The Labor government introduced legislation to increase the petrol and diesel excise by 16 cents a litre. When combined with GST (a tax on a tax) and retailer margins, everyday Australians will face an extra 32 cents per litre at the pump. This is money going straight into Treasury to fund Labor’s wasteful spending.
This tax hike hits those who can least afford it. While large corporations can pass these costs on to consumers, small and medium businesses lack market power and must absorb the hit directly from their profits. For everyday families, commuting, running errands and simple drives will all become more expensive.
Contrary to claims, reducing the fuel excise is not inflationary. It directly lowers fuel prices, which immediately reduces CPI inflation.
Furthermore, because fuel is a core input across the whole economy (farmers, tradespeople and freight operators), lowering fuel costs relieves inflationary pressure across all goods and services.
When One Nation proposed cutting the fuel excise by 50% and freezing indexation, it was dismissed. Yet, when the government temporarily adopted our measure, it proved to be a resounding success for living costs and inflation. That is why One Nation is calling on the government to freeze the fuel excise and cancel all indexation increases until June 2028.
While Labor is raising taxes to fund its reckless spending, a One Nation government would put a line through these wasteful projects.
We would:
➡️ Terminate all Net Zero spending, including associated departments, grants, and subsidies.
➡️ End funding to the “Aboriginal industry”, replacing it with direct grants to local councils for housing, infrastructure, and community support.
➡️ Scrap Snowy Hydro 2.0, saving taxpayers from a financial sinkhole that could reach $100 billion.
➡️ Cancel the $3.8 billion federal allocation for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop, an insane project projected to cost $216 billion that serves to line the pockets of union bosses.
The Albanese government must stop overtaxing Australians to funnel money to renewables, union mates, and left-wing causes.
One Nation will put money back in your pocket, starting with a freeze on the fuel excise until 2028.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: This week the government is introducing legislation to make a 16c a litre increase to the excise levied on petrol and diesel. When including the GST, which is levied on top of the fuel tax—it’s a tax on a tax—and then adding retailer margins, this will cause petrol to go up around 20c a litre before the weekend. Every litre, 20c—kerching into the Treasury for Labor to waste. This is occurring just when small business and everyday Australians are recovering from the high petrol prices caused as a direct result of the war in the Strait of Hormuz.
Make no mistake, this is a tax on those who cannot afford it. Large corporations can simply pass this rise on to their customers—meaning you’ll be paying more. Small and medium businesses can’t do that. They have no market power. They are price takers. This tax rise will come straight out of what is left of their profit. Everyday Australians will find their drive to work will be more expensive, as will running around after the children. Even a simple day out, just getting in the car and going out for a drive, will be more expensive.
I know when One Nation promised a 50 per cent reduction in the fuel excise at the last election, the commentariat called that ‘inflationary’. Then the government copied our policy and suddenly it’s no longer inflationary! Which is correct? It’s not inflationary. Reducing the fuel excise reduces the petrol price, which is directly trapped in the CPI—the consumer price index—calculation. Lower fuel prices means lower inflation.
There is a second-round effect as well. Fuel is an input cost right through the economy, from the farmer running a cool room or ploughing a field, to the local tradesman, to the truckie who delivers everything we buy. When fuel goes up, everything goes up. When fuel goes down, inflationary pressure is taken out of the economy. Reducing the fuel excise will reduce inflation. It’s that simple. It’s proven. This is why One Nation promised, at the last election, to reduce the fuel excise by 50 per cent and suspend indexation for 12 months, with a review after that.
Well, the government borrowing our policy for a few months has provided the review we needed to know that the policy is a winner. Everyday Australians have enjoyed the lower cost of living. Inflationary pressures were taken out of the economy for a short time. This is why One Nation are calling on the government to not increase the fuel excise until June 2028, including cancelling all indexation increases, and then review it after the next election, which any incoming government would do anyway. Give hardworking Australians and small businesses two more years of respite from the Albanese government’s high—stubbornly high—inflation.
Why do the government need to put this tax up? Because they’re wasting our money again, that’s why! This budget included measures that One Nation would have put the red line through. I’ve already spoken about our policy promising to remove all net zero spending, including the department itself, loans, grants and associated boondoggles. We’ve already announced all spending on the Aboriginal industry will be terminated. Instead, One Nation will give grants directly to local government to build the homes and roads and provide maintenance and support to Aboriginal communities.
We’ve already announced that Snowy Hydro 2.0 will be terminated and taxpayers saved from a financial disaster which may reach $1 trillion for capital costs, interest, maintenance and subsidies for the tiny amount of electricity the project will generate in the period the construction loans are being paid back. The budget set aside $3.8 billion for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has put the cost of this project at $216 billion over a 50-year finance cycle. This is an insane project. Even Victorians don’t want it. It’s there to put money into the pockets of corrupt union bosses and assorted underworld figures, as 60 Minutes clearly showed last night. One Nation would terminate that project.
We will have more policy announcements in the months ahead. For today’s debate, let me say this: the Albanese government needs to stop overtaxing everyday Australians so it can funnel money to its mates in the unions, to the renewable solar and wind industry, academia and other costly lefty nonsense causes—spending that does not benefit everyday Australians and certainly benefits the Labor Party’s election campaign funds. Labor is making life harder during a severe cost-of-living crisis. One Nation will put more money back in people’s pockets, starting with a freeze on fuel excises until 2028.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ly_zfr8u81o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 16:41:112026-08-20 16:41:22One Nation vs Labor: Putting Money Back in Your Pocket
I questioned ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb on how the regulator is standing up for everyday Australians against corporate giants.
I congratulated the ACCC on their major court win against Coles for misleading price discounts. While 14 products were selected by the judge as a sample set, the deceptive conduct ruling applies across more than 200 cases.
A decision on similar allegations against Woolworths is currently reserved in the courts.
Supermarkets are backed by massive global institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, with endless legal resources. The ACCC assured me they are not daunted and point to recent actions against Amazon and Microsoft.
The ACCC highlighted the urgent need for new Unfair Trading Practices laws to crack down on sneaky business tactics that current laws miss, such as subscription traps you can’t cancel and manipulative mobile interfaces.
I thanked Ms Cass-Gottlieb for her concise, upfront, and comprehensive answers.
We need strong, clear enforcement to protect Aussie families and small businesses from predatory corporate conduct.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. I’ll start with the ACCC and the court case against Coles for misleading conduct. Congratulations.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: That was a great result, and one which Coles richly deserved. I note you only listed 14 products in your prosecution when you identified over 200 cases of offering misleading discounts. What was the logic behind that choice?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We took action in relation to the 250. That choice of the 14 was by the judge in order to focus the proceedings on a sample set of products. But the conclusions the judge has reached—which is that 13 of that sample set are misleading and deceptive—and criteria will be applied across the full 250. It was a manner for the judge to more efficiently conduct the proceedings.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. A similar case for Woolies is still before the courts. Is there a timeframe on that case?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The judgement is reserved, and we will await the judge’s decision.
Senator ROBERTS: These supermarkets have corporations on their share register with trillions in funds invested: BlackRock, Vanguard, First State, State Street et cetera. They’re able to muster huge legal resources for Coles and Woolies. Are you appropriately resourced to conduct these cases for maximum benefit? I mean, you had a victory.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Firstly, we prioritise the matters that are most significant in terms of consumer harm—cost of living and aspects of that nature—and cost of doing business. We are well aware in the case of this sector that we need to look not only at consumers but at suppliers, including Australian farmers. So we do prioritise. In addition, in the last budget we received a $67 million uplift specifically to assist with enforcement in both competition matters and consumer protection matters, recognising the importance of setting clear standards and having clear guidance across the business community on the way in which the law applies.
Senator ROBERTS: So there are many factors involved in which cases you take on. Ms
Cass-Gottlieb: There are. We have to take account of a range of factors in order to determine where we can give most benefit to the public through our strong enforcement program.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re not daunted by the deep pockets of BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street? They own controlling interests in many Australian brands.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: No, we are not daunted. You will have seen other litigation that we commenced in the past year, including on allegations relating to Microsoft’s conduct with the rollout of integration of Copilot in the Microsoft 365 program, and only a week ago we commenced action against Amazon in relation to its online marketplace sales of products that we allege are unsafe. We are confident and dedicated to take action where it’s most important for the public benefit, and that includes against very major domestic and global companies.
Senator ROBERTS: These fines being awarded go into consolidated revenue. You don’t get to keep the money in your budget. Is that correct?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you get to deduct your costs in the prosecution before handing over the proceeds?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Not—
Senator ROBERTS: Would that incentivise you to—
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: If we win, we will recover our costs from the other side. But, if we don’t, we will also pay their costs.
Senator ROBERTS: Your February 2026 opening statement contained this passage: The ACCC continues to observe concerning business conduct that, while not necessarily breaching current consumer laws, nevertheless causes significant harm to consumers and small businesses … Can you expand on that comment, please.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: This was particularly reflecting the importance of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill that has passed the lower house and is before a committee in the Senate currently. The importance of that bill is that there is some conduct for which at this time we consider there is not sufficient coverage under the Australian Consumer Law to protect consumers or to protect small businesses. It includes conduct that is not expressly misleading and deceptive or expressly unconscionable as that has been interpreted. It is important to introduce the amendment that this bill will bring, which is to create a general principle prohibition upon unfair trading practices. The sorts of ones we have considered, which are the ones we were thinking about there, are, say, when an interface on a mobile phone is nudging you to make a purchase or confusing you with a significant amount of information which means you can’t focus on what really matters to you or a subscription that you find practically impossible to cancel. These sorts of examples need amendment to be covered by our law. This bill which the government has introduced is very important, and we welcome it and are looking forward to its passage so that we can then conduct investigations and move through a compliance and enforcement program with it.
Senator ROBERTS: That completes my questioning for the ACCC. I want to comment and put on the record that I appreciate Ms Cass-Gottlieb’s succinctness and comprehensiveness. It’s very clear; it’s wonderful.
During Senate Estimates, I questioned the Minister and Department about the long-overdue review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Comcare).
The report, delivered back in September 2025 with 124 recommendations, made one thing crystal clear: the 36-year-old Act is so outdated that there is “no option but to redraft the current legislation.”
Yet, months later, the Minister’s repeated answer to crucial questions on implementation, return-to-work duties, and preventing psychological harm caused by claims management was simply: “The government is considering the report.”
We are still months away from even seeing an exposure draft. Bureaucracy cannot drag its feet when injured workers are paying the price.
Safety shouldn’t be a compliance box. It’s a moral and strategic imperative.
I also spoke with Comcare about workplace health and safety. Cutting corners doesn’t create a competitive edge. It leads to tragedy, ruined lives, massive penalties, and destroyed businesses.
I shared a definition of safety I developed 30 years ago: “Safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage, and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss.”
True safety requires accountability at every level, especially from the top. A safe, highly engaged workforce isn’t just the right thing to do morally, it builds a stronger, more productive nation.
I’ll keep pushing to ensure our workplace laws are reformed quickly and effectively.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I thank the witnesses for appearing. Minister, a comprehensive review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has a date of September 2025. The review says: ‘Change is urgent. It is now time to deliver long overdue reform.’ On what date did you receive the final SRC Act review, and on what date were you first briefed?
Senator Walsh: The review was released publicly in December 2025. Is that enough information for you at this point?
Senator ROBERTS: When did you first receive the final copy?
Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Mr Duggan: I can help there. The final report was delivered to government on 25 September 2025.
Senator ROBERTS: What day were you first briefed, Minister?
Senator Walsh: I am the minister representing Minister Rishworth, so the secretary may be able to assist.
Mr Duggan: I’ll need to take the precise date on notice, but I imagine it would have been within a very short period of 25 September.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could put it on notice, please.
Mr Duggan: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the minister decided to accept the review in full or in part?
Senator Walsh: The government released the report in December, and the government is considering the recommendations and findings of the report.
Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to the question, ‘Do you have an implementation plan?’ would be no, not yet?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.
Senator ROBERTS: What about a recommendation-by-recommendation response table? Have you got one of those?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you approved further consultation?
Senator Walsh: There is work going on around the report. The secretary spoke to that earlier and can speak to that again.
Mr Duggan: We undertook some target consultations in March through April of this year. The intent is to consult further in the second half of this year to inform the response to what was a very comprehensive report with 124 recommendations. It’s a complicated area so, as you can imagine, we want to make sure that we do that work thoroughly before we provide advice to government on its response.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Secretary. Do you have opening and closing dates for consultation?
Mr Duggan: Do you mean for the consultation that has occurred, or the consultation that is to occur?
Senator ROBERTS: The consultation that will occur.
Mr Duggan: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will it include an exposure draft bill or clauses? If not, what exactly is being consulted?
Mr Duggan: We are a couple of steps away from being at the point of an exposure draft of legislation. So at this stage we are consulting for the purposes of informing our advice to government on the policy and programmatic design. That would include advice on any changes required to legislation. Following on from that, the process would be legislative drafting instructions and an exposure draft, et cetera. We’re several steps away, so I can’t give you a definitive answer to that question.
Senator ROBERTS: So the consultation is to develop the legislation changes, if any?
Mr Duggan: If any, that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The review explicitly says the extent of changes means, ‘no option but to redraft the current legislation.’
Mr Duggan: Yes, I am aware of that. So as we work through the 124 recommendations and our advice to government, were we to reach the same conclusion, then a legislative package would accompany our advice.
Senator ROBERTS: What time frames are you looking at—I know it’s early days—for redrafting and introduction of the legislation?
Mr Duggan: I gave evidence earlier that we are working through this. Again, there is a lot to work through, but we are working through it through the second half of this year with the intent of being in a position to provide comprehensive advice to government before the end of the year. Questions of the timing of introduction of any legislation, and the timing of any announcements around the way the scheme would work in the future, are questions for government and not something that the government has made a statement on at this point.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the single biggest issue holding things up?
Mr Duggan: I don’t think there is a single biggest issue. I referred to 124 recommendations in a very complicated area, the need to work through that rigorously and to consult broadly to make sure that we get right our advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you accept the review’s principle that the scheme must cause no harm, and that harm caused by interacting with the scheme should be prevented or reduced?
Senator Walsh: The work of the Comcare scheme is about assisting people. There should be no harm in relation to the scheme. In relation to all of this work, we commissioned the review. The review covers a whole range of issues around governance and usability and entitlements. We want the scheme to be focused on the people who need assistance through it, and that was the focus of the review. I repeat that the government is considering the recommendations. The secretary has laid out a time line for the department to consult around the recommendations. The act is almost 40 years old—
Senator ROBERTS: and complex.
Senator Walsh: and there hasn’t been substantial reform of it, so this review is comprehensive. There are, as the secretary has said, 124 recommendations. The department is working to consult on those recommendations and provide advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will you implement the review’s position that step-downs—lighter duties— should not apply where the employer has refused or been unable to provide suitable duties?
Senator Walsh: In relation to any recommendations of the review, the government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you legislate enforceable employer return-to-work duties, including the duty to provide suitable work, with consequences for noncompliance?
Senator Walsh: All answers around the review and review recommendations are that the government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: The review notes that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes. Do you accept that poor claims management can cause or worsen psychological harm?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I knew these things 40 years ago. There’s no gotcha in this one; all right? I just want to reassure our constituents, because we’ve had constituents come to us with problems. Surely you can acknowledge that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes.
Senator Walsh: As I said, in establishing the review, the government wanted to make sure that the scheme is centred on the people that it is there to assist and that it is fit for purpose to be focused on the people that it’s there to assist. You said you’ve been focused on this issue for a number of years. The act is 36 years old. It hasn’t been reformed. There are a lot of recommendations. The secretary has outlined the process which the department is following to assess the recommendations. We’ll provide advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: I know that 40 years ago we learned that selected duties or light duties—whatever you want to call them; I prefer ‘selected duties’—can be highly significant in getting people back to work, fully back to work, and getting them back to work quickly. That’s better for their mental health and their physical recovery at times. That’s why I’m interested in that. Will you implement or consider, or do you recognise, the review’s approach of trauma informed claims management, enforceable service standards and public reporting?
Senator Walsh: You’re asking me these questions, Senator, as you are entitled to do—
Senator ROBERTS: From our constituents. Senator Walsh: I welcome your questions. I’m just wondering whether some of them may relate to current practices of Comcare and whether Comcare would like to assist in some of the answers about how you approach these issues, if you’re happy with that, Senator.
Mr Radford: I’ll ask Mr Vivian-Taylor from our claims division to join us at the table, if that’s all right, Minister.
Senator Walsh: Yes.
Mr Vivian-Taylor: We do some trauma informed training for our claims managers. That’s what we do in claims management at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve finished my questions of the minister. Mr Radford, you were talking about Cleanaway with Senator Dolega. In my experience—and I use this strategically—safety has moral benefits. Safety has personal responsibilities and personal benefits. It also has economic benefits. What is the level of understanding in industry generally, and within Comcare, that safety can be used to improve a business—not just the moral, personal and safety benefits but the economic and business benefits?
Mr Radford: I agree with your proposition, Senator. I can’t speak for industry, in terms of the level of industry knowledge, but certainly at Comcare we are of the view that safer workplaces, by and large, are more productive workplaces. You have a more engaged workforce—
Senator ROBERTS: Lower turnover.
Mr Radford: Lower turnover, higher retention. We, as the regulator, focus very heavily on the human cost of unsafe workplaces, as you would expect. There is no doubt that safe, fulfilling work is a huge benefit to workers. As you mentioned earlier, it has a significant, positive impact on their mental health. It also has a very positive impact, as I mentioned earlier, on productivity. From my engagement with industry, in both this role and previous roles in this space, I know that the vast majority of employers want other employers to do the right thing, because employers that cut corners on health and safety are probably also cutting corners in other areas in terms of their regulatory responsibilities. The majority of employers want to know that someone is not getting an unfair or competitive advantage by essentially not adhering to their responsibilities under workplace health and safety laws. As I said, I can’t speak specifically for industry, but from my engagement with industry and industry leaders and industry representative groups, by and large, they want everyone to do the right thing so that it is a fair and even playing field. It obviously supports the economy.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to pick you up on something you said there—that people who take shortcuts on safety have an economic advantage. That’s what you’re implying—
Mr Radford: No, I said—
Senator ROBERTS: I believe it’s wrong.
Mr Radford: No. People can think that, if they take shortcuts, they can get a profit gain.
Senator ROBERTS: They think that, but they don’t, because they end up hurting the business.
Mr Radford: They end up hurting the business. As I said in evidence—I think prior to you joining, Senator— we certainly take the view that no profit or productivity improvement is worth the price of a human life. I think the majority of employers also think that way, but, unfortunately, there are those who think they can cut corners. The Cleanaway matter was resolved last week, on top of the very significant human cost of two people losing their lives and two people being seriously injured. Cleanaway has now been fined $1.1 million as a result of its failure in the training of the truck driver involved. That should send a very clear message that cutting corners has human consequences. It also has economic consequences for any company that thinks it can get away with it.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps, if Cleanaway had been more enlightened in its management, it wouldn’t have had the fatalities and it would have had a better bottom line.
Mr Radford: I can’t speak to their balance sheet, but in my experience no good ever comes from a serious injury or a fatality in the workplace.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s taken for granted. What I’m getting at is that just improving safety can be a strategic advantage, leading to reducing costs, increasing productivity and increasing profitability.
Mr Radford: Yes. I agree.
Senator ROBERTS: To what extent do people in the industry accept that? Is it still limited?
Mr Radford: As I said, I can’t speak for industry. Certainly, a large part of Comcare’s role is to educate industry and the economy more broadly about the benefits of safe work and the benefits of having a highly engaged, safe workforce, whether that’s physical safety or psychological safety. The more engaged your workforce is, the safer your workforce is and the higher your productivity is likely to be.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you make a comment on this. This is a definition of safety that I developed 30 or 40 years ago: safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss. Do you agree?
Mr Radford: I would agree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s about accountability all the way throughout an organisation.
Mr Radford: Through the whole supply chain, through all of the activity. I agree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Everyone’s responsible for safety, but the senior people have the ultimate responsibility.
Mr Radford: Yes. Under our legislation and the work health and safety laws right across Australia, everyone does have responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe workplace. But ultimately the responsibility at the highest level rests with those who have control of that workplace, and the workplace is controlled by the managers and the leaders of that enterprise.
Whistleblowers deserve protection not punishment when they expose major safety breaches.
I questioned ASIC in Senate Estimates about Roxanne Mysko, a brave whistleblower and former Compliance, Health and Safety Manager at transport company ECS.
Despite following whistleblower protocol to the letter when reporting serious, systemic safety failures, including zero safety audits conducted from 2007 to 2020, Ms Mysko faced severe retribution. Instead of stepping up to investigate fatigue-related risks and enforce the law, ASIC simply kicked the can back to the regulator, leaving workers and the public at risk.
I asked ASIC why they have failed to protect her and hold these corporations accountable. Instead of answering this question, they hid behind process, promising to address the matter in a private briefing.
To top it off, investors left out in the cold by the Lyon Property Group collapse are being denied access to administrative compensation schemes, with ASIC trying to pass the buck off to the Department of Finance.
I won’t let regulatory bodies off the hook for failing the people they are supposed to protect.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here. Ms Roxanne Mysko is a whistleblower who has not been protected by whistleblower legislation as she should have been. She was the compliance, health and safety manager for ECS Project Logistics, a major transport company. On 16 June 2020, she reported significant safety breaches in that company to SafeWork SA. She also reported to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and to Senator Glenn Sterle that ECS had done no safety audits from 2007 to 2020, and had no safety system as of February 2020—this was fully evidenced. ECS worked for Santos. Despite this, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator did not investigate the raised issues of fatigue and lack of safety audits. ASIC were notified in February 2022; ASIC simply referred the issue back to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, where nothing further has been done and the risks continue regarding limited attention to fatigue related deaths, systemic regulatory failures and domestic heavy vehicle safety. Ms Mysko followed whistleblower protocol to the letter and has been on the receiving end of significant retribution for her disclosures as a whistleblower. Evidence shows ECS was contracted to Santos, Ensign Energy and Easternwell. Why has ASIC shown zero statutory duty to uphold the whistleblower safety act and laws? Are you aware that these are very serious criminal offences and involve risking the lives of workers and public safety at extreme levels?
Ms Court: Thank you, Senator Roberts, and good morning. I know you have raised this issue with us previously, so thank you for your question. Since we last met, I have some more information in relation to the matters that you raised. The difficulty I have is that we’re unable to give evidence about whistleblower interactions in a public forum. So I’m in a bit of a bind.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a private briefing?
Ms Court: Of course, Senator, we’d be very happy to give you a briefing. I am aware that the issues you’ve raised date back, I think, to 2022, as you said in your question. I can certainly assure you that these issues were looked at carefully and in a considered way. But, if you’re comfortable with that, it would be preferable for us to have a briefing and let you know about this—to the extent, again, that we can by law. I’ll have to get some advice on that but, certainly, we’ll be as open as we can.
Senator ROBERTS: We prefer to get issues fixed for a constituent rather than to put on a show, so I’m happy to get a briefing.
Ms Court: Thank you Senator, that’s good of you. We will take you up on that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask some more questions, but just tell me if they’re appropriate or not. Why has ASIC not protected Ms Roxanne Mysko since the amended whistleblower act commenced on 1 January 2020?
Ms Court: Again, I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why has ASIC not prosecuted the CEOs of Santos, Ensign Energy, Easternwell and ECS for violence towards the safety manager and for whistleblower retaliation over the years?
Ms Court: And again Senator, I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Who is responsible for the statutory duty to be upheld for whistleblower protection inside ASIC? Why has ASIC failed to protect a whistleblower when, in this case, Roxanne Mysko reported the issues to Senator Glenn Sterle—who’s a good friend of mine—when he was undertaking a Senate inquiry into how dangerous the heavy vehicle transport sector is?
Ms Court: I can answer one part of that question, if that would be of assistance? We take whistleblowing complaints very seriously. There are legal rights and protections for eligible whistleblowers, and there are some statutory criteria that whistleblowers need to come within in order to get statutory protection. Those protections have been strengthened since about the middle of 2019. We have, internally, established the Office of the Whistleblower. So, in terms of your question as to what happens to a whistleblower request when it comes in, we have a specialist team that is experienced in dealing with whistleblowers and in making sure that ASIC applies the statutory obligations that we have in relation to whistleblowers properly. The issues that you have raised would have been dealt with through that Office of the Whistleblower and, as I said, we’re very happy to talk to you and give you a briefing on what we can and can’t do.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve looked at the remaining four questions on this topic, and we’ll cover them in the briefing.
Ms Court: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Investors in the Lion Property Group are currently being denied access to the administrative remedy under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme—the CDDA—by ASIC. They’ve been told that the Commonwealth is unable to process ASIC related Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme claims. I have quite extensive questions to submit on notice, but I wish to ask now why the government is unable to proceed with the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme claims in these circumstances?
Ms Court: I don’t know if you were in the room, but Senator Bragg raised a similar issue with me earlier. There are complications about the application of the CDDA to ASIC. Just in that regard, I might have to correct the answers I gave to Senator Bragg earlier—I think I said that the CDDA did apply, but it was just that ASIC didn’t administer it. I understand now that it actually may not apply. We are very familiar with, and concerned for, the various investors that have lost money in Lion Property; I understand that has been a very significant issue. But, in relation to the CDDA, it’s not clear that it does apply to ASIC. In any event, those complaints are not dealt with by ASIC—as would be appropriate, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: Who deals with them?
Ms Court: The Department of Finance would deal with them if they applied. Is that right? I’ll hand over to Mr Gregson.
Mr Gregson: That’s right. The relevant department for those inquiries is the Department of Finance.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you sure about that?
Mr Gregson: That’s my understanding—that would be the prime body.
Australians are being ripped off, while big corporations profits hit record highs. The reason? Excessive market concentration.
In sectors like banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance, four major players control over 70% of the market. In fact, 7% of Australian industries have market concentration over 80%, compared to just 1% in the US!
Take our four major banks for example. They offer identical products, use identical strategies and share the exact same major institutional shareholders like BlackRock and Vanguard.
We don’t have four distinct banks in Australia; we have one massive monopoly hiding behind four different logos.
When crony capitalism replaces genuine free enterprise, it’s Australians that pay the price.
The bureaucrats and the Government can offer all the excuses and buzzwords they want.
One Nation will never stop fighting to break up these monopolies and put money back in your pocket.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my first attendance in this session with the National Competition Council. My question is inspired by a common theme in many calls to my electorate office noting that we have an apparatus of government that’s designed to ensure free enterprise competition sets market pricing rather than crony capitalism and yet prices seem to be out of control for many people and corporate profits are at record highs. The perfectly legitimate conclusion is that something is broken, and the attention must fall on the National Competition Council. It’s your task to ensure competition, isn’t it?
Mr Bezzi: Thanks for the question. We have a range of responsibilities under the Competition and Consumer Act. They include the promotion of competition but within the context of national competition policy and within the context of specific research projects that we’re given. So, for example, we’re dealing with a research project at the moment which will help tradespeople and people in other occupations operate across state borders. That’s an important aspect of promoting labour mobility within the economy. We are also working to support states and territories that have identified a range of areas of regulatory reform which will help promote competition. I’ll see if my colleague Mr Biesaga wants to add anything to the answer.
Mr Biesaga: I’d like to add that, with the intergovernmental agreement being put into place in November 2024 along with the respective federation funding agreement, we are at the early stages of getting national competition policy and standing that back up. Over the past number of years, the NCC was mainly responsible for the National Access Regime, and we are now in a phase of gearing up to be able to be more active in backing the National Competition Policy space.
Senator ROBERTS: The internationally used measure of concentration of market power is called CR4. It simply shows how much market share the top four companies have within a specific market. A high—above 60 per cent—CR4 suggests the market could be classified as an oligopoly with limited competition. In an oligopoly, profits are high because the entrants work together to rip off their consumers, who all lose. Can we agree a CR4 is too high in any industry?
Mr Bezzi: As I mentioned, our role is to promote competition. The Treasurer has identified that, in many areas of our economy, sectors are significantly concentrated and more concentrated than would be preferred. There are a number of reforms that the parliament and the government have engaged in in recent years that have sought to address this issue. One of them is the development of the National Competition Policy. Another is—and this is something that the Treasury worked closely with the ACCC on—the reformed merger control provisions. Those provisions were explicitly targeted at giving the ACCC the capacity to tackle market concentration in sectors where it had grown too strong. I hope that response assists you.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go on to some specific examples. An example of what goes wrong in an oligopoly is in our supermarket sector right now, where the ACCC has prosecuted Coles and Woolies for false and misleading advertising, increasing retail prices—which is inflation—and increasing corporate profits. These facts were proven by the court judgement against Coles. Does this mean the National Competition Council has failed to ensure free market competition in the supermarket sector, or are you just winding up to do that?
Mr Bezzi: We share responsibility for promoting competition with the ACCC. As you pointed out, the ACCC has done an excellent job prosecuting that particular case and has a mandate to enforce the competition law. That’s a very important task in concentrated markets like supermarkets. They’ve also been given specific power to deal with mergers in the supermarket context. Ms Cass-Gottlieb is probably best addressed to discuss how those powers are being used, but our mandate at the NCC is about promoting the National Competition Policy. Over time, we’re hoping that that will assist to create a more dynamic, more competitive economy.
Senator ROBERTS: In Australia, many sectors of the economy have a CR4 concentration of market power above 70 per cent, including banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance. These are industries which directly affect the cost of living for millions of everyday Australians. How did Australia get to this position, and when are you going to target these inflation-critical industries to restore free enterprise and competition and shift market power back to consumers?
Mr Bezzi: I’m not going to speak for the ACCC, but I can say that, over many years, the merger control provisions perhaps did not give the ACCC the capacity to deal with growing [inaudible] in the way that it should have been able to. That was certainly pointed out in the debate on merger reform, and I think that parliamentarians were convinced that that was the case. I’m not sure whether Ms Cass-Gottlieb wishes to comment further, but these things happen over a long period, and they’re largely a result of historical legislative and regulatory settings that enable developments such as concentrated markets to occur.
Senator ROBERTS: What options are available to you, and what are you considering?
Mr Bezzi: It’s not the role of the National Competition Council to engage in enforcement action. That’s the role of the ACCC, our responsibility—
Senator ROBERTS: What options can you give the ACCC?
Mr Bezzi: Well, they’ve got a range of options that they can speak to, including significant enforcement powers under the Competition and Consumer Act. They’ve also got significantly enhanced merger powers. That’s something that probably should be addressed to them.
Senator ROBERTS: Just checking, I thought you implied that we haven’t been doing our job in Australia in banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance and that you’re now looking at addressing that. What options can you address it with?
Mr Bezzi: Parliament has sought to address the concentration problem through the merger reform process.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any others?
Mr Bezzi: There’re stronger enforcement powers that the ACCC has in relation to misuse of market power. As I said, enforcement isn’t really territory for the National Competition Policy. We’re also looking at supporting the process of National Competition Policy. Where there are states and territories that have come together and agreed over packages for reform, we support those reforms by recommending to the government that payments be made to states and territories to incentivise that reform process. Those payments will be made from the $900 million productivity fund that the government has established, and over time that should help to make the economy more dynamic and more competitive. There are a range of things that are being done.
CHAIR: I need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I just ask two questions?
CHAIR: If they’re very quick.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Australian industries are more concentrated than in the US, with seven per cent of Australian industries having a CR of more than 80 per cent, as against one per cent of industries in the US. Revenue of Australia’s top 100 listed companies as percentage of GDP rose from 27 per cent in 1993 to 47 per cent in 2015, almost 50 per cent. The source of that is the ACCC. This is not a new trend; it’s been going on for years. Minister, your government, your department and your National Competition Council are responsible. Seriously, the Liberals are paid by their donors to look the other way. What’s your excuse? You’re concentrating the market.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t think you’ll find a government who’s done more than we have to address competition across the economy. Seriously, go back and have a look. Yes, there’s always more work to be done, but a combination of the reforms that have already passed the parliament, the powers that we’ve given to the ACCC and their ability to enforce the laws that the parliament has played is making a real difference.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware the four major retail banks have similar strategies, similar products, similar services? Their products are the same.
Senator Gallagher: I think those issues have been well understood and well canvassed.
Senator ROBERTS: They’ve each got a controlling interest in them by BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State. We haven’t really got four major banks; we’ve got one major bank hiding behind four logos. The banks have got far too much power.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, are you finished with your question?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you want to make a comment?
Senator Gallagher: My answer is that there is a continued focus in this area. We have assistant minister Dr Leigh working with the Treasurer in this area. There was a lot of effort going into it in our first time term, and it continues in this term.
I asked Finance Minister Katy Gallagher’s about a critical issue affecting every working Australian: falling productivity.
The official numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics don’t lie. Under this Labor government, productivity (GDP per hours worked) has dropped from 100 to 96.9%.
At the same time, Labor brought in 301,000 net overseas arrivals in just one year.
This is what the data tells us:
➡️ Migration only boosts productivity if migrants are more highly skilled than the existing workforce.
➡️ Less than 20% of their 301,000 migrants are classified as skilled arrivals.
➡️ Australia now has a record 2.59 million short-term visa holders (excluding tourists) in the country, which international data proves drags productivity growth down even further.
I asked the Minister a simple, direct question: Has Treasury modelled the damage this massive influx of low-skilled and short-term visa holders is doing to our GDP per capita productivity?
Instead of giving a straight answer, Minister Gallagher dodged, talked about Net Zero, and gave excuses.
Adding millions of people without the skill levels or infrastructure to support them isn’t a productivity strategy. It’s a recipe for lower living standards for everyday Australians.
One Nation has policies that put Australian workers and our national interest first.
— June | Question Time
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and relates to productivity. The measure of productivity I’m using is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics: GDP per hours worked. Under your government, the index measure of productivity has fallen from 100 per cent to 99.6[96.9] per cent. Net overseas migration in the year to December 2025 was 301,000 people. What change will these 301,000 new permanent arrivals make to our productivity—GDP per hours worked—across the forward estimates?
Senator Gallagher: I welcome the question on productivity because this budget had productivity right at the centre of the decision-making that we took. As Senator Roberts would know from attending estimates, as he does and has as a representative of his party—he knows, from all the advice that Treasury has provided, that productivity growth in the decade to 2020 was the slowest in 60 years. Get your heads around that as everyone points the finger: the slowest in 60 years was in the decade to 2020. We recognised, when we came to government—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: On a point of order, I asked about productivity falling under your government.
The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister is answering your question, but I will continue to listen carefully, and, if she isn’t, I’ll direct her to your question.
Senator Gallagher: I was explaining the evidence that Treasury has provided, through various committee proceedings that I’ve been at and that Senator Roberts has been at, that the productivity challenge that Australia has right now is similar to many advanced economies and that we had seen slowing productivity growth in the decade to 2020. We revised back the productivity growth assumptions in our budget on the advice of Treasury. Those had been hiding behind the myth of their numbers in their budget. We adjusted it based on advice from Treasury, and this budget has a range of measures that go right to the heart of driving productivity improvements, which, I would think, all of us in this chamber could agree is a good thing. Whether it be some of the regulatory reform work that I’m doing; removing some of the barriers to trade, which Senator Farrell’s at the heart of; building a single national market; accelerating approvals with the work that Minister Watt’s leading in the environment and the work that Minister O’Neil is doing in housing; the work with the states and territories looking at how we use data and AI—all of these big challenges that economies like Australia are grappling with, we are dealing with in this budget. I’m not sure—the clock ran out.
The PRESIDENT: Sorry, Minister. Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: OEC data shows productivity improvement only occurs if the migrants have a higher skill level than Australia has as a whole—in other words, quality, not quantity—otherwise, productivity falls. Minister, does the low rate of skilled migration—less than 20 per cent of your 301,000 migrants—mean that productivity in Australia across the forward estimates will continue to fall?
Senator Gallagher: I know that One Nation and those parties on the right would like to blame every challenge to this country on migrants. We don’t. On this side, we don’t take that view. The productivity challenge is real. It’s real in our economy. It’s real in many, many economies around the world. The measures needed to improve productivity involve governments tackling serious challenges that have been ignored for too long, like—and I know you disagree with this, Senator Roberts—the transition to net zero. I know you don’t like it, but energy is a big part of seizing the—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I don’t want to know about the globe. This is a point of order on relevance.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, why are you on your feet?
Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. The minister is being relevant to your question, and I’ll continue to listen carefully.
Senator Gallagher: Migrants have made a very significant investment into our economy and have brought additional benefits. We value them and the contribution they make. We’re dealing with the migration challenges. The net overseas migration has come down 45 per cent, and we’ve got a range of productivity measures in place. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: International data shows that, the more short-term migrants a country has, the less the productivity growth. Under your government, Australia has 2.59 million short-term visa holders—excluding tourists, of course. Minister, have you modelled the effect on gross domestic product per capita productivity from having so many short-term visa holders in your visa mix?
Senator Gallagher: Treasury does a range of modelling and a range of analysis that feeds into our budget papers. Obviously, the numbers through net overseas migration inform other numbers that run throughout the budget papers. Again, we value the work and contribution of migrants and what they bring to this country. The productivity challenge is a substantial one. Senator Roberts, I would think that, on the issues that we’ve focused on in this budget, you would agree with many of them and you would agree that these are areas that governments and parliaments should be focusing on to drive productivity, because we know that, when we’re improving productivity, we’re improving the life of every single citizen, and we are focused on that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance again, President. I asked about per capita GDP productivity from so many short-term visa holders. That’s all I asked about.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, and the minister is being relevant, Senator Roberts.
During Question Time, I asked Finance Minister Katy Gallagher for the real bottom line on Snowy Hydro 2.0.
Not just the construction cost. I asked for the true total to taxpayers: interest on the debt, transmission lines, endless maintenance, and the required wind and solar replacements.
The response? Labor admits they don’t even know how much it will cost or when it will be finished. A recent ANAO audit confirmed there is no reliable system to track future costs, no completion baseline, and no quality data.
Originally pitched as a $2 billion project, it’s already blown out to $42 billion — and that’s just a fraction of the final bill. When you factor in the full life cycle costs and the massive grid overhauls needed, taxpayers are staring down at $100 billion plus in costs for a project that will lose money every year, and provide a tiny amount of electricity at a totally unaffordable price.
Yet, Labor refuses to cancel it.
Reliable, low-cost clean coal power stations could secure our energy grid today without bankrupting the nation, however Labor remain fixated on Net Zero at all costs and hardworking Australians are paying the price.
It’s time to stop the waste and put cheap, reliable power first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, regarding the cost to taxpayers of the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme. Minister, can you inform the Senate how much Snowy Hydro 2.0 will cost to complete, including cost of construction; capital costs through to the end of the financing cycle, meaning interest on the debt; maintenance through the same period; the cost of transmission lines dedicated to this project, including maintenance; and, finally, the industrial wind and solar installations, including cyclical replacement, needed to generate the power? In short, if it’s built and it’s paid off, how much all up is this thing going to cost?
Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to update the chamber with the information that I have available to me on Snowy 2.0. I think you’ll remember that, when we came to government, we inherited a project that was having significant difficulties. If you remember, I think former prime minister Turnbull announced this project and said it would cost $2 billion. It had not had a business case done. There had been no scoping done. There had been no surveys done of the geological environment that the project was going to be built in, and so there was a significant reset probably in the first couple of years of our government, and that increased the project total cost to in the order of $12 billion. Currently, the Snowy board is undertaking a cost reassessment for the total project cost. We have not received that work yet. It is due to the government towards the end of July. I would say that Snowy 2.0 is more than half built. It is an important project for the nation in terms of the security and stability of our energy grid. It is an important project, but, as to any further reassessment of the costs, the information that I have are the ones where we took that initial reset to properly scope the project, get it back on track and work with the organisation to deliver the project when it was raised to $12 billion.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian National Audit Office audit released this month found significant shortcomings, including no reliable system to track future costs, no base line for project completion and no quality data with which to work these things out. In short, we don’t know how long it’s going to take and how much it’s going to cost. Just like the uniparty’s net zero, there’s no plan. Minister, will you cancel this project?
Senator Gallagher: No, the government will not do that. As I said, it is an important project. I think I saw a figure that said it was 72 per cent complete, but I will correct that if I am wrong. I can’t find that number in front of me, but I was reading some documents about Snowy Hydro on the weekend. In relation to the ANAO report—I should say this because you didn’t—it did say that the management of the project has been partially effective and there were, I think, five or so recommendations which outlined deficiencies in some project governance arrangements. Snowy 2.0 has accepted, I think, the vast majority of those recommendations. It is an important project for the stability and security of our energy system. It’s an important project to get done, but it has been a troubled project from the beginning, including when it was so poorly implemented initially by those opposite.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Labor appears to be upset about Senator Whitten signing a contract to sell his shares in September 2023, almost two years before his Senate nomination. Minister, at what point do you accept that a clean coal power station provides cheaper power, much more of it, than this fantasy project costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps a trillion, before it’s paid off? When will you give up this fantasy?
Senator Gallagher: Again, Senator Roberts, this project is important for the security and stability of the energy grid. In relation to coal-fired power stations, there have been none built in this country for decades, and, indeed, under the former government, I think there was $3 million allocated to Collinsville to explore that. I don’t know what happened to that and where that project ended, but we heard nothing from it. The market is not building new coal-fired power stations. They’re not. If they were able to deliver the energy that you say they would be able to do in a way that you want them to do, the market would be investing in them. They’re not. The market is investing in renewables because it delivers cheaper and more reliable energy. We’ve seen that, indeed, in some announcements that Minister Bowen has made in recent times about the wholesale price of electricity coming down because of the amount of renewables in the system.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/prBzMouEYrc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 10:11:442026-08-20 10:54:48Clean Coal vs. Snowy Hydro: Which One Makes Sense?
I asked Minister Gallagher a simple question about the true cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0. Unsurprisingly, I got a response, just not an answer.
Economic analysts like Robert Gottliebsen projects that this project could cost taxpayers over $1 trillion by the time it’s finished. While One Nation believes this figure is far too high, the lack of proper planning, financial analysis, cost control and transparency makes an accurate analysis impossible.
How much will electricity have to cost for taxpayers to get their money back? They don’t know. They are making this up as they go along!
One Nation will:
❌ Close down Snowy 2.0 before it sends the country broke.
❌ Remediate the environmental damage.
❌ Build clean, reliable coal-fired power to slash the cost of living.
A One Nation government will stop this madness, balance the budget and put Australians first.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank You. I take note of Minister Gallagher’s response—it wasn’t an answer—to my question regarding the urgent need to close down Snowy Hydro 2.0 before it sends us broke. Robert Gottliebsen, not a man to be taken lightly, has projected the cost of this project at over $1 trillion after allowing for capital costs, maintenance, transmission line construction and maintenance costs, industrial solar and wind installations necessary to provide the power, and regular renewal of these renewables—because they only last 15 years—from now until the project is finished and paid for, likely in 2060. Then add in the annual subsidies, because Snowy 2.0 will always run at a loss and you’ll be paying for it. How much will the power have to be priced at to get our money back? They don’t know. They’re making this up as they go along. What a metaphor for the whole so-called net zero transition, a transition to poverty! One Nation will close this project down, remediate the environmental damage and replace the generation of power with beautiful, clean coal-fired power, lowering the cost of living for all Australians and helping us balance the budget.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Uk6AbbFJ_vw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 09:30:272026-08-20 10:02:48Time to Pull the Plug on Snowy 2.0
During my second session with AHPRA, I asked their representatives about their neutrality, bureaucratic overreach and entanglement with radical ideological and political advocacy groups.
When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on whether AHPRA caseworkers even possess the basic competence to distinguish between a psychoanalytic view of psychosis and a genuine psychotic disorder, or whether they’re weaponising ignorance to take unwarranted action against doctors, he could not provide an answer and took it on notice.
More importantly, I am extremely concerned about AHPRA’s institutional alignment with politicised organisations such as ACON and its Pride in Diversity program, including their active membership and participation in the Australian Workplace Equality Index.
Despite admitting that no formal assessment has ever been conducted to evaluate whether these ideological partnerships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest, Mr Untersteiner hid behind procedural bureaucracy and evasive talking points.
When asked how AHPRA can possibly claim to be an independent, unbiased regulator while paying to participate in programs designed to push progressive inclusion agendas, they dodged my questions, basically admitting they have no defence for the exorbitant legal costs hardworking Australian doctors face when forced to defend themselves against unaccountable regulators.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to skip a lot of my questions, Mr Untersteiner, and go straight to general questions. Would an AHPRA caseworker understand if a doctor were referring to a psychoanalytic view of psychosis rather than a psychotic disorder?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If they don’t understand, are they in a position to take action against such a doctor?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Given Ahpra’s affiliation with the Rainbow Tick scheme and ACON, a high-profile gender identity organisation, how can a doctor be sure that AHPRA is neutral and not biased against them?
Mr Untersteiner: I go back to an earlier point that I made, which is that we regulate one million health practitioners, and those one million health practitioners will see many millions of Australians as well. We have a paramount responsibility of public protection within the legislation. In order for us to fulfil that duty, we need to be engaging with all sorts of communities to understand their experiences in the health system and to understand their experiences with the regulator as well, and so we meet with many different organisations, including Australian Disability Network, for instance, Diversity Council Australia and many, many others. I could go on. We also work with Pride in Diversity for the exact same reason.
Senator ROBERTS: Can AHPRA confirm all formal and informal relationships it maintains with ACON and its programs, including Pride in Diversity.
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is AHPRA currently a member of Pride in Diversity or participating in the Australian Workplace Equality Index?
Mr Untersteiner: We do have a membership with Pride in Diversity.
Senator ROBERTS: At what cost, and when did you join?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What due diligence was undertaken before entering into these relationships, particularly given ACON’s explicit advocacy role on gender identity policy?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest in its regulatory functions?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m confident that they aren’t creating any kind of conflict. Again, as I mentioned, we use a range of different partnerships and memberships to ensure that we’re hearing different voices from the community. At the end of the day, our regulatory role is founded in the legislation and in the codes of conduct. Again, I’m very comfortable that we fulfil that duty without a conflict of interest.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts?
Mr Untersteiner: No formal assessment.
Senator ROBERTS: How does AHPRA reconcile its statutory obligation to act as an independent regulator with participation in programs designed to influence institutional behaviour toward progressive inclusion strategies?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I think I’ve answered that.
Senator ROBERTS: Not specifically.
Mr Untersteiner: Again, we apply legislation and codes of conduct in our investigations. To go further, ultimate decisions are made by professional boards under the legislation. Members of the professional boards are not employees of AHPRA. They are statutory appointees appointed by every state and territory health minister and the federal health minister, so they are independent of AHPRA in that sense. Again, there is an arm’s-length arrangement in decision-making. Beyond that, there is a right of appeal through to tribunals and even the higher courts. Again, there is a very robust regulatory and legislative framework that ensures that there isn’t a conflict of interest that occurs as a result of us listening to different members of the community to understand their experiences.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what it costs to go to court?
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to have to rotate the call. This is your last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA received advice, internal or external, on whether alignment with advocacy organisations risks regulatory capture or bias?
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you Mr Untersteiner.
I questioned representatives from AHPRA regarding their heavy-handed and unjustified actions against Dr Amos, an academic psychiatrist from North Queensland.
On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia slapped immediate restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, banning him from patient contact and social media commentary on gender.
This move was triggered by just four complaints (three were anonymous and none were from patients) concerning three X posts — one questioning whether trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis and another using biological pronouns during an exchange.
When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on what specific parts of those posts allegedly posed a “serious risk to public health and safety” to justify an immediate action order, he hid behind confidentiality provisions and refused to discuss individual cases. Even with support from Senator Henderson challenging their secrecy, the agency repeatedly dodged direct questions.
When I asked Dr Orchard whether a health practitioner has the right to refer to biological sex, or if doing so constitutes discrimination, they hid behind vague codes of conduct and social media guidelines instead of giving a straight answer.
AHPRA claims they only intervene when debate crosses into hate or discrimination, yet they couldn’t provide a clear set of guidelines defining what they actually consider “misinformation.”
I questioned their process of issuing severe penalties before facts are even established or investigations conducted, ultimately destroying doctors’ careers over anonymous complaints and standard public commentary.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have Ahpra please? Thank you all for being here. Dr Amos is an academic psychiatrist based in North Queensland. His academic work includes numerous published journal articles and conference presentations on gender medicine. On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia placed restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, preventing him from having direct or indirect contact with patients and banning him from posting on social media on the topic of gender. This was in response to four complaints about three X posts. Three of the complaints were anonymous. It’s important to note that there was no patient complaint. He had posted that ‘there is no reliable evidence that trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis.’
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, given that it is almost 10.30 and we’ve had all of these questions from senator Henderson—
Senator ROBERTS: No, we haven’t had these questions.
ACTING CHAIR: I think you’re going to get a similar response.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had this topic but not this question. Another complaint was that, in a post exchange, Dr Amos used biological pronouns and thereby was accused of misgendering a UK trans activist. The immediate action order used by Ahpra against Dr Amos is meant to be reserved, as I understand it, for when there is a reasonable belief that a health practitioner poses a serious risk to public health and safety. What specific elements of those posts did the board determine posed a serious risk to public health and safety under the socalled national law?
Mr Untersteiner: As the chair has highlighted, I’ve answered this question numerous times. My response will remain. I can’t comment on individual cases, because we have very clear confidentiality provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Does a health practitioner have the right to refer—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just one moment. I hope it is a point of order, Senator Henderson, and not commentary.
Senator HENDERSON: No, of course not. This is just a point of order in relation to advice that I’ve just received through the secretariat. If the information is public, there’s no basis not to answer these questions. We’ve checked the advice with the chair. So I would just challenge—
ACTING CHAIR: You haven’t checked the advice with the chair.
Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, I meant with the secretary. Apologies. I’m just saying through the chair that I don’t think it’s appropriate that you decline to answer these questions. It’s not consistent with the rules of the Senate insofar as—
Mr Untersteiner: Sorry, to confirm—
ACTING CHAIR: I think this is an interpretation issue. The information that that you have is not necessarily the stuff that is printed in whatever publication it is that has been quoted. There is a big difference in reporting from wherever you got it and the agencies actually providing you with their detailed private information that is protecting other people’s privacy. But I’m happy for Mr Untersteiner to take that on notice and provide the rationale and the breakdown. Perhaps you, Senator Henderson, could provide the information that you were reading from previously in terms of your—
Senator HENDERSON: I’ve tabled that, Chair. That’s been tabled.
ACTING CHAIR: Right. I still haven’t seen it. Nobody’s given it to me, I’m afraid.
Senator HENDERSON: Please speak to the secretary. Please don’t—
Senator Roberts interjecting—
ACTING CHAIR: I’ll just finish. I believe you’ve been asking the Clerk about a public interest immunity claim, and we can go to that point at that time. But let’s just take it on notice and come back with the rationale and the understanding, and then Senator Henderson and Senator Roberts can go through that and determine what steps they might like to take next.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate Senator Henderson interjecting, but the ultimate umpire is the TV camera—the people watching this at home, the Australians. Does a health practitioner, Mr Untersteiner, have the right to refer to a trans person’s biological sex?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m struggling a little bit with that question in regard to our role as the regulator. I don’t know—
Senator ROBERTS: Is it discrimination for a health practitioner to refer to a person’s biological sex? Is it discrimination?
Dr Orchard: I understand your question to be: is there an issue with a practitioner making public reference to someone’s gender or sex?
Senator ROBERTS: To refer to a person’s biological sex.
Dr Orchard: Generally, in respect of public comments by practitioners, you’ve heard earlier the discussion around the right of free speech and the fact that Ahpra and the boards are committed to those ideals, but there are limits to free speech and how people express themselves—
Senator ROBERTS: So a doctor talking about biological sex is going against free speech?
Dr Orchard: What I was going to say is that the codes of conduct and the social media guides that are published by boards set out quite clearly the expectations of practitioners when they are making public comments. They should make comments that are respectful and that rely on the best available information and so on—
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.
Dr Orchard: I beg your pardon?
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, it’s not appropriate to get personal with the witnesses. Please have some respect.
Senator ROBERTS: How can a doctor fulfil their ethical obligation to inform the public of potential harms of gender interventions and gender ideology without being accused of discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people?
Mr Untersteiner: I’ve answered this question several times. As a regulator, we think health practitioners have a right to have public debate about a range of different issues, which include, again, gender-affirming treatment, gender blockers and other like treatments. We would not be taking regulatory action on that basis. Again, I think I’ve got to be very careful here about selective media and about using that as the basis.
Senator ROBERTS: What specifically would Ahpra consider to be misinformation in a post? If you can’t speak to that now, take it on notice.
Mr Untersteiner: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: How do Ahpra staff acquire the capacity to know what is true or false information in this highly contested area? How do you know?
Mr Untersteiner: We rely on the existing clinical guidelines, but we also will look at the specific facts of the case, the specific facts of what was said and what context that was said in. Again, I want to be clear here that we will intervene where this goes beyond a debate about clinical pathways and treatments and moves into a place of hate or discrimination against individuals or groups. Again, I see firsthand the harm that discrimination and hate cause the community. I see vulnerable people in all walks of life in this country who fear seeking help because individuals go beyond debating appropriate clinical pathways or advice and move into very clear discrimination.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me specifically, please, a set of guidelines of what would be deemed by Ahpra to be misinformation in a post.
Mr Untersteiner: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t think I can answer that question.
ACTING CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re breaking careers on it. The Medical Board of Australia’s immediate action orders are implemented before the facts are established and before an investigation occurs. Is it reasonable to destroy a doctor’s career for three social media posts without conducting an investigation—three anonymous complaints, no patient complaints?
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’re working on a limited basis there.
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’d just say I don’t agree with your characterisation there. There’s a lot more information that won’t be public and isn’t appropriate for me to talk about. I’ve got legal obligations that I must meet—
