In early December 2025, the U.S. FDA announced immediate and sweeping reforms to its vaccine approval and monitoring processes. These changes include stricter clinical trials, restrictions on high-risk groups such as pregnant women, and a comprehensive overhaul of vaccine safety monitoring.
I asked the Australian TGA whether they were following these developments and if there was a need for Australia to adopt similar measures. Their response was a “no,” wrapped in many pointless words.
Health Secretary Kennedy is making great progress in dragging the medical establishment back to the center. At present, I believe pharmaceutical companies and their profits exert too much influence on our health administration, to the detriment of common sense, honesty, and duty of care.
I will continue to hold the TGA to account.
– Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: For now. The FDA announced immediate and sweeping reforms to their vaccine approval and monitoring processes, including stricter clinical trials; restrictions on high-risk groups, such as pregnant women; and an overhaul of the vaccine safety monitoring system. This is going on under a new administration. The reforms closely mirror measures which operated in Australia until COVID, when our safety assessments and monitoring were watered down with fast-track approval and emergency-use authorisation for a multitude of drugs. Will you accept that weak approval processes, high-adverse events and blanket denials that anything is wrong have undermined confidence in the entire health system in this country?
Prof. Lawler: There are a couple of things there, if I might comment. We didn’t use emergency-use authorisation. We adopted what is called a provisional pathway—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s equivalent.
Prof. Lawler: It’s not equivalent; it’s quite different. The reason that we undertook it was that, like the rest of the world, we recognised that there were risks that the community was facing, and we worked very closely with other regulators to understand what was emerging. Tonight, you previously mentioned relying on the FDA. It’s really important that, when we talk about reliance, it’s a specific term. It’s not like, if the FDA has approved it, then we automatically register it—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just using Professor Skerritt’s words.
Prof. Lawler: I wasn’t here when Professor Skerritt gave you those words; I’m just trying to explain where we’re at.
Senator ROBERTS: He said he didn’t do any testing here—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can we let Professor Lawler finish his answer, please.
Prof. Lawler: It’s not like, if the FDA hasn’t approved it, we say, ‘You shall not pass.’ What happens is that we look to the information that other regulators have when making our own decisions. I think the important thing as well to note is that we do very much rely on our approvals. We do have, as other regulators have, both pre-market and post-market evaluation and monitoring. But the point that you made about trust is a very important one. We had a presentation at our International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities earlier this year about trust. There was a very strong driver of trust in institutions, in regulations and in health professionals. The very strong downward driver of it is misinformation and disinformation. Part of the challenge that we have is that, as we hear very frequently, there are a lot of studies, for instance, of very low quality that are being taken up and used as evidence or proof of causal links that just do not exist. Part of the challenge we have is that we do strive to rebuild trust. On two occasions in the last two months, the chief medical officer and I have endeavoured to do that through public statements, and it is a constant battle.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s something we’ve found agreement on. I understand there was a paper in the Lancet a few years ago that said that 50 per cent of medical papers are not valid. Now, we’ve got increasing knowledge coming out and evidence showing that big pharma has heavily influenced the scientific papers and has corruptly done so. This is my last question. Will you monitor the changes in the United States in case the new team under Kennedy is actually right about what has gone before them and right about the changes being necessary?
Prof. Lawler: We monitor all of the developments by our international collaborative partners in regulation.
The U.S. CDC has changed its guidance on vaccines. The new guidance states that it is not possible to declare vaccines safe because there is no proof that they are. I asked the TGA whether they had changed their own position as a result. The ensuing discussion was pure semantics, as the TGA tried to avoid agreeing with the CDC.
For the record, the theory of logic states: “An outcome that has not been proven impossible may be possible.” To avoid what comes next—a simple question—the TGA had to deny basic logic. That question was: If it MAY be possible, shouldn’t you take a fresh look?
In previous Estimates hearings, I have presented the TGA with peer-reviewed, published papers showing that adjuvants (preservatives) in vaccines can cause autism. These papers actually show causation—the damage to the brain caused by adjuvants used in vaccines.
The testimony from Professor Lawler was simply wrong, and I will revisit this question in the February Estimates.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Now, I’d like to turn to vaccines and autism again. In America, the CDC have changed their guidance on vaccines and autism. The guidelines now read:
… there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended for … the first year of life do not cause autism.
The American FDA has accepted that vaccines may cause autism because there is no study to show they are safe. Yet I’ve sat here repeatedly, including earlier tonight, and been told by the TGA over and over again that they are safe. You can’t be right. Either there is proof they are safe, or there is not. Which is it?
Prof. Lawler: I discussed this at length with Senator Antic. The policy decisions and announcements of the FDA are matters for the FDA, and those questions should be directed to them. I would just highlight a couple of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct.
Prof. Lawler: That’s not what they said.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct.
Prof. Lawler: They’ve not said that vaccines cause autism.
Senator ROBERTS: They’ve said:
… there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended … do not cause autism.
Prof. Lawler: I think you went on to say at the end of your question—and please correct me if I’m wrong—that the FDA is thereby saying that vaccines cause autism.
Senator ROBERTS: No. I said the FDA, though, has accepted that vaccines may cause autism because there are no studies to show they are safe.
Prof. Lawler: Again, the three-point statement that appeared in November on the CDC’s website, which replaced its previous guidance on vaccines and autism, was of a particular wording. It seemed to me to quite clearly say that, in its view, it cannot be said that vaccines do not cause autism, because no studies have shown that they do not cause autism. As I mentioned previously in my response to the question by Senator Antic, there is a fundamental scientific challenge in stating that something exists because you haven’t been able to prove that it doesn’t. The scientific process is that an individual or a party that makes a scientific claim holds the onus to provide the evidence that supports that claim. For instance, if you’re claiming that vaccines cause autism, the obligation is on you or another person who’s claiming that to demonstrate the evidence that supports that claim. The challenge that we have in that space is that a significant amount of the initial conversation around vaccines causing autism arose from a 1997 article by then doctor Andrew Wakefield that was published in the Lancet and subsequently retracted and thoroughly debunked because there were personal, professional, ethical and methodological conflicts and flaws. Since then, there have been multiple studies over decades involving millions of children and adults who have received different types of vaccines over different years, and, in that time, there has been no demonstrated causal or associative link between vaccines and autism. So, as I say, if there is a claim there, it has never been substantiated by rigorous and dependable evidence, and all of the evidence that we have is supportive of the view that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
Senator ROBERTS: In my view—and I think this is probably correct—the approver has the onus to say that something’s safe. The approver is you, the TGA. According to FOI No. 1345-01, you had 43 sudden, unexpected deaths reported on your Adverse Event Management System following injection of the Infanrix hexa vaccine. Are none of those caused by the vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: I’ll throw to Dr Dascombe, who’s online, to respond to that. I will just say, initially, as I have said in response to your questions and the questions of others and indeed in the conversation that we had previously this evening around mesh, the role of the regulator is to ensure that the risks are managed appropriately such that there is an effective balance for the community between access to a therapeutic product and the benefit derived from the product, and the risk that’s presented. As we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, overwhelmingly, for the COVID vaccine and for other vaccines, the risk-benefit profile is positive. Dr Dascombe, I’ll ask you to respond as well.
Dr Dascombe: To go to both of your questions, Senator, Professor Lawler has comprehensively answered on two occasions now tonight questions around the updated guidance from the US CDC. There are a couple of things that I’d reaffirm there, particularly from a post-market regulation of vaccines perspective. The TGA, like our international counterparts, takes an evidence based approach to the regulation of vaccines registered in Australia. This means that our regulatory decisions are based on the weight of available scientific evidence. There are a couple of key points worth confirming. There is no scientific evidence of a causal link between autism and any vaccine or vaccine ingredient. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence to refute the claim that vaccines are linked to autism. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed a safety signal for autism in any vaccine. Those are key points to reiterate, to your first question. To your second question, around reported adverse events with the Infanrix hexa vaccine on our Adverse Event Management System, as you know, this is a system that relies on spontaneous reports from healthcare professionals, consumers, states, public health units and medicine sponsors. The existence of a report in that system and a report made to us doesn’t necessarily confirm that the vaccine has caused that death. We encourage reporting of all adverse events, even if there’s only a small chance that the vaccine is related to that death.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Prof. Lawler: Thank you for that, Dr Dascombe. I would also just reflect on your comment earlier about the onus on the approver to ensure that something is safe. That is correct. The challenge that every regulator in the world faces is that the only way to ensure that there is no risk in a product is to not approve any product for supply in the country. That’s the only way, and then the public would be quite rightly clamouring for access to goods that are enjoyed by populations around the world. So the role of the regulator here in Australia, as in other countries, is to appropriately assure itself that the evidence indicates that the risk-benefit profile is positive. As Dr Dascombe’s indicated, there’s no identified causal link between vaccines and autism.
Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t here, but I asked Professor Skerritt a question about the testing of the COVID Pfizer shots in Australia. He said, ‘Oh, no, we didn’t do any testing; we relied upon the FDA in America.’ At that time, it had been already been stated that the FDA did no testing itself and relied on Pfizer, and Pfizer cut short its trials because of the number of people who died. So we had a failed study that led to the approval of vaccines—of COVID injections—in this country, and no-one knew about it, yet it was open public knowledge in the United States. Let me continue. A Korean study published in Biomarker Research in September this year followed up 8.4 million Koreans and found as follows: within a 12-month period following their COVID jab, the vaccinated group had a 27 per cent greater chance of being diagnosed with cancer when compared to an unvaccinated group. This was a massive study. This does not prove causation, although many studies I have shared with you prove how these products cause cancer. It does prove correlation. Do you still maintain that COVID vaccines are safe?
Prof. Lawler: I do not recall, Senator, an article that you shared with me that does prove causation between these vaccines and cancer. Also, given the need to analyse the documents, I don’t have the article that you’re describing in front of me, so I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it specifically.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll check that. On 28 November 2025, Dr Vinay Prasad, director of the American FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, sent an email first reported by the New York Times. It described findings from a recent internal FDA review of paediatric deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS, between 2021 and 2024. According to the memo, an analysis of 96 reported paediatric deaths among people aged from seven to 18 concluded that at least 10 were causally linked to COVID 19 vaccines, primarily due to vaccine induced myocarditis. Prasad describe this as a ‘profound revelation’. Professor Kidd, do you acknowledge that paediatric vaccines can cause death?
Prof. Kidd: I’m going to have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t acknowledge it or you can?
Prof. Kidd: I’m going to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The FDA analysis—
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to provide some comment on that if you like, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Prof. Lawler: We did respond to questions about Dr Prasad’s announcement earlier this evening when questioned by Senator Antic. As far as I’m aware—Dr Dascombe, please feel free to correct me—we have not at this stage been provided with information regarding that. As we have indicated previously, we rely not only on our own information that comes through our own adverse event monitoring system but also on signals that come from other regulators. This is not a signal that has been replicated, to my knowledge, in other regulators. As I say, we have not had detailed information regarding Dr Prasad’s claim shared with us. In terms of the question that you posed to Professor Kidd, one of the reasons we have robust postmarket vigilance in place for medicines, devices and, in fact, all therapeutic goods that we regulate is that we recognise that individuals sometimes react to medicines. To give you an example, we have a number of other medicines—non-vaccine medicines—to which individuals can have allergic reactions. So it would be inappropriate, I think, for either Professor Kidd or me to say that people can’t react to these things. Our role as the regulator is to ensure that appropriate systems are in place to identify safety signals as they arise, to analyse them, to understand them and to respond to them in an appropriate way.
In this session of Senate Estimates, I sought clarity on the operation of the Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP). There’s a lot of confusion around whether government contracts over $7.5 million must be awarded to Indigenous businesses.
After questioning officials, it’s clear that this isn’t the case. The policy doesn’t mandate awarding contracts based on race—it requires that, for large contracts delivered in Australia, companies meet minimum Indigenous participation targets. These targets can be achieved through employment, subcontracting, or a combination of both.
Australians deserve transparency on how their taxpayer money is spent. While the government says these measures aim to close the gap, we must ensure that procurement decisions remain focused on value for money and fairness for all. I’ll continue to scrutinise policies that risk introducing race-based preferencing into government processes. Accountability matters.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Alright, I’ll move on to clarifying the operation of the Indigenous procurement policy. I’m told that every Commonwealth agency is obligated to choose Indigenous content on contracts over $7.5 million, so if there’s a choice between a white employer and an Aboriginal employer the government must choose the Aboriginal agency. Is that correct?
Ms Guivarra: I think you’re referring to mandatory minimum requirements which actually relate to employment. There are mandatory set-aside requirements for contracts valued between $80,000 and $200,000, where, all other things being equal, if it is an Aboriginal organisation, then a preference is allocated.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you talking about employment or expenditure?
Ms Guivarra: No. I think the figure you were referring to was the $7.5 million, which refers to the mandatory minimum requirements. For contracts over $7½ million, there’s an employment target.
Mr Dexter: That’s right. The $7.5 million threshold is one part of the IPP. It’s the mandatory minimum Indigenous participation requirement. It does not require Commonwealth agencies to grant those contracts to Indigenous businesses. That’s not a feature of the IPP.
Senator ROBERTS: So if the contract is granted, then they must hire—
Mr Dexter: What it does require is for there to be mandatory minimum Indigenous participation targets as part of that contract, and that’s for contracts delivered wholly in Australia valued at $7.5 million or more in 19 industry categories. That’s been one of the three parts of the IPP since 2015.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what’s the basis for the government engaging in race based preferencing?
Senator McCarthy: I reject outright your assertion there. I have called on all senators and members of parliament to join me in trying to close the gap in terms of the targets we’re trying to achieve. Those targets are specifically aimed at trying to improve Indigenous employment and Indigenous businesses, and we make no apologies for that.
Senator ROBERTS: So, all things being equal, an Aboriginal will be preferred based on race to a non Aboriginal?
Mr Dexter: No, that’s not correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m exploring this.
Mr Dexter: I’m trying to be helpful in clarifying that that’s not a requirement of the policy. In selecting those contracts, Commonwealth procurement officials are always required to demonstrate value for money for the contract, whether there are MMRs applied for the contract or not.
Senator ROBERTS: But then there will be hiring criteria that are favourable to Aboriginals if the company gets a contract. Is that correct?
Mr Dexter: How the supplier meets those targets is entirely a matter for the company. They can do it through subcontracting arrangements, they can do it through employment arrangements or they can do it through a combination of both.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/XteFhlSW_cM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-30 10:08:472025-12-30 10:08:50Setting the Record Straight on Indigenous Procurement
Question Time: I asked the government why its refugee program seems to favour cultures that struggle to integrate while ignoring persecuted Christians—people who share similar values to ours and are being slaughtered right now.
Minister Watt couldn’t answer and has taken my questions on notice.
Update: Minister Watt has since provided answers, which I’ll address in a follow-up video below 👇titled – Four Islamic Nations Dominate Our Refugee Intake
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, regarding humanitarian visas. In the 2024-25 financial years or the 2024 calendar year, what are the top five countries of origin of refugees to which your government granted humanitarian visas?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water): Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don’t have that level of detail with me but am happy to come back to you on notice.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: In that period, how many refugee visas were granted overall, and how many of those were issued to Nigerian Christians and South African farmers?
Senator WATT: Again, I’ll come back to you on notice.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Islamic cultures and cultures foreign to Australia need a lot of work to integrate into our country, yet your government’s refugee program disproportionately favours Islamic and foreign cultures over Christians, who have a similar culture to Australia’s. Minister, why does your government’s refugee program deliberately exclude Christians who are being slaughtered as we speak?
Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I’m not quite sure that you’re telling the truth there. I have said that I will come back to you on notice with the facts, but Australia has had a non-discriminatory immigration policy for many decades, which has been supported up until now, at least, by the Liberal Party. I’m not quite sure what their position is on these matters these days, but we remain proudly in support of a non-discriminatory migration policy, and it will remain that way under Labor as long as we’re in government
Four Islamic Nations Dominate Our Refugee Intake
Follow-up to my video titled “Why Is the Refugee Program Ignoring Persecuted Christians?”
In that video, I questioned the government about the refugee program appearing to prioritise cultures with poor integration outcomes over those who share our values and are facing severe persecution. Minister Watt undertook to provide answers on notice—and has since done so. I’ll address his response in this update.
After reviewing those answers, I again used Question Time to ask why 73% of Australia’s humanitarian visas—14,500 out of 20,000—are allocated to five countries: Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Iraq, and Malaysia. Four of these nations are predominantly Islamic.
Minister Watt responded by stating that the Australian Labor Party supports a non-discriminatory immigration policy and does not discriminate against people on the basis of faith.
I asked the Minister whether Labor is cherry-picking UN advice to exclude Christians. Despite UN guidance to protect them, Christians persecuted in countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, and Eritrea appear to be ignored.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister Watt. I thank the minister for his written response to my last question without notice on refugee numbers. From your reply, Minister, the top five countries for our humanitarian program, comprising 14,500 of our 20,000 humanitarian visa intake, or 73 per cent, are Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Iraq and Malaysia. Four of these have Islam as their dominant or state religion. The fifth, Myanmar, is Buddhist, yet the UN Human Rights Council prioritises Rohingya refugees, who are Islamic. It seems deliberate, Minister, that your humanitarian visa program is overwhelmingly favouring Islamic refugees over Christian refugees. Why?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water): Thank you, Senator Roberts, for the question. I think the last time you asked me a question about this I pointed out that the Australian Labor Party, perhaps unlike other parties in this chamber, proudly stands for a non-discriminatory immigration policy. We don’t rule people out on the basis of their faith, on the basis of their race or on the basis of the country that they come from. Listening to the list of countries that you just provided to us—
Senator McKim: Just their mode of arrival, hey?
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator WATT: I would argue that the common feature of each of those countries is not so much their religion but the fact that they are war torn and that they are countries that people are fleeing because of concerns for their safety.
Senator McKim: What if they arrive by boat, Murray?
Senator WATT: Senator McKim seeks to keep interrupting. It’s a—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, I’ve got Senator Wong on her feet.
Senator Allman-Payne: Oh!
Senator Wong: I’m sorry, Senator Allman-Payne—you don’t want me to take a point of order? President, there have been interjections from that particular senator, Senator McKim, through the response to the previous question that was asked by the Greens and now through this. I would ask you to ask him to cease the interjections on this minister.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. I have personally called Senator McKim to account on the previous question, and I just called order. I am reluctant, always, to interrupt those that are either asking or answering questions, but, Senator McKim, just cease. Thank you.
Senator WATT: As I was saying, our government and the Labor Party stand for a non-discriminatory immigration policy, and we don’t discriminate against people on the basis of their faith. As Senator Ayres was mentioning, I think what we’re seeing and hearing here from One Nation is foreshadowing where we’re going to see the coalition end up on immigration policy in a matter of weeks, because we know that’s what happened when it came to net zero policy. It started with One Nation railing against wind farms and railing against net zero, and then it spread to the National Party, and then it spread to the Liberal Party, and then it even spread to the so-called moderates in the Liberal Party, who had to cave in to the conservatives, the Nationals and One Nation on their opposition to net zero. So what we’re seeing here, I predict, is what we will see within a matter of weeks as the immigration policy of the Liberal Party. Hello, Senator Duniam. You’re in charge now, along with Senator Scarr. Senator Scarr might have to face a situation where he has to explain to those Brisbane multicultural groups why he’s followed One Nation when it comes to immigration policy.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Roberts, first—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, just wait. I’m calming the chamber down. Please continue. First supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Your letter admits Australia has not issued one humanitarian visa in Nigeria, yet the current United Nations Human Rights Council guidance, since 2016, has promoted protecting Nigerian Christians from Islamists, citing hundreds—now thousands—of deaths. Similar guidance exists for protecting Christians in Islamic Pakistan, in Iran, in Eritrea and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Minister, are you cherrypicking which United Nations Human Rights Council guidance you follow to exclude Christians and favour Islam? (Time expired)
Senator WATT: No.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it is a person’s religion—for instance, Christian in an Islamic country—that places them in danger, which is the reason for the United Nations Human Rights Council guidance in that country, for their own safety. Yet your letter says you can’t tell me how many of the humanitarian visas issued are for that reason. Isn’t that reason in their case file, and wouldn’t you have to let the United Nations Human Rights Council know how many refugees we took and why?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/nJNkwg_1Los/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-30 09:37:232025-12-30 09:37:26Why Is the Refugee Program Ignoring Persecuted Christians?
I spoke with Ms. Liz Hefren-Webb and raised the issue of overcharging by service providers, which is depleting the limited funds available through Aged Care packages.
I highlighted the case of David and Sandra Smith, whose package was debited $3,000 for a small, incomplete gardening job. As a result, they were unable to access certain medical services because they could not afford them. Their complaints to the Commission fell on deaf ears; the Commission provided no explanation for its decision and refused to discuss the matter with the Smiths.
I also raised the case of Mr. Garry Bayliss, who had $14,000 taken from his My Aged Care account simply to replace some timber railings on a fence. Again, the Commission failed to take any action to remedy the situation.
Ms. Hefren-Webb suggested sending the details to the Agency for re-examination. I also raised concerns about the proposed introduction of co-payments into Aged Care packages, which will reduce the actual services provided. Many recipients cannot afford these additional costs, with some services charged at rates of $100 per hour or more. I stated that these shortcomings do not constitute quality care and amount to institutional elder abuse.
– Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Since the introduction of personalised aged-care packages, there has been an abject failure, it seems, of monitoring how funds allocated are actually spent. This is one of the major failings of the administration of the NDIS that may well bankrupt Australia and be responsible for the death of vulnerable Australians. My question is specifically about the case of David and Sandra Smith. Under their package, they are entitled to some assistance in minor property maintenance. They needed some minor trimming of half a tree and a few branches of another on the property. That was not even completed. They found that $3,000 had been taken out of their package and given to the contractor without discussion between the Smiths and the service administrator of the package. Having raised the issue as a complaint, the Smiths have been ignored. Because of the depleted funds, the Smiths had to cancel some medical appointments they could no longer afford. This issue is gravely affecting their health at an age when they can ill afford such events. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission closed off their complaint and refused to even discuss it with the Smiths. They refused to even discuss it, and no explanation was given. To me, this seems like elder abuse by a government agency that is supposed to help older Australians, not abuse them. What is the cover-up, and why was $3,000 paid for next to no work?
Mr Comley: I think the commissioner will provide a response, noting, of course, that it’s difficult for us to talk about individuals in this forum. I will ask Ms Hefren-Webb to comment.
Ms Hefren-Webb: Obviously, I can’t comment on any individual case, and I don’t have any knowledge of the case you’re talking about. We receive around 10,000 complaints a year. Each of them is triaged and assessed, and we do provide a comprehensive response to people. I am not aware that we would ever refuse to provide a response, so I would be very happy to follow up the case you’re talking about.
Senator ROBERTS: So we can put you in touch with them?
Ms Hefren-Webb: That would be great. I’d be very happy to get in touch.
Senator ROBERTS: It does raise issues of accountability, the level of care and the attitude in the department.
Ms Hefren-Webb: It sounds like it’s an issue of pricing that they’re concerned about.
Senator ROBERTS: It might actually be fraud as well.
Ms Hefren-Webb: Potentially. I think the third-most-common complaint we receive around home care is about pricing of services. We do investigate those complaints and we do follow up to see what has driven the particular pricing. You weren’t here earlier when I said we will compare providers and, if another provider is offering the same service for a lot less, we will ask the provider to explain how they arrived at that price.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you normally get quotes?
Ms Hefren-Webb: We don’t get quotes; we ask the provider how they have come up with their quote.
Senator ROBERTS: So you do not insist on a second quote, but you ask them the source of their quote?
Ms Hefren-Webb: It’s the provider who is managing the package. If there’s a price that the consumer feels is excessive, we will investigate how that’s come about. That’s our role. If we suspect that there is a fraudulent aspect, we will obviously refer that through to the department, because they’re responsible for fraud and assurance and we’re responsible for compliance with the standards.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We will send the contact details.
Ms Hefren-Webb: That would be great.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you check on notice if you have dealt with this or if Aged Care have dealt with this? We would like to know what happened.
Ms Hefren-Webb: Will do.
Senator ROBERTS: This disgrace has badly affected the health of two innocent senior citizens who deserve an answer and money put back into their package. Is that what happens when something is found to be incorrect, wrong or unfair?
Ms Hefren-Webb: I think the department has responsibility for dealing with fraud and how that is dealt with in terms of the individual’s package.
Senator ROBERTS: If there’s something wrong specifically, is the money given back to the aged person?
Ms Snow: I think there would be a range of options. If it’s okay, it might be best to work with the commission really closely to have a look at the case, have a look at what’s been undertaken to date and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. I see the caveat, but, if appropriate, can money be put back into their account?
Ms Snow: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Then there is the case of Mr Gary Bayliss, who had $14,449 taken from his My Aged Care account to replace some worn-out timber rails from a fence. Again the commission failed to take action to remedy the fraud. Now the minister has announced that the concept of co-payments is to be instituted into the aged-care packages. That will mean the cancellation of many services needed by package holders, because they will become unaffordable. Minister, the proposal is that many services will need to be paid for at a rate of least $100 per hour, often at more than twice the market labour rate. An age pensioner cannot afford this. From the absurd to the impossible, this is not care, as I said earlier. It’s abuse. Minister, what can you do to fix this?
Senator McCarthy: Thank you for your questions and the concerns that you’re raising on behalf of your constituents. Clearly, there are many stories there that you’re hearing that really hit at the heart of how people are feeling in terms of their own care. I will take your questions on notice if that’s okay and get back to you with regard to that particular question.
Senator ROBERTS: Please also take on notice the bigger picture of what can be done.
Senator McCarthy: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, could you take on the case of Mr Gary Bayliss?
During the December 2025 Senate Estimates session with the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO), I asked about progress on addressing the issue of stolen miners’ wages.
Mr Steve Ronson, representing the FWO, advised that 33 complaints are currently being looked at, and that preliminary findings are close to completion. These findings will enable the parties involved to review their positions and make further submissions if they choose. He also noted that three companies have now self-reported instances of non-compliance, and a total of 25 employers are involved. Several staff members within the FWO are actively working on this matter.
I will not relent until this injustice is fully addressed. Those responsible must be held accountable.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
ACTING CHAIR: I’ll go over to Senator Roberts. Hello, long time, no see.
Senator ROBERTS: Not since yesterday.
ACTING CHAIR: Would you like to have a crack, mate? We are rolling through, and I’d like to give you the opportunity to put your questions to the Fair Work Ombudsman before we move to Senator Kovacic.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not having a crack. I’m just going to ask some very simple questions.
ACTING CHAIR: That’s code. I know what he’s like.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. No, my questions are really simple. On the matter of complaints from casual coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, where are you up to?
Ms Booth: Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s only really simple.
Ms Booth: We have 33 matters under investigation. Beyond that, I’m going to ask either Mr Campbell or Ms Volzke to add any colour to that response.
Mr Campbell: I’m happy to bring Steve Ronson up as well, Senator.
Ms Booth: Probably makes sense.
Mr Campbell: If you want to start with your specific question, then we can manage it accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS: Just an update.
Mr Campbell: Just an update.
Ms Booth: Where are we up to, Mr Ronson, is the question—the outcome at 33.
Mr Ronson: We’re well advanced with those investigations—there’s the number that Ms Booth just provided—and we’re getting very close to issuing preliminary findings in several cases. The objective of issuing the preliminary findings is to make sure that both or all parties to a dispute have the opportunity to review what we’ve found in our investigations and give them some time to provide either additional or new evidence or confirm our findings. We anticipate that, within the next few weeks, the preliminary findings for several cases will be issued. That will then continue in the New Year. We’ve done most of our work in those investigations and we’re now getting up to the point of sharing those findings.
Senator ROBERTS: Roughly, out of the 33, what percentage will have preliminary findings coming out in the next few weeks?
Mr Ronson: Before Christmas, out of the 33 investigations, if we take—sorry, 31 is probably the more precise number—but if we—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, what you mean by ’31 is more precise’?
Ms Booth: That’s just updated from the 33 last—
Mr Ronson: Sorry, it was 33 cases last time we met. There’s been two finalised since then. It’s 31 cases now. Sorry, apologies. Of that number, three are self-reports. The two cases—
Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean, that they made their own complaints?
Mr Ronson: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: They submitted their own complaints.
Mr Ronson: Three companies have self-reported non-compliance with various elements of the Fair Work Act.
Senator ROBERTS: Employers?
Mr Ronson: Yes. The two cases that I am aware of, the findings that will likely be issued in the next few weeks will cover about four workers. What I can say is that we’re close to issuing findings with two cases that cover four workers.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that the final decision?
Mr Ronson: Well, what will happen—
Senator ROBERTS: Is it going to vary for each of their complaints?
Mr Ronson: Yes. What we’ll do is issue the findings. The employer, or the employing entities, and the workers will receive the findings, and they will be given an opportunity to reflect on them, look at them and ensure that they are accurate or, if they want to, contest any part of our findings. If so, they’ll be given reasonable time. Possibly, because it’s Christmas, they’ll be given four weeks or thereabouts. By the end of January, if there’s no additional or new evidence or isn’t any contest, then we’ll proceed to finalising those findings. What we’re hoping is that by January and February we’ll be issuing, progressively and sequentially, more findings, because we’ve done most of the investigation work for those 28 cases.
Senator ROBERTS: When do you think all the 31 remaining will be finished?
Mr Ronson: If I exclude the self-reports and we look at the 28 cases, my view would be that the preliminary findings would be issued through not just December but January, February and possibly early March—so progressively.
Senator ROBERTS: So the final reports will come about four weeks after.
Mr Ronson: The findings of each particular investigation are about four weeks after the preliminary findings. Unless—say, for example—I issue you a letter and you go, ‘Hang on, you’ve omitted this evidence,’ or, ‘You’re missing this.’ That, of course, might continue the investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the breakdown, roughly, between Queensland and the Hunter Valley?
Mr Ronson: I’d need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you, please. And the number of employers involved?
Mr Ronson: From memory, it would be 25.
Senator ROBERTS: Twenty-five employers?
Mr Ronson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll leave it at that. Well, perhaps I will ask a question. Are they labour hire firms or mine owners?
Mr Ronson: I’m happy to take it on notice to provide the particulars of that division, but it’s a mix.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. And how many staff do you have devoted to this?
Mr Ronson: In terms of dedicated staff, there would be at least three. That’s them putting a considerable amount of their time into just this particular sector, but I’m happy to correct that.
Senator ROBERTS: If it’s not correct, you can provide it on notice.
Mr Ronson: Sorry. I’m happy to confirm it, but it would be about three.
Doctors have raised with me their concerns about a lack of accountability and a lack of basic understanding that is evident in reports prepared by the Professional Services Review Scheme (PSRS).
During the December 2025 Senate Estimates session, I asked Professor De Dio of the PSRS about the process for drafting Committee Reports. He explained that the reports are written by Committee members with significant assistance from staff lawyers. The lawyers contribute by reviewing the reports and helping with drafts, ensuring the content reflects the concerns of the Committee members.
Professor De Dio noted that the reports are the result of collaborative work, with lawyers playing an important role in production. A draft report is prepared based on the questions asked and the input of members, after which the Committee reviews the draft. He confirmed that this process is standard practice.
My question regarding who signs off on the reports was taken on notice.
– Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: This is to the Professional Services Review. Who actually writes the draft and final reports on doctors—PSR lawyers or committee members?
Prof. Di Dio: They are the reports of the committee members, and they are assisted in the drafting of those reports by the PSR’s staff.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they lawyers or staff?
Prof. Di Dio: Usually they are lawyers, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: To what extent is legal assistance involved in the authorship of such reports?
Prof. Di Dio: Sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: To what extent is legal assistance involved in authorship of such reports?
Prof. Di Dio: The committee are assisted by the legal practitioners who form part of the support team at the PSR to a significant extent, but, ultimately, the report is their own. They review the report and ensure that the report contains their views, their opinions and their assessment as to what the outcome should be.
Senator ROBERTS: How much of a final report is written by lawyers and how much by doctors? I know it would vary.
Prof. Di Dio: It varies very much. I can only reiterate that the report is the report of the committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Which parts are written by lawyers?
Prof. Di Dio: I can’t make it clearer. The report is the committee’s report. Legal officers assist with the drafting but the report reflects, at a very granular level, what the concerns of the committee are in both a generic sense and in the sense of individual services being reviewed.
Senator ROBERTS: The committee members presumably need to collaborate and co-operate if they’re to produce a final report together. What form does this take? Is it emails, phone calls, zoom meetings, face-to-face meetings?
Prof. Di Dio: It’s something that occurs in a variety of ways. They also have shared access to technology such as SharePoint and other—
Senator ROBERTS: So they might pass the written report around amongst themselves, modifying it, reading it.
Prof. Di Dio: There are a variety of different ways in which they do it. It is their report.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the justification for lawyers writing drafts and final reports when the act states that they must be prepared by the committee?
Prof. Di Dio: The committee is provided with support services by the agency in order to do their job. The report is their report.
Senator ROBERTS: Do lawyers ever draft a report or write the final report?
Prof. Di Dio: Lawyers have a role to play in the production of that report. The report is created after a committee has sat for however long it sits for. At that committee hearing, questions are asked by the members of the committee, and the members of the committee present and clarify their findings with the practitioner under review. A process then occurs whereby a draft report is initiated, but that draft report is based upon an extensive review and analysis of what occurs at the committee and what the practitioners who are members of the committee do and say. So there is a role to be played by the PSR team in the preparation of the draft of that report, but the draft of that report is based upon a variety of pieces of data which are initiated by the members of that committee, whether it is what they said contemporaneously, what they asked, the contents of a transcript. It is the committee’s report.
Senator ROBERTS: So a lawyer may write the draft, but it will be after consultation with the committee?
Prof. Di Dio: That is what may occur, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Are committee members paid for their work in writing the draft and final reports?
Prof. Di Dio: Sometimes. It depends on whether they request to be paid for their work.
Senator ROBERTS: What sort of role does a committee member have? What are they paid for and what are they not paid for?
Ms Weichert: Committee members are entitled to be paid under the Remuneration Tribunal determination for their input into the draft and final reports. It just depends on whether they submit their timesheet to us to process that pay. The Remuneration Tribunal determination is what sets out what they are entitled to be paid for.
Senator ROBERTS: Assuming that lawyers are not trained in clinical medicine, how can they know if what they are writing is a correct summary of the medical evidence canvassed in meetings? How do you make sure that it’s accurate medically?
Ms Weichert: The committee members do that.
Prof. Di Dio: That’s the whole purpose of the committee members; they conduct their committee meeting, and then they review a draft report at various stages, and they continue to review it.
Senator ROBERTS: How long has this practice been in existence?
Prof. Di Dio: What practice?
Senator ROBERTS: Drafting with lawyers.
Prof. Di Dio: I’m not sure. I suspect it’s been many years.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Mr Comley: Can I just comment. The practice Associate Professor Di Dio is talking about is absolutely common practice throughout probably all parts of public administration, where multidisciplinary teams with different aspects will have a hand in the preparation of documents, but there is an authorised person or persons actually accountable for the output. In the same way, there are many products that are prepared for me, but, fundamentally, if I sign them off, I take accountability for those judgements. Or any other area that occurs—when I think about other regulators, that’s very, very common practice. So what has been described is very common. Finally, that person or that body signing off takes accountability for it, but there are many people who actually prepare the raw materials that go into it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Comley. What we’re concerned about is a number of doctors who have said there doesn’t seem to be any accountability, and quite often the reports are errant medically, and they haven’t been given a fair go. I’m just trying to find out who would sign off on the reports.
Mr Comley: I think it’s been made clear the people signing off on the report are the Professional Services Review board. They take accountability for it. They take responsibility for the report, but they are assisted by other people in preparing the raw material before they say, finally, ‘Yes, we are comfortable with that output.’
Senator ROBERTS: Just as you sign some reports—I understand you need to have it legally vetted by a lawyer—who signs off on the report for the committee?
Prof. Di Dio: The committee.
Senator ROBERTS: The whole committee? Each of the committee members?
Prof. Di Dio: I believe so. I can take that on notice, but I believe it’s either the chair or whole committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Comley, the reason for my question is we have had a lot of complaints about the PSR reports, and they appear to reflect, in some doctors’ eyes, a lack of understanding of what’s going on. We’re concerned about accountability. Thank you for your comments.
I spoke with Dr. Marcelle Noja, who expressed sympathy for those whose health has been compromised by mesh complications.
When asked about the Australian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry’s failures in following up with patients, she stated that this question would be taken on notice.
I also inquired about the steps the government is taking to assist with the cost of remedial surgeries; this question was likewise taken on notice.
Regarding the differences in approach taken by the UK and New Zealand—where mesh has been banned or severely restricted—I was informed that, because the mesh is used for other treatments, Australia has decided against a total ban on the product.
Due to time constraints, I will submit the remaining unasked questions on notice.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to pelvic mesh. Following a Senate inquiry, a formal government apology, overwhelming evidence of harm and international bans in multiple countries, transvaginal mesh continues to be implanted in Australian women daily. Can you explain why these devices have not yet been banned and what specific evidence would be required for the health department to recommend an immediate hold to their use?
Dr Noja: Thank you for this question and thank you advocating for many of the patients who have had urogynaecological mesh and had negative outcomes as a result of it. The TGA was similarly concerned with the impacts of urogynaecological mesh. That is why we have taken a number of actions in relation to this. When we look at postmarket activities in relation to mesh, and in fact all products, we undertake a risk analysis, we look at the evidence, and we go to the companies and ask them for information in relation to those products. When it came to these products, we did look at the products and we found that, for many, the evidence was not there to support their ongoing inclusion. Many of those products were actually removed from the Australian Register for Therapeutic Goods. However, for some of the products, we did find that, for some health conditions, there was still benefit for patients. So, for those products, we have continued to include them in the register. However, in support of patients, we have done other activities. We have undertaken a number of reforms. Some of those include increasing information for patients. That means more information about the product, more information about what may occur and working closely with the health professionals to make sure that information does get to consumers. We’ve also recently implemented mandatory reporting regulations for mesh. What we found was that the TGA did not have significant signals to be able to act on doing something. Under this new regulation, it will be mandatory for healthcare facilities to report all adverse events to us. We will then be able to pick up signals sooner and act faster. We continue to monitor this, and this includes undergoing ongoing signal-detection activities. These are critical devices for some Australians, so we really have to be balanced in what we remove from the register versus what we allow to continue, as well as how patients can access it.
Prof. Lawler: I’ll add briefly, as Dr Noja has said, that the role of the regulator is to understand the balance between the risk to patients and the benefits to patients. As we’ve heard, there are certain instances with certain products and certain conditions where there continues to be strong benefit. One of the roles that we take as a regulator is to regularly update product information so that the information that’s necessary for patients to make informed decisions is available to them for conversation with their registered health practitioner.
Senator ROBERTS: Dr Noja, perhaps you can correct me on this, but this is my understanding—I take note of what you said—on the back of the 2018 inquiry, a pelvic mesh registry, the Australian Pelvic Floor Registry, was established. Unfortunately, this registry fails to track long-term health outcomes of mesh affected women, because it only tracks certain women from certain hospitals and only for a period of 24 months. That may have changed. You can correct me if I’m wrong. Will the government amend the failings of the Australian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry and instead establish a comprehensive, long-term health monitoring program?
Dr Noja: Responsibility for the pelvic floor mesh registry doesn’t sit with the TGA; it sits with my colleagues in another part of the department. I’m not sure if our colleagues from HERD are here. I don’t believe they are. We can take that on notice and talk to our colleagues to provide you with an answer.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The mesh clinics established after the 2018 inquiry are fundamentally failing women by providing only partial medical intervention. Apparently these clinics will remove mesh devices but categorically refuse to repair the resulting extensive damage, leaving women in a state of severe medical compromise. Can you explain why these clinics are permitted to create additional harm?
Prof. Lawler: We’re not familiar with the practices of those clinics. The regulation of clinics and health practitioners is not a responsibility of the TGA, and, as I mentioned previously, these are largely conversations between patients and their treating health practitioners. We are not responsible for the management of the operation of those clinics.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give any advice to women who are still in a lot of pain—not medical advice, but where to go?
Dr Noja: The TGA has established a range of information on our website. We have what’s called the mesh hub, and I’m happy to provide that link to anyone in the committee, if that’s helpful. The mesh hub includes a range of information for people who have suffered from mesh injury. It includes information about accessing various aspects of our Medicare system as well as treatment options and information about other services that are available to them.
Senator ROBERTS: The mesh hub?
Dr Noja: That’s correct.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m just flagging that I will need to shift the call shortly.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll keep sprinting.
CHAIR: You’re in the sprint, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Every day Australian women are facing an impossible choice due to pelvic mesh complications—and I’m sure you’re aware of that—draining their retirement savings and suffering ongoing medical trauma. Many women are forced to access their superannuation on compassionate grounds to fund critical mesh removal or repair surgeries, while others completely forgo necessary care due to prohibitive costs. What steps will the government take to establish a comprehensive support system for women that covers the full cost of surgeries and ongoing care that they need from being harmed by a government-approved medical device? Perhaps the minister might want to comment, as well as you, Dr Noja.
Dr Noja: I will allow the minister to comment, but I will just note that our website does include information for patients with respect to what services they can seek support with. There are a number of MBS and PBS items available to them, which they can seek access to, and there are a number of available resources there for them.
Senator Green: For completeness, I’ll take your question on notice so I can provide you with some information about what supports are available. I don’t disagree with you that these women have gone through an awful ordeal. I’m confident that we’ll be able to give you some fulsome information about what’s available, but you should continue to raise these issues.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question in this sprint—the UK, Scotland and New Zealand have banned or severely restricted transvaginal mesh use, due to unacceptable harm rates, but Australian women continue to receive these implants daily. That doesn’t seem to make sense to me. What makes Australian women different from British or New Zealand women and justifies continuing a practice that other countries apparently have deemed too dangerous?
Dr Noja: I will note that the TGA doesn’t tend to ban devices. Our approach is around inclusion versus exclusion of products so that there remain a number of pathways available to clinicians should they deem it appropriate for a member of the public to have access to a product. The reason we don’t ban products is that it is important that patients get the best appropriate care for their individual circumstance. I really respect your comments around what we are doing to protect women, and, as I mentioned, we have actually undertaken a number of actions specifically related to these products. As part of our post-market review and our action, we did upclassify some products and remove others, but it is important that these products remain available. They are used for other surgical procedures, apart from urogynaecological conditions, so it is important we make sure that access is available. We just have to have rigour around where access occurs to ensure that the products are fit for purpose in how they’re being used. Part of that, really, is the patient information and making sure that patients are appropriately provided with all the information they need to support them in making sure that it is the right decision for them.
Senator ROBERTS: I hear what you say, and I acknowledge it, but why is the mesh banned in other countries and not banned here?
Dr Noja: I don’t believe it is banned in other countries. Australia has taken the step to upclassify these products. Other countries have not gone as far as Australia has, in terms of its regulatory approach. Some countries are continuing to look at these products and make decisions about what they do, but they will be making those decisions based on the evidence they have in front of them and the signals and risks that they’ve seen in the patients that are presenting in their jurisdiction.
Prof. Lawler: In your question you did say that in other countries these products have been banned or significantly restricted. As Dr Noja has indicated in her answer, we have also undertaken some actions that have restricted those devices, through the upscheduling and through the removal of some from the register, and also through the imposition of conditions of inclusion. So we have taken regulatory actions as well.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re going to send me more information and the minister is going to give me an answer on notice, and I’m going to stay on the treadmill.
As we wrap up 2025, I want to thank you for your incredible support throughout the year. This support and your involvement made all the difference, and it’s been a privilege to serve you during 2025.
I’m deeply grateful to our hardworking team in our Senate office, and to all One Nation teams across Australia. Their dedication ensures we can keep delivering with integrity and purpose. There have been challenges and wins, and I couldn’t be prouder of what we’ve accomplished this year.
Christmas is a time to cherish the people who matter most—our family and friends. It’s a time to pause and reflect on the hope brought into the world over 2,000 years ago with the birth of Jesus – a message of love, peace, and generosity. These are some of the values that unite us all.
As we celebrate Christmas, let’s take a moment to remember those facing difficult times. Some will have an empty chair at the table this year, others separated or alienated from their children. Many Australians are without a place to call home, or are spending the day alone, and some are dealing with hardship or health struggles. You are in our thoughts.
So, whether you will be spending a quiet day at home or celebrating with a big festive gathering, my wife Christine and I, together with our Senate team wish you a Christmas filled with laughter, love, and joy – and may the year ahead bring health, happiness, and opportunity for you and your loved ones.
🎄 Christmas Office Closure!
Just a heads up! Our hardworking office team is taking a well-deserved Christmas break.
📅 Closed: From 4:00 PM Friday, 19 December 2025
📅 Reopen:Monday, 12 January 2026 at 8:30 AM
As you can imagine, our inbox will be overflowing! If your message is important, please resend it just before the 12th so it pops to the top of the pile. We’ll do our best to respond where needed.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Picture1.jpg?fit=944%2C944&ssl=1944944Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-18 17:46:432025-12-18 17:46:46Thank You for Your Support – Merry Christmas!
Just a heads up! Our team is taking a well-deserved Christmas break so we can return refreshed and ready for a big year in 2026!
📅 Closed: From 4:00 PM Friday, 19 December 2025
📅 Reopen:Monday, 12 January 2026 at 8:30 AM
As you can imagine, the inbox will be overflowing! If your message is important, please resend it just before the 12th so it pops to the top of the pile. We’ll do our best to respond where needed.
P.S. Even though the office is closed, our socials aren’t! I’ll still be posting and sharing.😉
