Is Your HiLux Next?

,

I raised the issue of the new “baby” Land Cruiser FJ – a vehicle Australians would love. It’s compact, attractive, and fits our lifestyle. Yet, we are hearing that it won’t be coming to Australia because it can’t meet the new emissions regulations.

The government promised “more choice” and instead, we are seeing the death of the affordable petrol and diesel vehicles people actually want. If they’ve already killed the baby Land Cruiser, surely the HiLux is next on the chopping block.

I also questioned the department regarding BYD and the way these “credits” are being handed out. It’s a disgrace!

The department confirmed that a company like BYD gets credits just for putting a vehicle on the Register of Approved Vehicles, not for actually selling it to a customer. They can park these cars in a warehouse, collect thousands of dollars in credits per vehicle (over $7,000 for a Sealion 7) and then sell those credits to other carmakers who produce “normal” cars.

I asked directly if the department is concerned that this policy is funnelling money into corporations controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. They admitted this hasn’t been raised with the Minister.

The department claims they might look at changing the scheme to a “point-of-sale” trigger in a 2026 review, however for now, the system is wide open for exploitation.

This is what happens when you build a system based on global targets instead of the actual needs of the Australian people. It robs citizens of affordable, reliable transport while enriching foreign entities.

My position on this remains clear: the government’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) is strangling the choices available to everyday Australians.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’d like to take up the new ‘baby’ Land Cruiser.

CHAIR: I hear it’s not coming to Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It’s a very attractive vehicle. It’s the size of a Suzuki Jimny. It would be very popular. Toyota knows it would be wildly popular, but it says, according to an article:

…the ‘Baby’ Land Cruiser FJ won’t make it to Australia in its current guise because its engine—shared with the HiLux—can’t meet upcoming emissions regulations, which may also see it dumped from the ute range.

When the government introduced the standard, you said it would give Australians more choice. Yet we have an example already of it meaning less choice for Australians. You’ve already killed the baby Land Cruiser. You’re going to kill the HiLux next with these standards. When are you going to admit the new vehicle efficiency standard is taking choices away from Australians who want to drive a normal, affordable petrol or diesel vehicle?

Mr Kathage: Can I just check, Senator. It may be that you’re referring to the noxious emissions standards Euro 6, rather than the new vehicle efficiency standard.

Senator ROBERTS: The NVES.

Mr Kathage: I’m not aware of those reports. I do understand that there’s been a reclassification of Toyota vehicles to meet the heavy-vehicle noxious emissions standard rather than the light-vehicle noxious emissions standard.

Senator ROBERTS: No. That’s just what’s been reported.

Senator O’SULLIVAN: If it helps, Senator Roberts, this is a new vehicle that Toyota have released, and my understanding is it will only be released in Japan. It’s a vehicle that would be highly sought after in Australia, but Toyota have said that, due to the NVES, it doesn’t fit their overall fleet requirements to be able to import them into Australia.

Mr Betts: The NVES doesn’t work on an individual vehicle level. It works across—

Senator O’SULLIVAN: As I’ve said, it’s across their fleet.

Mr Betts: Yes. So let’s look at what’s changed in the Australian market since the NVES hit the statute book. The number of brands on sale in Australia was 56 at the end of 2024; it’s now 65. It was 390 models; it’s 420 models now. The price increase of vehicles is below the rate of inflation; in other words, car prices generally have fallen in real terms. So there’s no evidence that there is a systemic diminution in customer choice or an increase in prices—as we forecast on the basis of experience in other jurisdictions.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, here’s one that’s not coming. On the new vehicle efficiency standard, you’d be aware of reporting by the Financial Review—you may have touched on some of this earlier on—from 2 November that BYD has imported far more vehicles than it has sold in Australia. Has that been raised today?

CHAIR: We have touched on that today.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it accurate that BYD receives those credits for electric vehicles under the scheme just for importing them? Do they get them just for importing a vehicle, rather than selling it?

Mr Kathage: I can answer that, Senator, if you like. Vehicles are counted in the scheme when they’re added to the Register of Approved Vehicles. That occurs during a calendar year. The interim emissions value, which is when units and other effects might occur, is actually issued on 1 February the year after. So vehicle suppliers put something on the Register of Approved Vehicles, there’s a period of time and then, at the start of the next year, effectively, the interim emissions value is issued, and credits are issued shortly after that.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s for bringing it in and putting it on the register as being here, not for selling it?

Mr Kathage: That’s correct, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your succinctness. So, even if BYD don’t go on to sell those vehicles, they still get credits and then they can sell them on to another carmaker who makes normal petrol and diesel cars? They can sell the credits?

Mr Kathage: BYD can import vehicles and put them on the RAV, and then, once the IEV is issued the next year, they can then deal with those units in whatever way they want. The previous evidence we’d supplied is that it does seem the case that BYD has orders that it needs to fulfil. They’ve indicated publicly that there’s been a delay in them being able to fulfil those orders, and their warehousing strategy is a matter for them.

Senator ROBERTS: The warehousing strategy is a what?

Ms Stagg: A matter for them.

Senator ROBERTS: Reporting the money going from the government to them is a matter for us. Reporting indicated that BYD would earn $7,050 in credits for one of its Sealion 7 vehicles, for example. Can you confirm how many credits in total have been issued to BYD under the new vehicle efficiency standard?

Ms Stagg: No units have been issued. As Mr Kathage explained, that will occur on 1 February and will take into account the entire fleet from the OEM for the period 1 July to 31 December 2025.

Senator ROBERTS: I have a few short questions on structure. Are you aware of the ownership structure of BYD?

Mr Kathage: Not personally.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department raised any issues with the minister about their policy leading to the enrichment of Communist China controlled corporations? That’s what you’re doing by giving them these credits. They’re connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

Ms Purvis-Smith: No, we’ve not raised that.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department done any work on changing to a point-of-sale trigger for the scheme, rather than an import trigger?

Mr Kathage: That’s something that we’re looking at. As the minister indicated in her second reading speech on the bill, that is a matter that the government will consider as part of the 2026 review. We’ve done some preliminary looking at the benefits and costs of doing so. We sort of touched on this a little earlier, but there are lots of questions that we need to resolve in relation to whether that would be a good idea based on implementation challenges.

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a lot of complexity when we introduce anything new that is not based upon people’s needs but rather on arbitrary or international targets or something like that. That’s what seems to be the issue here.

Mr Betts: That’s a statement. Mr Kathage indicated the legislation will be subject to review in 2026.

/0 Comments/by

The Battle for Farrer – and Conservatism

,
This is why David Farley must win.

While I am a Queensland Senator, the political battle taking place in Farrer is fascinating.

Usually, a by-election triggered by a resigning party leader is something of a walkover. A safe seat. A perfunctory vote. Little more than a formality and shuffling of candidates into pre-ordained positions of uniparty power.

Farrer is something this country hasn’t seen in a long time.

A battle for conservatism.

With a real choice.

The uniparty stranglehold is weakening, and the people of Farrer have an opportunity to be a part of history.

Former Liberal Leader Sussan Ley hastened the collapse of the Liberal Party, overseeing two Coalition break-ups during her short tenure. These were not minor tiffs. They were ideological breaking points where metropolitan wets came to blows with the regional National Party leadership. The LNP have become a coalition of opposing forces, tearing each other apart and united by little except an ever-decreasing whiff of nostalgia for a Menzies brand that has long since been colonised by One Nation.

How can those at war with each other possibly lead the fight against Labor?

As I say at the beginning of every speech, One Nation are the true opposition.

On the ground in Farrer, you will find very little love for the Liberals or Sussan Ley. Farrer was left unheard during Ley’s extended Listening Tour. On the campaign trail, the message is clear. They want something different. They want real leadership. They want someone who stands for their community on a local level and who is also capable of engaging in critical federal and international conversations that have real-world impacts. A person who knows the economic structure holding up regional Australia and has lived experience to bring to Canberra.

The choice of Raissa Butkowski, a community lawyer and Albury City Councillor, shows the Liberals attempting to replace Ley with something familiar – a foot half-in, half-out of the regional and town voting blocs without ever quite committing to the big issues. This is formulaic from the Liberals, a tad cynical in clinical adherence to sheer numbers, and the lukewarm response in the polls is entirely deserved. The people are not identity blocs to be wooed and enticed. They are a single electorate that deserves coherent and steadfast representation.

Prior polling and previous election results are useless. This is a new world, and Farrer is a fight between One Nation and the Climate-200-backed Independent.

It is a sort-of Litmus test for the future Teal vs Conservative rivalry in the leafy suburbs of Australia’s capital cities where those raised as blue ribbon conservatives have been temporarily captured by the luxury belief in apocalyptic virtue. Are those conservatives starting to wake up? I think so.

The Liberals believe conservatism can be saved from the clutches of Tealism (and its kin) by pretending that standing half-an-inch from Albanese is the ‘sensible centre’. Laughable.

One Nation suspects that what Australians really hunger for is a revival of true conservatism, the type of honest, grassroots adoration for Australia, its people and its assets, which built the country – from convict chains to skyscrapers. People want a break from radical, dangerous politics that ‘progresses’ the country toward the cliff-edge of socialist ruin. Voters are exhausted by virtue-chasing, global salvation narratives, and the burden of taxes that come with it. They don’t want to sleep with one eye open, wondering what their MPs are drafting in Canberra while they rest.

And what does this Independent, Michelle Milthorpe, offer?

No one is really quite sure, and that is the problem.

Who wants a mystery in a time of crisis and uncertainty?

The wishy-washy noncommittal politics of the green-left, Climate 200-funded collective is deliberate. It is convenient to never outright align with damaging climate change policy or Net Zero goals.

We can ask questions and make guesses as to what any future vote from Milthorpe might look like based on who supported her campaign, who she hired to help her (a former Teal campaign manager), and which political activist groups choose to engage with her message (GetUp!).

On that, it has been reported GetUp! raised $400,000 on an ‘anti-Pauline’ campaign for Farrer, with plans to spend over $600,000, which seems an extraordinary amount of money to use bombarding the people of Farrer. One Nation doesn’t drown voters in propaganda. Funds from GetUp!’s 100,000 members is apparently being spent telling the people of Farrer how to vote. How disgusting it is to treat Farrer as though it were a vending machine where, with enough money, the preferred product might fall out the bottom for collection.

We could also note that Ms Milthorpe has been on the campaign trail with independent David Pocock, whose website states his support of accelerating climate action along with a portfolio of fringe climate policies. Just because Ms Milthorpe won’t praise batteries or EVs does not mean she won’t be friendly to climate legislation that punishes reliable energy or farming activities.

It is certainly interesting that Ms Milthorpe has been defensive about those who draw ideological connections between her and the Teals due to Climate 200. Association with the ‘Teals’ used to be considered a vote-winning perk, however, in the regional seat of Farrer, where there are plenty of frustrated farmers who have had enough of Climate Change policy ruining their livelihoods, perhaps we can finally say that the shine is wearing off the climate narrative…

While an Independent can avoid questions about how they might vote on critical legislative issues, such as the future of Australia’s oil reserves, opening new refineries, and creating dubious agricultural trade deals with the European Union, One Nation is proud to declare its positions. Transparency is our duty, not an electoral inconvenience.

One Nation, regardless of whether it is a by-election, state campaign, or federal election, will never hide its position on the issues that matter to voters. We wish to be judged in the light so that our elected representatives can serve their electorates honestly and in good faith.

By-elections should not be a competition between parties to add another seat into their collection as if curating jewels in a crown. This is about good governance for the people who have, for far too long, been treated by major parties and independents as an inconvenience to be overcome on the way to Canberra.

How will Michelle Milthorpe vote on the hundreds of critical bills that will wash through Parliament under Albanese’s watch?

Who knows.

You can look One Nation’s David Farley in the eye and he will give you a direct answer. That is what we stand on as a party.

And so I continue to watch the Farrer by-election with great interest to see if the successes of the South Australian state election will continue over the border in New South Wales.

Are the people ready to rid themselves of damaging Net Zero legislation and the anti-agricultural mindset that has held our regions back? Regional Australians are already fiercely pro-environment, of course they are, they want to protect the land they live in and call home. Most have had enough of being lectured to by faux environmental movements who clog up city streets with their protests while never setting foot on the land. The people of Farrer know where the nation’s food comes from, and they know what must be done to protect the region.

David Farley is a man who will fight for Farrer, in the paddock, on the streets, and in Canberra.

Authorised by Malcolm Roberts, Brisbane.

The battle for Farrer – and conservatism by Senator Malcolm Roberts

This is why David Farley must win.

Read on Substack

/0 Comments/by

The TGA’s Rubber Stamp

,

I asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) about the way they test the vaccines they market as “safe and effective” and mandate for children. I already knew the answer – I was just trying to get a clear statement so the public could understand just how much of a farce the “testing” process truly is.

The representatives danced around the questions, trying to be as confusing as possible.

The TGA does not actually test vaccines. Instead, they rely on safety and efficacy data provided by the manufacturer. This data is based on the company’s own testing of its own product. If the manufacturer (drug company) says it’s safe, the TGA gives it a stamp of approval.

Furthermore, we know that drug companies are not using the correct process for testing new vaccines or drugs. The standard should be to test the new product against an inert saline placebo. Instead, they use an existing vaccine or drug as the control.

This means our vaccines have been tested against products already known to have side effects – and approved as long as the side effects of the new drug are no worse than those of the old one. This is criminal behaviour.

Peer-reviewed papers have shown that the testing on the COVID-19 vaccines was fraudulent. It’s not good enough for the TGA to claim they review documentation carefully; the Pfizer testing scandal proves they do nothing of the sort.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  Question on notice 3215, I asked about a report from the American Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which stated perfectly clearly that there were 10 paediatric deaths were linked to the COVID jabs. I asked if you had supporting data in Australia. Your reply referenced reported paediatric deaths after COVID jabs and found:  

… causality has not been established for those in children.  

How hard did you look? Were there autopsies, an independent medical board reviewing the medical file for each, deciding that, no, the jab did not cause the death? What was the process you engaged?  

Prof. Lawler: Thanks for that question. I will ask Dr Dascombe to comment on the process that we’ve explained previously around our pharmacovigilance that is designed and delivers on our analysis of adverse events, including deaths that occurred temporally following vaccination. I would just highlight as well that, as previously stated regarding the identified paediatric deaths following vaccines, I mentioned that we’d not been provided with information regarding those deaths. I believe that still to be the case. The claim that there had been these deaths that had been causally linked to vaccination has not, to my knowledge, been substantiated. But, again, if that is not the case, I’d be very prepared to correct the record. Dr Dascombe can comment on the work that we undertake to respond to reported adverse events.  

Dr Dascombe: Every death that’s reported to the TGA following any vaccination is reviewed to determine whether a regulatory response is necessary based on the weight of available evidence. It’s important to note the TGA does not determine causes of death. This is determined by coroners and treating doctors, as we’ve explained before, and the TGA has no role in overruling causes of death that are included on a person’s death certificate. The causality assessment that’s done by the TGA is primarily concerned with the relationship between the vaccine and the adverse event, rather than the outcome itself, and it’s undertaken as a regulatory process with the intention of appraising risk-benefit balance at a population level for that specific vaccine under Australia’s regulatory framework.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do autopsies?  

Dr Dascombe: As I just said, the TGA has no role in the determination of cause of death for individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was my understanding too. In 2026, the United States’ Department of Health and Human Services removed rotavirus, COVID-19, influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A and hepatitis B from the schedule. Australia still requires rotavirus, hepatitis-B and meningococcal ACWY. Is the United States’ FDA wrong, or are you wrong on the risk-benefit of those vaccines?  

Dr Peatt: I can’t comment on the US, but, as outlined by my colleagues Professor Lawler and Associate Professor Katherine Gibney, the four vaccines to be made available on the National Immunisation Program requires a very high bar. It includes TGA assessment of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine but also undergoes ATAGI assessment for the clinical effectiveness. It then goes through Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee assessment and then needs to be approved by government for funding. There’s also ongoing monitoring by ATAGI and TGA, who constantly assess whether those vaccines are appropriate for the Australian community.  

Prof. Lawler: If I may very quickly add—I think it’s really important to note that one of the great strengths of Australia’s regulatory system and, indeed, of ATAGI is that we do make decisions based upon the nature of disease patterns in Australia. Every country will take its own approach to immunisation schedules. They rely on the evidence and rely on the demography and the epidemiology in their own areas. If we were simply to make decisions based upon what other regulators say, then I can almost guarantee that I’d be back at the next estimates answering questions around why we weren’t making our own sovereign decisions. So I think it’s important to note that the vaccination schedule is appropriate to the Australian context because of the evidence upon which it relies.  

/0 Comments/by

Can We Trust CASA?

,

I spoke with Ms. Spence from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and raised the issue of the agency’s poor history of integrity and transparency when handling complaints from industry stakeholders, including Mr. Geoff Barker. I pointed out that the Fair Work Commission had found that Mark Lewis, a disgruntled former employee of Geoff Barker and current CASA employee, had taken adverse action against Geoff Barker and had lied during Commission proceedings.

Ms. Spence admitted that CASA should have handled matters better regarding Mr. Barker; however, she declined to specify what should have been done differently or what changes would be implemented following the completion of internal investigations. She stated that CASA is currently investigating assertions that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Scott Duffy provided false and misleading evidence to the Commission while knowing that information to be untrue.

Furthermore, Ms. Spence confirmed that CASA has chosen not to release the independent probe into its remotely piloted aircraft system, which was completed in December 2021. When I requested access to the report, Ms. Spence took the request on notice.

I raised the question of whether CASA could still be trusted, given the volume of complaints regarding its lack of ethics and persistent abuse of authority.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. This one really disturbs me. Isn’t it true that CASA relied on a conflicted officer, Mr Mark Lewis, who the Fair Work Commission found had a personal vendetta against his former employer Mr Barker, and evidence was not credible enough—essentially lies—to take actions that severely harmed Mr Barker, his staff and his company?  

Ms Spence: I’m aware of the issue that you’re referring to. I would say that, certainly, CASA did not do things as well as we should have in relation to some of the issues that Mr Barker has been involved in. But I do not agree with the way in which you described it then.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Ms Spence. Isn’t it true that Mr Lewis was allowed to work on matters involving his former employer, with CASA knowing it was an obvious conflict of interest, and dishonestly tried to hide this fact? Isn’t it true that Mr Lewis and his manager Mr Scott Duffy gave false or misleading evidence to the commission?  

Ms Spence: Again, I don’t agree with the way you’re describing it. I’m not saying CASA was without fault, but we did have appropriate conflict-of-interest arrangements in place, and we’re looking into the issues Mr Barker has raised about the assertion of misleading evidence that was provided to the Fair Work Commission. But we’re looking into that at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: It must be serious, because you’ve admitted the slightest hint of responsibility, which I’ve never seen before, and you have also said you’re looking into it. Well, that’s not good enough. Isn’t it true that CASA, relying on Mr Lewis’s false claims that Mr Duffy knew were false, pursued heavy-handed enforcement, including criminal allegations and jail threats, that effectively shut Mr Barker’s business down and put his staff out of work?  

Ms Spence: No, that’s incorrect.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say is correct?  

Ms Spence: As I said, there are issues that we should have done better. I do not accept the assertions being made about CASA’s staff taking the kinds of actions you’ve just described. I think there were lessons that we’ve learnt around how we should manage conflict of interest, which does happen.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are those lessons?  

Ms Spence: I think they’re around the perception of conflicts of interest and making sure we’re closely monitoring how often these can happen. But I guess one of the things I would say is that in order to have people with the appropriate qualifications to operate as inspectors within the organisation they do need to have industry experience. We do have strong conflict-of-interest mechanisms in place, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be monitoring them more closely. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that integrity can be cast aside for industry experience?  

Ms Spence: Sorry?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that someone’s integrity can be ignored if he’s got industry experience?  

Ms Spence: No, I’m definitely not saying that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA regularly removed or downgraded Mr Barker’s firm UAS Pacific’s licence privileges without proper process and then sat on routine approvals for months or years, choking what was left of the business, destroying good will and reputation and driving clients away?  

Ms Spence: No, that’s not correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that multiple substantive bullying complaints were dropped by the commission only because CASA promised to change its behaviour going forward, not because CASA’s past behaviour was found acceptable by the Fair Work Commission?  

Ms Spence: A commitment was made around the engagement between the two staff members Mr Barker had raised concerns with, but I would not agree with the way you’ve described the outcome from the Fair Work Commission, where they I think first of all determined that they didn’t actually have jurisdiction on the matters being put to them, which is not the same as saying there was a guilty verdict in terms of the way our staff had behaved. And I do not accept the allegations that have been made.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Fair Work Commission found a personal vendetta against Mr Barker from his former employee.  

Ms Spence: I would have to check the transcript, but I do not accept the way you’ve described the outcomes from the Fair Work Commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA failed to hold anyone to account for bullying and giving false or misleading statements to the commission, effectively condoning that conduct as Mr Barker and his staff remained unsatisfied?  

Ms Spence: As I said, there is one element that we are looking into around the question of what information was provided to the Fair Work Commissioner, but in terms of the outcome of the process, I do not accept the way that you’ve described the way in which the matter has been handled.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the conflict of interest you’ve unearthed? What work did you need to do on conflict of interest?  

Ms Spence: No. As I said, we were aware of the issues relating to Mr Lewis, who’d been a former employee of Mr Barker, and we did have conflict-of-interest arrangements in place. That’s not the issue that I’m referring to. I do understand that some comments were made in the Fair Work hearing that we’re looking into to see whether they were misleading. We do not consider that they actually impacted the outcome of the Fair Work Hearing, but we are looking into it because, to your point, integrity is important. We want to make sure no-one has said anything that could be misleading to such an important organisation as the Fair Work Commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA has left false accusations on file about Mr Barker, his company and staff without correction, annotation or apology, allowing CASA to keep seriously hurting their ability to work and earn?  

Ms Spence: No. We have advised one person who was in a similar situation. There was one issue where the original allegation was subsequently withdrawn, and that was provided in writing. We have taken whatever efforts we can, without destroying official documents, to make it clear that (1) people can’t access our system to find the original assertion that was made, and that (2) if anyone were to get access to it, it would be very clearly marked to say that this matter was overtaken by subsequent events.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that an independent probe into CASA’s remotely piloted aircraft system, drones, branch’s alleged wrongdoing was finished on 12 December 2021 and that CASA refuses to release it or carry out all recommendations? And isn’t the real reason that public release would confirm systemic wrongdoing inside the CASA remotely piloted aircraft systems branch?  

Ms Spence: No. The report that you’re referring to has been considered within CASA. It was prepared for CASA. It looked at the way in which we were undertaking our regulatory arrangements. It identified reforms that we could implement, and we’re working our way through those. We didn’t accept some of them, but that’s perfectly reasonable. We’re making sure that we’re looking at how we do our work, and we’re improving things as we need to. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can we have a look at that report?  

Ms Spence: Can I take that on notice please?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. Isn’t it true that the combined effect of CASA’s conflicts of interest, discredited evidence, process breaches, suppressed report, punitive actions and leaving false allegations on file shut down UAS Pacific and left its people unemployed, consistent with an intent to destroy Mr Barker to hide CASA’s failures?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I do not accept the way in which you have presented it. We’ve had ongoing engagement with Mr Barker. I know that anything I say he will disagree with, but we’ve looked at these issues very seriously, and we’re looking into those areas where we have identified potential less-than-appropriate behaviour. But I do not accept the way you’re describing how those events occurred within the organisation.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can anyone trust CASA? We have so many complaints, serious complaints, from people in the aircraft industry about CASA—CASA’s lack of ethics, violation of ethics, violation of laws, violation and abuse of authority and misplaced public faith.  

CHAIR: We might take that as a statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is a statement. 

/0 Comments/by

Time to Clean Up Coal LSL

,

I questioned ANAO on the transparency, or lack thereof, surrounding Coal LSL.

While they’ve given the financial statements a “clean” bill of health, serious questions remain about the $2 billion sitting in this fund. I’m particularly concerned for our coal industry casuals. Employers are paying compulsory levies for these workers, but many leave the industry before the 8-year mark, meaning they never see a cent of that benefit.

Where is that money going?

The ANAO confirmed their remit is limited to the finances, not the management. It’s been decades since the courts flagged a lack of government accountability over this corporation, and it’s time we got real answers on board composition and the integrity of the scheme.

I won’t stop asking until we ensure these funds are serving the workers they were meant for, not just sitting in a pot controlled by an unaccountable entity.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing tonight. Have a good evening. The most recent audit report conducted by ANAO of Coal LSL—Long Service Leave—flagged higher risk related to both valuation of investments and the valuation of provision for reimbursements. What’s the real meaning of these two findings of risk as regards the effective operations of and the integrity of the scheme? These are risks of what and to whom?  

Ms Jago: That would be in relation to our annual financial statement audit for Coal Long Service Leave. That is setting out where we see the main risk areas. Often, when there are valuations of assets and liabilities, those are of higher risk in an audit because more assumptions and judgements are involved. In Coal Long Service Leave’s case, they are the two riskier items in their financial statements. We have completed that audit for the 2024-25 year, and they received an unmodified auditor’s report.  

Senator ROBERTS: That means you accepted it?  

Ms Jago: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What would be the fallout if these risks crystallised?  

Ms Jago: From a financial reporting perspective, it may be that we would conclude that it’s not a true and fair representation of the liabilities that are actually owed to others or assets held. If that were the case and it weren’t corrected, that may lead to what we would call a modified auditor’s report. That’s the financial reporting aspect. A more financial management aspect is that, if you don’t understand what liabilities you actually have, it’s very difficult to plan for how you’re actually going to meet those liabilities. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The funds arrive in the accounts of the scheme from compulsory levies upon the relevant employers. The funds held by the fund are now in excess of $2 billion. Who gets the excess income generated from the scheme after leave entitlements are paid out? I don’t know if you’re aware that there’s a significant proportion of casuals now in the Coal workforce.  

Ms Jago: No, I’m not.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of casuals. They don’t like the way they’re treated. They get in and get out before the eight years, so, effectively, their employer pays for their contributions but then they leave the contributions behind and don’t get it because they leave before the eight-year entitlement. Do you know what happens to that money?  

Ms Jago: I think that’s actually a question best directed to Coal Long Service Leave.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emmett J, In the Federal Court in 1998, had emphasised that there was a lack of control of the corporation by the government. He’s not talking about today’s Labor government or the last Liberal government; he’s talking about government and a lack of accountability to the government. Now, before I arrived in the Senate in 2016, COLE LSL, I was told, had never appeared at Senate estimates, and yet we saw some startling irregularities. That led eventually, when they were proven, to a review by the LNP, which in my opinion was a pretty soft review. But I would agree with Emmett about the lack of control of the corporation. What change in governance, if any, has occurred within Coal LSL since 1998?  

Ms Jago: That’s quite a long period of time. I don’t know that I could answer that today, and it’s how their governance arrangements changed is probably more a question for Coal Long Service Leave.  

Senator ROBERTS: So your assessment, your audit, was just to do with the financial reports?  

Ms Jago: Correct. We were auditing their financial statements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not the company—not the entity?  

Ms Jago: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got serious concerns about the board composition and many other governance factors. Given the fund was originally set up as a stopgap measure to cover an estimated shortfall of funds to cover Long Service Leave’s claims, can your office comment on what purpose is satisfied for the fund to continue generating millions of dollars per year after the original purpose was met a quarter of a century ago?  

Ms Jago: That’s not something that was part of our financial statement audit.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s beyond your remit.  

Ms Jago: We were just looking at the financial statements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all. Like me: short and sweet! 

/0 Comments/by

Patronage or Partisanship?

,

During this Estimates session, I questioned the Office of the Governor-General regarding their association with the political activist group Equality Australia.

My primary concern is the perceived loss of neutrality for the Governor-General’s office. I asked Mr. Martin how the Governor-General can justify being a patron of an organisation that advocates for irreversible gender treatments for children — positions that are political and non-neutral.

While Mr. Martin claimed patronage is “purely honorary,” I argue that it lends the credibility of the office to Equality Australia, effectively amplifying their specific political messaging.

I attempted to get to why Assistant Charities Minister Andrew Leigh intervened to grant Equality Australia charity status, despite multiple court and tribunal rulings finding they were not established for a benevolent purpose.

I raised the issue of Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status, which allows donors tax deductions. It’s my view that giving this status to such a group is a massive “favour” that warrants serious scrutiny.

Mr. Martin insisted that the Governor-General does not support specific advocacy positions of her patronages, though he did admit these matters are “always under review.”

I’m concerned that I did not get clear answers regarding this issue.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Australia’s Governor-General is supposed to be neutral as to taking political positions. My first question is: how is it that the Governor-General can be a patron of a political activist group, Equality Australia, that actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children?  

Mr Martin: The Governor-General is patron of around 209 organisations, at this point. The patronage is a purely honorary role. The Governor-General has no role in making decisions around policies or positions taken by the individual patronages. It’s purely an honorary position.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your answer and for being brief. Isn’t it that she lends her credibility or the office’s credibility to Equality Australia just by being a patron?  

Mr Martin: Yes, broadly speaking, the role of a patronage is to amplify the message of the organisation and to elevate it, to some extent, in their broad goals. But, again, the Governor-General’s patronage does not provide support for any position or support advocacy of any particular organisation. There are many patronages that seek to raise issues of all sorts of different types. While the Governor-General supports, through patronage, the general good work of the organisations, she doesn’t support or advocate any particular position taken by those patronages.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask the minister this, but I’ll ask you instead, Mr Martin. Why did Assistant Charities Minister Andrew Leigh intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when, on three occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings had held that Equality Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be noted—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to stop you there. That’s not a question appropriately directed to Mr Martin or this particular office. You would have to go back to—  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to have asked the minister.  

CHAIR: Well, no minister appears at this session—  

Senator ROBERTS: I can see that.  

CHAIR: because it’s not the appropriate session.  

Senator ROBERTS: I thought I’d try anyway.  

CHAIR: It’s just the office of the Governor-General.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have difficulty understanding patronage of an organisation that was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to DGR, deductible gift recipient status.  

CHAIR: In your opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Governor-General aware of this, or were you aware of it before tonight?  

Mr Martin: Yes, I am. The issues relating to DGR status were not in place when the patronage was accepted. Again, it’s an honorary position that has no role in those sorts of matters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Now that it is in place, do you have any change?  

Mr Martin: We regularly consider and review patronage. These matters are always under review.  

Senator ROBERTS: DGR, deductible gift recipient, status allows donors to claim tax deductions for their donations. Equality Australia was given such a massive favour by—  

CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, this question is not appropriately directed at these witnesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to ask a minister, but okay.  

CHAIR: As I’ve said, this is not the appropriate session. We can help you find the appropriate session for you to ask those questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I might put them on notice to the minister.  

CHAIR: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: My fourth and fifth questions are not appropriate. They’re for the minister.

/0 Comments/by

Vaccine Trials: Fact vs. Fiction

,

In this session, I asked about the system for testing childhood vaccines before authorisation and during use. I asked because the United States FDA has recently de-listed approximately half of their scheduled vaccines due to adverse events (side effects).

It was a simple question, yet the answer was “tag-teamed” across the panel of witnesses from the TGA to avoid answering it directly. It is damning that their own Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN) shows numerous adverse events, which the TGA simply ignores.

Instead, they quote the benefits of vaccines, which have never actually been proven in field trials. I have spoken about this before: in comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the unvaccinated were healthier. I will return to this line of questioning during the next estimates.

You will also note they relied on an answer provided to me in Question on Notice 3212, which has neither been published nor provided to me.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I come back to two separate points you raised. Ms Peatt, you mentioned that Australia assesses the vaccines. Do they do actual testing? What is the method of assessment? Trials?  

Dr Peatt: I’d have to throw to Professor Lawler about the assessment that the vaccines go through, but, from my knowledge, we don’t assess the vaccines. What we do do is rely on evidence and data to ensure their safety. I’ll hand to Professor Lawler.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Where do that evidence and data come from?  

Mr Henderson: We have a process where we rigorously evaluate submissions provided by sponsors of these vaccines.  

Senator ROBERTS: The drug companies?  

Mr Henderson: The pharmaceutical manufacturers, who then sponsor—  

Senator ROBERTS: Submissions from the drug companies?  

Mr Henderson: Yes. We require a significant amount of evidence to support our assessments of the safety, efficacy and quality of those vaccines before they can be marketed and supplied in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand this. I go back to March 2021. I think it was. I asked the previous head of the TGA, Professor Skerritt, or Dr Skerritt, what testing was done in this country on the COVID injections. He said none. They relied on the FDA. At the time he said that, it was after the FDA had admitted they did no testing themselves; they relied on Pfizer. You’re telling me you’re doing the same thing. Okay. The next—  

Mr Henderson: Sorry, Senator. I might just jump in there. No, all the COVID-19 vaccines are now what we call fully registered, so they have been assessed on a full suite of evidence to support safety, quality and efficacy of those vaccines. For COVID-19 vaccines, as well, we did have a program in place where we did batch testing of all vaccines in the TGA laboratories before they could be supplied in Australia.  

Prof. Lawler: I might add to that if I may, Senator. I note your use of the word ‘testing’. The role of the regulator—and this regulatory practice is standard worldwide—is that we undertake an unbiased and objective assessment of the evidence that is presented to us, particularly—  

Senator ROBERTS: From what entity? The supplier?  

Prof. Lawler: That was part of the rest of my answer, Senator. I’m going through the process that we follow. While, for the most part, that is supplied by the sponsor who is seeking registration of the product, it does undergo an appropriate assessment by our own experts to determine that the size of the sample, the controls that are placed, the primary endpoints, the outcomes and the adverse events—all of those elements of the study—indicate that the risk-benefit analysis is positive. The process that we undertake is similar to others.  

As Mr Henderson’s highlighted, during COVID we had a provisional registration pathway. This was during a time, as you would recall, when the risk-benefit of providing a provisional authorisation for that vaccine was high. Since then we have undertaken a transition of that vaccine through to a full market authorisation. There are other mechanisms for assessing the evidence, and obviously in this instance we can also rely on the real-world evidence that the overwhelming benefit—that the risk to benefit is positive given the number of lives saved by the administration of the COVID vaccine when compared to the incidence of adverse events.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Lawler, before I ask my—  

Prof. Lawler: Professor Lawler. Sorry, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, you said a minute ago in another answer ‘Australian disease patterns—forget overseas’. Now you’re saying they’re similar to others, so our testing is similar—or our assessment is similar to others; you don’t do testing.  

Prof. Lawler: I actually said neither of those things, Senator. I certainly didn’t say that we should forget other countries. What I said is that we make our own vaccine schedules based on the demography, the epidemiology, the disease patterns and so forth of Australia. We certainly have a mind to others. Just as an example, the disease patterns in the northern part of the world circulate to the southern part of the world some six months later. So we certainly have to be mindful of what’s going on in the rest of the world. We don’t forget what’s going on there. What I then said was that there are consistent, if not identical, approaches to regulatory decision-making around the world. There is significant positive collaboration and work sharing between regulators so that we can know what the appropriate practices are, particularly horizon scanning, so that we know what’s coming up. But I would highlight that the answer that I gave actually went to how we regulated during COVID, which was different to other countries. Other countries undertook what’s called an emergency-use authorisation. We undertook a process of provisional registration, which was an abbreviated and expedited process that did not lift from sponsors the requirement to provide appropriate evidence, particularly real-world evidence, and then the appropriate, more fulsome transition to full market authorisation thereafter.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can only go by what your predecessor said—that they relied on the FDA. Dr Peatt, you said the childhood injections are free.  

Dr Peatt: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re actually paid for by $750,000 by the taxpayer.  

Dr Peatt: Yes. That’s correct. What I should have said is that they are provided free to people who are eligible for those vaccines. But, yes, they are fully funded by the government.  

Senator ROBERTS: The taxpayer.  

Dr Peatt: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no such thing as government money. It’s all taxpayer money.  

/0 Comments/by

One Nation Leading Where Others Follow

,

The Liberal-National coalition and Labor are playing a desperate game of catch-up.

For years, they’ve ignored the real issues — energy, housing and mass immigration crisis, which started under John Howard and has exploded under the Albanese government. Now, they’re copying One Nation’s homework.

They drop the right buzzwords and borrow our rhetoric because they’re terrified of the polls, yet they still lack the data and the backbone to actually do good instead of just trying to look good.

People see through the “fluffy and vague” policies of other parties.

One Nation aren’t here to play status quo politics; we’re here to put Australia First.

It’s time to hold these politicians accountable and return the power to where it belongs: with the people.

/0 Comments/by

The High Price of False Virtue

,

For over 15 years, I have warned that the climate scam is a direct assault on the Australian way of life.

And it’s not just our hip pockets being hit — it’s our humanity.

Labor and Chris Bowen are selling you a “renewable revolution,” yet they aren’t telling you who’s paying the real price.

While Australian families struggle with soaring power bills, children in the Congo are forced into medieval conditions, digging for the minerals that fuel our “green” future.

Women are working in toxic, open-cut mines controlled by the Chinese Communist Party – all so we can pretend we’re “saving the planet.”

Our environment is being destroyed, our wildlife killed off, our economy smashed – and everyday Australians are getting poorer.

It’s not a revolution. It’s a scam!

Note: The data for 2026 confirms that our energy security has been sold off to foreign interests, with the vast majority of these large-scale wind and solar projects owned by overseas entities.

We need to stop this madness and put Australian families and human decency above the “renewable at all costs” cult. There is nothing virtuous about “renewable” energy.

/0 Comments/by

The 95% Mortgage Cliff

,

During this session with Housing Australia, I call out the lack of transparency and the questionable math behind the home deposit guarantee schemes.

I asked Mr Langford why it took nine weeks to get an answer to a simple question: how many borrowers have exited the scheme? They finally admitted that of the 185,000 guarantees issued since the scheme was launched, over 45,000 have already been discharged.

I’m highly sceptical of their reported “success” rates. They previously claimed that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000. The actual arrears rate on bank loans is around 1% – 227 times higher than the claimed arrears rate of 0.0044%. Therefore, it’s statistically impossible!

My point is simple: they don’t actually track people once they exit the scheme, so they’re essentially flying blind when it comes to the data.

Despite Minister Ayres’ attempts to paint every exit as a “success story,” the data proves it’s not that simple.

As at the end of December 2025: ❌ 0.3% or 336 of borrowers are 90+ days in arrears, ❌ 0 .8% or 1000 are currently under hardship arrangements and ❌ 347 are in early-stage arrears (30–90 days).

While they boast that many are ahead on payments, I’m concerned about the “cliff” ahead.

When I asked for modelling on what happens to these 95% mortgages if interest rates rise three more times this year, they admitted they have no modelling for that scenario.

Ms Jarman has committed to providing me with a copy of the information guide for first-home buyers. I want to see for myself if it properly warns Australians about the massive risks of a 95% mortgage in a rising-rate environment.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: I’m going to rotate the call. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again today, Mr Langford. You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. That should be a number you have to hand very easily. You haven’t answered it in the nine weeks since the hearing. Why not?  

Mr Langford: I’ll ask my colleague Ms Jarman, who has just come to the table, if we have that information to hand. As to the delays, we apologise. There may have been some delay if we didn’t have that information to hand.  

Ms Jarman: Sorry, Senator—can you repeat exactly what information you’re after?  

Senator ROBERTS: You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two per cent and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. I’d like the number, please.  

Ms Jarman: Yes, we do have the number that have exited. Of the 185,000 guarantees that have been issued since the launch of the scheme, 45,837 of those have discharged.  

Senator ROBERTS: You told me at the last hearing that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000 guarantees issued. The actual arrears rate on banks’ loan books is around one per cent. That’s 227 times higher than your claimed arrears rate of 0.0044 per cent. Do you accept that your number is almost statistically impossible and only appears good because you don’t actually track the people who exit the scheme? Once they’re gone, they’re gone.  

Senator Ayres: Exiting is good.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t track them once they’re gone.  

Senator Ayres: These are people who have bought a home—  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t try and change the topic. I’m asking the question. I want to know—  

Senator Ayres: under the scheme, then sold their home and moved on to their next home. That is the foot on the ladder that the scheme is designed to provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Ayres, at the last hearing, you said—  

Senator Ayres: That’s what it’s for.  

Senator ROBERTS: that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance. Do you know that that’s false?  

Senator Ayres: What do you mean?  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘People who are facing hardship can’t refinance,’ you said. That’s false.  

Senator Ayres: I said that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what you said. 

Senator Ayres: I don’t know what context I said that in. You’re moving—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on—  

Senator Ayres: from one proposition, demonstrably not the case—  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’re changing my proposition. I’m trying to get on with it.  

Senator Ayres: which is that it’s a bad outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you running from this, Minister Ayres?  

Senator Ayres: No. I’m running to this. I’m running to this. This is a good outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: You changed my first proposition.  

Senator Ayres: This is a good outcome. I’m sorry if you’re confused about it. This is a good outcome for young Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re misleading.  

Senator Ayres: Buying a home, selling a home, buying a new one—this is a good outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on your latest percentages for in advance, on schedule, in arrears and hardship?  

Ms Jarman: I can do that. As at the end of December, 0.3 per cent of the portfolio were 90 days plus in arrears, 0.8 per cent were under hardship arrangements, 26 per cent of the portfolio were on schedule with payments and 73 per cent were in advance of their repayment schedule.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you also have the actual numbers each of these percentages represent?  

Ms Jarman: I do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them please?  

Ms Jarman: Sure. We had 33,134 on schedule, 93,104 in advance, 336 ninety days in arrears and 1,000 in hardship. There is another category, for completeness. If you’re adding up to the total number of guarantees, in arrears of 30 to 90 days—so early arrears—there are another 347 customers there.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many total guarantees are those percentages of—is it less than the 250,000?  

Ms Jarman: The 250,000 is the number of Australians supported under the scheme. We’ve only ever issued 185,000 guarantees, but only 127,000 of those are active in the book at the moment. The rest of those have already discharged out of the scheme.  

Mr Rimmer: I gave evidence earlier in the day that the 0.3 per cent 90-day arrears rate is better than the other relevant arrears.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I heard that.  

Senator Ayres: I also should have said, Senator, again for the sake of completeness, that people exit the scheme if they sell their home. They also exit the scheme when they hit the 80 per cent loan-to-value ratio. That is, they come in at five per cent and make repayments that pay the 15 per cent gap over time, and then they’re considered to have exited the scheme. That’s also a good thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many five per cent mortgages that you got first home buyers into do you expect a default if interest rates are raised three times this year?  

Senator Ayres: Your One Nation colleague asked the same questions about an hour and three-quarters ago.  

Senator ROBERTS: He actually said ‘if we are entering a cycle’. I want to know what would happen with three interest rate rises.  

Mr Langford: I don’t believe we have modelling for that proposition that you’re putting forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you, as the administrator of the five per cent deposit guarantee, provide first home buyers with any warnings about the risk of a 95 per cent mortgage?  

Ms Jarman: Yes, we do. As part of the application process, we’ve got an information guide. That guide clearly outlines what the guarantee is and how the guarantee is there to protect the lender and not the borrower. It also outlines the obligations of the borrower in terms of repayment of the mortgage and the circumstances in which the borrower is still liable.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have a copy of that on notice, please? 

/0 Comments/by