Who Controls the Classroom?

In this estimates session with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), I asked whether they can attribute any measurable improvements in education outcomes (such as academic performance or attendance) to its 17-year history.

Mr Gniel defended ACARA’s role, clarifying that its KPIs are tied to its legislative functions, namely, developing the national curriculum, administering national assessments (like NAPLAN) and reporting data. He noted that education outcomes are a shared responsibility involving teachers, parents and state education systems.

I raised concerns about state autonomy, referencing New South Wales’ “back-to-basics” syllabus reforms from early 2025 and suggesting the national curriculum is overly complex. Mr Gniel responded that all state and territory ministers approved the Australian Curriculum, and that state-level documents are simply a localised framework to enact it.

I asked whether ACARA was pushing “propaganda” and “indoctrination,” pointing to Freedom of Information (FOI) documents regarding the UN’s UNESCO Greening Education Partnership. Did ACARA perform due diligence on climate change science integrated into the curriculum? Mr Gniel rejected the premise of indoctrination, stating the curriculum is evidence-based and approved by all education ministers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today, ACARA. Thank you, Minister. ACARA was founded in 2009. After 17 years, are there any improvements in education indicators which can be shown to result from your work?  

Mr Gniel: We publish information about the performance of students across the country every year through the national results, and we only have that information because ACARA runs national assessments. Certainly at a subgroup level we’ve seen some improvements. We’ve also seen some more challenging areas. ACARA’s responsibility around reporting is making sure that that is available to education ministers across the country, to systems, to schools and to the broader community. I think it’s obvious—and I’m sure you would agree—that education outcomes for all children are not a single entity’s responsibility. We rely on the great work of our parents, as the first educators of our children, through to schoolteachers, principals and those groups that support them. ACARA’s role is around curriculum—making sure we have a national curriculum; assessment—sure we have a national assessment program that provides that information; and reporting, which has been delivered every year as per the functions we have in our legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: I admire your point that the education of a child involves many, many people right through the community. I accept that, but is there any improvement that’s come as a result of your work? Academic performance, attendance, course continuation, education costs, teacher satisfaction, which is very important—can we attribute any of those, or any others measures, to ACARA’s work? What KPIs are you measured on?  

Mr Gniel: The KPIs for us are within the functions of our legislation, which is that we produce and administer the Australian curriculum. I think we can tick off that we have done that. That’s been in place for a number of years now. In fact, as you would be aware, we’ve just been through a significant review and republication of that, in 2022, with the approval of all ministers around the country, which is no small feat. That’s certainly one of the KPIs for us, against our legislation. We’ve also run the National Assessment Program, year on year, for nearly 20 years now, as apart of that. We’ve delivered the reports, through the national reporting. They are the KPIs, in terms of what we’re responsible for delivering, whereas responsibility for the improvement in outcomes, as I said before, is a shared endeavour.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about a metric suggestion? You produce a national curriculum, which is guidance about what should be in the coursework, right?  

Mr Gniel: Sorry—what’s the question in that?  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s not a question there. You produce a national curriculum, which is guidance about what should be in the coursework. Am I right?  

Mr Gniel: The national curriculum provides the content and achievement standards, and it’s what we collectively expect our children to develop in terms of knowledge, understanding and skills. That’s implemented across Australia through the jurisdictions, who have the constitutional right for delivery of education, as I’m sure you’re aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Gniel: That then is translated into each and every school. Of course, some of those nearly 10,000 schools I was talking about before are in the bush, in remote communities. Others have thousands of kids in the middle of the city. That is why we hand that to the profession, to teachers and principals, to translate content and achievement standards—our expectations, our promise to children in our community. They need to do that with the children that are in front of them. Of course, those children are aged from five to 18. So those are the things that change.  

Senator ROBERTS: Quite a range.  

Mr Gniel: It is, absolutely. Yes. To go to your point, Senator, what we provide is content and achievement standards—what we want children to learn and then demonstrate. The translation of that into everyday practice, though, of course happens in the classroom.  

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage of coursework in active use in schools around Australia follows your national curriculum?  

Mr Gniel: Ministers have approved the adoption of the Australian Curriculum. Some of the jurisdictions use that in their classrooms directly. Other jurisdictions choose to adapt the Australian Curriculum, using the curriculum as a backbone and then providing further supports for schools. For example, in New South Wales they have the syllabus documents, and they’re the things that they’ll provide to their schools for delivering in their classrooms.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In early 2025, the New South Wales education minister, Prue Car, publicly positioned the New South Wales government’s reformed syllabus as a slimmer—to quote her—’back-to-basics’ alternative to your national curriculum, which was criticised as overly complex or ‘bizarre’. Have you failed in your core mission to produce a curriculum which is high quality or indeed even usable? I must commend Mr Minns, the Premier of New South Wales, for having the courage to do what he did.  

Mr Gniel: Sorry. What’s the question there? If you can provide me with what you’re quoting from, that would really help, because I just want to be clear about what the minister said in this before I respond to that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m quoting from news reports.  

Mr Gniel: Of the minister’s—  

CHAIR: Are you able to distribute the statement?  

Senator ROBERTS: No. My staff did the research on it.  

Mr Gniel: In that case, I’ll just say that the New South Wales minister for education at the time, along with all other ministers, approved the Australian Curriculum. So have we delivered on that responsibility and function? Absolutely. We don’t position the Australian Curriculum in competition with New South Wales syllabus documents. They’re fundamentally different. If you go on their website, Senator, the New South Wales syllabus documents are their way of enacting the Australian Curriculum. It’s very clear. So these are not in conflict. They are part of New South Wales supporting their teachers and schools to deliver the Australian Curriculum and provide the guidance through syllabus based documents.  

Senator ROBERTS: My staff do excellent research, and I can recall the statement from New South Wales early last year about getting back to basics.  

CHAIR: It would assist the committee, Senator Roberts, if you bring a copy of the documents. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Victoria and Western Australia use a modified curriculum. Is your next version going to take on the criticism from the states and dial down on the woke and whatever they mean in New South Wales by the word ‘bizarre’?  

Mr Gniel: Again, I don’t agree with that, and I’d want to see the document you’re referring to. Again, all ministers from around the country approved the Australian Curriculum. It is then up to the states and territories to deliver education. I’ve mentioned before that that is part of the Constitution. The fact that they then maintain that responsibility to translate that into things that are particular for their communities, I think, is absolutely appropriate.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, when a state or a state education department approves the national curriculum, it doesn’t mean it’s going to abide by it?  

Mr Gniel: I’d say there are two parts to that. They approve the national curriculum, as they’ve all done. The delivery of the Australian Curriculum is in the Australian Education Act, and all school authorities and systems are required to deliver the Australian Curriculum or another curriculum approved by ACARA.  

Senator ROBERTS: So ACARA controls either the national curriculum or any alternative curriculum?  

Mr Gniel: ACARA is responsible for writing and administering the national curriculum—the Australian Curriculum—and also for the approval of any curriculum that can be considered as an interpretation of that Australian Curriculum but still with the same level of content. For example, Steiner education and Montessori are the two that we’ve currently got on there—and also International Baccalaureate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Freedom of information LEX 81815 and 82204 appear to show that ACARA are adding the United Nations UNESCO Greening Education Partnership to the curriculum, which requires the inclusion of nationally determined contributions in the curriculum. This suggests you’re not dialling back but doubling down on the propaganda. Why are you pushing indoctrination over education?  

Mr Gniel: Senator, I probably have to reject most of the assumptions that you’ve made in that question. To go to your question, you mentioned the numbers related to an FOI. Can you just explain to me what that FOI is and if you’ve got a copy of it for us.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t.  

Mr Gniel: Right. I think, Senator, you’d appreciate—  

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t get across everything—every FOI that we cite. My staff make sure it’s—but I’ll get it to you.  

Mr Gniel: Great. I think the CHAIR has asked for the previous one as well. If you can provide those for us then I think we’d be in a better position to be able to answer. I’m happy to take that one on notice, but I do want to make sure that it’s also on notice that I do not agree with the assumptions about us indoctrinating children. The Australian Curriculum is a promise we make to our children. It is approved by all Australian ministers— Commonwealth, state and territory. So I completely reject those statements.  

CHAIR: Perhaps you can work with the secretariat to lodge the original document with the question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. The UNESCO Greening Education Partnership is a voluntary global initiative launched in 2022 aimed at integrating climate change education and sustainability across education systems. Did you check the scientific basis for the greening education program and, in particular, climate change education, or did you just take what the UN is feeding you?  

Mr Gniel: We haven’t taken—I mean, this is where, Senator, I really need you to provide the information you’re basing this on so I can provide the answer appropriately.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s really simple: did you just take what the United Nations claims is science and put that into the curriculum, or did you do your due diligence?  

Mr Gniel: Once you’ve provided me with the details about specifics of what you’re talking about, I’m very happy to provide you an answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was the previous question. Now I’m talking about a very simple question: did you take the UN propaganda or UN material on climate science, or did you do the due diligence on it?  

Mr Gniel: Senator, again, if you provide the specifics on that, I can then give you an answer on the specifics. But I can give you a general answer, which is that the Australian Curriculum is based on the evidence that we gather as part of the process for both the development of the curriculum and also its review, and that’s taken through the ACARA board and on to ministers for their approval. As you would expect, they are very keen to make sure it is based on the evidence, and that’s what we have in the Australian Curriculum.  

Senator ROBERTS: By ‘evidence’ you mean scientific proof?  

Mr Gniel: Again, Senator, I think ‘scientific proof’ is a fairly broad term, if I can put it that way. I’d like to see the specific one that you’re asking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: Earlier this year in a Senate inquiry, I asked a senior UN executive in charge of information to provide the scientific proof. She failed to provide it. What she gave me was complete crap. What due diligence did you do on the United Nations material?  

Mr Gniel: I think I’ve answered that, Senator. I’m happy to take on notice, when you provide the specific example of what you’ve asked me to check, whether we’ve put that and used that in the Australian Curriculum. I’m very happy to.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll get it.  

Mr Gniel: Great. Thank you, Senator. 

 CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Roberts. 

/0 Comments/by

Billions on the Line for Net Zero

These Appropriation Bills allocates an additional $9 billion in spending for the current financial year, with roughly one-third ($2.9 billion) directed toward “net zero” measures.

This Labor government is using an accounting trick by borrowing money and on-lending it, keeping $33 billion in “off-the-books” expenditure out of the formal budget deficit. This money will result in financial losses. If these projects were viable, private enterprise would be funding them.

Net-Zero infrastructure (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries) has short lifespans, requiring multiple replacements before 2050 and 2060, incurring massive, overlooked installation, maintenance and disposal/ remediation.

Unlike the mining industry, “renewable” energy projects cause permanent environmental damage to landscapes without requiring environmental bonds for remediation.

Independent groups like Net Zero Australia and Bloomberg estimates that the total economic cost of the transition ranges from trillions of dollars up to $9 trillion, while asserting that government spending on net zero has surged by 400% between 2022 and 2026.

Transcript

In accordance with the arrangements made with the whips of the major parties, I seek leave to continue my remarks, and I express my regret that I wasn’t here at the start of the debate. 

Leave granted. 

I’ll continue my speech from the other night. Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department, plus the net zero reporting, government grants to industry and academia to research this made-up problem. It really is a fabricated nonproblem; a monstrous, calamitous fabrication that is costing the Australian people dearly. Some of these grants are substantial, including $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Authority to counter the effects of climate change. I’ll talk more about that in a minute. The further we get into the pointless, disastrous ‘transition’, the more that the burden of funding of these measures will fall on the taxpayer through direct payments, loans and sovereign guarantees, not to mention the inefficiencies—sorry, Siri is trying to talk to me. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Neill): Siri doesn’t have the call, Senator Roberts! 

I’ll pay that one! 

Senator Cox: You were caught out at estimates doing that. Come on, now. 

Senator McKim interjecting— 

You’ve got a fertile imagination. Conspiracy theorist, is it? These measures will cost so much in the years ahead that, ultimately, the government of the day will be faced with a choice of social security, free health and education or saving the planet from a natural trace atmospheric gas that’s essential to all life on earth. One Nation does not worship the sky god of warming. We know the climate varies naturally and inherently and that nothing in the current data suggests the variation is outside of normal cycles. 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! 

We have 24,000 datasets from around the world, including CSIRO and BOM, and they prove no change in climate at all, just natural, inherent variation superimposed on cycles. A One Nation government will terminate net zero measures and withdraw from international agreements which provide the heads of power the requirement on our government to spend this money—not necessary. We will immediately suspend all government activity associated with net zero and review all expenditure and loans to see what can be clawed back legitimately under the contract terms. I suspect noncompliance with contract requirements—especially around supply agreements—is widespread, so it shouldn’t be too difficult. We will terminate all ongoing subsidies where that option is available under the contract, and we will renegotiate contracts where it’s not. This will save around $10 billion a year in recurring expenditure, which we will put towards eliminating the deficit—$10 billion taken out of this year’s budget figures. 

I foreshadow my amendment No. 3662 in the committee stage to return these bills to the Treasury to have net zero spending removed and ask for the Senate’s support. It’s time to call out this parasitic net zero nonsense and get back to the real business of government: making people’s lives better, not harder, as net zero measures currently do. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you resume your seat, Senator Roberts, it would assist the Senate if you would move your motion. I believe it has been circulated as a second reading amendment. 

I move: 

Omit all words after “That”, substitute “further consideration of the bills be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after amendments are circulated removing all funding for net zero measures and the administration of net zero measures”. 

/0 Comments/by

Age Limits on Explicit Content

We first brought this issue to light several years ago, urging stronger safeguards to protect children from explicit, graphic and pornographic books, comics and other harmful publications.

Recognising the validity of our concerns, the department acknowledged the problem and is working to reform the classification system for these materials.

During this session with the Classification Board, I raised the proposed update to Australia’s classification scheme to transition from MA 15+ to MA 16+, noting that aligning this age limit with an under-16 social media ban makes sense for consistency.

I questioned whether the intent of the MA 16+ proposal is to legally block children under 16 from accessing this material in retail stores, libraries, or online – using the book ‘Welcome to Sex’ as an example.

Officials clarified that the current public consultation (which closed May 29) is focused on changing the age limit from 15 to 16 for games, films and publications and does not guarantee that children under 16 will be completely barred from accessing them. Ms Vandenbroek noted that MA-rated content can typically still be accessed with parental consent and library/retail restrictions largely fall under state and territory jurisdiction.

Mr Mackay added that any final scheme changes will require a decision by the federal government alongside unanimous agreement from all states and territories.

I expressed frustration over the slow pace of the process and asked the department when legislation would be introduced. Mr Cole confirmed that no official commitment has been made yet, as they are still awaiting the conclusion of the consultation and subsequent government and state/territory decisions.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I have very simple questions and they’re very short too. In the last Senate estimates session, ACMA suggested I should ask these questions here. Your review into modernising Australia’s classification scheme has moved on slowly to this draft proposal. I note the need for something in printed publications rated between G and R is still accepted. I thank the department and ACMA for that. The new classification applying to all content, including publications, is MA 16+. This harmonises with the under-16 social media ban and other measures of maturity, so I agree with making the ages consistent. My question is: can you confirm that the MA 16+ classification is intended to ensure that no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, in a library or through an online purchase? 

Mr Betts: Chair, for your benefit, this is not a corporate question. But I understand that Senator Roberts has many commitments during the course of the day, so we will answer this question, noting that it is probably part of outcome 5.  

CHAIR: It may not be to do with Senator Roberts’ commitments. From what he said in the preamble, it may be that ACMA suggested it be asked somewhere else. But if we are able to answer it now, that would be wonderful. Senator Green: Yes. It’s under the next outcome, but we can answer it.  

Mr Mackay: It is a question for the department, but it does come under outcome 5.  

Senator ROBERTS: We were both right.  

Senator Green: Column A, column B.  

Senator ROBERTS: Or both wrong.  

Mr Mackay: Would you mind repeating the last part of the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please confirm that the MA 16+ classification is intended to ensure that no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, in a library or through an online purchase?  

Mr Cole: No, we’re consulting on that at the moment. We are open for consultation on the update to the guidelines and they will close this Friday 29 May. There have been recommendations by our external provider we had come in to do some work on that. They’ve made recommendations with regard to MA 16+, as you talked about before, but they’re open for classification. Sorry for consultation at the moment to work through whether we should introduce those. So it’s a consultation period.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let me clarify. The intent behind the proposal as it stands now, subject to consultation, is that no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, library or online purchase if it’s accepted?  

Mr Cole: Can you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: What you’re saying is that you cannot confirm it at the moment, because it’s still a proposal and you’re seeking consultation?  

Mr Cole: That is with regard to the introduction of 16.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the driver behind the introduction to make it so that no child under 16 can access the material in a retail environment, library or online purchase?  

Mr Cole: That’s not what’s being proposed at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is being proposed?  

Mr Cole: Some recommendations have been proposed that are outlined in the report that you talked about there. There has been discussion around the MA 15+ changing to MA 16+. That would include not just publications but films, games—what’s actually there now. That’s what’s being proposed through the consultation process. But what would be taken from there would be a decision of government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Is the intent that a child under 16 cannot access this material in a retail environment?  

Mr Cole: Not at this stage. Again, it’s a public consultation process.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that. Given that it’s subject to public consultation, I accept that. That’s beneficial. Is the aim of this at the moment that, if it goes through as is, no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, a library or online purchase?  

Mr Cole: No, that’s not what’s being proposed.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the intent?  

Mr Cole: The intent with regard to changing from MA 15+ to MA 16+ is changing the age limits of the way people can access that material, whether it be games, publications or films.  

Senator ROBERTS: Under this proposal, if it survives public scrutiny—consultation—could a child legally get their hands on a copy of books like Welcome to Sex? 

Mr Cole: I can’t answer questions for the way that libraries, state governments et cetera provide publications. That’s not a federal government decision, so I’m unable to answer that.  

Ms Vandenbroek: At the moment, for example, for films that are rated MA 15+, people under the age of 15—correct me if I’m wrong—are able to view those films with their parents’ consent. So it’s not that they can’t legally see it, but they do need their parents’ agreement. That would be what would happen for films.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about libraries? How do we protect kids?  

Ms Vandenbroek: Very few publications are actually classified. It’s only if they’re called in for classification. Because of the volume, it’s not feasible to classify all written publications. If a book were to be classified currently as MA 15+, it would then be a matter for the library or the bookstore to deal with how that is displayed and how access is restricted.  

Senator ROBERTS: So children could still get access to this material?  

Mr Mackay: As my colleague indicated, that really is a question for state and territory governments. Following the consultation that is underway at present, any changes to the scheme would require unanimous state and territory agreement, given the issues we’ve been discussing for any changes to the guidelines or to the national code, and that’s a step that would follow from the consultation process that’s on foot at present.  

Senator ROBERTS: You proposed a PG 13 classification? Is that correct?  

Mr Cole: A PG 13 classification has been consulted on. That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve gone back out for further consultation, as we’ve discussed?  

Mr Cole: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: When will this legislation come before parliament? The process is taking too long. We’re not saying don’t have consultation—we believe in that—but it’s taken such a long time. When will it come before parliament?  

Mr Cole: There hasn’t been a commitment by government to introduce legislation. At the moment, we’re going through the consultation process for the update to the guidelines. That concludes at the end of this week. Then the findings will be considered and provided to government, and how that’s taken forward will be a decision of government. As Mr Mackay mentioned, any changes have to be unanimously agreed by states and territories, so any changes that are proposed would still then need to go through that process agreed by states and territories before anything could progress.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

EPBC Overhaul: The Price of Bureaucratic Delay

I am extremely concerned that the EPBC Act harms economic growth. Data from the Minerals Council shows average resource project decision times increased from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. This imposes a heavy financial penalty on applicants.

Minister Watt countered that the reforms passed last year (which we opposed) are specifically designed to speed up assessment and approval timeframes, covering housing, energy, and resources, while strengthening environmental protections.

Officials reported that on-time performance for resource projects like coal, gas and oil improved from 67% in 2024–25 to 92% in 2025–26 (up to 11 May). While questions on specific project age metrics were taken on notice, Minister Watt maintained that decision-making timeframes are improving.

I then brought up the budget allocation to introduce AI to the department. Officials explained that a trial of AI is being introduced to help populate referral documentation, assisting them in gathering required conservation information faster to avoid delays during the assessment process.

Poor governance in the Department is costing jobs and prosperity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we started talking about the national environmental standards under the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: I said that there hadn’t been—you asked me to come back and ask all the same questions, so that’s what we will do. 

Senator Watt: Yes—the questions you attempted to ask in corporate. 

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. 

Senator Watt: Sure. We’re ready. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you are! Your website on the new environmental standards under the EPBC does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says a circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April. When will the new standard be made available to senators? 

Senator Watt: I must admit I haven’t checked that website lately, Senator Roberts. I might get someone to do that for me. But, roughly three weeks ago, we commenced a second round of consultation. Ms Kay will give you the details. 

Ms Kay: We’ve only got two national environmental standards open for consultation on our ‘Have your say’ website. The matters of national environmental significance standard was released on 30 April, and our consultation closes on 29 May. The offsets standard was released on 8 May, and consultation for that closes on 9 June. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, as things stand, the EPBC Act is, in my opinion, a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia quoted an increase in average decision times for resource projects of 60 per cent—from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. What steps are you taking to increase your throughput—faster processing? 

Senator Watt: As I mentioned in an earlier section—I don’t think you were here, Senator Roberts—that is one of the key reasons behind the reforms that we passed the parliament last year. It was to speed up the assessment and approval timeframes for projects in Australia, whether they be housing, energy or resources. The other objective, of course, was to strengthen environmental protections. We want to fix that. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, your main steps are revising the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. We’ve done a lot of work internally to speed up the processes. You may have seen that today I announced some really dramatic improvements around housing approvals. We’ve done what we can under the existing law, but, with those reforms that we passed last year, we expect to deliver big improvements around timeframes for decisions. 

Senator ROBERTS: The budgeting—we discussed this slightly before—includes a measure for introducing AI to the department. Will that help in data collection and analysis, or will that be making actual decisions? I think Mr Kaiser said it won’t be making decisions, but perhaps you could explain. 

Senator Watt: Yes. There was a little discussion about this before, Senator Roberts, when you weren’t here, but why don’t we quickly go back over that again. 

Mr Gaddes: I might have a go at that. The EPBC Act has a range of threatened species and ecological communities and other nationally protected matters that proponents are required to gather a whole lot of information about. There’s a range in our conservation planning documents—and they’re quite complex—that proponents need to work through in creating a referral. The AI trial is designed to help people populate their referral documentation. If you have a certain action in a certain area, you put that into the AI tool. It then tells you the sorts of things that you should consider as part of your assessment. Proponents go and do that. It helps them speed up their assessment-documentation-gathering process. We get all the information up front, and they go through the system much faster. 

Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the applicant can provide details and you can tell him or her, based on what their project is, what they need to apply. 

Mr Gaddes: Well, the AI tool does it. It helps them at the front end gather all the information so that we don’t have to stop the clock and ask them to go and gather things through their assessment process. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the increased complexity of the EPBC Act a way of increasing delays for projects? 

Senator Watt: No, and I would argue that we’re reducing the complexity in this act. Not only would I argue that but a range of stakeholders from the business community have also acknowledged that the changes will improve processes as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project—we started discussing this—the whole thing cost the project, across a 3.8 year development application cycle, $25 million a year and almost $100 million total over the four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by procedural failure in your department? 

Senator Watt: I think, when you asked that question earlier, Senator Roberts, I made the point that, again, that one of the objectives of these reforms is to reduce the timeframes for decisions around projects. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a review on the EPBC Act’s effectiveness in two or three years? 

Senator Watt: In five years. It used to be every 10 years; we changed it to every five. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects? 

Senator Watt: We’ll get the relevant officials to answer. 

Mrs Svarcas: We don’t capture the value of the project. I can’t tell you how many there are over a certain value in the system. There is a field in the system, but it’s not mandatory, and it’s not verified. You wanted to know many resources projects we had in the system? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and what the average age of the projects is. 

Mrs Svarcas: We also don’t have the average age of the projects here today, but I can take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you tell whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: What I’m saying is that one of the objectives of the reforms is to improve the timeframes. Those reforms are only just starting to roll out. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t measure the timeframes, how can you determine whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: Ms Svarcas can answer that. 

Mrs Svarcas: What we do report is how long it takes us to go through the approval. For resources projects— coal, gas and oil—I can tell you that in 2024-25, 67 per cent of the project went through the EPBC system on time, within the timeframes. In 2025-26, through to 11 May, that has improved to 92 per cent. We have seen a substantial increase in the performance stats. 

Senator ROBERTS: Percentages are essentially averages, and can hide a lot. Can you tell us the actual details of the projects’ age? 

Mr Gaddes: I think that what Ms Svarcas is trying to say that we collect that information, but we don’t have it in that format before us right now. If you have some questions, we can take them on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What is your expectation for reductions in the figure of average age in the projects in 2.8 years, and will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth, Minister, and the breadwinner jobs that go with mineral projects? Mining drives the economy, mining drives exports, mining drives the standard of living. 

Senator Watt: All I can do is repeat what I’ve been saying. That’s one of the reasons that we passed those reforms. I have to point out that the One Nation party did not support those reforms. 

Senator ROBERTS: Because of the complexities that we think will make it worse. 

Senator Watt: There are many industry groups that don’t agree with you. 

Senator ROBERTS: And there are many who do agree with us. 

Senator Watt: I’ve got the press release from the Property Council and from the Housing Industry Association. I can dig out comments from mining groups. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Minerals Council? 

Senator Watt: I can come back to you with those, if you’d like. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your government aware it’s spent a lot of money—it’s still spending a lot of money— which is inflationary and hurts people as well. They need to pay for welfare, and they need to pay for the caring economy. It comes largely from the mining industry. 

Senator Watt: I think I acknowledged earlier that the mining industry is an important economic industry in this country. It’s not the only one, but it’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: Many people would be hoping those words come true. 

Senator Watt: It’s already a big exporter. It’s a major employer et cetera. One of the objectives of these reforms is to make quicker decisions around mining projects—brace yourself—solar and windfarm projects, housing development and critical minerals, as well as to strengthen environmental protections. 

Senator ROBERTS: There’s another aspect we can talk about. 

Senator Watt: I think your colleague had a go at that earlier. 

Senator ROBERTS: There will be a review in five years? 

Senator Watt: Yes, a review in five years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/0 Comments/by

Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda

Prompted by a glossy, heavily illustrated 57-page clean energy report for the Wide Bay-Burnett region that could easily have been a 10-page document, I questioned department officials regarding its substance and design.

I asked for the exact cost of this publication, whether similar reports were produced for other regions across Australia and what the cost-benefit analysis was for printing such a marketing document. I also questioned the total marketing spend of the regional development agency for the 2025-26 financial year.

Highlighting the accompanying letter’s call to advocate for a clean energy transition, I expressed my view that the brochure is nothing more than taxpayer-funded government propaganda filled with misinformation.

Minister Chisholm disagreed with my opinion and defended the government’s support for renewable energy and community engagement.

This Labor government is persisting with squandering billions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a pipe dream, trying to “trick” people into believing that an unreliable net-zero renewable energy transition is somehow going to control the weather.

They label any dissenting view as “misinformation” ignoring the fact that the worst offenders of climate alarmism and energy fear-mongering are in the Labor and Greens parties.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have the regional development agency, please?  

Ms Rauter: They are not part of the department. The regional development authorities, do you mean?  

Senator ROBERTS: Regional development agencies: outcome 3.  

Ms Rauter: We are outcome 3. How about you ask your question, and I will see whether we can answer it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This glossy brochure—  

Senator Chisholm: Is that from the RDA—Regional Development Australia?  

Senator ROBERTS: Regional Development Australia, yes.  

Ms Rauter: They are government funded authorities, but they are not part of the department. We would have to take the question on notice and direct it to the RDAs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Tell me what you can answer of these questions and put on notice what you can’t. This glossy brochure was posted out in January. I received a copy, as I am sure other senators did. It’s the Industry engagement report: industry perspectives on the path to clean energy. It is for the Wide Bay-Burnett region. Wide Bay is in Queensland. We are very keen to know. I care about the people in Wide Bay Burnett. This publication is 57 pages of full-page illustrations and white space. Distilling the actual information here, it would come to about a 10-page publication. How much did this publication cost? You can take it on notice.  

Ms Rauter: Yes, we would have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Secondly, was this publication required by an act of parliament? Why was it even produced?  

Ms Rauter: No, it is not required by an act of parliament. We do fund the Regional Development Australia organisations, which are across Australia, to work with local government, councils and others, on the regional investment framework and to make sure that that is delivered in the regions. They also support regional stakeholders, including the not-for-profit sector and local government, to seek grant opportunities. They support decarbonisation efforts that are happening in the regional areas. They build evidence for economic development. They contribute relevant data and local intelligence. We don’t require them to produce that publication, but we can certainly ask them what the process is for them going into that, and the cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are they doing this same exercise in other regions around Australia? My question is: how many more of these publications exist?  

Ms Rauter: Again, we will take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it just Wide Bay, where there has been a huge, justifiable backlash on solar and wind? You can take that question on notice.  

Ms Rauter: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain to me the cost benefit of this publication being produced as a glossy brochure instead of a simple emailed PDF?  

Ms Rauter: That would be a question for the RDA, specifically. We will pass that on.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much did the regional development agency spend on marketing in the 2025-26 financial year? I count this as marketing.  

Ms Rauter: Yes, I understand that.  

Senator ROBERTS: How does the carbon dioxide footprint manage to be factored into every Infrastructure Australia application, although the department can chop down trees for this nonsense propaganda? Where is the consistency in the management of your department, Minister?  

Senator Chisholm: I don’t really know that we’re responsible for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I quote from the letter that accompanied the glossy propaganda brochure: We are seeking your support to advocate for a regional clean energy transition strategy. Then they go on and name five points, including many points of misinformation. Isn’t this just propaganda from people in a region strongly opposed to solar and wind and its environmental destruction, community destruction and economic destruction, Minister? This confirms that the biggest source of misinformation and disinformation is the government, yet again.  

Senator Chisholm: It would be fair to say that I disagree with you on that basis, Senator Roberts. I am supportive of renewable energy projects. I come across many people in the community who are as well. I make the point that those things are best done when there is strong community engagement with the proponents. I see evidence in many places around the country that that is happening. I think that the work of the federal government and various state governments around the place is leading to better outcomes. Councils play an important role in that.  

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t bother you that it is crammed with misinformation and disinformation? 

Senator Chisholm: I haven’t actually seen the document that you’re talking about, Senator Roberts. I think it would be fair to say, being someone who has observed the way that you have operated in the chamber and in Senate committees over the years, we probably have a different point of view on some of these matters.  

Senator ROBERTS: We certainly do. Ms Rauter, thank you so much for stepping forward. It is appreciated. I am not holding you accountable for this, just the regional development agencies. Thank you.  

Ms Rauter: Not a problem, Senator.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. That’s a nice way to finish. 

/0 Comments/by

Unread Reports, Unchecked Risks

Who read the reports? Who considered the warnings? Who signed off on the risks?

At Senate Estimates, I asked officials from the Department of Defence whether the officer responsible for operational airworthiness had read key reports, considered critical safety assessments, and reviewed evidence relating to the approval of TopOwl 5.10.

Did he read the German report? Defence couldn’t say.

Did he read the Navy test report in full? Defence couldn’t say.

Was he aware of Army test findings that raised serious flight safety concerns? Defence couldn’t say.

Question after question was taken on notice.

This isn’t about hindsight. It’s about understanding what evidence was considered, what warnings were known, and how decisions affecting the safety of Australian aircrew were made.

Those answers matter.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing. Thank you for your service to the country and our defence forces. You’ve already said, Group Captain Smith, that you didn’t watch Wilson and Lamb this morning. Is that correct?  

Group Capt. Smith: Yes, Sir.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aw re that your statements are littered with the words ‘probably’, ‘likely’, ‘could be’. Th aey were very, very definite because they had actually come to a definite conclusion as to what would happen under the circumstances of this helicopter using TopOwl if they engaged that in flight. Are you aware?  

Group Capt. Smith: Are you referring to the verbal probability expressions the investigators use?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m referring to you not being concrete, whereas Wilson and Lamb were concrete in saying, ‘Under these circumstances, this will happen.’  

Group Capt. Smith: I can’t comment on the views or opinions of Mr Lamb or Mr Wilson.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you consulted Mr Lamb or Mr Wilson?  

Group Capt. Smith: No, I have not.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not at all? The most experienced and qualified test pilot in Australian Navy and Australian Defence Force history.  

Group Capt. Smith: I’m not aware of the comparison of their qualifications compared to other ADF pilots.  

Senator ROBERTS: My questions go to airworthiness and approval, not just of TopOwl but also the aircraft itself, training and approved training schemes, and the processes in the Army. Do you consider that the advice and the roles played by Fenwick, Norton and Lynch are independent? Yes or no?  

Major Gen. Hafner: Sorry. Can you clarify—when you say the roles were independent.  

Senator ROBERTS: What roles did they play? If you could perhaps describe the roles of Fenwick, Norton and Lynch and then whether or not you consider that to be independent.  

Major Gen. Hafner: In terms of the process that’s applied here and in this circumstance of introducing the helmet-mounted sighting device, the HMSD, referred to as the TopOwl, I believe we heard this morning that you have the pilot’s helmet and a visor system, which is the helmet-mounted sighting device referred to as the TopOwl because it actually has a couple of big circular areas on the front, which is where the image is projected. But really—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell us their roles and whether or not you consider them to be independent?  

Major Gen. Hafner: Their role is within the Army Military Air Operator organisation, which then conducts a sequence in accordance with the Defence Aviation Safety Regulations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What did John Fenwick do? 

Major Gen. Hafner: His role was as the Director-General Army Aviation and he participated—  

Senator ROBERTS: David Lynch?  

Major Gen. Hafner: Colonel David Lynch at the time was the director of operational airworthiness.  

Senator ROBERTS: And Norton?  

Major Gen. Hafner: Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Norton was one of our experienced qualified test pilots and qualified flying instructors.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you consider them to be independent in regard to the assessment after the crash?  

Major Gen. Hafner: I would say that they didn’t conduct an assessment after the crash. What I would say is they were involved in the process to introduce the helmet-mounted sighting device software version 5.10, an upgraded version of the software, which brought a number of enhancements above the previous software version, which, through some of the test reports, is reflected as improving the situational awareness for our pilots. So they were involved in the introduction process, which then was independently assured by the Defence Aviation Safety Authority before that item was released into service.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s focus on Director of Operations Airworthiness, David Lynch. If you can’t answer the question, just take it on notice please, and maybe consult with him. At the time, he recommended approval of the HMSD version 5.10. That’s TopOwl, right?  

Major Gen. Hafner: That is the software version that enables the system.  

Senator ROBERTS: At the time, did he have a working knowledge of the DASRs?  

Major Gen. Hafner: As the Director of Operational Airworthiness, that awareness and functioning within the Defence Aviation Safety Regulations is a normal part of the duties of that appointment.  

Senator ROBERTS: As part of the DASR approval process, the manufacturer provided documentation showing the HMSD version 5.10 software could be loaded into the MRH-90 and function without causing interference, so it’s accepted that the system was, from a technical engineering perspective, safe to install. But what evidence did Lynch consider to determine that the software was safe for use by Australian crews in the MRH-90 role and operating environment?  

Major Gen. Hafner: There’s a range of inputs to the introduction of service of an item. There are obviously technical aspects, but then there are operational tests and there are operational procedures as well, so you need to look at it all holistically. In this case, once the technical certification is done by our chief engineer for that aircraft then you consider the varying test reports that you have on the system in terms of its operational usage. In this case, like I said, each of the test reports from the Army aviation test and evaluation section from our Navy’s flight test organisation and then through that further test and evaluation by a range of very experienced test pilots and instructors, all of that really helped to characterise what AATES had initially identified in this pitch issue, which then resulted in procedures being applied within our publications so that the aircrew have an understanding of what the limitations of this system are for safe employment. It also resulted in the development of training, which all of the pilots were required to undertake before they were permitted to operate with this system. And that’s all designed so that you understand the bounds within which this system is used to enable safe flight operations. That would have all been considered within that passageway through those individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: So let’s work through some evidence in chronological order that I’ve been told is or should have been considered. Did Lynch consider the German report as evidence supporting that the software was safe for use by Australian crews in the Australian role and environment?  

Major Gen. Hafner: I’m unaware to what degree the contents of that report were considered. I am aware that the knowledge of that report was available at the time.  

Senator ROBERTS: At the time, did he actually read the report?  

Major Gen. Hafner: I can’t comment on that 

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take that on notice and ask him?  

Major Gen. Hafner: We can take that on notice.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Can you confirm it was a classified NATO report and not available to non-NATO members?  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that no-one in Australia had access to it.  

Major Gen. Hafner: Look, if I can take that on question on notice then we’ll be able to confirm.  

Senator ROBERTS: He then supposedly considered the Navy test report. Would that be correct?  

Major Gen. Hafner: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: At the time, had he read that report in full?  

Major Gen. Hafner: I couldn’t answer on behalf of Colonel Lynch.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice?  

Major Gen. Hafner: I’d need to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Now it’s agreed that, in general terms, the Navy said TopOwl software was safe to use when operating to a ship—correct?  

Major Gen. Hafner: The report deemed the helmet-mounted software device software version 5.10 as satisfactory. But as I said, it recommended further operational test and evaluation in a land low-level environment, particularly with reference to the pitch scale information.  

Senator ROBERTS: So was he aware that the Navy report actually recommended AATES conduct an assessment to see if the software was safe to use in roles in environments other than operating to a ship?  

Major Gen. Hafner: Again, I wouldn’t be in a position to speak on behalf of what Colonel Lynch knew or did not know, or read or did not read.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Major Gen. Hafner: We can.  

Senator ROBERTS: He then considered the AATES report. At that time, had he read the report?  

Major Gen. Hafner: Again, the line of questioning is very much asking what an individual did, knowing that I wasn’t that individual, so I’d be reticent to answer on his behalf.  

Senator ROBERTS: We do a lot of preparation in my office, as I think Senator Shoebridge does, and Senator Cadell, and we were hoping Colonel Lynch would be here, but he’s not, so you’re the man responsible. Was he aware that AATES assessed that the software version represented an unacceptable risk to flight safety, implying a very high risk of multiple deaths?  

Major Gen. Hafner: As I’ve indicated, through that introduction process, the test reports from the Army Aviation test evaluation section from our Navy’s flight test organisation and then through the subsequent operational test and evaluation, were all considered as part of the introduction of service sequence.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like a specific answer. Was Colonel Lynch aware?  

Major Gen. Hafner: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s fine. I’ll give you some context. You probably already know this but for others in the room, the Defence aircraft safety design requirements manual apparently states that compliance with the recognised airworthiness code underpins safe flight. It outlines that airworthiness code compliance contributes to Defence meeting its legal obligations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. It specifically requires that major changes such as software in version 5.10 be airworthiness code compliant. Was Colonel Lynch aware that the federal aviation regulations are DASR-approved airworthiness codes?  

Major Gen. Hafner: Again, I wouldn’t be in a position to answer what another individual knew or didn’t know at that time. I can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was Lynch aware that AATES report included the formal assessment that HMSD version 5.10 was non-compliant with federal aviation regulations airworthiness codes?  

Major Gen. Hafner: Again, any of the commentary regarding what Colonel Lynch knew or didn’t know, I think they’re questions I’d need to take on notice to take back to Colonel Lynch. I wouldn’t like to speak on the individual’s behalf. What I can say to you is all of those elements were considered as part of the introduction into service process.  

Senator ROBERTS: Take this on notice, please: at the time, did he have any evidence to show version 5.10 was compliant with any DASR recognised airworthiness code?  

Major Gen. Hafner: We’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: On notice: did he then consider the Langley-Norton operational evaluation, which in broad terms said version 5.10 was safe?  

Major Gen. Hafner: Again, I want to absolutely help the committee here—  

CHAIR: Can I perhaps assist? Senator Roberts, if you’ll allow, if you’ve got questions in that third-party context, perhaps they could all be provided on notice in bulk, and then we could—  

Senator ROBERTS: I think that might be the best thing to do.  

CHAIR: If I can assist in suggesting that. Then, if you’ve got questions that are for those that are here—  

Senator ROBERTS: These are all questions for Colonel Lynch, so we might as well cut through—  

Major Gen. Hafner: As I said, I’m very much trying to assist the committee; it’s just that I wouldn’t like to speak to what another individual knew or didn’t know. I think I would be speaking out of place in that regard. What I can speak to is the process and what the organisation had worked through in terms of whether those elements were considered. I can speak to that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy with that. He was director of operational airworthiness, as you know. His rank was colonel. If you could just get his answers to questions on notice.  

Major Gen. Hafner: Absolutely. Will do, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Swallowing the UN “Kool-Aid”

I wanted to get some clarity regarding UN General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65 and the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinion. Specifically, whether the ICJ’s ruling is merely advisory and non-binding and that any enforcement action would require another country to successfully prove direct economic harm, something that has never occurred regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

When department officials deferred these questions, Senator Ayres stepped in to shield them. I highlighted that the Paris Agreement is only binding because domestic legislation implements it and that Australia could legally withdraw from it just like the United States did.

I pointed out that UN resolution A/80/L.65 was only backed by 141 out of 193 member states, with major industrial countries like the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran opposing it. I challenged the entire narrative, stating that manmade climate change is nothing more than natural temperature variation and cycles – and that the government has swallowed UN “Kool-Aid.”

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’d like to clarify a United Nations resolution last week on climate change, which was General Assembly resolution A/80/L.65, titled ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change’, dated 20 May 2026. Australia strongly supported the resolution. The resolution welcomes and gives political weight to the International Court of Justice opinion from 2025, affirming states’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions, prevent significant harm, cooperate globally and address consequences including potential reparation. It emphasises following through on Paris Agreement commitments. Is that all good so far—all accurate?  

Ms Munro: We understand; yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The International Court of Justice ruling was an advisory, meaning it carried no compulsion. Is that correct?  

Ms Munro: It is an advisory opinion. Its impact on international law, though, is still to be tested through the courts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come to that. Isn’t it true that any action taken by the International Court of Justice against a nation like Australia must be brought by another country and, only then, when that country can prove they have suffered economic harm caused by the respondent country they’re seeking restitution from?  

Ms Munro: This is getting into the details of how the International Court of Justice works, which is beyond what we in this department can appropriately advise you on. The Attorney-General’s Department, the Office of International Law and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are probably best able to provide you advice on the operation of the law. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Attorney-General was yesterday. Wouldn’t it pay you to understand that as well? Could you take it on notice?  

Ms Munro: We could take it on notice, but perhaps you should finish your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true no nation has ever sued another, and is that because it is not possible to prove that greenhouse gas emissions are causing another country damage?  

Senator Ayres: I think—  

Senator ROBERTS: The minister to the rescue!  

Senator Ayres: just to assist the officials, it’s hard to see how these officials could answer questions about the legal impact of UN resolutions. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not even really a bush lawyer, but my experience of these questions is that resolutions of the General Assembly rarely have the kind of legal gravamen that you are asking about. On whatever day—the chair might be able to assist me—Senator Wong will be here with a team from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They will no doubt now be aware of your question and enthusiastically preparing a response for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: What a great idea! I’ll just finish off on the questions. The International Court of Justice has never taken action against a country over their greenhouse gas emissions using a proxy, such as access to the international settlement bank, which is controlled by the UN, because they are an advisory body only. If we turn to the Paris Agreement itself, the reason for this resolution—it’s only binding because we passed legislation to implement it, which can be repealed. The Paris Agreement itself is not binding on Australia if we withdraw from it, as the United States has done. Is that correct?  

Ms Munro: There are a number of statements in there. Australia has entered into a treaty to join the Paris Agreement. There are provisions, though, under the Paris Agreement, should any one country decide to leave the Paris Agreement.  

Senator Ayres: It would just not be in Australia’s interest to do such a thing. It would make our economy smaller, diminish our standing in the world, reduce our energy security, impoverish our people and make us less secure. You couldn’t imagine a more destructive thing to do if you cared about our national interest.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve swallowed the UN Kool-Aid, haven’t you?  

Senator Ayres: That’s the kind of language that you and your colleagues use. We operate in the real world, where there are real jobs and real industry involved that rely upon the government taking an approach that’s in the national interest of Australia, and that is the approach that the government is determined to deliver.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I conclude that UN resolution A/80/L.65 was supported by only 141 out of 193 member states and opposed by some significant industrial countries—the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran, which is no minnow—to make it look like the world still believes the manmade climate change concept is real when it’s nothing more than natural temperature variation and natural temperature cycles. Can I conclude that?  

Senator Ayres: What you can conclude is that that’s not the view of the Australian government—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Senator Ayres: and that, particularly given our country’s exposure to the risks that climate change poses—for our agriculture, for the safety and living standards of our citizens and for the region of the world in which we live with our Pacific and South-East Asian neighbours, the fastest-growing region of the world in human history, where Australia’s economy depends so much on our capacity to export that one in four of our jobs relies upon exports, and where the scale of the opportunity for Australia, in regional Australia in particular, in our mining and resources sector and our manufacturing industries is so large—you would have to have rocks in your head to walk away from sensible efforts to integrate the world’s approach on these questions. We had an experiment with that during the Morrison era. We became less secure, we became unable to engage with our trading partners, and we became weaker and less prosperous as a result. That is not the position of the Albanese government. Our position is to lean in for Australian industry with the biggest pro-manufacturing package of policy measures in our history, to fix our electricity system, which was debauched over the decade before our government took place and got smaller while the country got larger, and to reserve Australian gas for Australian industry. These measures are the measures of an adult government that’s actually in the national interest, not doing what your party and your colleagues in the Liberals and Nationals do, which is import foreign ideology and export Australian jobs. That’s not what we will be doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve made a number of bold statements. I disagree with them. Could you provide me with the scientific proof for each of the key points you made, please? That’s empirical scientific data in logical scientific points that proves cause and effect, a simple thing. You’ve made bold statements. I’d like to see the evidence. 

Senator Ayres: I’m sure the officials will be able to come up with something for you on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice, please.  

Senator Ayres: It’s a well-worn path.  

Dr Box: Well, I can—  

Senator ROBERTS: Scientific proof being empirical scientific data in logical scientific points, proving cause and effect—human carbon dioxide affecting the climate.  

Dr Box: Yes, we can answer it now or we can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Why Cancel Inland Rail?

I questioned Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) and Inland Rail officials regarding the cancellation of the Inland Rail project, specifically the lack of consultation and the government’s refusal to consider private sector alternatives.

ARTC officials admitted they were only formally notified of the cancellation right before the federal budget, having previously worked on scope changes rather than plans to shut down the project.

Inland Rail was projected to take 200,000 truck movements off the roads. I asked Minister McCarthy whether the cancellation increased safety risks and who would pay for the higher maintenance costs for local roads, not to mention the massive hit to national productivity, noting that ARTC admitted they never even modelled the productivity loss.

Despite viable private proposals, including a $14.4 billion costed freight route presented by IPG and interest from Everald Crompton’s group to build the line using private capital, Minister McCarthy could only take questions on notice rather than explain why the government cancelled the project instead of putting it out to tender.

The government’s decision to scrap this vital project without proper consultation or modelling is a blow to Australian productivity and safety – and a wasted opportunity for a privately funded nation building infrastructure project.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. When did the ARTC know the Inland Rail project was being cancelled, and were you consulted?  

Mr W Johnson: We knew at the same time as final decisions were made, obviously, within the government. As I just mentioned, the week before budget there were some discussions around what potentially might take place. Then, the day before budget, that was formalised, and we were provided information.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you knew after the decision had been made. You weren’t consulted?  

Mr W Johnson: We’ve been providing input and working with the department now for months in terms of how we actually go about the types of things that need consideration on the program and what type of scope relaxations we could undertake with all the environmental approvals, some of which we couldn’t undertake, to hold the conditions. So this hasn’t been just a point in time. There’s been a lot of evaluation. We were formally advised, as were most people, at the point of the budget conclusions.  

Senator ROBERTS: When did you first start looking at scope changes and modifications?  

Mr W Johnson: I think it’s been an ongoing process. Clearly, through the course of the back end of last year into this year, we’ve been looking at what can happen around that. Inland Rail have been running a number of scenarios with all the types of approval conditions on them about how they might go about that. Months.  

Senator ROBERTS: When was the first time you started discussing options to shut it down?  

Mr W Johnson: That wasn’t discussed. We talked about—  

Senator ROBERTS: You talked about changes to keep it alive.  

Mr W Johnson: That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you weren’t really consulted, or you didn’t work on the closing.  

Mr W Johnson: I wouldn’t put it quite like that. I think in those scenarios we also were realistic, at a cost benefit, on what type of pressures we might be under, which drove our first pieces of work.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have the ARTC or Inland Rail incurred any sunk costs in the cancellation of Inland Rail? Could you please itemise them.  

Ms McDougall: The consolidation south of Parkes and the preservation of the corridor north of Parkes—if I deal with south of Parkes first, there is no impact to the ongoing construction projects that we are continuing to deliver south of Parkes.  

Senator ROBERTS: They connect with the west and the south?  

Ms McDougall: Yes, when they reach Parkes. The preservation of the rail corridor north of Parkes—we have a project development agreement with the Commonwealth and with ARTC in which it specifies that we can obtain environmental approvals and property acquisition works. That was the ‘least regrets’ work recommended by Dr Schott. We have got significant contracts to support the least regrets preservation of the rail corridor works on foot at the moment. There are no immediate steps to cancel or break those contracts. We are working closely with the Commonwealth and with the relevant state agencies to assess the different ways that we can preserve the corridor, so we will continue working with the Commonwealth to assess the contract status of each of those contracts.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you want to preserve the corridor as an asset?  

Ms McDougall: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s have some answers to specific questions on where the assets will go. You purchased significant amounts of rail track from Whyalla. This is high-quality rail. I’m concerned it may not be reassigned to other rail works. What physical assets does the ARTC have under your control relating to Inland Rail, and how will these assets be sold, stored and reassigned, including, but not limited to, track?  

Mr W Johnson: I’ll go to Fiona in the first instance, and I’ll talk about what the endeavours will be in the future.  

Ms McDougall: We’re still assessing what preservation of the corridor means for the works north of Parkes. I can’t comment on the rail.  

Mr W Johnson: Both the steel sleeper specifications and the turnout specifications are pretty standardised ARTC standards. If there is inventory that’s been purchased ahead for use within further construction, then there might be an opportunity to see what reuse looks like. We’ll work through that in coming months with Inland Rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re still getting to grips with the assets.  

Mr W Johnson: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this Inland Rail project would have taken 200,000 truck movements off the roads. Have you just made motorists less safe and increased road maintenance spending for state and local government?  

Senator McCarthy: No, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who’s going to pay for the extra road maintenance that Inland Rail would have taken off the road?  

Senator McCarthy: We’ve not made it unsafe. That is my response to your question there.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the extra maintenance?  

Senator McCarthy: I can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are significant costs for the highways in killing Inland Rail.  

Mr W Johnson: Inland Rail was a long-term program. There are also initiatives under way nationally today within the rail freight sector, clearly through the National Transport Commission and the harmonisation agenda, which is all about the alignment, synergies and efficiencies of the railways nationally. There are our own activities that are already underway with the joint program of network investment with our shareholders, which is building the resilience of the existing network. We’ve already got existing improvement programs underway around performance. We have significantly adjusted what we’ve been doing in terms of our linkage to the ports and intermodal precincts nationally to go about rail freight increase—mode share change to rail. That endeavour maintains. And with the most recent announcement from our shareholders, the Australian government, in terms of continuing the investment and additive nature of that that go to the aims to both improve the existing network and maintain that growth trajectory we’re on, we foresee that we’ll be able to actually achieve some of this growth from road to rail still.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is a decision which will reduce productivity through congested freight routes. Have you modelled the hit Australia’s productivity and prosperity just took with this decision to cancel Inland Rail?  

Mr W Johnson: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, IPG is a significant Australian freight company. It’s provided One Nation with the costing for the construction of Inland Rail from Narromine to the Port of Gladstone, privately, along the forestry route, then from Wandoan to Banana to Gladstone. An intermodal at Dalby will take the Brisbane and Toowoomba air freight. This has been costed at $14.4 billion, using a single track with passing loops. These people know what they’re doing. If this company is interested in building the line in return for operation rights, why didn’t you put the project out to tender instead of cancelling it?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Everald Crompton is also in town representing a group of transport companies wanting to talk about building the line using private money. Minister, will you meet with proponents, or will Ms King meet with proponents of a private build? And, more generally, will you consider private equity building the line?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take the question on notice and get back to you. 

/0 Comments/by

The Cost of eSafety Overreach

I acknowledge that the Office of the eSafety performs effective work against child sexual exploitation and abuse material and adult exploitation material. However, I challenge the Commissioner’s controversial overreach, and high legal costs.

Given that the Commissioner is stepping down soon, I asked whether the government would save money and depoliticise the office by leaving the role vacant and focusing strictly on core harm-reduction. Senator Green rejected my assertions and confirmed the government will maintain the role.

I highlighted positive data from the periodic transparency report showing that platforms like Snapchat are rapidly improving their takedown response times. When I asked which media companies are dragging their chain, the Commissioner and her staff detailed their actions against X Corp, Telegram and takedowns of dangerous chat apps like OmeTV.

I questioned the oversight of Bluesky and its self-run age gates, noting its growing popularity, including use by the ABC, though the agency deemed it low risk for now.

I asked about the legal outcome against X, asking how many times X been taken to court. Their answer? Twice: the Wakeley matter as well as a case around CSAM, which was successful. I finished up asking for a complete list of all court cases involving X.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Mr Fleming, don’t take it too hard that we haven’t accepted your invitation yet for a briefing. We’re very, very keen to do so. We’ll do it when we can. We’ve had a few things in the middle.  

Mr Fleming: We’ve got a card here for you, Senator. Just for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Farrer by-election and a few other things. Minister, my first question is to you. My question is to the office of eSafety, underscore, the duality of the agency’s performance. On one hand, their work in combating child sexual abuse material and adult exploitation material, including revenge pawn and deepfakes, is effective and deserving of respect—and we’ve said that repeatedly. On the other hand, the performance of the eSafety Commissioner attracts substantial controversy for pursuing matters that are not exploitation or harmful in nature, accompanied by substantial legal costs and high-profile losses around overreach, as well as excessive overseas travel. My question is: the eSafety Commissioner has indicated she will not remain in the job when her term expires next year. Will you consider banking a saving here by not replacing the Commissioner, and, in so doing, depoliticise the office so they can get on with their core role of acting against child sexual exploitation and abuse material and other exploitation material.  

Senator Green: I strongly disagree with the assertions that you’ve made about the work that the eSafety Commissioner has done. We will not be closing down the eSafety Commissioner role or the role that the eSafety Commissioner in the future might play. It is playing an incredibly important role, as you indicate, managing an ever-changing online space. This government has chosen to have a particular focus on the harms that young people are facing online. We would not be able to implement this really important work, which is so important for parents and young people, without the extraordinary efforts of the eSafety Commissioner.  

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you that the office has been doing a great job, but you didn’t answer my question. Let’s move on.  

Senator Green: I did answer your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a no, then. One Nation will do that. Next question.  

Senator Green: Okay. A policy—  

Senator ROBERTS: The second periodic transparency report on child sexual exploitation and abuse material, published in February 2026, lists the efforts of the office to work with online media companies. Each time I read one of these reports, I see that there has been material progress on the part of big tech to get better at taking this material down, and that’s in part from your efforts and the efforts of other similar agencies worldwide. We acknowledge that. As an example, Snapchat is now responding to takedown notices in 11 minutes, which is down from 90 minutes. Well done. 

Senator Green: Thank you.  

Ms Inman Grant: I think it’s down to four minutes now.  

Senator Green: That’s even better.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Are there any media companies that are dragging the chain in respect of child sexual exploitation and abuse material that you would like to highlight in this session?  

Senator Green: Good question.  

Ms Inman Grant: We took action, as you would be aware, against X Corp. in 2023. We issued an infringement notice. They did not pay. We were in three years of litigation with them and had a successful outcome. They were fined. They ultimately admitted liability, and they have to pay costs. There are others that we’re closely looking at, such as Telegram, but we’ve also used our legal codes to tackle OmeTV, initially, which is a chat roulette site. The holding company is called Bad Kitty’s Dad, and it actually pairs paedophiles with children. They didn’t respond to our notices. So we used our app store powers, working very hard initially with Apple and then with Google, and they have actually deplatformed both developers and similar apps, at least 100 of them. We’ve also taken action against two major nudifying services—  

Senator ROBERTS: What sort of services?  

Ms Inman Grant: Nudifying, or declothing, services. We’re seeing child sexual abuse material being generated in schools and elsewhere every week. It often starts as an innocuous school picture or social media post that’s harvested. They have powerful LLMs on the other end, and you can basically—the one that we took action against last week said, ‘Just give us an image, a body type and the age of the image you want generated, and we can do it for you in seconds.’ This particular platform had 50,000 service calls per month by Australians, and the other had 100,000 per month. We’re limiting the availability of these tools that can easily help generate child sexual abuse material.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Currently, BlueSky must comply with basic online safety expectations, and they have a self-run minimum age gate. Is this correct?  

Ms Inman Grant: Yes. They’ve also self-assessed as an age restricted social media platform, so they are subject to the social media minimum age. We will continue to ensure that they are complying with the age assurance requirements, both as part of the age restricted material codes and as part of SMMA.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you check that they’re complying?  

Ms Inman Grant: We check through the legally enforceable notices we were just talking about, in terms of both data and looking at systems and processes, but we have other ways of checking as well—through reporting and through other means.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll come back to that later. I note you consider BlueSky now to be low risk because they have 50,000 calls and 40,000 local users, yet the ABC have now moved the bulk of their posting to BlueSky. How closely are you monitoring the platform, and at what point do they become a serious risk?  

Ms Inman Grant: They’re under our sights now, in the context of our codes and our standards and our social media minimum age. Of course, we sort of look at the fundamentals. I don’t think they’re more perilous than some of the other major social media companies that we’ve seen. There is no indication—unless there’s anything else, Ms Snell, you’ve seen in the course of the enforcement taskforce looking into their work. Ms Snell: Senator, no, not at this stage. We use a range of intelligence to determine which providers or services to focus on. That includes reports we might receive through our various complaint schemes, inquiries that we receive through our inquiries and also reports of complaints under our codes and standards. At this stage, we don’t have information that suggests we should have an investigation into Bluesky at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: I note this week, Commissioner, you finally won a case against X, dating back to their response to takedown notices in the early days of the Musk takeover. The award was $100,000 in costs and a $650,000 fine, which is substantially less, I understand, than the huge fines that you threatened—$650,000 a day over 38 days. That should have been $24.7 million that you asked for. Is that correct?  

Ms Inman Grant: This was using the fining powers or the infringement notice for the basic online safety expectations, which is not the $49.5 million you might be thinking of, but it’s up to the courts to determine the overall cost. This one is a big win because we won in the Federal Court and then we won in the appeals court and we finally got them to admit liability. You may have missed this, but we’re one of the only regulators in the world that’s now had a successful case against X. 

Mr Fleming: Just to follow up on that, the maximum penalty under that section that the Commissioner spoke about is $687,500. So the penalty that we were awarded, which was awarded by the court by consent, was 94.5 per cent of the maximum. I think that reflects the seriousness in which the court—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are there any other cases over a failure to take down material pending against any other social media or tech company?  

Ms Inman Grant: I think there are a few cases still pending. They’re judicial reviews mostly.  

Ms Snell: Do you mean: is there outstanding compliance with notices to remove content? Is that what you’re asking about or is it information notices?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, have you taken any other cases to court? Ms Snell: I don’t believe we have any on foot in relation to responding to notices at this point in time.  

Ms Inman Grant: We took two cases, but the other cases that are pending have been taken against us, and you would expect that we would defend those.  

Mr Fleming: I think you’ll get a sense, from the way we took this case, that compliance with notices is an important issue for us. If there’s further noncompliance, you’d expect to see a similar response.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many times have you taken X to court?  

Ms Inman Grant: Twice—the Wakeley matter as well as this successful outcome around CSAM. Again, there are other pieces of litigation where I believe they took action against some of our provisions through judicial reviews mostly.  

Mr Fleming: I think there are six cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: Six cases with X?  

Ms Inman Grant: That X took against us.  

Mr Fleming: The majority of those are ones that X have taken against us, challenging the use of our powers.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many of them have had an outcome?  

Mr Fleming: A few of those have had an outcome. Most of them have had an outcome. There’s one that’s in court tomorrow. I think that gives you a sense of the stance that some platforms take in relation to some of our powers.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, if it’s going to be a bit longer, I can come back to you after the break.  

Senator ROBERTS: It should be five minutes.  

CHAIR: I might come back then. We’ll break now for our dinner break—  

Senator ROBERTS: Before we go, can I just finish up on that question?  

CHAIR: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have on notice, please, the list of cases against you and the cases you’ve taken against someone else and the companies involved.  

Mr Fleming: Just to clarify, is that all cases or is that cases involving X?  

Senator ROBERTS: X court cases.  

Mr Fleming: Yes. We’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

CHAIR: Thank you very much. We’ll now suspend for our dinner break. 

/0 Comments/by

Did Investigators Miss a Conflict of Interest?

I questioned Comcare officials on the details of their investigation, confirming that they had identified two matters warranting a brief of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), though they failed to identify any individuals responsible for systemic issues.

When I asked about conflicts of interest among witnesses or within the Defence Flight Safety Bureau investigation, as well as serious concerns regarding the corruption of process and the fabrication of evidence, I was told they were unaware of any such issues.

Despite confirming that their recommendation for prosecution stands, they noted that reopening the case is severely restricted by a two-year limitation period under the Work Health and Safety Act. This period can generally only be extended for another 12 months through the IGADF or Queensland coroner’s reports.

I pressed whether this Senate inquiry, particularly regarding my concerns about conflicts of interest, corruption, and fabricated evidence, could also trigger a review, prompting officials to take my questions on notice while confirming their ongoing investigation would consider any new material that comes to light.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. How many breaches of acts have you identified in this case?  

Mr Radford: We formed the view in this case that there were two matters that warranted a brief of evidence to the CDPP.  

Senator ROBERTS: And did you identify any individuals responsible, or was it systemic?  

Mr Radford: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t. Did you hear the testimony of Mr Wilson and Mr Lamb?  

Mr Radford: I heard it in part, and then we were travelling to parliament, so I didn’t hear the whole testimony, but we heard a substantial section of it, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest in this case?  

Mr Radford: Of whom?  

Senator ROBERTS: Of witnesses.  

Mr Radford: No, not that I’m not that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the Defence Flight Safety Bureau investigation? Did you assess that?  

Mr Napier: That was part of the material assessed by the investigator, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was there any potential for conflicts of interest there?  

Mr Napier: There was none that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about corruption of process?  

Mr Napier: Again, there was none that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about evidence being fabricated?  

Mr Napier: There was none that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has any pressure been put on you? You were actually recommending prosecution, weren’t you?  

Mr Radford: Yes, we in fact did recommend prosecution, and that remains our position.  

Senator ROBERTS: This may have been asked in part by one of the other senators. What is the avenue for reopening the case?  

Mr Radford: I might defer to Ms Close, but the avenue is that, if the IGADF or the Queensland coroner’s reports or findings give rise to a view that there has been a contravention of the act, as I understand it, that may re-enliven the statutory period for a further 12 months.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any other avenue apart from those two investigations?  

Mr Radford: There is none that I’m aware of.  

Ms Close: I’m not aware of any, but one of the limitations of the Work Health and Safety Act is that there is a two-year limitation period which cannot be extended other than in very specific circumstances, which have been described by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and which in this case specifically relate potentially to the findings of other inquiries.  

Senator ROBERTS: So what about this Senate inquiry?  

Ms Close: I am unsure of the position of that. We would need to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Especially with regard to the three items I mentioned—conflict of interest, corruption and evidence fabrication—you’d consider that? You’d take it on notice?  

Mr Radford: I’m sorry, but I didn’t quite hear the question.  

Senator ROBERTS: You consider those or you’d have to take on notice whether or not you could consider them?  

Mr Radford: We would consider any material that that came to light if we were to—I’ll go back a step. Our investigation is ongoing, and we would consider any matters that came to light in the event that there was an opportunity to progress another brief of evidence to the CDPP.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/0 Comments/by