The Danger of Dancing Around Radical Islam

,

During the February Estimates hearings, I had the opportunity to question Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia. Although the session was brief, it raised an important issue.

How can we protect Australians if Islamic-motivated terrorism cannot be addressed directly?

It is difficult to resolve “misunderstandings” about mainstream Islamic teachings without acknowledging that radical interpretations have been used by violent actors, including in the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack.

While these views may fall outside mainstream doctrine, the reality is that many individuals adopt these distorted interpretations that lead to real-world harm.

Avoiding the link between extremist interpretations of Islam and terrorism ultimately makes it harder to address the problem effectively.

One Nation is prepared to have these difficult conversations if it means protecting Australians and ensuring tragedies like the Bondi attack Never. Happen. Again.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. It’s nice to have you in person rather than on the box. Following my question on notice 1477 relating to the cost of producing the National Response to Islamophobia, which has not been answered, what is the cost of the document?  

Mr Malik: I thought I had submitted those answers. I’m sorry if you haven’t received them. I did complete all that. Have you received them?  

Senator ROBERTS: No.  

Mr Malik: I apologise. I have answered your question. Maybe I will follow up with the support envoy team as to why you haven’t received those.  

Senator DUNIAM: Is it still with the minister?  

Mr Malik: I replied back to the envoy support team when I got the questions on notice. I responded straightaway. Sorry. I apologise. I can follow that up.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the December estimates, I asked you why your report did not mention Sharia law and you asked, ‘What version of Sharia law?’ Therefore, you didn’t mention any. Let me be specific. The Centre for Arbitration and Resolution of Disputes, CARD, run by the Australian National Imams Council, the peak body for imams in Australia, arbitrates disputes in marital areas and civil disputes. Is this an alternative system of law based on Islamic teaching rather than on the laws applying to every other Australian?  

Mr Malik: I don’t think there are two systems of law. Everyone here understands and fully accepts that everyone works underneath Australian law. I’m not a spokesperson for the CARD. That question perhaps is best asked of them. It tries to arrive at a mutual understanding between the two partners. I’m not the spokesperson. You could clarify with them yourselves, but I think that’s why it was established.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said it was voluntary. Apparently it’s not. By consent settlement in marital disputes can be filed with the Family Court as a binding agreement, an agreement made under Sharia law?  

Mr Malik: Again, I would have to push back on that. From my understanding—as I say again, I’m not a spokesperson for CARD; I’ve actually had no engagement with CARD as well—it seems to be operating as many of the councils in the UK, and that is where the husband and wife will come together with a religious imam to try to reconcile between the two. But, ultimately, the divorce can only take place in a secular court. Again, you would need to direct that to CARD.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian National Imams Council has called for an end to the use of words like ‘radical Islam’ and ‘extremist Islam’. The Australian National Imams Council leader, Sheikh Shadi Alsuleiman, has gone further and declared that terrorism and Islam should not be linked at all. Your report failed to mention Islamic terrorism. Will you now correct that omission you have on your statement, and discuss the link between Islamic terrorism and Islam? Feel free to include Bondi.  

Mr Malik: Yes. I’ve actually just finished writing an article. The first topic I dedicated to you. It should be out in a few weeks. I answer that question very specifically. Again, one needs to understand the history of Islam rather than going on YouTube or TikTok. The Prophet Muhammad, who’s seen as the sole authority in Islam, said two people would be denied paradise, and the first one is a religious extremist. Muslims get confused when people say questions like you put forward to us, because within mainstream normative Islam extremism is anathema. It’s really something that we have to stay away from. Those individuals who break that code or that ethical conduct are individuals on the fringes of mainstream society. For example, when Scott Morrison read his article about reforming Islam, he seemed to miss the point that the individuals are out of their systems. As one of the leaders of Muslim countries explained, mainstream Islam does not accept extremism. It’s actually anathema to Islam. But non-Muslims will say, ‘These guys are quoting from the Quran and saying that God is great. They must be Muslims and Islam.’ I acknowledge the confusion, but I think it can quickly be put to bed by just a simple conversation and a simple reading of history, to be honest with you, as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could you provide us with a copy of that article?  

Mr Malik: Yes. I’m hoping it will be published within two or three weeks.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put another question on notice. 

/0 Comments/by

One Nation’s Fight to Save the NDIS

,

In March this year, the Senate voted down a One Nation motion moved by Senator Hanson that sought to establish a dedicated inquiry into waste, fraud, and abuse within the NDIS.

The rampant rorting, profiteering and misconduct inside the NDIS is draining resources from Australians with genuine need and pushing the scheme toward collapse.

Billions have been siphoned away, frontline workers pulled out of hospitals and aged care, and essential services are under strain nationwide.

One Nation’s position is very clear – genuinely disabled people deserve an insurance scheme for service. The NDIS is meant to be that scheme.

Only strong oversight and honest accountability will save the NDIS and safeguard taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This isn’t about care—about whether or not people care about the disabled. This is about restoring sound governance. This is so that we can have disabled people getting good care. I will make One Nation’s position very, very clear: disabled people deserve an insurance scheme for service—genuinely disabled people. We also want to stop exploitation of the disabled. That’s right: stop exploitation. 

I’m going to read from the terms of reference of Senator Hanson’s motion: 

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 3 September 2026— 

nothing wrong with that. I will read item (f): 

(f) the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on NDIS participants, including the diversion of resources away from Australians with genuine need; 

I’m going to read that again: 

(f) the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on NDIS participants, including the diversion of resources away from Australians with genuine need. 

I’ll go back to the start of the terms of reference: 

(a) the scale, nature and drivers of waste, fraud and abuse within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS); 

(b) the adequacy of existing safeguards, compliance, auditing, investigative and enforcement mechanisms to detect, prevent and respond to waste, fraud and abuse; 

My responsibility, our responsibility, is to the people of Australia—to the taxpayers of Australia and to the disabled of Australia. The third item in the terms of reference is: 

(c) qualifications of workers under the scheme; 

We know it is being rorted at the moment, with people who are not qualified. The fourth one is: 

(d) the role of National Disability Insurance Agency processes, registered and unregistered providers, intermediaries, participants, nominee arrangements and any other relevant entities or persons in contributing to or preventing waste, fraud and abuse; 

What is wrong with any one of these? Nothing. Nothing is wrong. They’re needed to protect the disabled. The fifth one is: 

(e) the financial impact of waste, fraud and abuse on the sustainability of the NDIS and on taxpayers; 

If we don’t do it, the NDIS will be heading for the largest line item by far on the budget. It’ll go out of existence under its own weight. I’ve already talked about (f). The sixth and seventh ones say: 

(f) the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on NDIS participants, including the diversion of resources away from Australians with genuine need;  

(g) distortionary impacts of increased wages and fees for service under the scheme on the labour market and other industries; 

Nurses and aged care service people are being dragged out of their professions and being put into the NDIS because of the higher wages, the distorted increased wages. This is causing problems for veterans. It is causing problems for people in hospitals and doctors’ clinics. Its causing problems for people in aged care. The eighth one is: 

(h) the impact of the scheme on the housing market and construction costs;  

That’s impacting so many more Australians. There’s a serious impact there. This is about all Australians. This is about understanding the problem, and Senator Hanson has shown yet again that she understands the guts of the problem in the whole context. Who can disagree with any of these? The ninth one is: 

(i) the appropriate scope, powers and priorities of a Royal Commission into waste, fraud and abuse within the NDIS; 

Senator Hanson said it herself just a few moments ago. She’d prefer a royal commission, but this is the first step. The tenth one is: 

(j) any legislative, administrative or governance reforms required to strengthen oversight, restore public confidence and protect the integrity of the NDIS; and 

And restore trust as Senators Bell and Whitten have just spoken about. And the last one is: 

(k) any other related matters. 

This is what it is all about. I can’t see anything there that anyone would object to if they genuinely cared for the disabled, unless they’re rattling the tin to make someone a demon. All of these work to restore trust, service, care and accountability. 

We need to go back to the start of the NDIS scheme. It was a bastard. Julia Gillard as Prime Minister needed a pre-election headline, so she cobbled up the NDIS—minimal research, minimal thought, minimal consideration. Just get that bloody headline. Then the Liberals came into power and they saw a dog with no details. But instead of canning it and sending it back to the states, they saw the vulnerabilities and they tried to stop the rorts. As a result it was overcomplicated, arbitrary and crooks kept stealing. The needy kept getting no service as a result of it being a bastard at birth thanks to the Labor party. I personally think, as a side issue, that the NDIS is best done at the state level because it restores competitive federalism and accountability. I’m in favour of sending it back to the states. 

As I said, it is out of control. As Senator Hanson, Senator Bell and Senator Whitten said, it is out of control. It will soon be the biggest line item on the budget. This is important not only for the disabled where it’s extremely important but also for the taxpayers because of the rorting and the fraud of taxpayer money. The fraud is heading into the billions. In fact, I was told in Senate estimates in an answer to one of my questions that the fraud investigation is stunned with how big the impact of fraud is. It is so big that it will eventually curtail services for people needing genuine care. It will curtail nurses, aged-care workers and other carers. It’s not just affecting disabled who need care. It’s affecting people right across Australia, even the housing market. 

Every Friday I try to do a livestream, and I start with heroes who have been active in our democracy. I want to name two heroes—Drew Pavlou and Pete Zogoulas. They have exposed the rorts. We knew about them. We’ve been raising them, but they started the community with the depth and breadth of the rorts. Ultimately, what happens when we have an abusive government—that’s what this is about. This is an abusive government abusing taxpayer money. There’s no government money. There’s only taxpayer money. There’s an abuse of taxpayer money because very few citizens stand up and hold the government accountable. So Drew Pavlou and Pete Zogoulas deserve commendation for being active participants in democracy. 

For democracy to succeed, we need active participants in democracy. What has happened in this country is we’ve had it too easy, and many citizens have fallen into passive democracy. Then, that falls into apathy, and that falls into tyranny. We saw signs of that tyranny in the way the COVID mismanagement corralled people, stomped on people and suppressed people, making them do some hideous things. And we’ve seen signs of that apathy in the way the Labor government is wanting to bring in and follow through on the former prime minister Scott Morrison’s misinformation and disinformation censorship bill. They destroyed free speech and many other freedoms and basic rights during the COVID response, and now they want to bring in censorship. That’s the essence of human progress: when we have passive democracy, it leads to apathy, and then it leads to tyranny, which, as I’ve just given you some examples, is coming in to this country. Eventually people get sick of the tyranny and they rise up, and we have anarchy. That’s the cycle throughout history: active democracy becomes passive democracy becomes apathy becomes tyranny becomes anarchy. There’s a way to avoid that, which is by having more citizens like Drew Pavlou and Pete Zogoulas. 

We need an inquiry to get the facts. The Greens, being the Greens, introduced talk of an enemy and division. Where’s the enemy? Can you see the enemy, Senator Bell? Where’s the enemy? Why do they do this? They do it because they want to create victims and make those people dependent, and that’s bloody cruel. Victims are in a permanent state of dependence. That’s no way to go through life. I do not see Senator Steele-John as someone in a wheelchair. I respect his ability. I see him as an Australian with plenty to contribute. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but at least he gives that other view. But shame on the Greens for yet again creating victimhood and dependence. It’s cruel. 

We need to clean up the NDIS for the improvement of services to the disabled. Those who really care will support this motion. And the Senate, as Senator Bell has said, is an entirely appropriate place to have this inquiry. The Senate, after all, is the house of review. Let me be very clear: One Nation wants to stop exploitation of the disabled. It wants to give the disabled confidence that they’ll be getting good service, and to do that we need to restore sound responsible governance. 

/0 Comments/by

Thousands of Miners Underpaid for Years

,

During the June Estimates sessions, I exposed a regulator unwilling to confront the obvious – thousands of coal miners have been underpaid for years while the Fair Work Ombudsman hides behind outdated enterprise agreements and technical excuses.

Miners provided evidence and the regulator ignored it. Awards required permanency and enterprise agreements undermined it. Australia’s largest wage-theft scandal, affecting an estimated 5,000 workers, continues because no one in authority will confront it.

This session laid bare a system that has failed miners, failed the award, and failed it’s statutory duty to uphold a fair minimum safety net.

If the system won’t protect workers, someone has to call it out.

One Nation will always call it out.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again, Ms Booth.  

Ms Booth: Thank you, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree, as a matter of principle and community expectation, that no worker in Australia should be paid less than that required under a relevant award that applies to the worker?  

Ms Booth: What I would say is that all workers in Australia should be paid their legal entitlements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong had no trouble in confirming what I just said—twice. Are you familiar, Ms Booth, with the 2016 case where the Fair Work Commission found that an enterprise agreement between the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association and Coles was invalid because the enterprise agreement paid below the award?  

Ms Booth: I’m not personally familiar with that case, but we can take questions on notice about it and its relevance to the FWO activities, if you wish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Would you agree that this ruling of the SDA sets a clear legal precedent that any enterprise agreement that pays below the award, even when the Fair Work Commission endorses such an enterprise agreement, is invalid?  

Ms Booth: Since I’m not familiar with the case, I wouldn’t comment on it. Ms Volzke might be familiar with it and might be able to give you further insight.  

Ms Volzke: I think we’ve discussed at previous Senate estimates hearings that the Fair Work Commission applies the better off overall all test, or BOOT, in determining whether or not an agreement can be approved, and, so long as it passes that test, that agreement will be approved.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will ask it again, Ms Volzke. Would you agree that this ruling sets a clear precedent that any enterprise agreement that pays below the award, doesn’t meet the BOOT, even when the Fair Work Commission endorses it, is invalid?  

Ms Volzke: At previous estimates, we’ve also spoken about the mechanisms that might be available to an aggrieved party if they wish to seek to set aside an enterprise agreement, and that would usually be one of the parties that is a party to that agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: I noticed that you didn’t agree or disagree. I’ve repeatedly raised with the Fair Work Ombudsman the situation of casually engaged coal workers subject to the black coal mining industry award being paid less than the casualised award rate when employed by labour hire companies utilising enterprise agreements. We’ve previously discussed that a quantity of cases with specific details have been referred to the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Ombudsman has investigated. Can you tell me how many individual investigations have been completed?  

Ms Booth: As you know, Senator Roberts, a number of investigations are underway. Mr Ronson is in charge of that, and we’ll ask Mr Ronson to come up and give you a report on our progress.  

Senator Watt: While Mr Ronson is coming up, Senator Roberts, you are absolutely right that you have raised these issues a number of times at estimates, and every time I have reminded you that the One Nation party voted against our same job, same pay laws, which were designed to fix this problem.  

Senator ROBERTS: Because those laws were designed to cover up the problem.  

Senator Watt: No, they weren’t.  

Senator ROBERTS: They were designed to cover up. We mentioned it at the time, in the Senate.  

Senator Watt: Can you point out to me the section of the act that covers up this?  

CHAIR: This is a debate at another time. Mr Ronson.  

Mr Ronson: What I can confirm is that, in our black coal mining investigation, we’re about two-thirds of the way through, so we’re in the home stretch. The figures I can give you are these. Since we commenced this activity, we’ve investigated 56 cases and we’ve finalised 35, and, since I last provided evidence to this committee, we have received six new cases. We finalised 18 cases since our last update. Importantly—and I think this is relevant to the particular cohort of workers you’ve been interested in—we’ve now issued preliminary finding letters to all the workers represented by the Independent Workers Union of Australia. They have all our preliminary findings, whereby they’ve been given an opportunity to review those letters and findings, and, if they have any additional or new evidence or they disagree or confirm the findings, they have an opportunity to make submissions to us, as do the other parties.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a secure mechanism?  

Mr Ronson: They’ve got an opportunity to say ‘you’ve got this right,’ or ‘you’ve got this wrong,’ or ‘we agree with you’ or ‘you’ve missed that.’ But these are at quite an advanced stage, and so we’re confident that, within the next month or two, we should have finalised nearly all investigations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total number of complaints you’ve received? The total number is still outstanding.  

Mr Ronson: There are 21 cases outstanding, but, since we began this discrete activity, it’s 56 investigations, and 35 finalised.  

Senator ROBERTS: Plus six new.  

Mr Ronson: Since I last gave evidence, there have been six new ones. But we haven’t had a new case since February.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve received feedback on a number of completed Fair Work Ombudsman investigations from coalminers that have been affected. The Fair Work Ombudsman seems to be consistent in saying, ‘As the Fair Work Ombudsman has determined that’—the named person—’terms and conditions are governed by’ the named labour higher enterprise agreement, ‘we do not consider that the black coal mining industry award 2010 applied to the person named.’  

Mr Ronson: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And, ‘Consequently,’ the Fair Work Ombudsman says, the named persons’ ‘wages and entitlements during the relevant period should not be derived from the award,’ but rather the named labour hire enterprise agreement. In light of the rulings in relation to the SDA case of 2016 and the Fair Work Commission general manager, why does the Fair Work Ombudsman now take the view that paying a worker less than the award is justifiable if the worker is being paid under a certified EA? On what legal basis does the Fair Work Ombudsman justify this?  

Ms Booth: I think we’re going to hear from Ms Volzke again, and it will traverse the same topic, and that is the legal framework within which we operate, and our job is to assess whether or not that framework has been breached. Perhaps Ms Volzke will elaborate again for you.  

Ms Volzke: I can’t talk to all of those outcomes of those investigations, but, thematically, and with a lot of those historical complaints also, we took the approach of assessing the situation where the agreement might apply, which was our view, but also, in the event that the agreement didn’t apply, we also looked at the situation of whether the underlying award might be relevant. In that case, as we’ve spoken about in previous estimates hearings, the legal consequences can be unclear as to whether or not that particular employee might have received an underpayment under the award anyway. That’s because, as you know, the black coal mining award doesn’t provide for casual employees in operational roles.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are a number of things there that I’m going to come back to. In relation to the actual comparing of paid rates, one assessment by the Fair Work Ombudsman that I’ve seen compares full-time rates under the award with casual rates under the enterprise agreement. The data provided by the Fair Work Ombudsman quotes the following rates and labels: contract rate per hour, $46.50. What’s the contract rate per hour?  

Mr Ronson: In those findings, what that would mean is the payment that employee would have received, so this would be a contract rate under a common law contract of employment. In that situation, you’ve got your common law contract of employment, but then there are also minimum entitlements in this country, informed by either an award or an enterprise agreement. But that contract rate would have been the rate that employee received.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. Then there is the award minimum rate, $21.97—these are your classifications.  

Mr Ronson: Yes, that would have been either a relevant agreement rate—  

Senator ROBERTS: This is award minimum rate.  

Mr Ronson: Or an award rate, at the time. This could be back in 2017 or 2018. Some of these cases have gone back years.  

Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise bargaining agreement 2012 minimum rate is $23.10.  

Mr Ronson: Again, that would have been the lawful minimum entitlement at that time in that particular situation for that worker.  

Senator ROBERTS: These are your figures again: named enterprise bargaining agreement 2012, casual rate, $28.88.  

Mr Ronson: That’s right. What Ms Volzke has been explaining is that the peculiarity of this whole sector is that enterprise agreements provide for casual rates because it’s been approved by the Fair Work Commission, but the black coal award doesn’t provide for casual production employees. This is the whole peculiarity of this sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: So these quoted rates omit important information and should in fact read as follows, in our opinion, based on the rates easily accessible under the award. Your award minimum rate should be the award minimum rate without entitlements. It’s the same figure, $21.97.  

Mr Ronson: I’m just presuming that, in that particular case, because there’s no casual provision in the award, we’re at a loss. We can’t confect one. There is no such thing. This is the very odd nature. So we’re reliant upon that contractual rate that they received.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the award has a rate plus entitlements, and what you’re doing is forgetting the entitlements and just taking the rate, even though the casuals should be paid a loading for all of those entitlements.  

Mr Ronson: No, I would imagine that, in those cases, there would be an enterprise agreement that would be at play.  

Ms Volzke: Because the award provides for the full-time rate, but the casual rate isn’t derived from the award. It can be the from the agreement, but also, potentially, if there is no agreement, it may well be that those particular employees are actually award and agreement-free, which would mean they would be covered by the national minimum wage.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the first time I’ve heard that one.  

Mr Ronson: It’s case by case. There are 56 cases. There will be nuances and changes on each one, but typically, for the cohort that has the historical complaints, it’s pretty much the same. It’s the same issue that you’ve been advocating for, agitating for, for some time.  

Senator ROBERTS: So let me add another one: award, notional, casualised rate. That comes to $50.01. Remember that figure. Then, where you’ve got named EBA 2012, minimum rate, we’ve added ‘without entitlements.’ What you’re doing is taking a minimum rate, stripping away the entitlements, not even counting them, and you’re saying that’s the case because—what was it, Ms Volzke?  

Ms Volzke: If there is an enterprise agreement that has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, then that displaces anything that might have otherwise applied in the underlying award, and then the employment conditions are what’s in the agreement. If there is no underlying agreement, you cannot extrapolate the full-time provisions in the award to casuals because, as Mr Ronson has already said, in those production roles, there is no classification for casual employees.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you telling me, Ms Volzke, that, if the minimum rate is the same in the award and the enterprise agreement, because there’s no casual, the casual worker misses out entirely on all the other entitlements? Isn’t that paying less than the enterprise agreement, by a long, long way?  

Ms Volzke: No. For an agreement to be approved by the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the agreement passes the BOOT, the better off overall test. That will obviously depend on the particular matter and agreement that’s before it. I am only talking at a high level. I won’t make any particular conclusions about specific case examples, but that is the general principle—and, where the agreement has been validly approved, the conditions of employment are derived therein.  

Mr Ronson: What Ms Volzke is saying is that, where the agreement is in play—and that’s mostly the cases that you’re aware of—the agreement knocks out the award; the agreement trumps, in terms of the industrial instrument that informs the rates. But what I can tell you is that—  

Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement, even if it’s inferior to the award, trumps the award.  

Mr Ronson: If it’s a lawful agreement, it trumps, yes; it displaces the award.  

Senator ROBERTS: It can’t be lawful, but we’ll come back to that.  

Mr Ronson: Okay. What I can say is that this is one of the reasons we were very careful to set out our findings very carefully and provide the parties with opportunities to see whether we’ve got anything wrong—and I can confirm that we’ve received no significant evidence that will alter the findings that we’ve made. It might not be the outcome that the employee wants, but it is the application of the law.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is, the named casual worker should have been paid a minimum of $50.01 per hour for the period. On evidence in pay slips supplied to the Fair Work Ombudsman, the named worker was paid $39.55 per hour. That’s less than your contract rate.  

Mr Ronson: Correct, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: All entitlements wiped.  

Mr Ronson: I don’t have that case in front of me, but that case would have been based upon what is the minimum entitlement that applies to this worker in this period, at this time and at this site, and that’s how we would have done the calculations and worked out whether there was a financial injury.  

Senator ROBERTS: The named labour hire EBA rates that the Fair Work Ombudsman quotes omit requirements for entitlements and in this respect are arguably misleading as to the truth. The rate actually paid is less than the award, less than your contract rate and less than the award notional casualised rate. How could the Fair Work Ombudsman get such basic information so wrong?  

Mr Ronson: What I’m trying to say is: out of all the preliminary findings we’ve issued, we’ve had no evidence received in response from parties that would impact or alter our findings. It may not be the outcome that people want, but it is the correct application of the law, in our view.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, at the start of your questions, I asked each senator to keep their questions to 15 minutes. We’ve now gone over that time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I have one question, and then I’ll hand over the call.  

CHAIR: Yes, thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: And then I’d like another block. The miner supplied the Fair Work Ombudsman with all his pay slips. What period did the Fair Work Ombudsman consider in assessing the worker’s complaint—one year or the whole period of underpayment?  

Mr Ronson: The whole period.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll come back.

Trancript

Senator ROBERTS: I will return to my questioning. Ms Booth, I refer to the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision in relation to the miner, appendix C in this case, clause 9, which says, ‘No time or wage records were available during the relevant period.’ From whom?  

Ms Booth: That would be a detail in relation to a particular investigation that I wouldn’t have visibility of. Mr Ronson, do you?  

Mr Ronson: I’m going to presume, but correct me if I’m wrong, that the case that you’ve got in front of you probably relates to the 14 cases represented by the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia. 10 of those cases remain ongoing, so preliminary findings have been issued. From what you have just put, it looks like that’s an attachment to the preliminary findings, which gives an opportunity for the worker and the employer to respond if there’s any contradiction. Your question was about time and wage records not being available. That would be from either party. I’m not sure what particular period or history this is, but it may be that there were no timely wage records available.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the miner supplied his pay-slips and the Fair Work Ombudsman had the miner’s total hours and pay and could calculate the overall hourly rate. So it’s not from the miner. 

Mr Ronson: Okay. If there’s a concern, this is the opportunity to put this evidence to us if there’s something that we’ve missed. This is why we put the preliminary findings out, just in case there’s a question mark over what our findings are. We try to do our investigations to the best of our ability, to be as thorough as we can using the powers we have, but, if we’ve missed something and the parties have evidence, please provide it to us. This is exactly why this process has been undertaken.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ms Booth, were you previously a Fair Work Commission member?  

Ms Booth: Yes, I was, from 2012 to 2020.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did any of the enterprise agreement applications you approved as a member include an enterprise agreement covering casual coal miners?  

Ms Booth: Of course, I would be relying on memory. I don’t recall any. Indeed, throughout my time at the Fair Work Commission I spent a lot of time being the national practice leader of what’s called the Collaborative Approaches Program now, which took me out into the field, and I was relieved of the obligation to approve enterprise agreements quite early on in my time in the commission. I couldn’t tell you which year that was but, for a large part of my time in the commission, I was relieved, very kindly by the President, of that obligation. I don’t recall any black coal cases, but the Fair Work Commission website still has every single decision that I have ever made under my name, and it can be examined to see whether or not any of those enterprise agreements fell within my purview.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you ever check the BOOT?  

Ms Booth: When I did approve enterprise agreements, yes. Indeed, in the early part of my time in the Fair Work Commission, a member was required to do that personally. Then, as I went on towards 2020, the administrative support was provided and a BOOT report was provided to each member from the administrative staff to aid our examination of an enterprise agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to go to section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act, which provides, The Fair Work Commission 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, does it not, a mandatory legal obligation on the commission?  

Ms Booth: I’ll say two things about that. One might be asking Ms Volzke to comment on the provisions of the act. I’ve not got it in front of me. I will be careful not to provide evidence to the committee other than from my current role as the Fair Work Ombudsman. I was happy to answer your questions about the Fair Work Commission, but of course I no longer speak for the Fair Work Commission. What I would say about the modern award objective is that every member, myself included, would have given consideration to all the factors listed in section 134.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before you hand over to Ms Volzke, does the commission—because you’re investigating a commission decision, ultimately—have the liberty to bypass, dilute or ignore this statutory duty—’must … provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’.  

Ms Booth: The modern awards objective applies in certain circumstances, not every dispute and not every case, but, where it applies, it is my understanding that at the time I was a Fair Work Commission member I was obliged to weigh all the factors that were in the modern awards objective in any decision that I was making. I would refrain from saying anything more about what I did in those times, because my memory will be faulty and the Fair Work Commission is no longer my area of work.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t referring to your time in the Fair Work Commission. I’m referring to the Fair Work Commission decisions in this case.  

Ms Booth: I think I’ve given you my answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the Black Coal Mining Industry Award says that production workers must be permanent workers, permanent employees. How do you get over that condition in an enterprise agreement?  

Ms Volzke: I haven’t got the terms of the award in front of me, but it doesn’t provide for casual employment in those production roles. You will remember as well that, in Closing Loopholes, the same job, same pay audit provisions came in that ensured that labour hire workers—  

Senator ROBERTS: This happened well before that.  

Ms Volzke: Absolutely, but what I’m saying is that anomaly, in the way that you’ve described it, going forward has been closed. We’re talking about, in some circumstances, agreements that were approved many years ago. As the regulator, we must apply the law as it stands at the particular point in time, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. As we’ve spoken about previously as well, a number of these historical matters are outside our statutory time frame for being able to prosecute them, but we are doing our very best to investigate them irrespective of that. That’s what we’re undertaking to do. Mr Ronson has provided some details on that already, and we hope to have that wrapped up soon. I’m very satisfied that we’re doing the best that we can in the circumstances to apply the law to these particular cohorts of employees.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not. Whether it’s been legal, or negligence or deliberate, this is Australia’s largest wage theft scam, and it’s continuing—Australia’s largest wage theft. It’s widespread. We estimate that around 5,000 miners are still being screwed by this. Does that bother you?  

Ms Volzke: As I said, the closing loopholes legislation in 2023 closed that loophole. Going forward, that is what the law is now, but our statutory mandate is to apply the law as it applies at a particular point in time, and these are historical matters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision endorse the breach of the Fair Work Act and what amounts to the Fair Work Commission’s endorsement of Australia’s largest wage theft due to collusions between union bosses and large global multinational employers, including an offshoot in Australia of the world’s largest labour hire firm, Recruit Holdings?  

Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about previously, if an agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, then it is part of the legal framework that we must apply, and that is what we’ve done.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, as I indicated at the start of your block of questioning, as we have two senators seeking the call, we’re seeking to split the time, so that’s the conclusion of your block of questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Chair. 

/0 Comments/by

Restoring Biological Reality to Australian Law

,

I honour the original, genuine feminist movement – a movement of women who fought hard to establish rights that are now under attack.

I am deeply concerned by the recent Giggle v. Tickle Federal Court decision, which highlights how the rights of biological women to have safe, female-only spaces are being eroded by men pretending to be women.

I challenged the Office for Women on whether they truly stand with biological women. I find it incredible that in this day and age, we are even having this conversation.

I asked them directly if women are entitled to safe places where biological men are not welcome. The Office and the Minister repeatedly deflected my questions, claiming these issues are “medical” or matters for the Attorney-General.

They claim to stand for “all women,” yet when pressed on what that means for biological females, they offer no clear protection.

I view this trans activist movement as a destructive force intended to destabilise and divide western civilisation. Rather than encouraging people to continue down this path, we should be helping them love the bodies they were born in.

The irony is not lost on me that our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, legislated the very version of the Sex Discrimination Act that created this mess, one that puts women at risk and ignores basic biological reality.

Australians are fed up with this.

One Nation’s Promise: We will not wait. One Nation intends to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to fix the loopholes created by the Gillard government.

I will continue to pursue this issue until we return to a society that recognises truth, protects women and restores common sense to our laws.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Women rightly fought hard and long to establish women’s rights through the original, genuine and very real feminist movement. I honour them. I sincerely do. Does the Office for Women support Sall Grover in her case Tickle v Giggle? Sall is otherwise known as Giggle. This case result in the Federal Court recently clearly shows that women’s rights are under attack from men identifying as women as part of the so-called trans activists. Do you support Sall Grover?

Ms Raman: I don’t believe that’s a matter for us. I would direct you to AGD. I think you did canvass this at length last night.

Senator ROBERTS: I did. I will continue to do so. As part of a—

CHAIR: Just ensure your questions are directed to the right people, Senator Roberts. That would be really helpful.

Senator ROBERTS: I am coming to that. By the way, the trans activist movement is part of a movement wanting to destabilise and divide our country. They are modern Marxists. I can’t believe we’re living in a time where this is even a topic of conversation. Surely it would be better to help these obviously unwell people with loving the body they are already born in, not encourage them to continue down this destructive path, which puts women at risk. The Office for Women plays a critical role in driving policies to eliminate domestic, family and sexual violence. I applaud you for that. The recent decision in Tickle v Giggle has diminished the rights of biological women to have safe places.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think we’ve covered this in the sense that case is not a matter for these witnesses.

Senator ROBERTS: My question, Chair, is: does this office accept that women are entitled to have safe places where men, biological or identified, are not welcome? Do women have the right to have that?

Ms Raman: We’re focused on tangible and practical outcomes to close gender gaps. We are guided by our strategy Working for Women. Our day-to-day work is focused on what the Commonwealth can do to keep women safe, ensure families have choice in relation to care and work, as I said before, and improve women’s health and their place in decision-making. When we deal with these things, everyone is safer. All Australians are safer and have freedom and opportunities. Our daily work is about ensuring that we keep women safe. We work on the issues in our strategy to ensure that we get to gender equality.

Senator ROBERTS: What could be more tangible than a man who identifies as a women but is still a man attacking a women? Nothing could be more tangible than that. Nothing could be more safety aware than that. I want to know why Australians should be forced to accept that men can be women when they are not.

CHAIR: It’s not relevant to these witnesses.

Ms Raman: When we deal with the issues that we have in our strategy, these issues almost never come up. When we focus on the issues that are about ensuring that we remove the barriers to ensuring that we can have gender equality in this country, these issues do not come up in our day-to-day work.

Senator ROBERTS: Does the Office for Women stand with biological women, or does this office also include men identifying as women?

Ms Raman: We stand with all women.

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s biological women?

Senator WHITEAKER: What does that term even mean? It’s a ridiculous question.

CHAIR: The witness said all women, Senator Roberts. You are trying to create a divide here.

Senator ROBERTS: Safe spaces for women. I want women’s rights back.

Senator WHITEAKER: How about you leave that up to us to figure out for ourselves.

Senator ROBERTS: That is what I am doing. They’re coming to me saying, ‘For goodness sake, pursue this issue with the Office for Women.’ Senator Cash knows all about it. That’s exactly what we’re doing. I stand for women’s rights as hard fought for and won by the feminist movement decades ago. Do you believe that a man that is born with male genitals and male chromosomes can be anything other than a male?

CHAIR: This is a medical question, Senator Roberts. You are better off in the health department, which is next week.

Senator ROBERTS: If men can be women, does that mean anyone can identify something they are clearly not? For example, if I consider myself to be a six foot six inch basketball player when I’m clearly not, would it be considered delusional?

CHAIR: Again, that is a medical question, Senator Roberts. I would direct you to the health department.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to the final one. Minister, will the government change the law? The irony is that former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard, the first female prime minister in this country, created the legislation that created this mess. She accused Tony Abbott of being misogynist. One Nation will amend the Sex Discrimination Act legislated by the Gillard government that has created this mess. Why don’t you do it before the election and change it?

Senator Gallagher: It’s not a matter for the Office for Women.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking the minister.

Senator Gallagher: Well, it’s a matter for the Attorney-General. Her representative appeared last night, as did representatives from Attorney-General’s. I presume you asked the question of them. That’s where it is appropriately made.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you as a minister of the government today.

Senator Gallagher: It does not form—

Senator ROBERTS: You have two years left in your term.

Senator Gallagher: It does not fall within my ministerial responsibilities, Senator Roberts. It is a matter for the Attorney-General.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re a woman and you’re a minister and you’re part of the government.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, if you want to ask a question about changing that particular legislation, then you are in the wrong place. I believe you have already done that and asked in those areas. You may not have liked the answer—

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t ask that question yesterday.

CHAIR: Well, you still have time to put it on notice, Senator Roberts, if you would like to do that, to the relevant agency.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

/0 Comments/by

An ‘Operational Decision’ or a Media Stunt?

,

During Estimates in May, I questioned the AFP on their treatment of Ben Roberts-Smith.

While we welcome the investigation into media leaks, the AFP still refuses to explain the so-called ‘operational decision’ to arrest him on a Sydney tarmac in front of his two daughters, rather than in Brisbane.

After more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars spent investigating alleged war crimes, the AFP has not secured a single conviction. It’s hard to reconcile that extraordinary expenditure with an outcome that has delivered nothing but reputational damage and prolonged uncertainty for one of the nation’s most decorated soldiers.

The handling of this case raises serious questions about priorities, accountability, and whether such extraordinary resources have been justified by results.

This government needs to ask itself why it sends Australians to war if it then spends hundreds of millions tearing them down when they come home.

Transcript

CHAIR: I understand Senator Roberts has got a couple of follow-up questions from the statement. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your statement. It’s very clear and comprehensive. I’m very pleased to see that you’re going to investigate the source of the leak to the media, because it’s not fair that one of our most decorated warriors is being subjected to a trial by media. We can’t hold you responsible for that, so we’d like to see the results of the investigation. Thank you. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone—well, before I get onto that, midway through the second page, you say: The reason to arrest the individual in Sydney and not Brisbane was an operational decision … What do you mean by ‘operational decision’?  

Ms Barrett: It was based on operational factors. I said it was ‘an operational decision that was determined after discussing with relevant partners’.  

Senator ROBERTS: So an operational decision in terms of getting the assets in the right place to do the arrest?  

Ms Barrett: I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.  

Mr McCartney  : If you go to the front of the commissioner’s statement, she makes it fairly clear that we need to be careful with our language. This matter is before court, and we’re at risk, if we talk more about these issues—  

Senator ROBERTS: I respect that, yes.  

Mr McCartney : If we talk more about these issues and information is ventilated through this committee, we run the risk of potential impact on a fair trial. There were a range of operational matters, like the commissioner’s discussed, but, taking into account that balance and trying to be helpful to the committee, we’re going to err on the side of caution and say that these operational matters may be relevant to the court case so we’ll decline on answering that one.  

Ms Barrett: We’ve really tried to provide as much information as we can—  

Senator ROBERTS: And, as I said, it’s been comprehensive.  

Ms Barrett: in the statement, to be as helpful as we can. As I said at the outset, we understand that of course it’s of significant interest to the public, but we need to balance that with ensuring that there’s a fair trial.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got safety to consider as well. Okay, now I understand what operational decision means. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to affect the arrest?  

Ms Barrett: Are you asking me specifically or the AFP?  

Senator ROBERTS: The AFP.  

Ms Barrett: Again, I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.  

Mr McCartney : In the division of responsibilities, the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to prosecute charges and offences. Once those charges have been affected by operational agencies, such as the AFP, or as OSI did in this case—they were aware of the location being in New South Wales and Sydney. In terms of being aware of the exact location at the airport, I will take that one on notice and come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my final question, Minister. The commissioner has clarified some misrepresentations in the media, which is appreciated. Perhaps you could clarify another comment in the media that so far your predecessor government, the Morrison government, and your government have spent, supposedly, $300 million or more on prosecuting these investigations. So far you’ve got two men charged, as I understand it, and no-one convicted.  

Ms Barrett: Sorry I missed that last bit.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has been convicted yet. I don’t think anyone’s gone to court yet, have they?  

Ms Barrett: There are two matters before court.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before the court, yes, but I don’t think they’ve actually started trying them. This is a question to the minister. Is this action to justify more funding?  

Senator Watt: Is what action to justify more funding?  

Senator ROBERTS: The arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith?  

Senator Watt: That’s a very big statement to make, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to clarify this because the commissioner has done a very good job in clarifying media misrepresentation.  

Senator Watt: I’m not sure about you, Senator Roberts, but I and our government have full confidence in our police forces to make good decisions when they’re deciding who to charge and why. I’d be very concerned if you’re suggesting otherwise.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not suggesting the AFP.  

Senator Watt: We don’t interfere with the decisions of the AFP as to who they charge and for what. That is an independent decision, as it should be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, you’ve answered my question. I’ll just say again, Commissioner, thank you for your summary—excellent. Thanks, CHAIR, for your indulgence.  

CHAIR: Happy to serve, Senator Roberts. 

/0 Comments/by

Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC Display Remains Untouched

,

After everything that’s unfolded around Ben Roberts-Smith, it was refreshing to hear the War Memorial confirm his Victoria Cross display remains untouched, his plaque updated only with factual context, and that the presumption of innocence still applies.

That principle isn’t optional – it’s the foundation of justice.

Transcipt

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Anderson. Senator Roberts, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here and thank you for such an uplifting opening statement. That’s wonderful that you’re celebrating that. My questions are fairly brief. Mr Anderson, can I confirm you have left the Ben Roberts-Smith VC display in the Hall of Valour in the same condition it was before his arrest while updating his plaque to include the passage: In April 2026, Roberts-Smith was charged with five counts of the war crime of murder. The legal process is ongoing.  

Mr Anderson: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I confirm that on 10 April 2026, in a media conference at the Australian War Memorial, you made the following statement: The most important thing that all of us can do now is allow justice to take its course; to start with the presumption of innocence.  

Mr Anderson: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the presumption of innocence still the overarching principle guiding the Australian War Memorial in the continued display of Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC exhibit in the Hall of Valour?  

Mr Anderson: I think the overriding principle is one of fact. He’s in the Hall of Valour because of his actions in Tizak on 10 June 2011. Those are the circumstances that we speak to in the Hall of Valour. We’ve updated, as we always do, the panel. Since 2023, we’ve been updating the interpretive panel with the facts as they become known.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s almost as uplifting to me, hearing that you believe in fact and make decisions based on data and fact, as your opening statement. That’s wonderful. Final question—I want to thank you, Mr Anderson, for reminding Australia that Ben Roberts-Smith has a presumption of innocence and for treating his service with the respect it deserves. I have nothing further, Chair. Thank you.  

CHAIR: That is very efficient of you, Senator; thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Tents vs. Space Programs

,

I seemed to have upset my colleagues when I questioned why more than half a million dollars was being spent on a grant exploring “Indigenous connections to outer space” and whether Aboriginal people “cared for other planets.”

How do such projects help Australians who are living in tents, skipping meals, or struggling to pay rent?

While people are hurting, the Labor government is spending $1 billion a year on grants like this.

Taxpayers deserve to know why.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Moving on, Dr Lara Daley at the University of Newcastle received a grant of $528,491 over three years, including salary and project costs to study: ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge in Australian space policy, using songlines and creation stories, aiming to broaden understandings of outer space by identifying and supporting Aboriginal connections between space and life on Earth to develop culturally respectful and environmentally responsible space exploration.’ How would Aboriginal environmental management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management that includes Aboriginal management of the environment? 

Prof. Shergold: My answer to this and other questions I suspect are going to be identical. I can do no more than describe the peer-review processes that are being used and hopefully make it clear why it would be entirely inappropriate for me or the board to step in on particular projects on which we would have far less expertise than the assessors to overturn decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Shergold. That doesn’t give the taxpayers much confidence. How would Aboriginal management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management full stop? Does the ARC expect Elon Musk to encounter an Indigenous population on Mars for which we should prepare? According to her bio, Dr Daley’s research is grounded in herself as, inter alia, ‘a white, non-Indigenous person on unceded Aboriginal country specialising in human and more-than-human research, including outer space as being already known, cared for and inhabited through Indigenous ontologies. Did Aboriginals inhabit other planets?  

CHAIR: The scope of estimates is very broad, but it is contained to the operations and expenditure of departments and agencies, and I—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, one more question.  

CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wonder: did Aboriginals care for other planets in the solar system? You appear to be trying to extend Aboriginal mythology to other planets in the solar system. How far out—Pluto, Saturn, to infinity and beyond, as Buzz Lightyear said in Toy Story?  

Senator FARUQI: My God. Read some books, Malcolm!  

Senator ROBERTS: Australians are living in tents, struggling to buy food. Hundreds of thousands of people are struggling. Tens of thousands are living under bridges and in cars, and this is what you spend your $1 billion a year on. Unidentified speaker: Is there a question, Chair?  

Senator FARUQI: Chair, please put us out of our misery.  

CHAIR: Malcolm Roberts, please take a moment. Senators, I appreciate all the feelings at the table, but it is important that senators are able to be heard in silence as they ask their questions, as it is important for witnesses to be heard in silence and not spoken over. I will be enforcing this on both counts. Senator Roberts, you have the call to keep asking your question. Senators, regardless of what you think of it, please allow him to do so in silence.  

Senator ROBERTS: With Australians struggling, why is this what you spend your $1 billion a year on? Taxpayers would be saying, ‘Shame on you.’  

Senator Walsh: Was that for the professor or for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: Both.  

Senator Walsh: I’ll go first, Senator Roberts, and say that you are a politician and that you are expressing your political views right now—  

Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of many constituents, yes.  

Senator Walsh: and what we did is we removed politics from the processes that the ARC uses, because we believe in peer review of research not political review of research. The ARC’s process is rigorous. It is independent. As Professor Shergold has said, it is based on a strong network of peer reviewers. That is the decision of the government. We based that decision after an independent review of the ARC Act. Our reforms came into force from 1 July 2024, and we established an independent and expert ARC board to be responsible for the approval of grants, fellowships and the like. Professor Shergold and his team are discharging their obligations under the legislation to assess grant applications through these processes—through the panel, through peer review. They are discharging their obligations appropriately, and the government undermines efforts to undermine the trust in the Australian Research Council.  

Prof. Shergold: You are quite right to be directing the question to me. It isn’t a ministerial decision. It is in very large measure a decision for me and the board of the ARC. You’re quite right. The reality is, as I said, that we had about 1,000 grants that were approved last year. It is inevitable that there will be 10 or 20 of those that will become highly controversial for the reasons you’ve suggested. I suppose my view is—and it’s not giving any view on any particular research—that the fact that becomes controversial is not a bad thing. The whole purpose of research is to look for new paradigms, to interpret in new ways, to provoke and, to be honest with you, to raise hackles on existence. It is the way in which we continue to improve what we do economically, socially and environmentally and have debates about culture within Australia. I can’t, like you, sit down and say, ‘I think that looks like a really good piece of research to me, and that one looks a bit whacky.’ I’ve got to be dependent upon the experts that I use. My task, as I’ve said, is to make sure that they are doing it with integrity. I want to make sure, to see, that there are no conflicts of interest. I want to look at the outcomes of that research, to make sure that all universities are getting agreement that Indigenous scholars—not just on Indigenous issues, incidentally, but Indigenous scholars in all areas—are getting fair access. That’s what I’m looking at when I look at the 4,000 grant applications we receive and the thousands of decisions we make. It’s making sure that, in all ways, the peer review process is working and, with the board, looking at ways in which it can be improved all the time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/0 Comments/by

Niche Ideology vs. Taxpayer Value

,

I seemed to upset my colleagues when I questioned why the Australian Research Council is spending close to a billion dollars a year on grants that taxpayers would struggle to see any value in.

ARC leadership repeatedly hid behind “peer review processes”, refusing to justify cost-benefit while signing off on a $889,275 grant for an Arab/Muslim Australian social movements study, and another $322,213 grant that produced a commercial sold book Coming of Age in War on Terror.

While I respect independent review processes, the real issue is being ignored.

How is this supposedly “world-class system” allowing taxpayer money to be poured into niche ideological research with no demonstrated benefit to the people footing the bill?

The problem isn’t that research exists – it’s why taxpayers are being forced to fund it.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing tonight. Good evening. I have here grant reference FT220100427 for beneficiary Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, covering the period from 2022 to 2027, with a grant amount $802,000, since increased to $889,275. The purpose of this very large grant—inter alia—is: Arab/Muslim Australian Social Movements since the 1970s: a hidden history … aims to recover previously untapped oral histories and rare archival collections of Arab/Muslim Australian activists … Who have struggled against external systems and internal conflicts to build a socially just future … include a greater understanding of the transformative activism of communities whose movement work is often relegated to the margins. This is what you’re spending taxpayer money on. What is the cost benefit of this study sufficient to justify an almost $900,000 price tag? 

Senator FARUQI: Why do you hate Muslims, Malcolm?  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t; we have some in this party.  

Prof. Shergold: Let me answer that question and I’m happy to do so because the key change to the ARC legislation, as you will be aware, is that, at this stage—in most instances, not all—it is the ARC and board which make the decision on grants and not the minister. So the minister is clearly at arm’s length. Now, what do you do if you’re on a board and you are trying to make sure that you use public funds for the best purposes available for projects that are deemed by universities to be in the national interest? If you look at the number of applications that come forward, you’ll start to understand what a challenge it is. I think last year—I’m looking for the numbers—there was something about 4,000 applications.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is this getting to the answer of my question?  

Prof. Shergold: I am going to get there, because I want you to share my pain. We’ve got 4,000 applications and about, give or take, 25 per cent are accepted. It is quite unrealistic and very bad governance to imagine I and the board members sit down and look at 4,000 applications, even as well as presented as you’ve just done with this one, and say yes or no. How do you do it? You try and make sure you have the very best world-class system, which is a peer-review process. The role of myself, the role of the board, isn’t to go through and second-guess those expert peer reviewers in the decisions they make. My role—an important one; I feel a burden of responsibility—is to make sure that the processes that are being used are best practice in peer review and are done with honesty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a cost benefit?  

Prof. Shergold: This was a proposal that came forward out of about was about 1,200, give or take, that were accepted last year.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t tell me—  

Prof. Shergold: What I can tell you is we are using the best peer-review processes that we have available. It was thought by members of college of experts and then by disciplinary experts that this would be an important and innovative and, no doubt, provocative piece of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me the cost benefit.  

Prof. Shergold: Well, I tell you what I can do. I can tell you the cost benefit as assessed of the ARC grants overall, which we had undertaken a few years ago—  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that for this grant?  

Prof. Shergold: which gave a return on all our grants of about I think $3.20 on the dollar, something like that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on. This isn’t your first grant to the doctor. There was also grant DP110101249 titled ‘Youth in the digital age: Being young and Muslim in Australia’ for $322,213 covering 2018 to 2021. Now my question is: why didn’t you use the correct name of the project, which was: ‘”Trust, Politics, and Fear: ‘Generation 9/11’ Muslim and Non-Muslim youth compared”‘?  

Prof. Shergold: Well, it wasn’t my piece of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: This grant allowed the doctor to write a book titled Coming of Age in the War on Terror, published by Allen and Unwin. Why are you funding this person to write a book which she sold commercially and for which the doctor most likely received payment? Did she?  

Prof. Shergold: I have no idea—  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what bothers me.  

Prof. Shergold: if she received payment from that. But I am delighted overall when pieces of research that we fund end up in books or articles. I think that was a good use of money.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is socialising costs and privatising profits. Why is the Australian Research Council allowed to use taxpayer money to provide a commercial benefit to their friends in academia—paid to write the book, paid to sell the book? This seems to be a great scam going on here for academia.  

Prof. Shergold: Well, in answering the question, and you were frustrated at the delay, the one thing I did show is how this is a best-practice peer-review process, and to identify that as a scam is probably stretching it somewhat.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is the ARC allowed to do this—socialise costs and privatise benefits? 

Senator Walsh: The ARC’s role in the process is through its independent and expert board to use the process of peer review that Professor Shergold spoke about to be responsible for the approval of grants and fellowships and so on. That’s the ARC’s role and they rely on independent peer review to discharge their obligations. I think you’re asking questions about academics then publishing books after they have conducted research which may be funded by the ARC or may be supported in other ways. I think that publishing opportunity is just a part of higher education; it is standard procedure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you have been funding this person continuously since 2018. Dr Randa Abdel Fattah is a radical Islamic activist who just participated in the figurative ‘burning down’ of the Adelaide Writers Festival. Is this grant nothing more than the ARC funding Islamic activism?  

Prof. Shergold: I won’t repeat the process which the minister has described well. I will say we have a college of experts carefully selected who do a first assessment. We then have detailed assessments from over 20,000 assessors from Australia and around the world that then assess each of those pieces of research. And roughly about 25 per cent of them manage to make the cut. I wish I could fund more. There are many more good projects you could, but that’s the truth. There is a process. I can’t possibly step in and start to overrule decisions of that process on the basis that I don’t like particularly the political advocacy that someone does. I’ve got to make sure on your behalf that that process is being used as well as it possibly can be to make sure that decisions are being made fairly, honestly, transparently and in the national interest.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re nice words. But I’d leave this to the taxpayers to decide. The doctor has now organised an alternative event to the Adelaide Writers Festival, which, by all reports, is designed to exclude people of a certain faith or belief. Minister, I keep on hearing about social cohesion and yet this grant has gone to a person who is attacking social cohesion to advance Islamic propaganda. Why is your grants program encouraging social conflict?  

Senator Walsh: There are a lot of incorrect premises there about the role of the ARC and the grants process and the investigation that was undertaken by Macquarie University. Essentially, Professor Shergold has already gone through that process. To go over it again, briefly, the minister wrote to the ARC and, I think, to Professor Shergold and asked the ARC to look into this particular grant to the doctor and make sure that the grant was being appropriately used. The way that works is that it’s the university that receives the grant that is then tasked with doing the investigation. Macquarie University appointed academic experts to conduct the review. The review investigated whether the grant funding was being used for its intended purpose. During that process, the funding was suspended. The process concluded and the grant was reinstated. It was reinstated, as I understand it, because there was no evidence that there was an inappropriate acquittal of public funds. So that’s the process.  

Prof. Shergold: The only thing I would add is that, of course, we will continue to review this grant, just as we review all the other grants.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister. Just moving on then—  

Senator FARUQI: Chair, may I raise a point of order?  

CHAIR: Yes.  

Senator FARUQI: Senator Roberts is making completely unfounded and false allegations about a very respected academic and researcher. I would really like you to ask him to withdraw those or stop that line of questioning.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to move on, Chair.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to wait for me to respond to the point of order before you can direct the committee to move on. I take your point, Senator Faruqi, but I don’t believe there has been a breach of the standing orders from what I can observe. But I would just remind all senators, as we continue through this session, to do so respectfully of the witnesses and topics we’re dealing with and of each other at the table. Senator Roberts, you still have the call.  

/0 Comments/by

Snowy 2.0: A Masterclass in Government Failure

,

During this Estimates hearing back in February I questioned Dennis Barnes, the CEO of the infamous Snowy Hydro 2.0 that’s estimated to cost taxpayers $12 billion … for now.

This project began without a transparent business case and is currently locked into an anti-competitive contractor structure whilst relying on a cost-plus model that leaves taxpayers carrying the blowouts.

Add years of delays, poor early planning, and constant political blame-shifting, and the project looks less like nation-building and more like a multibillion dollar waste of taxpayer money.

Despite the project’s spiralling costs and repeated failures, the government continues to shift blame rather than accept responsibility.

Barnaby Joyce has openly acknowledged his mistake, yet those overseeing Snowy Hydro 2.0 refuse to show the same accountability.

And it’s you. The Australian taxpayers, that are expected to foot the bill.

One Nation says: it’s time to cut our losses on this white elephant and get back to what works – cheap base-load energy.

Transcript

CHAIR: Thank you. I’ll give the call to Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. Good evening, Mr Barnes.  

Mr Barnes: Good evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your principal contractor is FGJV, Future Generation Joint Venture, which is three companies: Webuild, Clough and Lane Construction. Webuild as an Italian company who has across the construction arc of Snowy Hydro bought out Clough and Lane Constructions, so the joint venture is Webuild, Webuild and Webuild. Is that correct?  

Mr Barnes: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s significant because one arm of Webuild is unlikely to find fault or offer a cheaper option than another arm of Webuild. They really have this project in their grip, don’t they?  

Mr Barnes: We have a principal contractor called Future Generation Joint Venture. That joint venture was chosen through a competitive process before my time. Circumstances meant that Clough, who went into receivership, I believe, in 2022, was acquired by Webuild at that time. The contractual counterparty for Snowy Hydro has not changed.  

Senator ROBERTS: So who’s the contractual partner?  

Mr Barnes: Future Generation Joint Venture.  

Senator ROBERTS: Which is Webuild, Webuild, Webuild.  

Mr Barnes: There are three Webuild subsidiaries.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. So the current contract with Webuild uses an incentivised target cost model, also called a cost-plus margin. Is that correct?  

Mr Barnes: The important part is the incentivised bit. There are elements of the project which are more complex and challenging, which are on a cost-recovery basis, but is a large proportion of the contract where the contractor Future Generation Joint Venture is incentivised to do a better job on time, on cost, and, if they don’t, then they suffer some penalties.  

Senator ROBERTS: But, essentially, it’s cost-plus margin.  

Mr Barnes: Elements of it are cost-plus margin; elements of it are incentivised target costs, where the contractor is incentivised to deliver the lowest cost and fastest outcome, and, if they don’t, then they incur penalties.  

Senator ROBERTS: Being cost-plus, the higher the cost, the more money the contractor makes through the plus margin part.  

Mr Barnes: There is a series of triggers and caps within the contract which mean that the contractor doesn’t continue to earn as the cost of the project increases. In fact, the recovery from the contractor means their return goes down. 

 Senator ROBERTS: Do you use external auditors to ensure every cost is legit?  

Mr Barnes: We have a monthly process conducted by Ernst & Young, who go through every line item and every subcontractor payment and assure those to us.  

Senator ROBERTS: So they’re external auditors?  

Mr Barnes: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: This question might actually be good news. How many apprentices and trainees are working on Snowy Hydro? I understand you have a school based apprenticeships and traineeships program.  

Mr Barnes: I think the round number—and we can provide the detail on Snowy Hydro as opposed to Snowy 2—is more than 40 people in what we call development programs. That include apprentices, vacation students and graduates—across that spectrum. We can provide the detail. We do produce a report each year with that input. We’re happy to provide that. 

Senator ROBERTS: One Nation believes very much in apprenticeships. They used to be a fantastic system, and they’ve been peeled off.  

Mr Barnes: I’m a product of an apprenticeship myself, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. Minister, without reflecting on the performance of Mr Barnes, who is making good progress, you understand that the taxpayers are annoyed that the cost just keeps going up and up under the current model. It started without an open business case or cost-benefit analysis. Costs will continue to go up through 2028. Is that correct?  

Senator Ayres: Yes. I think this was a project that commenced under the—  

Senator ROBERTS: Turnbull government.  

Senator Ayres: Turnbull government, when Mr Joyce was the deputy prime minister. Mr Joyce and that government announced the program. It’s a little bit like some of the dam projects that Mr Joyce constantly talks about. I think he said he was going to deliver 100 dams during the life of the Abbott-Morrison-Turnbull catastrophe—and delivered one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Which one was that?  

Senator Ayres: I don’t know, but one out of 100—one per cent. A lot of talk, not much water.  

Senator ROBERTS: He found it very frustrating, didn’t he?  

Senator Ayres: Well, he wasn’t much good. The assessment that was made on Snowy 2.0 was that the cost escalation was partly due to what was described as design immaturity at final investment decision and site conditions and geology, which should have been known at the time. Unlike Mr Joyce and Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor—all these characters—we haven’t covered up—  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t mentioned Sussan Ley.  

Senator Ayres: I’m only pointing at the people who are responsible. I don’t know about—maybe, maybe; certainly Mr Joyce is at the heart of this free-wheeling catastrophe. We haven’t covered up the costs, and we haven’t covered up the delays. What we, as a government, have done is work with Mr Barnes and the team to make sure that this nation-building project gets back on track. It is an important project for our future energy security. Despite the damage of a ham-fisted start, with a focus on announcements and the sort of approach that was taken by Mr Joyce and his colleagues, we are working hard. The project is now 70 per cent complete. It’s still got some quite substantial work to go. You are right to point to work that has been done by Snowy and contractors in terms of apprenticeships. That’s a good contribution. We’re very focused on this project proceeding as quickly as possible in as low cost a way as possible but transparently. We don’t think good public policy is supported by deliberately concealing facts about important national projects like this.  

Senator ROBERTS: It did bother me that Prime Minister Turnbull at the time heavily redacted the business case. That certainly did bother me because I wasn’t in favour of it at the start. But its cost has gone from roughly $2 billion, I think, to about $20 billion.  

Senator Ayres: I might go to Mr Barnes on the cost questions because I think we should be precise. The cost has escalated significantly, but let’s have some precision.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had a lot of imprecisions in the past. Is it worth continuing?  

Mr Barnes: The cost approval that was budgeted was $5.9 billion, and the project reset that we concluded in 2023 was $12 billion.  

Senator Ayres: I thought the figure was closer to $12 billion than $20 billion.  

Senator ROBERTS: With all the extra transmission lines and all the ancillaries?  

Senator Ayres: Yes, well these are nation-building projects that are required to deliver an electricity system. I agree with Mr Joyce 1.0, not 2.0 or whatever version he is now. In 2020, he said: The Federal Government has delivered millions of dollars of investment already for renewable energy generation right here on our doorstep in places like Inverell and Glen Innes. He then went on to say: We’ve made massive investments in the New England into renewable energy— I’m passionate about this because it’s where I come from. We’ve made massive investments in the New England into renewable energy, in fact we’re one of the biggest renewable energy hubs in Australia. Just like the Inland Rail, others talked about it for years and I made sure it happened. 

Senator ROBERTS: And he now has the courage to admit his folly.  

Senator Ayres: In 2021, he then went on to say, ‘In the long term, we understand that there may be a transition to other fuel sources, and we’ve got to make sure that we’re also part of that transition,’ something his constituents agree with. In 2017, he said: With other projects like the Sapphire Wind Farm going ahead— and here he is backing in a wind farm that he was cutting the ribbon at, extolling the virtues of this very important development—  

Senator ROBERTS: And he’s had the courage to recognise he was wrong.  

Senator Ayres: He said: With other projects like the Sapphire Wind Farm going ahead, it also shows that the New England is leading the way in renewable energy production and I will continue to advocate for the region as a growing power supplier for Australia. Before his decline to where he’s got to now, he said some quite commonsense things, this bloke.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, at least he’s got the strength of character to admit he was wrong.  

Senator Ayres: He’s a long way away from common sense now.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s something that you haven’t done, despite the rising cost of electricity.  

Senator Ayres: He’s a long way away from common sense now.  

CHAIR: Senators, thank you for that exchange. Senator Roberts, I will have to wind you up.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve finished my questions. 

/0 Comments/by

The Price of Compassion?

,

A $68.5 million budget measure (allocated over three years) intends to provide HIV treatment to people who are not eligible for Medicare.

Why are Australian taxpayers funding treatment for non-citizens when we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis?

Officials declined to comment on this, stating the policy and funding mechanism were developed strictly by the Department of Health.

I then shifted the discussion to the Significant Cost Threshold (SCT) for visa health requirements, which was raised from $51,000 to $86,000 in July 2024.

How this works is that if a medical officer of the Commonwealth estimates that an applicant’s health condition (such as HIV, a physical disability, or other chronic illnesses) will cost the Australian healthcare system more than $86,000, they fail the health requirement, and the visa is refused (unless a specific waiver is applied).

I asked whether this framework allows Australian citizens a “perfect way” to bring in family members with known health conditions to receive immediate taxpayer-funded care, provided the projected costs fall just under the $86,000 limit.

The Department repeatedly stated they could not answer the “family member” line of questioning.

They reiterated that immigration rules and the $86,000 threshold are applied uniformly to all applicants, independent of separate Department of Health funding measures.

Data on exactly how many people reside in Australia under the updated threshold was taken on notice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get back to the topic I started on this morning. It’s an immigration issue, not a health issue.  

Ms Foster: We’ll just get our chief medical officer up to the table.  

Mr Willard: I can speak broadly about the criteria. There’s a health criteria that applies to all visas. It looks at questions of health protection for Australians. It looks at costs to the health service, and it looks at the access to health treatment for Australians. It’s applied across all our visa types. It’s applied on a risk management basis. It looks at where somebody is coming from, and the sorts of health risks that might be presented. It looks at what the person might be doing in Australia, whether they’re going to go to a medical facility, whether they’re staying for a short time or whether they’re looking for a permanent visa. All of these factors are taken into consideration when the health criteria are assessed. Dr Grant Pegg, our chief medical officer, oversees the system that undertakes medicals. I think there are very large numbers of medicals undertaken each year.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me what the three basic criteria are again?  

Mr Willard: It’s health protection for Australians. It’s cost to the health system, and it’s access to Australian health services.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is primarily with No. 2—cost. The 2026-27 federal budget included $68.5 million, or $69 million, over three years to provide HIV treatment and pre-exposure prophylaxis, which is medication that stops transmission to people in Australia who are not eligible for Medicare. They’re not eligible for Medicare, but we are paying for their treatment anyway so they don’t infect Australians with their HIV. Is that the logic behind this allocation? I know it wasn’t allocated by you.  

Mr Willard: Because it is a measure from the department of health, I really can’t talk to the logic behind the measure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why should Australians allow entry of people with HIV and then pay for their treatment, especially when Australia is under pressure economically and individual Australians are under pressure cost-of-living-wise?  

Ms Foster: Mr Willard is unable to comment, because the measure was developed by the department of health.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that the right place for this is at the community affairs estimates committee next week.  

Senator ROBERTS: But I want to know. Many Australians are calling for noncitizens who have HIV or AIDS to be deported instead of paying for their medical care. We’re letting people in here with a known liability of cost to Australians. What is your response to that criticism of this budget allocation—the criticism, not the budget allocation itself? People are concerned that we’re letting in people who have a disease, and now we’re paying for their treatment.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that is asking the officials at the table for their opinion on a matter that is not within the purview of the questions allowed to be asked at Senate estimates, particularly as it relates to the budget.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on to the next one. Australia raised the significant cost threshold for visa health requirements in July 2024, from $51,000 to $86,000. For those following this thread, I’ll give a quick explanation. The significant cost threshold determines whether a health condition, such as HIV/AIDS or physical disability, is likely to impose significant costs on Australia’s health and community services. Exceeding it typically means failing the health requirements for a visa, although health waivers are available for some visa subclasses, including partner and humanitarian. A person who comes in under your new, higher cap can access medical care and medications for free or for a small co-payment depending upon the state in which they live. How many people are here under this arrangement across all health conditions?  

Mr Pegg: I don’t have the data in that detail, so I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could. Thank you. This is my last question on this topic, Chair.  Isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway? The other part of the question is that the numbers are increasing, which means the Australian taxpayer is paying more.  

Mr Pegg: Perhaps, if I can just offer, that’s the purpose of the operation of the significant cost threshold—to try and avoid significant cost to the Australian healthcare system. That’s why it exists.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain that more?  

Mr Pegg: When someone is identified as having a health condition through the immigration medical examination as part of their visa process, they’re then costed by a medical officer of the Commonwealth who looks at that, on a hypothetical basis for someone with the same condition—the nature of condition and severity— to determine what their costs might be to the Australian healthcare system. That could be lab tests, X-rays, visits to the doctor—those sorts of things. There’s a comprehensive process that is undertaken to do that. When that’s undertaken, a figure is determined, and then, if that figure exceeds the number that you talked about, $86,000, that is considered to be ‘not meeting the health requirement’.  

Senator ROBERTS: The first part of my question was: isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway?  

Ms Sharp: Are you talking about a situation where the health requirement is waived? I guess what we’re saying is that the general rule is that if you fail the health requirement—as in your healthcare costs are coming in above $86,000—you will not be granted the visa; you won’t come to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s initial assessment. Forget about the—well, the payment matters, but I’m not interested in the total amount. What I want to know is: isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into the country and having their health care paid for straightaway? That’s basically what it is. The government’s allocated $69 million over three years to provide treatment and pre-exposure prophylactics just for people with HIV. They’re coming in here with a known condition, and we pay for the treatment.  

CHAIR: Was there a question, Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their health care paid for?  

CHAIR: This is a question that the officials at the table have responded to. It sounds like—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?  

CHAIR: you’re not using the same words to describe the same thing. I think the officials at the table have spoken about what their role is. I think you’re talking about it in a different way, but it’s not necessarily what the officials are—  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about immigration, though.  

CHAIR: I think they’ve responded to your question, which is that there’s a program that exists to essentially weed out, for want of a better term, people who have costs higher than the amount the official said.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. If they’re projected to have a significant cost threshold higher than $86,000, then I understand, but, if it’s less than $86,000, isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway?  

Ms Foster: Senator, I don’t understand the link between the answers we’ve been giving and the family member issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?  

Ms Foster: That’s why we’re struggling to answer you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?  

Ms Foster: We don’t understand the relation of the question to the information we’ve given, and, in a sense, it’s asking us for an opinion: ‘Is this a perfect way to do something?’ That’s not our role. Our role is to provide you with information about how the program operates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll make it easier. Is it a way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway?  

Ms Sharp: We might finish it where we began which is I think you need to direct this question to the department of health to ask them for the policy reasoning behind the measure—which group of people they were aiming to support.  

Ms Foster: We apply our immigration rules irrespective of whether or not the government has funded a measure such as this through the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of your immigration rules covers a significant cost threshold maximising at $86,000. If you assess an application to migrate here and it’s less than $86,000 then they are welcomed in. Is it a way of getting a family member in here?  

Ms Foster: We don’t understand the relationship between what we’ve told you and the question about a family. I can’t say that any more clearly. I’m not trying to be unhelpful. We just don’t understand the question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could a citizen of Australia use this to bring in someone who is going to cost Australia money and health care immediately?  

Ms Foster: The rule would apply irrespective. We would apply that rule as part of our visa consideration to any visa applicant.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but this is a way for a citizen of Australia to bring in a family member and have their health care paid for by the taxpayer?  

Ms Foster: I’m sorry, but we have nothing further to add.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by