, crucial human needs, and they’re being bypassed by these people looking after their own administrative jobs. I also remain concerned about two things. One is that this is a divisive piece of proposed law that is defined by race. It draws distinctions and promotes divisions by race, which makes it racist. It overtly continues and entrenches the them-versus-us mentality that prevails in conjunction with the patronising mentality of victimhood status. 

In Aboriginals—and you’re an example of this, Minister—we have four per cent of Australians who are Aboriginal; we have 11 per cent of parliamentarians who are Aboriginal. Aboriginals have high potential, but so many are being locked into victimhood. Surely what we need to do is free up Aboriginals to fulfil their enormous potential. They’re leading in the NRL, the AFL, business, sport, academics and science, and yet some of the communities are terrible. I think we need to start celebrating Aboriginals rather than locking some victims— 

Senator Waters: Stop calling them parasites, then. What about all the taxpayer money you’re defrauding? You talk about parasites. You lie, you steal— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll take that interjection from Senator Waters. I’ll make it very clear: she misrepresented me then, because I am not calling Aboriginals parasites. I’m calling Aboriginals fantastic human beings with huge potential. I’m calling them parasites in the bureaucracy—the activists, the lawyers, the administrators, the bureaucrats, the consultants, the academics—who are living off the money that’s going from taxpayers to the Aboriginal industry. That’s what I’m talking about. This is just going to add more complexity and more bureaucracy. 

One Nation policy is to get rid of the Aboriginal industry, to save $15 billion, and instead provide real care through government grants based on real needs, regardless of skin colour. This bill has an aim, I believe, to look good, not to do good. In trying to look good, you do a lot of harm. You just add more to the constipating layer of bureaucrats. Minister, isn’t this an option to start celebrating Aboriginals, rather than casting them as victims, and to start giving grants based upon real needs? Isn’t that what’s really needed here?

Senator McCARTHY: Senator Roberts, firstly, I agree that we should celebrate First Nations culture in this country. I agree that there are many outstanding athletes, as we saw with the Rabbitohs recently and the great score trier that everybody roamed the field on with AJ. But there are many, many others, whether they’re athletes or otherwise. There are professionals in business, in the sciences and in our schools. We’ve even got our young woman here from Yirrkala, who’s doing very well— Siana, I’m watching you as a bit of a trailblazer for us.

You’re right that we should celebrate First Nations people and culture, Senator Roberts. But that’s probably about as far as our similarities might go, because I certainly reject the assertion that there is no accountability or transparency. As I said in my previous response to you, every organisation that is receiving funding does get audited, whether it’s from the Australian National Audit Office or having to provide their annual reports to this parliament.

I certainly have many statutory bodies whose reports have to be delivered to the Senate. That is accountability, Senator Roberts. That is where we differ. You keep asking for audits. Well, audits actually happen as an annual event for organisations, and those organisations that are not doing well obviously get picked up in this as well. Like non-Indigenous organisations and businesses, there are some across the country that don’t do well, and they need extra support to get them back on their feet or, like many, they go out of business.

The accountability structure is there in terms of the audits, and, as I said, I agree with you in terms of the celebration of First Nations people, but the way we do that is also about lifting families. This is why this bill is incredibly important. It’s important because we are listening to what the communities have been asking for for a long time. I might walk you through just a bit of that history. The Bringing them home report in 1997 actually raised this back then, and we’ve had subsequent organisations through the Coalition of Peaks.

There are 70 organisations who’ve given guidance on this. I would not dismiss—and I am sure you, as a senator for Queensland, would not dismiss—those who come to us to give advice. That’s what this parliament asks for in terms of the Coalition of Peaks and the agreement that we’ve signed with every state and territory to that Closing the Gap agreement. We’ve got organisations like SNAICC, which cares for the children. We’ve got VACCA, the Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency, and the Korrie Youth Counsel.

All these organisations have come forward to say there needs to be this national commissioner. There needs to be a role where the national First Nations commissioner is there for the children who are being taken away, who are in out-of-home care. We’ve seen those figures rise staggeringly, especially in states like Victoria. Having the ability for the national children’s commissioner to work with each state and territory and to inform this parliament is absolutely critical. Senator Roberts, there are some things we kind of see a bit of similarity on, but probably most not.

But I do appreciate your interest. You have shown that at estimates as well in the questions that you’ve raised around communities. I would urge you and your party to get behind this bill. What Commissioner Hunter will be able to do is know that she has the support of this parliament behind her to work with our kids across the country.

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s “Suicidal Empathy” on ISIS Brides

,

One Nation supports the private Senator’s Bill that was introduced in March by Senator Duniam.

This Bill finally forces transparency and accountability around the return of individuals linked to terrorism.

The Bill makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of people who’ve engaged in terrorism-related conduct unless both key ministers sign off in writing.

This legislation exposes Labor’s role in repatriating women who travelled to ISIS territory as committed participants in a violent extremist organisation responsible for severe harm and human rights abuses.

Their return was quietly brokered through intermediaries, even though some had openly urged attacks on Australia and its allies. A true case of suicidal empathy.

To these female terrorists, One Nation says this: you got what you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They’re the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I’ll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named ‘ISIS brides’ inspires this legislation. The term ‘ISIS brides’ is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to ‘breed the cubs of the caliphate’ and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they’re Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we’re supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they’ve committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That’s what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It’s called suicidal empathy. Let’s quote one of Minister Burke’s ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: ‘Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.’ That’s charming—really charming. It’s suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that’s telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate? As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia.’ And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

/0 Comments/by

Is the Gap Closed?

,

During this session I pressed Commissioner Kiss on waste, duplication and middle-man costs in the Aboriginal industry.

She acknowledged the funding failures, yet still joined the chair and other senators in pushing back on my questioning – proving that even when everyone admits the money isn’t reaching communities or Closing the Gap targets, they resist being held accountable.

My point was clear: money is being poured in, yet outcomes are worsening, accountability is missing, and real on-the-ground help is being smothered by bureaucracy.

How much taxpayer money will this government burn before the Gap Closes?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Kiss. You recently made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties. Apparently that was after the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election. Is that correct?  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: After the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election, you made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties.  

Ms Kiss: I don’t recall using that language at all. Can you clarify what you’re talking about?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s all I’ve got here. What benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would such a statement bring?  

Ms Kiss: Again, I’m not clear what you’re referring to. So, if you could, give me some clarity around where I might have used that language. I don’t recall using that language.  

Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t use it?  

Ms Kiss: Not that I can recall.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What are your thoughts on the Aboriginal industry—that is, what’s referred to as the Aboriginal industry, the lawyers, the politicians, the public servants, the bureaucrats, the contractors, the academics and the activists living off the money allocated to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in poverty despite receiving welfare payments the same as other Australians in need? The money is being allocated, but it’s not getting to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts on that? 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that sounds an awful lot like you’re asking the commissioner for an opinion. That’s not—  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have an opinion?  

Ms Kiss: I do have an opinion, but it’s not my role to share my opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that that’s happening?  

Ms Kiss: I can speak to the fact that we know that there is a fair amount of financial allocation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services and supports. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of welfare support, but I do have concerns about the fact that funding that’s being allocated to our communities and to our organisations and to government agencies is not actually meeting the needs of our communities. That’s evident in the Closing the Gap targets.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’re agreed. Are you aware that often more than half the grant money is eaten up by salaries and other middleman costs before getting to the people the grant was supposed to assist?  

Ms Kiss: The indication of that has been presented in Productivity Commission reports and Indigenous expenditure reports, so, yes, I am aware that there is consideration of that.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m struggling to see the connection between your questions and the role of Commissioner Kiss.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ll see it fairly soon.  

CHAIR: Okay, I’m looking forward to that. That would be helpful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that most assaults upon Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia are committed by Aboriginal men?  

Senator COX: No, they’re not.  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure that those statistics are necessarily accurate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Why does nobody comment that the large proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal people are in jail because they committed crimes warranting a jail sentence from a magistrate or judge? That’s called social justice.  

Ms Kiss: I can’t make comment on that, Senator. That’s not a question for me. 

CHAIR: Again, it’s asking the commissioner for her opinion.  

Ms Kiss: Senator, I don’t make the decisions about who goes to jail and how they’re sentenced. Sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, when will this government learn that throwing money around is not the solution? These people are living in misery, in poverty, and throwing more money at them and throwing it to the activists and the parasites in between is not being effective. It’s quite clear. Social justice includes people accepting responsibility for their own actions and genuine help on the ground. What is your government going to do about closing the gap, because it’s widening now?  

Senator Green: Thanks for the question, Senator. I reject the language in your question. Yesterday, in front of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the National Indigenous Australians Agency appeared and gave a lot of evidence about all of the work that we are doing to improve outcomes and close the gap. Our government is committed to that. The Prime Minister gave a statement to acknowledge the Closing the gap reports. We acknowledge that not enough is being done and more needs to be done, and that’s why we’ve made significant investments in the budget. I want to thank the commissioner for the work that she does in highlighting not just to governments around the country but to everyone in the country how important it is that we do close the gap, not just for the people who are living these lives right now but for future generations of Australians.  

/0 Comments/by

The Public Arrest Spectacle: Who Really Made the Call?

,

During the June Estimates, I questioned the Australian Federal Police (AFP) regarding the high-profile public arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith at Sydney Airport.

Both Minister Watt and AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett claimed that most of my questions had already been comprehensively covered during earlier questioning by Senator Cash. I accepted this at the time and agreed to review the Hansard.

However, the one specific question I wanted answered, which I’m certain was not addressed during Senator Cash’s session, was whether the AFP specifically discussed the location of the arrest with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Instead of providing a direct answer, Commissioner Barrett deflected, citing operational decisions and general stakeholder engagement.

Having since reviewed the “comprehensive” answers provided to Senator Cash, I strongly disagree that my question was covered. I will pursue this matter at the next opportunity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to effect the arrest before you arrested him?  

Ms Barrett: I referred to that in my statement as well, in relation to why and the reasons.  

Senator ROBERTS: You had a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions?  

Ms Barrett: In relation to what specifically?  

Senator ROBERTS: Where you intended to effect the arrest.  

Ms Barrett: Those matters are operational matters that were operational decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions before arresting Mr Roberts-Smith?  

Ms Barrett: In my statement, I referred to us engaging with stakeholders in relation to that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about the location in which to arrest Mr Roberts-Smith—yes or no?  

CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: She hasn’t answered my question.  

CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question. If you’ve got another question you want to ask, please ask it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think it might be better for the commissioner to answer.  

CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question.  

Senator Watt: Maybe a good way forward—if you take a couple of minutes to read that statement, I think you’ll find that many of your questions have been addressed.  

Senator ROBERTS: This one clearly has not been.  

Senator Watt: Just in the interests of time: Senator Cash ended up finding that all the questions she was going to ask were addressed in the statement. If there are questions you have that haven’t been addressed already, I’m sure the commissioner would be happy to answer them.

/0 Comments/by

Fatal Army Rollover: Was the Vehicle Defective?

,

In this session, I raised several concerns regarding the heavy vehicle involved in the 2021 rollover near Townsville, which killed Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne.

I asked whether the 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle had entered service overweight, causing the axles to sit on the bump stops, thereby restricting axle movement and reducing roadholding. I also noted that the tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to operate at higher loads and pressures.

Furthermore, I stated that there was no evidence the antilock braking and stability systems had been calibrated for the addition of the fifth axle, the higher tyre pressures, or unique Australian road conditions. Finally, I pointed out that the operator manual, which was compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions regarding safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and entirely omitted recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads.

Defence officials (including Ms. Quinn and Ms. Kuczma) noted that standard contracts include “fitness-for-purpose” and risk-mitigation clauses. While Defence can theoretically choose to accept deviations in specifications under tight timelines, the DDA will maintain independent authority and accountability to manage contracts, enforce compliance, and withhold payments or suspend programs if requirements or safety standards are not met.

In response to my concern that the fatal vehicle’s flaws have still not been remedied, Defence Secretary Ms. Quinn rejected that the department is not focused on safety. She emphasised that Defence takes loss of life very seriously and continually adapts maintenance, acquisition, and operational processes based on new information.

I’ll be watching for the release of the report from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, officers, for appearing again tonight. My question is to the Chief of the Defence Force. On 30 August 2021, a 45M vehicle occupied by Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne failed to take a bend on Dotswood Road near Townsville, rolled and killed both occupants. ‘On 29 August 2025, an investigation was opened into the contributing factors in the rollover’—this is a quote—’that caused the deaths of Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Allan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Anthony Payne and was due to report by 4 March 2026.’ Has that investigation been completed?  

Adm. Johnston: I’ve just been joined by the Chief of Army, who may assist me with those answers. 

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can confirm that the Defence investigation has been completed and the final report was submitted to Comcare. That investigation was led by the land accident investigation team. That matter is now with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available to me during the period of litigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, did you say ‘not available’?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: They’ve been referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available for dissemination during the litigation that is currently ongoing.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the outcomes of the investigation that you can share with us?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m not in a position to share those outcomes with you while they’re subject to litigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm my understanding of these vehicles? The 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle entered service overweight, resulting in the axles sitting on the bump stops. This restricted axle movement and reduced roadholding. Is that correct?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: The tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to run at higher loads and pressures. Is that correct?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: There was no evidence of the calibration of the antilock braking stability systems for the addition of the fifth axle, higher tire pressures and unique Australian road conditions. The operator manual had been compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions for safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and did not include recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads. Could you take that on notice, please.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: You’re effectively making a series of assertions that may or may not be included as part of the investigation that was undertaken and is currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’ve been advised—some of the design failures or flaws in the vehicle.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Is that a question or a statement?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm that?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: As I’ve just advised, the investigation is referred to and currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can speak to a whole range of work that we’ve done. We have what you might describe as a generative safety culture, which is modelled on the way that airworthiness and air safety are managed. That is a proactive culture of reporting and continual improvement. In terms of the detail as to some of the things that we have done, I’ll provide some of the outcomes and then I might throw to my colleague Major General Vagg to provide some more. First, the application of data and analytics—that is, to have systems on the vehicle that are able to provide us with both retrospective and predictive analysis as to driving habits, and, therefore, help us understand the risks. Second, we’ve undertaken a review of the training that we provide for soldiers and other members of the ADF to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that we apply what we have learned from vehicle incidents and accidents. As you might appreciate, we have some soldiers who join the army who may not have even a civilian drivers licence. The kinds of conditions that we need to operate vehicles in, include not only the operation of the vehicle but also its tactical employment, whether that’s by day or night, on formed roads or cross country, in any kind of season, weather or terrain. We’re continually looking to update the way in which we train people to ensure that they can operate safely. In the introduction to service, and even before that, is the selection, testing and validation of any major system vehicle or weapon to ensure that it can be operated safely and that we have properly characterised the risks that may accrue to our people, and that we have either procedural, technical or equipment based mitigations or ways of reducing the risk to our people.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of a man called W. Edwards Deming?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have.  

Senator ROBERTS: You would know, then, that he led the turnaround of the Japanese producing crap to producing the best products in the world.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m generally aware of what Mr Deming did.  

Senator ROBERTS: He said that as much as people in management like to blame or inherently try to blame people for their problems, 95 per cent of the problem is the system, which only the manager can fix. What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have a couple of points before I’ll hand over to my colleague. Firstly, I’m accountable for everything that happens in the Army and the safety and wellbeing of all our people. Secondly, we operate a whole range of different systems, and in every case we seek to ensure that our people are systemically supported. We have a multifaceted approach to ensuring that equipment is safe, whether it’s technical assessments, predictive analysis, the way in which we train our people, or the assurance of the safety, the maintenance and the supply chain systems. It’s a holistic approach to assuring capability, assuring that those capabilities are fit for purpose, assuring that they are safe for our people to use, and assuring that our people are trained, educated and experienced to ensure that risks are managed so far as is reasonably practical.  

Major Gen. Vagg: I’ll reinforce what the Chief said. He is the land worthiness authority. Land worthiness is a system of checks that looks at current, in-service capabilities and also future-looking capabilities that we’re going to introduce into service. We’ve been developing that system over several years now. It had an interim operating capability in March 2020, and we’re on track to achieve a final operating capability in December of this year. That process is backed by a series of assessment tools, such as data trend analysis, that identify high-risk capabilities but also new capabilities, and we form an independent board which interviews users—from soldiers to managers, the procurement agency and other assurance agencies—and validates that the capability is fit to do what we’ve acquired it to do and that it’s fit and safe to operate, as the chief discussed. That board is made up of a series of retired one-star and two-star officers from across the services who have no direct linkage to the capabilities. They have no independent equities or personal equities to that capability. They’ll provide independent advice to the landworthiness authority and a series of recommendations. Those recommendations are then heard through the army operating system and implemented through our capability development and capability management processes.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question is for the deputy secretary of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Chris Deeble, or Nadine Williams or both.  

Ms Quinn: There are two different activities. There’s the capability acquisition group, for which we have a witness, and then there is the whole-of-government review of the defence delivery mechanism. So, depending on where your questions go, we may have different witnesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. There’s been much discussion and evidence provided to me and the parliament of the knowing approval of defective capability leading to injuries and fatalities. What does the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group do?  

Ms Kuczma: I think the question is quite broad. Our job is to acquire capability that is fit for its intended purpose and deliver that to the service that requires it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s pretty succinct.  

Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts—sorry to interrupt. I know and recognise your advocacy for the safety of our people. If you do have evidence that suggests that we have not treated safety in the introduction of equipment into service, I would welcome that being provided through our minister so that we can both review that material and come back to you with insights that answer those areas of concern that you have identified.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What actions have been taken in the design of the Defence Delivery Agency to ensure that non-compliant capability is not accepted for service?  

Ms Quinn: I’m happy to give a high-level answer. There has been an ongoing review of the acquisition system within the Department of Defence that goes across all phases of the acquisition program, from defining capability to acquiring and sustaining it, and the feedback loops throughout that whole system. In that process, there’s been an identification of some improvements we can make—some structural, some behavioural and some about being clearer on our accountabilities. So they do fall into different categories. One is just being very clear about the accountability for the different elements of those phases of any capability acquisition, development and sustainment. The second is to improve the professionalism of the staff at all three stages of that process. That includes having a specialised workforce, particularly through the Defence Delivery Agency—I keep using the acronym DDA. That’s about professionalising the workforce, working with other elements of the Defence establishment, including industry in particular, to be able to ensure that we can improve the acquisition. Safety, of course, is one of the elements of the process. I’ll pass to Nadine Williams if she’s got anything to add.  

Ms Williams: I wouldn’t add much to that. As the secretary has said, the design of the Defence Delivery Agency has considered the matters that she’s raised. We’re going through quite an extensive process of looking at how the Defence Delivery Agency is constructed, how professionalism might be better articulated through that construct and how accountabilities will ensure that there are really clear responsibilities for all elements of acquisition as it’s currently articulated.  

Ms Quinn: The concept of contestability in decision-making has been a theme as well. One reason to be very clear about the stages of the process is to ensure there’s very good contestability at the different stages, so that it’s a multidisciplinary view of capability development, acquisition and sustainment. Having more voices, but with clear accountability, will improve the delivery system overall.  

Senator ROBERTS: The current contracts for defence procurement include clauses that say that Defence does not pay any additional cost for a non-compliant capability in the supplier’s product.  

Ms Quinn: I think it would be hard to generalise across all the different types of contracts that we have, because there are a great deal of different contracts. We look at value for money, operational capability and risk sharing. Value for money also includes ensuring that, if faulty products are provided, there’s recourse for such an outcome. So our contract management would include risk mitigation activities. I’ll just see whether Ms Kuczma wants to say—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. By ‘risk mitigation’, you mean you’ll accept the vehicle or the piece of hardware and make a risk assessment as to how to use it without fixing it?  

Ms Quinn: We certainly do that, but also, if we’d specified a certain capability—and the contract was clear on that—and we received a capability that did not meet the specifications, then there would be avenues in the contract to rectify such a situation.  

Ms Kuczma: In general terms, we have a contracting suite that includes fitness-for-purpose clauses, which look at the outcome that’s required under the contracts. Generally they exist in our contracting templates to ensure that we can have recourse should those deliveries not meet our expectations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can they be bypassed if there’s a rush?  

Ms Kuczma: We have the ability to accept supplies and work through deviations, or things that don’t meet the requirements, should we choose. But our purpose is: fitness for purpose, receive what’s required contractually and deliver.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Defence Delivery Agency have the authority to stop delivery, suspend programs and withhold payment where capability does not meet contract regulation or legislation?  

Ms Quinn: It is the intention that the delivery agency will have independent accountability and authority for contracts and manage those contracts in the interests of Defence, in terms of delivering the capability we need.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just talked in terms of future tense.  

Ms Quinn: Existing contracts will be novated to the delivery agency, as appropriate, so existing contracts will also have that ability—as is the case now in the Department of Defence. There will be no step back from the ability to manage delivery or to meet specifications, including safety concerns.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand from Lieutenant General Stuart that there’s no comment yet on the reports of the fatal accident, but it would seem to be—I may be wrong here—another example of failure in the military procurement process, as it appears that recent inspections of the vehicles show that the problems have still not been remedied, placing drivers and passengers of these vehicles at risk of death. Why?  

Ms Quinn: To the first part of that question, what I heard in evidence was that the investigation has been provided to the public prosecution. It’s not available to the public, but there’s certainly a process going through to look at the investigation and see whether there are next steps that need to be taken. We also heard about the implementation of a lessons- time. So the characterisation that the department isn’t focused on it, or the Army is not focused on it, I wouldn’t accept. In high-risk situations, with the activity that’s undertaken across the Defence enterprise, there is the possibility for loss of life. The department and the services take that very seriously and focus on ensuring that, if something does happen, lessons are learnt, processes are put in place and improvements are made, and that includes into the development of capability, in terms of the acquisition and sustainment of capability—because some things are to do with maintenance—and the rectification of problems. As a layperson prior to joining this department—there have been instances of things retired for a whole set of reasons. The system does respond to new information to ensure the safety of serving men and women.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

The $3 Billion Senior Squeeze

,

I recently asked questions about the government’s decision to cut the private health insurance rebate for seniors. Senator Green and government officials said that the rebate will now be based solely on income rather than age, aligning support across all cohorts. The government expects to save $3 billion from this measure, which it says will be reinvested into aged care and public hospitals.

It’s estimated that 3.1 million people will be affected, experiencing an average rebate reduction (and effectively a premium increase) of $250. Additionally, it’s predicted that approximately 44,000 people may drop out of private health insurance entirely.

I expressed my concern that forcing seniors into the public system would worsen existing hospital shortages. Amazingly, I was told that the impact on the public system would be minimal (less than 1%) and spread out. It was also highlighted that $24.4 billion was being invested into the public health system, adding that workforce and bed management are ultimately the responsibilities of state and territory governments.

I accused the government of punishing seniors to fund wasteful spending and a “socialist agenda.”

Senator Green rejected this statement, framing the move as a necessary offset to fund record investments in aged care.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I want to talk about the private health insurance rebate being cut. It was announced in the recent budget that the rebate for premiums paid by seniors towards private health insurance would cease; why? Is this a socialist agenda, Minister?

Senator Green: No, it’s not. We did go through this quite lengthily this morning. I don’t plan to add too much to what the minister had to say in response to questions from Senator Ruston, other than to reiterate that, under the proposed changes, all Australians will now receive the same private healthcare support based on their income and not on their age. What we’ve set out is that, through this budget and as a consequence of this decision, we will be investing over $3 billion in delivering more aged care beds, more packages and better care for older Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to get on to some specifics after this next question. Why does the government wish to punish seniors, most of whom have chosen to opt out of the public health system and pay premiums to receive private health treatment, by now wanting to make them pay even more than they currently pay?

Senator Green: I reject that assertion in your question. We are investing a record amount of funding into improving the healthcare system, particularly for aged care and older Australians, and that’s why we’ve made this decision. Of course, as you will stand up in the Senate many times over the next couple of months and decry the spending from our government, we know that it’s important to offset decisions that we have to make. That is why we have said that this decision will benefit older Australians through the aged care system.

Senator ROBERTS: How can you deny that older Australians on private health cover will not be paying more?

Senator Green: We’ve gone through this at length this morning. If you have a question about the impact or the policy decision, I will direct that to the officials. But I can say to you that, through this budget, we are making record investments in healthcare and aged care

Senator ROBERTS: And older Australians will be paying more, which is a point that I’ll get to in a minute, and this is during a cost-of-living crisis. Currently, how many seniors, effectively, will be forced to pay more for private health cover or enter the public system? Do you have any modelling?

Mr Hawkins: As we discussed this morning, 3.1 million people will be affected by the change in the rebate. We also put on record—we talked about this at length this morning—that our modelling would suggest that potentially about 44,000 might drop out of having cover and, therefore, would then no longer engage with the PHI system.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was after. What would be the effect of the extra load being placed on the public health system? Hospitals are already short of beds now.

Mr Hawkins: As I’ve said, our modelling would indicate that it’s a less than one per cent impact on the public health system and, again, as we went through in quite a lot of detail this morning, that would be spread across the system, with not everyone needing to use the system at any one time. Also, we might find that people decide to opt out of PHI but then self-fund any care that they need.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re already critically short of beds in many hospitals due to mass immigration. Post COVID injections, cancer detection has increased dramatically. Cancer deaths have decreased, because of treatment. But the available beds have decreased. This is going to add more strain to the public health system.

Ms Street: An additional $24.4 billion has also been invested into the public health system, bringing it up to $220 billion over the five years. So, yes, there might be some ‘additional’ but, as we’ve said, it would be less than one per cent. We think that estimation is at the higher end, because we do think, potentially, people will self select into private, or they may be people who are less likely to use the services anyway, so a number of factors contribute to that number. So we think this investment and this measure will have a minimal impact on that element.

Senator ROBERTS: What would be the total value of the extra premiums raised by those who choose to stay in the private health system?

Mr Hawkins: We’ve calculated that there will be an average impact of $250 on those who will have their rebate reduced. Everyone was to have access to the rebate, but it’s the size of the rebate that is reducing, and our average calculation is about $250.

Senator ROBERTS: How much does the government plan to save by refusing to rebate premiums for older Australians, or by cutting them back?

Mr Hawkins: By cutting the rebate, we are looking at $3 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the government modelled the extra cost to the public system by absorbing older Australians, who are more likely to require major healthcare in their elder years?

Mr Hawkins: No, we do not have that specific level of modelling. But as I’ve said, we have looked at and modelled what we think the impact would be, and that’s under one per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: What about the chronic shortage of beds, doctors, nurses, specialists and allied health professionals in public hospitals?

Senator Green: That’s veering a little bit into outcome 1, Public hospitals. But I’ve got Caitlin O’Brien from our public hospital team here, if you want to talk about the investment that the government is putting in through the NHRA agreement that we’ve put in place. Do you want to cover that?

Ms O’Brien: As Ms Street has said, an additional $219.6 billion over five years has been invested into the state- and territory-run public hospital system. Your questions in relation to workforce capacity and beds are best directed to state and territory governments who, under the National Health Reform Agreement agreed on 30 January, are very clearly listed as the stewards of their system.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you not have assessed that, though, before making the changes?

Ms Street: As we’ve indicated, we think the ‘additional’ is less than one per cent, and we think that estimation is at the higher end. So, in terms of the fiscal impact, it will depend on the services that people need and the conditions that they’re seeking treatment for.

Senator Green: The officials have made this point but, again, we’re investing almost $25 billion into the hospital system over the next five years.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Clare O’Neill said, reportedly, that the budget is deliberately hitting older people. It’s a tax grab because you’re paying for so much waste in government.

Senator Green: I don’t think that’s what Minister O’Neill would have said. I think you might be verballing her.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going on reports. It is a fact that the budget is also hitting young people. What I’m getting at is that this is a cover for the massive waste within your government spending, and now you’re going to ask older people to share in that.

Senator Green: No. We are making record investments in once-in-a-generation reforms in aged care and healthcare. That includes investing almost $25 billion into public hospitals, funding the states and territories to do the very important work that they do in making sure that the public hospital system is free.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a fact, Minister, that older people will be paying more.

Senator Green: We’ve changed the rebate so that now it’s means tested, so it’s based on income now. We can take you through how that might impact certain cohorts, but we have changed the rebate so that now it is means tested on income.

Senator RUSTON: On a point of clarification, Minister, you just said that you’ve changed the rebate so that it’s means tested on income. Are you suggesting that it’s currently not means tested on income?

Senator Green: No, that’s not what I said.

Senator RUSTON: You just did say that.

Senator Green: I’m not going to go back over the evidence that Senator Gallagher gave to you this morning. What I’m saying to Senator Roberts is that there is a means test for the rebate that is based on income.

Senator RUSTON: Now?

Senator Green: How semantic do you want to get?

Senator RUSTON: You just said that it is now going to be means tested. It has always been means tested.

ACTING CHAIR: I think, as the secretary has said, it is ‘solely’.

Mr Comley: ‘Solely means tested’. In fact, it hasn’t always been means tested.

Senator RUSTON: It was means tested prior to this change.

Mr Comley: I think it was, but it was not means tested on introduction in 2000.

Senator RUSTON: It has been means tested up until now.

/0 Comments/by

The Illicit Tobacco Market Must Be Wiped Out

,

During the February Estimates hearings, I pressed the government and the Illicit Tobacco Commissioner on the ineffectiveness of their strategy to combat the illicit tobacco market.

Tobacco excise revenue is projected to fall to just $1.9 billion by 2029-30, far below the $16 billion-plus previously collected. A clear sign the government does not expect its enforcement efforts to meaningfully reduce the black market.

The Commissioner’s own report lists 10 drivers of illicit tobacco yet fails to directly acknowledge that high excise and the resulting price gap are major contributors, despite everyday Australians, including police officers, confirming this reality.

Independent data from Roy Morgan shows smoking rates have increased from 16.8% to 17.1% following recent excise hikes, contradicting the government’s claim that higher taxes reduce smoking. Without knowing the true size of the black market, boasting about a 34% increase in seizures of illicit product is meaningless. We cannot measure success when you don’t know the scale of the problem.

The government continues to act without reliable data, ignores evidence that contradicts its assumptions, and refuses to confront the policy settings driving the illicit tobacco growth.

This is a failure that Australians should not be forced to tolerate. It’s costing taxpayers billions in lost revenue.

One Nation will take drastic action until the illicit market is wiped out, then return duty to a much lower, more sensible and sustainable rate.

— February | Senate Estimates

Trancript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the Commissioner for Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarettes. My question on notice No. 15 remains unanswered from last estimates. It read: How many acts of violence were committed in Australia that were directly related to illegal tobacco and vapes? I’m talking about murders, fire bombings, assaults and similar acts or threats of violence. I did get a part answer in that the question was best answered by law enforcement, which I assume would include various state and federal agencies. Your role, as you expressed it to me in last estimates is, ‘activities that support intergovernmental governance functions and support reporting on the size and consequence of the illicit market’. Doesn’t consequence include acts of violence related to the illicit industry and criminals associated with that?  

Ms Shuhyta: We had looked at how to report on those statistics. At the moment, there isn’t a consistent way that we can report on the exact number of criminal activities related to illicit tobacco across states and territories. There are different datasets and definitions. For example, an arson might be coded or recorded as an arson but not necessarily if it is illicit tobacco related. It’s very hard for me to pull together the data from across Australia on those specific activity levels. We are continuing to work with states and territories in terms of what might be realistic there. We’re working with criminal intelligence agencies and AFP to look at the best way we can report as we move forward. The metrics that I have in the report to parliament this year are based on the data available to us. As we move forward over the years, we will definitely be looking at how we can mature that data and make it more sophisticated and comprehensive.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for admitting that you don’t know the consequences. I suggest listening to some people in the street. Secondly, the loss of tobacco excise revenue is stunning. In 2019-20, excise brought in $16.3 billion. In 2024-25, tax revenue had fallen to $7.8 billion, or about half, with a projection for 2025-26 of $5.5 billion, or one-third of what it was just five years ago. Minister, when will you accept that the Laffer curve applies to tobacco excise and the higher the tax rate the less revenue is received, especially with cheap illicit tobacco competing. I’m talking to police in Queensland who go to illicit tobacco to get cheaper cigarettes.  

Senator Watt: We certainly agree that illicit tobacco is a very serious problem and the connection to organised crime. That’s why we’ve devoted so many more resources to tackling illicit tobacco. I’m sure the commissioner and others could talk to you about the operations they’ve undertaken. In fact, I don’t know if you were here when the commissioner gave his opening statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was.  

Senator Watt: He talked about the success of those operations in terms of the seizures that have been achieved.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, his people have seized plenty of material, but we don’t know the total size and it could be a tiny proportion, which is what this is. 

Senator Watt: The commissioner might be able to give you some information about that. I’m not sure. On the excise, I understand why many people would like to see us reduce the excise. The government’s view is that we shouldn’t be giving in to organised crime. We should actually take them on and we should arrest them. We should confiscate the illegal tobacco. We know that tobacco kills thousands of Australians every single year. We know that higher prices for tobacco puts people off smoking, and that’s a good thing for their health. It’s a good thing for the health budget that we all pay for.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s why they buy it cheaper, Minister.  

Senator Watt: I’m aware of that. That’s why we are so determined to break the organised crime rings that are behind illegal tobacco.  

Senator ROBERTS: But, Minister, you’re not confident because you forecast, yet again, another reduction in revenue from tax. Page 8 of the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner Report 2024-25 lists 10 factors behind the growth in the illicit market. Not one of those mentions the high level of tobacco excise. Commissioner, do you really believe the high price of legal cigarettes is not driving demand for illicit tobacco? Not even 10th out of 10?  

Ms Shuhyta: Just a correction—excise is listed on that page. In terms of a number of drivers for the illicit market, price differential is listed as one of those drivers. Within price differential, there is a number of aspects. One is that the cost of illicit tobacco is pushed down because of cheap supply costs and an overabundance in the region of illicit tobacco—  

Senator ROBERTS: And lack of excise.  

Ms Shuhyta: And then excise and tobacco company profitability actually pushes up regulated tobacco. You’ve got those two things at play. Excise isn’t the be-all and end-all driver of the illicit market. We see different excise rates around the world in different countries that don’t correlate with the size of the illicit market. In fact, in some countries with the cheapest tobacco there are sizeable illicit markets. Or within the same country that has a standard excise rate, you’ll get different market shares of illicit tobacco in different cities. For me, it’s not as simple as advising government that excise is the solution.  

Senator ROBERTS: Talking to people in the street, including policemen who use illicit tobacco, it’s certainly very significant. On page 9, Commissioner, you’re claiming success because the amount of illicit product being seized has increased by 34 per cent. Do you accept making a claim of success when you don’t know how much the black market has grown is pointless? If you don’t know the total size of the black market and no-one has any idea—I’ve asked before—you don’t know whether you’re having success or you’re failing. Looking at the criminal activities and the adoption of illicit tobacco widely, it looks like you’re failing.  

Ms Shuhyta: I’m going to try to answer the question that is in there. We do have an estimate of the size of the illicit market. This report does estimate the size of the illicit market. It’s the first time that we’ve been able to do so. I think at the last estimates I wasn’t able to give you that size because the report hadn’t been finalised and tabled, but it is there now.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I find it troubling that the budget projection for tobacco excise in forward estimates only shows revenue of $6.9 billion in 2028-29. That suggests you do not expect the commissioner to make a dent in the illegal trade. Shouldn’t that figure be closer to the $16 billion or more we used to get? Isn’t that an admission of failure or of ignorance?  

Senator Watt: We’re absolutely not giving up in the fight against illegal tobacco. Again, I’m sure—  

Senator ROBERTS: You said you are.  

Senator Watt: I don’t think you should insult the efforts of the Border Force personnel.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was a clever switch, Minister, but I’m not doing that. They’re doing a good job.  

Senator Watt: You’ve just said it’s a failure. They’re the people who are on the front line, taking on organised crime.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your failure to control illicit tobacco?  

Senator Watt: You and I are sitting in this room. We have Border Force personnel out there on the front line taking on the organised crime elements behind illegal tobacco, and we are absolutely determined to keep that up.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the report makes a statement on page 19 that reducing the tobacco excise will increase smoking rates and undo the gains made to date, which you said earlier. In July 2025, Roy Morgan showed recent excise increases on top of the normal CPI increase had caused an increase in smoking rates from 16.8 per cent to 17.1 per cent. The graph I’ve seen confirms that. Yet you are saying the opposite. The National Tobacco Strategy added large excise increases in September 2023, ’24 and ’25. Can you show any data that these massive increases have reduced smoking rates? I suggest that the opposite is true, and that’s what the data shows. 

Senator Watt: The trouble with—  

Senator ROBERTS: Criminals don’t ask for ID.  

Senator Watt: No, I’m aware of that. They’re very bad people who deserve to be locked up, which is what we’re trying to do. Your question about smoking rates is probably one you should take up in the Health estimates. That’s not the work of this department. The work of this department is going after organised crime. We’d appreciate your support in that effort.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got my support. That’s why I’m talking about this and that’s why I’ve been raising it for a couple of years now. Decades of shoddy governance show that our biggest problem is governments acting without data, going without data and contradicting the data in so many areas.  

Senator Watt: I’ll let that pass. 

/0 Comments/by

Funding Hate: The Shocking Truth About Labor’s Grants

,

How can Tony Burke serve as the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible for our national security, authorise hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in grants to pro-Palestinian activists?

Grant recipients going to groups who have publicly referred to Hezbollah terrorists as “men of God,” supported Intifada, and condemned Australians who stood with the Jewish community after the massacres in Israel.

When I asked how a minister can balance protecting our security on one hand while funding anti-Australian rhetoric on the other, the Labor government refused to answer, instead claiming arts grants weren’t a matter for Home Affairs and are handled at “arm’s length” by independent councils.

Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund individuals who undermine our social cohesion and praise banned terrorist organisations.

Labor can try to hide behind bureaucratic red tape, but I won’t let this drop.

Australians deserve to know exactly where their hard-earned money is going.

— May | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Separately: Minister, I find it confusing that, as Minister for the Arts, Minister Tony Burke authorised hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to known pro-Palestinian activists. These recipients of Australian tax dollars publicly support anti-Australian activities; refer to the terrorists of Hezbollah as ‘men of God’; support Intifada, which is a holy war—the slaughter of non-Muslims; and condemn those Australians who support the Jewish community after the massacre in Israel. Why would he do that?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would suggest that any grants administered under Minister Burke’s portfolio in the arts is not a matter for the Home Affairs portfolio. You would need to take it to—  

Senator ROBERTS: But, Chair, I’m interested in this because he’s also Minister for Home Affairs.  

CHAIR: But the grants you’re talking about are administered under the arts, so if you have a question relating to the grants administered there then you need to ask your questions in that hearing.  

Senator ROBERTS: We will be, but isn’t that hypocrisy? Security and funding terrorists?  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I do think that the chair is correct. There’s a whole other estimates session devoted to arts funding and grants. But I can tell you, in a general sense, that individual decisions about grants are made at arm’s length from the minister. In the arts portfolio there are groups like the Australia Council and other groups that determine who gets what grant. Those decisions are not made by this minister or have been by previous ministers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.  

CHAIR: Thank you for your assistance, Senator Roberts. 

 

/0 Comments/by