Wake Up, Australia: The Uniparty Is Selling You Out

,

The Nationals are starting to see the truth about the net zero scam — well, sort of.

They are finally admitting net zero is hurting regional Australia—yet they still cling to the scam. One Nation has said for years: scrap net zero completely. It’s costing taxpayers $30 billion a year and will blow out to $1.9 trillion by 2050, while electricity prices keep rising and everyday Australians suffer.

Meanwhile, foreign-controlled corporations and banks dominate our markets, driving prices up while executives pocket millions. Add mass migration pushing rents up, and you see why Australians are sliding into poverty.

One Nation warned this would happen—and we have the solutions. It’s time to put Australians first. Our solutions are practical, proven, and ready to go. As JFK said: Our problems are man-made. Therefore, they can be solved by man.

Transcript

Welcome to the latest episode of your favourite TV show: One Nation Were Right All Along. First up, we have the Nationals finally seeing the light of the net zero scam—well, kind of. Their support has gone from unqualified support to ‘how much net zero can we do before we start losing seats?’ In their announcement, Nationals leader David Littleproud said: ‘The Nationals accept the science of climate change and remain committed to emissions reduction. The current aggressive pursuit of net zero is unfairly damaging to regional Australia and economically unsustainable for the country’—he’s waking up—’We need a slower pace aligned with the OECD average’.  

That’s a clever sleight of hand. The OECD reduction has stalled for five years. Their accumulative reduction is currently 14 per cent, and Australia’s is 24 per cent. The latest data will show ours at 28 per cent, double the OECD’s. Tying Australia to the OECD will buy the Nationals an election or two before having to restart reductions. Remember, though, that they still believe in net zero and in the need to cut carbon dioxide production. I welcome the Nationals realisation of the damage net zero is doing and wish they had more courage to walk away from the scam entirely. 

In contrast, One Nation strongly oppose net zero, and we would abolish all federal government net zero mandates, programs and boondoggles. We would shut down all the schemes and departments promoting this scam, saving taxpayers $30 billion every year. This is not the only cost of course. Parasitic billionaires and corporations sucking on taxpayer subsidies and electricity consumer subsidies, and others in private industry, are taking advantage of this scam to build industrial solar and wind, transmission lines, big batteries and other paraphernalia of net zero. This cost will be as high as $1.9 trillion through to 2050. Remember that industrial solar and wind lasts only 15 years, which means everything that has been built so far will not be in use in 2050 and will have to be built again and again. The government’s Bollywood version of the cost of net zero does not take into account this massive expense—nor do they consider the environmental cost of the destruction of native forests for wind turbines, access roads and transmission lines; the cost of dumping these monstrosities into landfill every 15 years; or the run-off from toxic metals from damaged solar panels. This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. 

Electricity is an input cost right across the economy. The price of everything you buy, from physical goods in stores to services and financial products, goes up as the electricity bills of the companies providing those services go up. Everyday Australians are poorer because of net zero, and so is Australia’s beautiful natural environment. The government used to say, ‘Renewables are cheaper, so prices will come down eventually.’ However, after 20 years of the transition—the last three at breakneck pace—electricity bills are not coming down; they’re rising rapidly.  

Some of those who are wealthy enough and have an actual house in which to install solar panels and an expensive wall battery are reporting slightly reduced electricity bills. The very few Australians with the money to spend $25,000 on a solar array and wall battery for a home they own are thumbing their noses at the millions that do not have a house and $25,000 to add solar and a battery. Net zero is becoming a case of the haves and have-nots. Those who can’t afford their own electricity generation are left to buy electricity at prices that have increased at twice the rate of inflation since the net zero benchmark year of 2005. It’s a trend that continues, with a nine per cent increase in electricity prices in 2025. 

One Nation are right in our opposition to mass migration. Today we learnt that the majority of Australians agree with us—right again. A poll in the Australian yesterday showed that almost two-thirds of Australians want a reduction in the migration rate; 94 per cent of One Nation supporters support reduced migration, which has now been a feature of One Nation policy for 30 years, ever since the Liberal-National coalition under John Howard doubled migration and started mass migration. Significantly, 78 per cent of coalition voters want a reduction in immigration, and so do 71 per cent of supporters of smaller parties and independents, which does include the teals—so that’s very interesting. 

What caught my eye with the poll is that two parties who have been pushing infinite immigration are doing so against the wishes of their supporters. Only 10 per cent of Labor’s supporters want more migrants, while 49 per cent want fewer. While 27 per cent of Greens voters want more immigration, 32 per cent want less. Immigration is now one of the biggest election issues in New South Wales, which is not surprising, given the rental crisis in the greater Sydney area, thanks to the Albanese immigration invasion. It is interesting to see there is no gender divide on immigration. Opposition to high immigration is spread evenly between men and women. 

It’s a betrayal of the very concept of democracy for this government to continue its globalist agenda to flood Australia with these very high levels of mass immigration against the wishes of the Australian people. Liberal and Labor governments are importing too many new arrivals from cultures that do not readily assimilate and bring with them a religion, Islam, that seeks to carve out a slice of this country to introduce their own system of law—divisive. 

At the same time, the government is inhumanely ignoring the tragedy of the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, in Sudan and in South Africa. I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday in question time how many Christian refugees we brought in from these trouble spots. The answer was telling: zero! I asked who’s benefiting from Australia’s humanitarian intake. His answer was that the top five countries for refugee visas, 15,000 in all, are all Islamic countries. This is nothing more than selective discrimination against Christians. In the past, Australians would have considered this sedition. One Nation still does. 

Third, One Nation is correct about the standard of living. For years, I’ve been warning the Australian people that the net zero agenda, combined with mass immigration, is destroying business investment in our productive capacity, reducing living standards. Sky News is reporting today just how bad things have become. One in seven Australians now live below the poverty line, and one in six children are below the poverty line. That’s 3.7 million people struggling to pay for food, power and rent in a nation bursting with resources, all a result of Liberal-Labor uniparty policies—mass migration, net zero, housing, overregulation. 

In what was once the richest country, per capita, in the world, we now have the worst poverty in my lifetime, yet we still have the natural resources; the abundant hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas; amazing farmland; and a strong tourism industry. For years, successive Liberal and Labor governments have shut down industries that provided breadwinner jobs in steelworks and heavy manufacturing, and value-adding jobs like textiles. They weighed our farmers down with so much green tape and blue United Nations tape that they are struggling to stay afloat. Australian wealth is being sabotaged in a process called ‘managed decline’. It’s deliberate. Yet our GDP is still growing. What’s going on? Australia’s wealth is being transferred from Australians to foreign beneficiaries. The world’s predatory billionaires have used their investment funds, like BlackRock, First State, Vanguard and State Street, to buy not only shares in Australian companies but entire industries. Except for two of our insurance companies, all our insurance companies are foreign owned. 

Major retailers Coles, Woolies and Bunnings are foreign controlled. The Australian big four banks are foreign controlled, and so are our telcos and oil and gas companies. Satan’s bankers then put up prices, knowing they control the markets, so consumers become price takers. There’s no market anymore; it’s controlled. Australians working at the top of these companies take extremely high salaries—in many cases, multimillion dollar salaries—in return for compliance, and everyday Australians go backwards into poverty. 

The government is making things worse, allowing so many new arrivals that housing prices and rents are forced upwards, while quality of life and standards of living go backwards. In Sydney, median unit rents have surged 40 per cent since 2021, and Melbourne and Brisbane aren’t far behind, climbing more than 30 per cent. For low-income renters, over half now spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing—30 per cent on housing! Our prime minister went to the last election promising to leave no-one behind, knowing his policies were doing exactly the opposite. The government is now increasing spending on housing, on paid parental leave, on child care and on hiring more and more and more public servants on high wages to paper over what is a crashing economy. The government can’t use debt and money printing forever to save its backside. Debt and printing money cause their own severe economic problems and then more poverty. 

One Nation has opposed the net zero war on business investment. We have opposed the migration invasion, and we warned that these policies, combined with the red bureaucratic tape, green tape and blue United Nations tape would destroy the standard of living in our beautiful country. And it has. We bloody told you so! We have put forward solutions and practical, effective policies to solve all these challenges—proven solutions. All these issues are due to decades of dishonest Liberal-Labor uniparty policies and laws. As President John F Kennedy said: 

Our problems are man made. Therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. 

One Nation is right. 

/by

Equality Means Fairness – Not Quotas

,

At Senate Estimates, I raised key questions about workplace gender equality and family policy. I asked the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to state executive salaries — the head earns $313,000.

I highlighted to them that the agency itself has a gender pay gap in favour of women — women earn $111,746 vs men $106,141, and that 17 women hold executive roles compared to just 2 men.

My message: Equality should mean fairness and choice — not ideology or quotas.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are entirely to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Can everyone who is executive level or senior executive service at the desk state their salary please.  

Ms Wooldridge: I, as the accountable authority, have a remuneration tribunal determination, with a total remuneration of $313,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. What is a woman? It’s not a trick question.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is the agency in charge of workplace gender—  

CHAIR: No, this is a political experience here that none of us want to listen to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to be getting into figures in a minute, so I need to be sure. What is a woman?  

Ms Wooldridge: I’ll refer to our act, which does define a woman. This is the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, and it says: woman means a member of the female sex irrespective of age.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does a man who identifies as a woman count in your statistics for women—in looking at your staffing statistics, for example?  

Ms Wooldridge: I’ve defined a woman as per the act, and we apply the act in terms of the operation of our agency and our reporting.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean a man who identifies as a woman is not a woman in your staff classifications?  

Ms Wooldridge: Senator, once again, I’ll refer you to the definition under the act.  

Senator ROBERTS: In your application of that definition, is a man who claims to be a woman, identifies as a woman, listed as male or female?  

Ms Wooldridge: Perhaps it would assist to clarify that, in terms of reporting to the agency, the employers who are relevant employers—with 100 or more employees—are required to report to us every year. They are asked, for their employees, who are men and who are women. We also collect, voluntarily, data for people who identify as non-binary. So employers have those three categories on which they can report their employee data to us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Men, women and non-binary? Okay, thank you. In response to question on notice 97, you’ve reported the salary for women and men employed in your department. By the way, that figure shows that the average salary for women in your department is $111,746 and the average salary for men is $106,141. That’s a five per cent pay difference, so you have a pay gap against men.  

Ms Wooldridge: We have a gender pay gap that’s negative. That’s right.  

Senator WHITEAKER: Chair, on a point of order, I’m just not sure how the question is relevant to the work of the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not sure?  

Senator WHITEAKER: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency.  

CHAIR: Yes, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m checking to make sure they’re working—  

CHAIR: I do have a level of sympathy with Senator Whiteaker’s frustration here at what appears to be heading down an overtly political and somewhat offensive pathway. Ms Wooldridge, I would encourage you to only answer the questions that you feel to be relevant to your agency and relevant to Senate estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, what is offensive about the question I just asked? This woman is in charge of informing—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we all know where you’re going.  

Senator ROBERTS: Oh, do you? Okay, up to you.  

Ms Wooldridge: So, yes, we have a negative gender pay gap. Eight per cent of employers that report to us have a negative gender pay gap, which reflects an average total remuneration slightly higher or higher for women than men. But we do know that the vast majority of employers in Australia do have a gender pay gap in favour of men, which is a positive gender pay gap. That’s a normal calculation that we make for employers in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have 38 full-time workers and three part-time; 29 female, 11 male and one nonbinary. With your gender pay gap favouring women, doesn’t it show how ridiculous the entire concept of trying to equalise aggregate wage is?  

Ms Wooldridge: We’ve discussed before the definition of the gender pay gap. We believe that it’s a very valid measure as a proxy for gender equality. It’s used very effectively; it’s used internationally—around the world. Each individual employer has a different result, and we encourage them to reflect on their results and look at how the gender pay gap can be narrowed to ensure we have a greater equality in our workplaces.  

Senator ROBERTS: Reading your staffing breakdown, from the question on notice, you had 17 women employed at executive level or higher. I understand executive level starts at $120,000 a year. There are 17 women employed at that level and above and only two men. Is that your definition of gender equality.  

CHAIR: That could only be said by a man, right?  

Senator ROBERTS: I happen to have been educated by my mother.  

Senator Wong: Unless Ms Wooldridge wants to, I might just respond briefly, Senator. I understand you have a view about this agency. You’re entitled to that. We disagree with it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is my view, Senator Wong?  

Senator Wong: Alright, maybe you don’t have a view. I was inferring it from your questions. But could I say this: I think the proposition that, because in this one agency there are more women on high salaries than men, the gender pay gap is not relevant is a very odd one. We have ABS statistics which still show a gender pay gap of 11½ per cent. WGEA statistics, which use different methodology—I think that was the evidence before—show it in excess of 20 per cent. It’s not the only way in which we look at equality, but it does tell us something. It tells us that our daughters are likely to earn less than our sons. That’s not merit based, and there are reasons for that. Some of those reasons may be valid and some of them may not. So it is one of the ways in which we try to improve the economic equality of our society, and I would argue it’s of benefit to everybody. Yes, it benefits women, but I think it is of benefit to all of us if we work to remove those barriers to the full participation of women and men in the workplace.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would agree with you. I do agree with you, Senator Wong. In fact, I’ll pay you a compliment; I hope it’s well received. You are one of the outstanding performers in the Senate. I don’t agree with some of your policies, statements and values, but you’re one of the outstanding performers. You’re not equal to everyone else in the Senate; you’re far superior to many. That’s no doubt.  

Senator Wong: I don’t know quite what to do with this, Senator Roberts. This is probably not good for either of us!  

Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s certainly good for me, because we compliment people when they deserve it, and you deserve that recognition. My mother told me the sad mistake is for women to claim they’re equal, because in many ways women are far, superior to men—far, far superior. That’s on the record.  

Senator Wong: There you go.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we need to wrap up.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not just because my party leader’s a female.  

CHAIR: I will just advise you that we’re going to break for lunch in two minutes, Senator Roberts. Those two minutes are all yours.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The replacement family rate is on average 2.2 babies per couple. That inevitably leads to women being out of work for pregnancy just so we don’t go extinct in our species. What adjustment do you make to calculations to account for the fact that we do need to have babies and it’s a good thing, or Australia goes extinct?  

Ms Wooldridge: The gender pay gap is calculated by looking at average salaries between men and women in an employer, in an industry or in the nation as a whole. One of the things we do know, though, is that a very significant portion of the gender pay gap is attributable to the time women take out of the workforce to care for family and responsibilities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Ms Wooldridge: So the gender pay gap is reflective of that, but there are many things that employers can do to minimise the impact of that time out of the workplace in order to encourage women who need to, or want to, to be able to engage with work as well as manage caring responsibilities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Acknowledging what you just said, Ms Woolridge, isn’t it true that, for the gender pay gap to be completely erased, we have to either stop women having babies or have them work the day before and the day they give birth?  

Ms Wooldridge: I disagree with you, Senator. In fact, there are many employers who do have zero gender pay gap and who are able to create that equal and fair experience at work. But we do acknowledge that, yes, there are some aspects of the gender pay gap that are attributable to the time out of the workforce, and I think we’re aspiring to minimise the gender pay gap so that those inequalities at work are removed and people do have an equal experience.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, Chair.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we are going to wrap up now, because we’re already running late. I can come back to you after the break if required.  

Senator Wong: We’d be happy with one more question.  

CHAIR: Just one?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It’s for the minister, and I thank you, Minister. Mothering is the nation’s most important job. The critical years for formation of both character and intellect are from birth to six, and the mother shapes that enormously. Granted, for some couples, the mother works and the father stays home or whatever. That’s a choice. Women and men deserve choice. The tax system eliminates choice, and mass immigration drives down wages. What are your view on income splitting as a policy to adopt?  

Senator Wong: That is probably not for this group, but the government is supportive of a progressive taxation system. We are also supportive of putting in place policies that contribute to stronger families and parenting. You have seen support for parents. You’ve seen what we’ve done in the areas of health, child care and education.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, from a personal perspective, as a single mother, I had an extraordinarily flexible employer. I must say it does make a fundamental difference to your life to have an employer who understands the value of giving you space to bring up your children and equally deliver on your responsibilities at work.  

Senator ROBERTS: Of course, and an enlightened employer hires people of all kinds of backgrounds for that very reason. 

/by

Driving Real Change in NDIS Fraud Prevention

,

When I look at the NDIS and NDIA, I see a system full of contradictions—balancing fraud prevention with accessibility has been a challenge since its inception. In this Estimates session, I focused on fraud and the work of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. I raised concerns about the gap between over 7,000 tip-offs in the June 2024 quarter and only 16 prosecutions. While I understand investigations are complex, that disparity is striking. Officials explained that not every tip-off is valid; many are misunderstandings or even malicious.

Since November 2022, the taskforce has achieved over 300 compliance outcomes, including bans and revocations, and significantly increased enforcement activity. They highlight that prosecutions are a slow and unreliable metric, pointing instead to indicators such as 35 warrants executed in the first four months of this year—a twelvefold increase from previous years. Custodial sentences and asset seizures have occurred in cases involving millions of dollars and dozens of properties, including seizure orders on 33 houses and multiple vehicles. These results demonstrate that serious fraud is being tackled, even if the full impact takes time to show.

Mr Dardo stressed that success should not be measured by debts, prosecutions, or raids, but by prevention. The Crack Down on Fraud program focuses on identity verification, stronger evidence requirements, and advanced data analytics to detect risks early. These measures aim to make compliance easy and fraud difficult, safeguarding participants and ensuring sustainability. While prosecution remains a tool, the ultimate goal is to reduce fraud so effectively that legal action becomes rare. A recent survey revealed that 899 out of roughly 1,000 plan managers showed indicators of potential fraud, underscoring the need for these preventive systems.

I commend this approach because it makes sense: prevention first, enforcement when necessary. Still, some people will always try to bypass safeguards, and the scale of fraud remains daunting. Australians deserve confidence that the NDIS is fair, secure, and sustainable. We must continue improving systems while maintaining transparency and accountability. Striking the right balance—protecting participants while cracking down on fraud—is critical, and I will keep pressing for progress on both fronts.

The agency appears to be delivering every milestone of its Crack Down on Fraud program on time and under budget, with independent audits and ANAO oversight ensuring accountability. That level of scrutiny and systems uplift is encouraging, but the journey is far from over.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here today. I have some questions. It’s very much a contradictory set of questions. I have questions about fraud and questions about how to make more people eligible. The whole NDIS, NDIA, seems to be full of contradictions, from the moment it started back in 2010 or whenever it was.  Could I ask questions about the Fraud Fusion Taskforce first, please. I have some NDIS data—I’m not sure exactly where it came from, but it’s from within the NDIS—that says that for the June 2024 quarter there were over 7,000 tip-offs, but only 16 prosecutions for fraud. Why has the taskforce achieved only 16 prosecutions in a quarter despite 7,000 tip-offs? Can you explain the gap? And I’m not pretending that it’s easy. 

Mr Dardo: The tip-offs that we receive may be treated through a range of mechanisms. It might be that we look at them and we’re able to engage with a provider or a participant and deal with them through education. The tip-off may require us to implement some sort of prepayment review where we would nudge a person to give us some evidence before we make a payment, and maybe we would do a post-payment review, a historic review. It may be that we do a more serious administrative compliance intervention and it may be that we implement manual payment reviews where we stop payments until we receive evidence for each claim. In the most extreme cases, we may revert to a criminal investigation and/or prosecution. It’s really important to note that there’s a spectrum of treatments, depending on the severity of the tip-off and the efficacy of the tip-off. In some cases, we look at the tip-off and it’s actually a misunderstanding, and there’s no substance underneath it that requires an intervention. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, the tip-off itself is wrong? 

Mr Dardo: It might be wrong, or it might be a misunderstanding. In some cases, it’s malicious—somebody having a go at someone else. So, it’s really important that, while we do measure tip-offs and while we have put in enormous programming to improve the way we capture, understand and process tip-offs, the volume of tip-offs alone does not indicate the requirement for a prosecution. While I am talking about tip-offs, once upon a time tip-offs used to be captured, effectively, on a spreadsheet. We have put in a range of system improvements to make the tip-offs more able to be captured in a codified way. So, whether it’s through the call centre or through our online systems, they’re able to be captured in a way where we can code and then analyse the content of the tip-offs. The beauty of that is that, as the volumes have increased—and they are increasing; they continue to increase—we’re more able to run  analytics over the top of them and understand whether the tip-off relates to previous tip-offs or previous treatments or previous risks, then cluster them or group them with associated intelligence or associated treatments. The systems continue to improve by the week, but I don’t want you to assume that every tip-off is going to lead to a prosecution. That would never be the case.  

Ms Myers: As members of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce who work very closely with the NDIA, since November 2022, we have executed over 306 compliance outcomes, including 179 banning orders, 38 revocations of registration and 89 other regulatory outcomes. So, in addition to the prosecutions undertaken, there have been a number of regulatory actions taken. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, restrictions have been imposed and bans et cetera. 

Ms Glanville: I think the really important piece of this is that it’s a very collaborative arrangement between the NDIA and the commission as well as other enforcement agencies. The development and growth of that, I think, has been particularly positive for being able to identify—better analyse, as Mr Dardo was saying—and understand what are the best actions that can be taken to address whatever is the nefarious or other action that has occurred. I think that’s a really important part of this process as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, it is a big issue to you, the NDIS and NDIA. 

Ms Glanville: To the commission and the agency, yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s also a matter of restrictions, but I’ll go to total prosecutions and convictions for NDIS fraud. How many since the taskforce was established? 

Mr Dardo: I think, again, it’s really important that we step back. It’s a metric that has a significant lag effect. 

Senator ROBERTS: Due to the court system plus the investigation? 

Mr Dardo: Yes. You may start something and there may be interventions that are lower-level interventions or they may rapidly escalate. Before search warrants are executed—in some cases it’s very, very fast. It could be weeks or a month. In some cases it takes longer. But, even after search warrants are executed, sometimes there’s a charge on the day, sometimes there’s a court attendance notice, and sometimes it takes another six to 12 months to get to a charge and then to get in front of the courts. In some cases we’re seeing cases not getting in front of the courts for several years.  So can I just flag that the number of prosecutions is not a number that’s a great indicator of the level of activity that is occurring, and it’s certainly not a number that reflects the enormous collaborative effort that’s occurring across the agencies. Our colleagues at the commission have been phenomenal in partnering with us, as have been a number of other agencies—Services Australia and the tax office and so on. So sometimes the interventions are actually better administered by other agencies or in partnership with other agencies. If you want something that’s a more indicative number of activity at that sharp end, like the activity that you’re trying to get to, at the very tip of the iceberg—just in the first four calendar months of this year, we did 35 warrants. That’s more than were done in four whole years before the taskforce was established, and that was just in the first four months. So, if you’re looking for an indicator of sharp activity, we’re talking a 12-fold increase in activity in a taskforce. And that doesn’t even scratch the surface of the things that happen underneath investigations—the interventions that are going on.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s pretty daunting. I don’t know if it was you—I think it may have been you—who, a year or so ago, told us that you were overwhelmed and that the court system would not handle it.  

Mr Dardo: It’s really important to note—and I’ve said this a number of times on the record in this house—that debts, prosecutions and raids are the wrong metrics for a successful system. What we really are trying to build through all our big investments is how you prevent those bad things from happening. If you look at the big system investments we’re making, they’re trying to figure out how you make it easy for people to get it right and really hard for them to get it wrong. That means that all the people trying to do the right thing, which is the majority, are having a better experience. It’s more streamlined, it’s easier for them to get paid the right amount, and they’re less likely to get themselves into a misunderstanding and less likely to be abused by a non-compliant provider. That upfront prevention is, overwhelmingly, our mission. Everything we’re building in the Crack Down on Fraud program is about building prevention upfront so that you can safeguard participants and get sustainability—whether it be improving the identity systems for the people that log in, which we’ve delivered; whether it be improving the identity systems for the providers, which we’ve now delivered; whether it be improving the evidence requirements for claiming so we’re more confident people are getting it right, which we have partially delivered and continue to improve; whether it be building a data analytics system that allows all that data to be pooled together so we can identify risks and stop at prepayment where we can; or whether it be working with our partners to have those risk detections so that we can identify problematic providers and exit them from the system at the earliest opportunity. All those things that prevent bad things happening have to be the focus. You’ll never get rid of the need to raise debt or prosecute; that will always be something in the arsenal. We will need to be good at it, but it should be the last resort. You would hope whoever replaces me in two or three or four years time is sitting here, saying, ‘Actually, we only had to do five prosecutions because the systems work so well that we didn’t have to prosecute.’ 

Senator ROBERTS: What you’re saying makes perfect sense. Nonetheless, some people will deliberately bypass just about everything. 

Mr Dardo: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Deliberately.  Have there been any custodial sentences handed out? 

Mr Dardo: There have been, absolutely. Not only have there been custodial sentences; there have also been successful confiscations of assets. There are people that have gone to jail and are serving custodial time. There are people we’ve grabbed $4 million or $5 million worth of assets from. We have cases in progress right now where we’ve worked with partners, whether it be state or federal, to put seizure orders on, in one case, 33 houses and three cars. Let me emphasise: that was a provider. Custodial is in the toolset, but remember: custodial has got to be an outcome from the courts. We don’t get— 

Senator ROBERTS: Which can take months and months. 

Mr Dardo: It can take years. At the end of the day, the court makes the decision about custodial. We put our best case in the brief, the CDPP puts the best case in front of the courts, and the courts make the decision. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again on the record: what you’re saying makes perfect sense. I commend you for that. I don’t know whether you’re doing a good job or not, but it sounds like the right approach to me. 

CHAIR: How much more time do you need, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: Probably five minutes, please, Chair. 

CHAIR: Okay, no problem. 

Senator ROBERTS: My subsequent questions are not really necessary because of the comprehensiveness of your answer. 

CHAIR: Can you put them on notice then? Is that what you mean? That’s a no. 

Senator ROBERTS: Apparently, you stated that a survey showed 90 per cent of a group of plan managers exhibited signs of fraud. 

Mr Dardo: Absolutely. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many of those cases have been referred for criminal prosecution? 

Mr Dardo: That was a discussion that I’m pretty sure we had in a previous Senate estimates. It was a particular subset of plan managers, so it wasn’t every plan manager. It was the plan managers that had between zero and 100 clients. I know that sounds weird, but you can have zero clients because you had clients and you’re not claiming for them right now. There were roughly a thousand plan managers with between zero and 100 clients in that sample, and about 899, to be exact, at the time we did the analysis had indicators that we would think are associated with potentially fraudulent behaviour. Again, there are a range of interventions that we’ve applied there. In some cases we have put prepayment reviews on them, where they can’t be paid unless they provide evidence for their claims. If those prepayment reviews turn up and provide evidence that’s problematic—we look at it and we go, ‘That looks like you’re falsifying your invoices, claiming for things that are not remotely connected to the scheme or claiming for participants that are not getting a service’—then we will work with the commission to remove them from the scheme. That’s an intervention that may or may not go to a prosecution. The other intervention we’ve applied is that we’ve made requests for information for historic claiming and we’ve gone back and looked at their historic claiming. We’ve just done another sample of 47 where the majority of those have problematic claims, so either we’ve referred them to the commission for banning or we have removed their ability to claim from us. We’re working through those.  In some cases we executed search warrants with our partner agencies. In one case, we, the commission, the tax office and some other regulators targeted the plan manager. We got access through a search warrant, a tax debt was raised, and there were banning orders from the commission and other regulators to remove them from multiple schemes. That case may proceed to prosecution, and we’ll work our way through it. In that case, debts were also raised from multiple agencies.  So there’s a spectrum of treatments. We are not going to prosecute every single plan manager that we said had fraud indicators, and there may be some where we look at them and we go, ‘The fraud indicators are there, but they didn’t lead to anything.’ 

Senator ROBERTS: Final question—how will you know you’re being effective, and how will we know you’re being effective? How will we know when fraud is out of the NDIA? 

Mr Dardo: Fraud will never be completely out of the NDIA, just like it’s never out of any scheme. There will always be a level of it that just exists. You have to continue to innovate because it’s an arms race to stay ahead. 

Senator ROBERTS: But, right now, the stories are rife. 

Mr Dardo: They are. It’s about continuing that work for prevention. That has to be the overwhelming focus. 

Senator ROBERTS: How will we know if Mr Dardo has done a good job? It sounds good. I’m not being patronising. I sincerely mean that. It sounds good. What you’re saying makes perfect sense in managing the process. It is what very few managers understand. How will we know that the process has good outcomes? 

Mr Dardo: The first time I came here representing this agency, I sat in this room, and we rattled off the half a-dozen things that needed to be built out as capabilities. We talked about the vulnerabilities in the scheme and about identity, the way claiming was working and the way providers were interacting. We rattled those things off.  When we sat down and imagined the program of work that addressed those things, which government funded, that program of work clearly articulated those layers of capability that needed to be built and delivered. You build 

the foundations, and then you’ve got to keep building. But we laid that out as a program of work called the Crackdown on Fraud program—the systems uplift. That systems uplift was funded by government. In February 2024, it commenced. We delivered every single milestone in that program of work between February 2024 and now, on time and under budget. Let me rephrase that slightly—within the timeframes that we promised we would build it. We started two months later than we said we would, so a couple of things have finished a couple of months later than we said they would. But it was built within the timeframe we said we would build it.  One indicator for you that we’re doing a proper job is we are building those layers of defence on time, and, as they go into production, we can actually see that we’re stopping things from happening that used to happen or that used to be completely invisible. We are now more confident that some of those things we promised would be there are there. The journey is not finished; we’ve got a long way to go. But it’s about how we deliver on those promised uplifts so that the system is less likely to be open to abuse by those who want to abuse it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you include in that an audit of the systems, to make sure the systems are working as you say? 

Mr Dardo: I can assure you that we’ve got eyes—not just our eyes but everyone else’s eyes—on it. The ANAO comes and looks at us and makes sure that we’re actually building what we said we were going to build and building it on time. The Department of Finance gateway reviewers come and look at us and say: ‘You promised this. Did you build it? Has it been delivered on time?’ So, there is an enormous amount of independent assurers coming and looking at what we promised for the money that we got and whether we’ve built it to the standard that we said we would. In addition to that, we’ve got independent assurers that work on the program with us who write reports for government about whether we’ve delivered what we said we would on time and on budget. The scrutiny is impeccable. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Thanks, Chair. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/by

The NACC: Big Budget, Small Results

,

Since its inception in July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has spent over $140 million of taxpayer money. Yet, despite having more powers and more staff than its predecessor, the results so far are underwhelming: just one conviction, two simple investigations, and ten historical cases carried over from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. That’s a staggering cost for such limited outcomes.

I acknowledge that corruption investigations are complex and take time—but Australians deserve transparency and accountability, especially when such vast sums are being spent. The fact that the Commissioner won’t front up to answer questions only raises more concerns. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being used, and I’ll keep asking the hard questions until we get the answers.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Since being established in July 2023, the NACC has spent north of $140 million of taxpayer funds. Correct me if I’m wrong, but with more powers and more staff this time, the NACC has concluded one prosecution, 10 historical investigations from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, two NACC initiated simple investigations, with one conviction—is that correct? 

Mr Reed: At the moment— 

Senator ROBERTS: One hundred and forty million. 

Mr Reed: the commission has 38 corruption investigations underway, and 12 of those are joint investigations. We’ve got 33 preliminary investigations, which are part of the assessment process. We finalised 10 investigations, nine when it became clear that corrupt conduct would not be found and one where a corruption finding was made in a report provided to the minister, which is one of the matters that I put in my opening address. We’ve assessed 5,103 referrals. That’s 84 per cent of the 6,055 that have come in. So the NACC is a very busy organisation. The investigations of corrupt conduct are complex. They take time, and any organisation like this will take more than two years, usually, to complete investigations. What I said in my opening address was that, as the commission enters this next phase—this third year of operations—complex investigations will reach completion, and the commission’s operational achievements will gradually become more visible. That’s the reality of a new organisation picking up a significant workload, picking up a workload from a predecessor organisation and having to complete that work at the same time as dealing with the referrals that have come through. It’s not a straightforward, simple exercise, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. 

Mr Reed: These are complex matters. 

Senator ROBERTS: But $140 million in two years, plus a commissioner who won’t front and be held accountable to taxpayers, raises many questions. 

Mr Reed: The annual appropriations are on the record. They were agreed to as part of the forward estimates before the NACC commenced. We’re still recruiting people into roles. The fact that the commissioner is not here is not a lack of accountability; it’s the accountable authority that you’ve got sitting in this chair, and it’s the accountable authority who is expected to be at estimates. I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with the commissioner not being here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/1 Comment/by

Lyme Disease Denial in Australia

,

During this Estimates session, I raised questions regarding the management of Lyme Disease. Unfortunately, my concerns appeared to fall on deaf ears. I was repeatedly told the same narrative—that there is no evidence of Lyme Disease existing in Australia—and it was evident that the so-called “experts” had no interest in exploring this issue further.

There was no substantive response to my request for a comprehensive epidemiological study to be done on tick-borne diseases, nor was there any acknowledgment given of the many individuals living with poorly diagnosed and inadequately treated tick-related illnesses.

The remainder of my questions will be submitted on notice, with the hope of receiving detailed and meaningful responses.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to build on questions from earlier tonight and turn to Lyme disease. For several decades, the risk of harm from tick-borne diseases has been recorded, published, reported and presented to the department of health and the ministers’ offices and advisers at the time. Some of this has even been done through the government’s own infectious disease bulletins. Doctors are verifying Lyme disease—we’ve heard that anecdotally—in Australia. I’m going to talk later about epidemiological studies and records that the department has. In the meantime, could you please specify the dates and events when evidence of the harm of tick-borne diseases has been presented to the department and the actions that have been undertaken to protect Australians historically. You can take it on notice if you like.

Ms Quilty: We’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge that in 2016 and 2025 we had very limited Senate inquiries into Lyme disease and tick-borne diseases. The terms of reference were very vague and the recommendations were vague. I’m going to ask about the implementation. But at least the term ‘tick-borne diseases’ was recognised. We still don’t know the full extent and the nature of the entire tick-borne disease problem. Why haven’t these tick-borne disease infections been quantified with a study of the population in the form of a human epidemiological study? There are a lot of people suffering.

Senator Green: We’ve answered quite a lot of these questions before.

Senator ROBERTS: Not these exact—

Senator Green: No, but a study has been done. Anyway, I’ll let the officials answer. We’re just going back over—

Senator ROBERTS: Has an epidemiological study been done?

Senator Green: Not one of those types, but—

Ms Quilty: I’m happy to be corrected, but we’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: As far as you know, no studies have been done epidemiologically.

Ms Quilty: Not that I’m aware of.

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the Public Health Laboratory Network’s own diagnosis data being ignored with these diseases when they hold the results of thousands of test results for tickborne disease?

Mr Martin: I’m not aware of the data you refer to being withheld. Some of the tickborne diseases are notifiable, and we do collect information on those. I think one of the challenges is that there are a range of conditions which patients believe may be caused by ticks but, as I’ve mentioned in an earlier answer, there’s not necessarily evidence that the pathogen that would cause that disease is present in Australia. I think that it’s challenging to collect information where we don’t have that causal pathway—

Senator ROBERTS: Have you been given or have you collected samples?

Mr Martin: Samples of?

Senator ROBERTS: Infection.

Mr Martin: There are established diagnostic tests for different tickborne diseases.

Mr Comley: I think the evidence that was tendered earlier was that the bacteria that cause the Lyme disease have not been detected in Australia. It’s not that there aren’t people who contract it overseas and come here. There is also evidence that there are other tickborne diseases that are present in Australia, but not Lyme disease—for the bacteria that’s required to be the cause of the disease.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again: I don’t understand the exact health system, but why is the Public Health Laboratory Network’s own diagnosis data being ignored with these diseases when they hold the results for thousands of tests for tickborne disease? Why is that being an ignored? What’s been done with it? What’s going to be done with it?

Mr Comley: I think we’re struggling to describe which laboratories you are talking about. Can you provide evidence of that. We’re happy to take on notice whether there is any evidence of that effect in Australia. I think the evidence tendered earlier in this estimate session was that there wasn’t such evidence in Australia, but we’re happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m told that there is evidence held by the Public Laboratory Network’s own data.

Mr Comley: We’ll take that on notice, unless the CMO would like to comment.

Prof. Kidd: Senator, there is evidence of tickborne infectious diseases that people have contracted in Australia. There are a number of those infections which are recorded, for which people are tested: some of the Rickettsial infections, Queensland tick typhus, Flinders Island spotted fever, Australian spotted fever, Q fever—due to Coxiella burnetii. There’s data on each of these particular tickborne diseases, which will be in our laboratory systems and which are brought together. The issue about Lyme disease—we’ve talked about that before.

Senator ROBERTS: I am told that hospitals have discharge records, with some stating tickborne illness, Lyme disease, Babesia, rickets, Bartonella et cetera, yet accurate and reliable testing for all these diseases in Australia does not occur. Are you able to provide a quantification of this? This is a public health threat.

Prof. Kidd: I think we’ll need to take that on notice from the PHLN.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand. Why can’t the study of this data for all vector-borne diseases—as part of the responsibility of the Department of Health from the 2016 Senate inquiry—be done to complete an epidemiological study? Can you take that on notice?

Ms Quilty: Yes, we have.

Mr Martin: We can. I think it might take me a moment to find it, but I think the government’s response to the most recent inquiry—

Senator ROBERTS: It’s very vague.

Mr Martin: It does go into the feasibility of—it is not feasible, necessarily, to collect data on everyone who may have been bitten by a tick in Australia. We do have a system around notifiable diseases, where that is nationally collected and reported upon for particular pathogens. I can take it on notice and provide further information on some of those practicalities.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got readily available tickborne disease testing panels in Australia for livestock and domestic animals, especially for exports, I’m told. We don’t want to hurt people overseas. Veterinarians know that sometimes it’s necessary for animals that are sick with tickborne disease to be put down. The question raised is: are we doing nothing about humans? Are we going to start putting humans down? That’s pretty far-fetched, of course, but I’m saying that there are lots and lots of people who are sick and crippled a bit and nothing seems to be done.

Senator Green: I understand, but perhaps you could put a question to the officials that they can answer for you.

Senator ROBERTS: On my frustration.

Senator Green: You can express your frustration in the Senate chamber next year.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t have Lyme disease, but I know people who have, and I know people who’ve got tickborne diseases, and there’s been no epidemiological study done. This has been going on for decades.

Senator Green: I understand. There have been inquiries, responses to those inquiries and the officials have answered your questions.

Senator ROBERTS: I know you, Senator Green. You would not be proud of the studies that have been done in the 2016 Senate inquiry.

Senator Green: I’m very aware of the inquiries. I know that a lot of good senators from this place have been involved in those inquiries and have taken evidence from people who are affected, and the government’s responded to those inquiries.

Senator ROBERTS: I say again: why can’t the study of this data for all vector-borne diseases be part of the responsibility of the department of health and be done to complete an epidemiological study? You’ve taken that on notice.

Senator Green: We’ve taken that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’m early this time.

CHAIR: You are early this time. I’m very grateful for that. Senator Liddle.

/1 Comment/by

Blood on Their Hands: Victims Still Wait for Answers

,

At Estimates, I asked Professor Adriana Platona why the Australian Government and CSL took the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilia patients to receive a product that would likely infect them with Hepatitis C – as it later became known as. That question was left unanswered.

I asked why, even after safer 80-degree heat-treated products were available in the UK from 1985 for both Factor VIII and Factor IX, Australia continued to allow hepatitis-infected factor concentrates to be used—until 1990 for Factor VIII and 1993 for Factor IX. That question, along with five others, was taken on notice.

I made it clear: a Royal Commission is warranted. The government has failed to deliver justice to victims, unlike the toothless 2004 inquiry that achieved nothing.

Victims of this scandal deserve answers. They deserve to know why they were infected.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll start with the National Blood Authority and tainted blood. These questions are from constituents. In the UK, from 1985, factor concentrates began to be heat-treated at 80 degrees for 72 hours. That’s in Britain. Australia, though, chose to go with an alternative heat treatment method of 60 degrees for 72 hours, which at the time was considered to be a method to inactivate HIV, although it was noted that it was not likely that the 60-degree method of heat treatment would inactivate Non-A, Non-B hepatitis, which came to be known as hepatitis C. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories take the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilia patients to receive a product that would likely infect them with Non-A, Non-B hepatitis—hepatitis C?

Professor Platona: Thank you, Senator, for your question. Australia has one of the safest blood systems in the world, and the testing for hepatitis C and HIV was introduced in Australia much sooner than it was in the UK. So the situation between Australia and the UK is not comparable. In 2004, there was an extensive inquiry into hepatitis C and the blood supply in Australia. Many of the questions that you have raised were discussed extensively around April 2004. People have provided submissions, testimonials. There was an extensive inquiry at the time. Many of these issues were discussed extensively at the time.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor. We’ll get to those points in a minute. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—by the way, you didn’t answer my question as to why the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories took the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilic patients to receive a product that would likely infect them. So I’ll move on to the second question. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—and these questions, by the way, are from people who have had their lives damaged seriously—continue to allow patients to receive hepatitis infected factor concentrates, all the way up until 1990 for factor 8 and, unbelievably, 1993 for factor 9, when the UK were receiving the safer 80-degree treated product for both factor 8 and factor 9 concentrates since 1985? So we were five years behind and eight years behind.

Professor Platona: That is not my understanding of the fact. I would be very happy to check those facts for you and provide that on notice, with reference to the material submitted in 2004.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve got five questions on notice in the interest of speed. Minister, these questions relate to events that occurred long ago—I acknowledge that—yet they still impact and kill victims today. There are people with their lives damaged seriously. That’s precisely why we need a royal commission into what occurred. The government cannot produce the answers that the victims deserve. These people are deeply upset, deservedly so—not deservedly so, but rightly so. We need a thorough investigation where people are compelled to give evidence and answer questions under oath, unlike the 2004 Senate inquiry which has been described as a toothless inquiry by prominent lawyer Des Collins, who was heavily involved in the UK infected blood inquiry. We don’t accept the 2004 Senate inquiry. Minister, don’t you think the victims of this scandal deserve answers as to what occurred and why they were infected?

Senator Green: I don’t think that’s an appropriate question that I can answer for you other than to say that the constituents’ issues that you raise continually in this committee are valid and that the officials have provided you, I think, very reasonable and factual advice. I don’t have any information that I can give you other than what the officials have given you. You’re very entitled to come here and advocate for your constituents and their concerns, but I don’t have any other advice I can give you.

/by

A Simple Step Toward Safer Immunisation

,

FOI requests, and the information they reveal, are an important element of Senate Estimates. In the past, a reference to the FOI number would prompt a staff member to appear with the relevant information to enable discussion. At the start of my question, a staff member approached the table with their laptop open—most likely with the FOI document displayed—so that system still exists. Nonetheless, Professor Lawler avoided discussing the FOI.

Some Senators provide their questions in advance so the FOI can be ready, however this also gives the witness time to prepare an evasive answer and removes the possibility of an unguarded admission. The point of my question was simple: the TGA’s own guidelines—which the FOI meeting notes confirmed—state that single-use medicines and vaccines should not contain preservatives. That unguarded admission is exactly what I was referring to. Professor Lawler stated that preservatives relate to multi-dose vaccines, not single-dose vaccines.

This is the argument I will make moving forward. At the last Estimates, I reviewed data that clearly linked preservatives in vaccines with autism. Single-use vaccines do not contain preservatives (or should not). Why don’t we immediately return to administering vaccines in single-use doses that are certified and tested as preservative and contaminant free? Then we can monitor autism cases in real time.

Many mothers have told me their child’s autism began the day after their shots. This approach would quickly show us whether there is a link in the real world. Let’s take a simple, immediate step to address this issue, and then conduct a full review of vaccine safety and efficacy.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I reference freedom of information 26-2122, released 30 September 2025. It’s weirdly specific: the minutes of the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. I think
that’s part of the TGA. Is that correct?

Mr Comley: That sounds to me like PBAC.

Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify which committee you referenced?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes: the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. They’ll be coming to the TGA pretty soon.

Prof. Lawler: No. We have a number of advisory committees, but we don’t have an advisory committee on prescriptions. We have an advisory committee on medicines and an advisory committee on vaccines.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps if I give you the question you might be able to tell me. Held on 24 March 2015 and regarding the matter of preservatives in single-use injections, the meeting concluded:
… single-use injections should be preservative-free.
… if an ingredient is added for a reason other than use as a preservative, then the sponsor should provide scientific justification for inclusion at that concentration. Is this guideline still current?

Prof. Lawler: I must admit I don’t have that document in front of me, so I’m finding it hard to respond to that on the fly.

Senator ROBERTS: You can take it on notice.

Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to do that. The best I can take it is that we look to preservatives predominantly for multi-use vials because, obviously, there’s a period between them being used first—but I’m happy to take that on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like the answer to the question, ‘Is this guideline still current?’ is correct, but I’m not going to hold it to you. Thank you for that. The next questions, possibly also on notice, are: have you
allowed any single-use injection product to contain preservatives, and were all of those approvals compliant with your own guidelines?

Prof. Lawler: Again, given the first question, I’m happy to respond to that on notice, if that’s alright.

Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the list of any that were approved. If you have allowed single-use injections to contain preservatives, why did you make the change to allow preservatives when your expert
committee opposed the idea?

Prof. Lawler: My understanding is that the committee you’re referencing—what was the date of the—

Senator ROBERTS: It was 24 March 2015—probably before your time.

Prof. Lawler: It was well before my time. That is an older committee. I think, in the interest of providing you with a comprehensive response, we’d be happy to roll those up into one response, if that’s alright.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know if it’s still current.

Prof. Lawler: Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know this too: Which multidose vaccines contain preservatives? Have you obtained safety data to show those preservatives are safe at the levels used?

Prof. Lawler: There are a number of branches across the TGA and also, potentially, ATAGI to which those questions apply.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

Dr Pengilley: To the best of my knowledge, the only use of preservatives in multi-use vials is for pandemic vaccines, and that, at the moment, is the influenza ones; COVID, just for clarity, doesn’t contain preservatives.
We haven’t—

Senator ROBERTS: It does or doesn’t contain—

Dr Pengilley: Does not. I probably can’t go into applications we have and haven’t had, but, as far as I know, we haven’t registered a preservative-containing pandemic vaccine—say, an H5N1 vaccine.

/by

One Nation, One Law

,

Senator Watt has circulated an edited version of my exchange with the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, which omits a large part of the discussion. This is the full exchange.

I asked the new Islamophobia Envoy about a report he delivered to the Government a few months ago which, in One Nation’s view, whitewashed Islamic terrorism and Sharia Law, while advocating for the suppression of criticism under the guise of stamping out Islamophobia. We have seen how this same approach in the UK has resulted in 65 Sharia law courts and the development of a parallel society between Islamic and Christian citizens—where criticism of Christianity is permitted, but criticism of Islam is not.

The Envoy lectures on Sharia Law at the University of Technology, so he should be well aware of its provisions and its incompatibility with Australian and Western civilisation.

One Nation will oppose Sharia Law and the development of parallel societies within Australia.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript (Draft)

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Malik for appearing on notice.  Could you please tell me how many staff you have?  What is your annual budget and how much of that budget did you report titled A National Response to Islamophobia cost? 

Senator Shoebridge: Good luck with that. 

Mr Malik: So in regards to budget, I can take that on notice. I don’t have that at hand.  In regards to staff, I began recruitment for my own staff from my office once the federal election results have been made clear. Up until that point I have been using or utilising the support of the Envoy Support team.   
Home Affairs did however provide me two staff full time staff, one of them is an office manager and the other is a communication Support officer. So they have been dedicated towards me, supporting me in social media, website management, proofreading, graphic design, printing and basically ensuring that my day to day affairs are in order. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you how many staff do you expect to have? 

Mr Malik: I have recruited for five staff.  I’m hoping to close.  I’m finalising interviews for the final member of staff. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, thank you.  Your report, a national response to Islamophobia, does not mention Sharia yet.   Sharia law, should it be allowed in Australia, would replace Australian law, Australian courts, police and governance.  How can you talk about opposition to Islam without addressing the elephant in the room? 

Mr Malik: Sharia law?  I don’t believe it is an elephant in the room.  I mean, my role is to understand the reverse of that.  My role is to understand what have been the impacts of the past 25 years upon Muslim communities who are facing the brunt of discrimination, marginalisation, exclusion.  And so my job is to really understand that the question you raise is, is a good question because it highlights the misconception around Sharia law.  A statement I made in the House of Parliament at the end of July was that when people talk about Sharia law, it’s always good to ask them what do they mean by Sharia law.  So there tends to be different understandings of Sharia law.  And I further said that most Muslims would be, would be difficult for them to address one of the principles of one of the five principles of Sharia law.  So, a good question which highlights a challenge and which I hope to address in the coming months. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your report – thank you.  Your report does not include a definition of Islamophobia, but then makes more than 50 recommendations to solve the thing you haven’t defined.  How can you call for extensive legislation and a large bureaucracy to combat something you can’t or don’t define? 

Mr Malik: So the report does address that on the first page.  It’s 54 recommendations.  And there’s an argument amongst academics to how to define this term called Islamophobia.  What academics are not disagreeing about are the impacts of this prejudice or hatred or racism.  And one of the things I wanted to avoid is to avoid falling into the pits that Great Britain has fallen in and that is an annual conversation around the definition of Islamophobia masks all along the repercussions of this phenomenon of being ill advised or not being addressed.  And so what I do say however, is in the Commission of inquiry I do ask whether or not Australia requires a definition of Islamophobia in the Australian context and whether that will hinder or progress the cause. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Mr Malik’s report does not accept that people who may have a legitimate concern about Islam.  For instance, the report does not mention ISIS, al Qaeda, nor does it mention that the latest briefing provided by the provided to the Senate by the ASIO Director General Mike Burgess showed 25 of Australia’s 29 prescribed terrorist organisations are Islamic based organisations.   
It seems that he’s simply redefining a factual and logical and genuine concern about Islamic terrorism as Islamophobia.  Minister, how would measures designed to combat Islamophobia differ from measures to combat anti Semitism or the growing anti Christian hate coming from the hard left?  Surely the words and actions directed to one group or the other would not differ in their legal implications. 

Minister Watt:  Well, Senator Roberts told you …  

Mr Malik: … 

Minister Watt: I think that question was to me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, it was. 

Minister Watt: Senator Roberts, I haven’t followed the work of either special envoy terribly closely. I’ve certainly followed media reporting of the work that both special envoys have done and I think that’s really valuable work at a time when social cohesion is deeply at risk in Australia because of the activities and language of a range of extreme groups in the community.  And the last time I looked, Mr Aftab’s role was to advocate for the needs of Muslim Australians, particularly in the face of gross Islamophobia that has been going on in our country.  Just as Miss Siegel has been engaged to advocate for the needs of Jewish Australians at a time when we are seeing gross anti Semitism in our country.  And I would encourage you and other members of your party to think about that Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, all of the three: anti-Christian, anti-Semitism and anti-Islamophobia are religion-based hate.  They’re not anti-religion. 

Chair: Thank you. 

Minister Watt: I don’t really know what point you’re making … 

Senator ROBERTS: I know you don’t. 

Minister Watt: But I have to answer questions from you and your colleagues on a regular basis in the Senate chamber, which I would describe as Islamophobic.  So I would I would encourage you to think very carefully about the sorts of questions and sorts of statements that you and your colleagues make in the public domain at a time when we are seeing social cohesion under threat and when we are seeing at a time when we are seeing the rise of neo Nazis and other extremists with whom you sometimes associate.  And you should think about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: False. 

Chair: Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS: I do not associate with neo-Nazis. 

Minister Watt: ??? experience. 

Senator ROBERTS: But let me tell you.  You make comments about – let me tell you my comments are about pro Australia.  I put Australia first -pro Australia. 

Minister Watt: Well, you have your view of what Australia is … 

Senator ROBERTS: We want unity.    

Minister Watt: And it’s out of step with the majority of Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: My party’s name is One Nation because we believe in unity. 

Chair: OK, I am going to rotate the call. 

/2 Comments/by

Bigger than the Burqa

,

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.

They called it ‘a stunt’.

They being the hypocritical globalists in the Senate, the media mouthpieces waiting at the doors, and the predatory activists desperate for something to be outraged about.

The stunt being Senator Pauline Hanson’s decision to wear a burqa in the Chamber, which has brought the suffocation of our democracy to the public’s attention.

Since being delivered a majority – despite the lowest primary vote in history – Labor has made little effort to maintain Parliament’s veneer of debate.

Their deals with the Greens have allowed Bills to be rushed into law. Dissent is silenced by shuffling One Nation speakers to the bottom of the list and then cutting the speeches right before One Nation were about to speak – as happened to us on the controversial Environmental Protection and Reform Bill. Inquisitions are being staged where ‘concern for truth and safety’ are brandished as a way to enforce censorship.

Rapidly, Parliament has devolved into a protection racket for the worst policy imaginable.

When democracy is denied, ‘stunts’ become the best way to signal the alarm.

Big state politics thrives on bureaucracy. Its defenders pretend their air of ‘superiority’ and ‘maturity’ equals sensible policy when – really – they are performing the same role as a million pages of bureaucratic bullshit holding down the truth.

Boredom, bureaucracy, and silence. That is how democracy dies.

Politics was never meant to perform with the mannerisms of a hospital coffee shop or library foyer.

The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.

When we consider political speeches that changed the world, they were not monologues in praise of moderation. They were brave. Indeed, the moment that won Donald Trump the election was when he rose from the stage, fist raised, shouting, ‘Fight! Fight! Fight!’

‘In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ – George Orwell

‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.

When a Muslim woman is forced – either by her family, society, or self-imposed culture – to cover herself in a piece of black a cloth banned in over 20 countries, she is invisible.

When a Western woman with red hair and a knee-length dress does the same, the oppression is instantly visible. It is uncomfortable. We see ourselves – the West – treading the edge of religious oppression.

Wearing the burqa in the Senate was an act of truth-telling.

‘Truth’ that lends weight to the lie that Islam is a purely neutral force in the West.

Like most religions, it has extreme edges. This intense variation of Islam is the largest perpetrator of global terror. It runs slave trades in its conquered provinces where Yazidi women are kept as prisoners. It subverts the political systems of its host country, running parallel Sharia court systems and strong – unwritten – cultural laws that run contrary to the accepted customs of the local population. It marries little girls to old men overseas (who they are often related to). It compels relatives to murder young women who fall in love with the wrong man under the false banner of ‘honour’. And it denies the hard-earned rights of women in the West to autonomy by enforcing a type of garment used to subjugate women.

This is what Australians thought about when black robes concealed one of the most recognisable faces in Australian politics.

The Senate refused the debate and threw Pauline Hanson out with screams of ‘racism’ because no one standing opposite could begin a debate – let alone win one.

Forgotten by the press is that this bill was also about security.

It was about banning a range of face coverings – not just the burqa. It included Antifa rioters concealing their identity, balaclavas which have become a symbol of fear on the streets of Melbourne, and those who hide their face while burning the Australian flag. If the debate had been allowed, the public would have seen that this bill was bigger than burqa.

When Pauline Hanson made a similar point in 2017, politicians controlled the press.

They were perfectly capable of fabricating outrage by reprinting copies of the same header over every broadsheet. There was a consensus within the Establishment. A pact to protect ‘multiculturalism’ over the far more sensible policy of assimilation.

Social media existed, however it was owned wall-to-wall by Democrat-leaning Silicon Valley entities and sometimes part-owned by Saudi figures.

Today, things are different. Elon Musk’s purchase of X might not be perfect, but its alignment with free speech principles has allowed the people of Australia to have a say on the burqa.

To the media’s shock, they agree with Pauline Hanson.

They probably agreed with her the first time too.

Not only did Australians agree, they were furious at the behaviour of the Senate for first stifling debate and then throwing Senator Hanson out.

Even conservative members of the Liberal and National parties – no doubt believing their own press from 2017 – were caught off guard when voters criticised them for censuring Senator Hanson.

A note to the Liberals: you cannot praise Scott Morrison for his coal stunt and then condemn Senator Hanson. Nor is it advisable to follow up the next day with a stunt of your own, waving bits of paper behind Sussan Ley to mock Labor for their power prices.

As usual, it is one rule for the Lib-Lab uniparty and another for One Nation.

It is evident that ‘stunts’ themselves are not a problem – it was the topic of the burqa they feared.

Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.

We fought too hard for our culture and our values to weather this moral descent without complaint.

Young people are coming to One Nation because they see this cultural shift in the streets they walk every day. The Canberra Bubble never truly sees what’s happening to Australia except through the sanitised fantasy of outraged activists.

One Nation will not abandon the women of Australia, the people who fled here for safety, or those whose families built this nation from the ground up.

And we will not sit politely while the safety of Australians is put at risk.

Even if the Senate throws us out a thousand times, we will remain, because you elected us to serve you, not those in the Chamber.

Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.

Read on Substack

/1 Comment/by

Connecting Inland Rail to Growth

,

The Government is currently spending what will likely amount to $20 billion building and upgrading the Inland Rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane. However, Brisbane is constrained. Its ability to handle additional container traffic is very limited, and the railway connection from Toowoomba to Brisbane is almost at capacity. Widening the line is not possible.

For this reason, One Nation supports extending Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, which has the space to expand to become Australia’s main container Port. This would reduce import and export times and lower the cost per container, ultimately reducing prices for consumers.

I asked the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) where they were with this connection. The answer was – nowhere! How can we grow the economy and provide for the millions of new arrivals the Albanese Government is allowing in without a corresponding increase in our productive capacity?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The current planning for Inland Rail includes consideration of a connection to the Port of Gladstone. Where are we up to on that?  

Mr W Johnson: I think I updated you last time that there were some interested parties, in terms of the Port of Gladstone, in connectivity to Inland Rail and the alignment of Inland Rail as it is. GreenLink, in particular, is the organisation that ARTC continue to have some interaction with. They’re progressing through what design operations and/or funding could look like for that in the future. We remain engaged with GreenLink, as ARTC. Inland Rail remain focused on delivering the project to Parkes, as it is today approved, and the enabling works north of Parkes. They’re not focused around any connection, at this point, with GreenLink.  That’s  what ARTC has been working with.  

Senator ROBERTS: Regarding GreenLink, do they have the finance?  

Mr W Johnson: I’m not sure of the exact status. I’d have to take that on notice, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do they also have the intellectual property, the property feasibility study?  

Mr W Johnson: My understanding is they’re working on both concept designs as well as funding programs, and they’re well advanced in those endeavours.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you working with IPG global?  

Mr W Johnson: No. Sorry, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Port of Gladstone currently does not have a major container-handing function. An application to build one has been delayed for 11 years. What steps have you taken to ensure the Gladstone port is capable of accepting container traffic when the connection is completed? For clarity, it makes no sense to connect Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone if the port can’t handle container traffic.  

Mr W Johnson: There’s no work from ourselves in terms of the Port of Gladstone.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, just as an aside, the Port of Gladstone could be a development of major national significance, with regard to container terminals. Why is there a delay on that?  

Senator McCarthy: I can take your question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I’m deeply concerned with the delay, mainly, in the connection and the approval of Gladstone—the processing for a container-handling application. Going back to the ARTC, if the connection is not built, the Port of Brisbane becomes a primary container port. On notice, can you provide the data you have on the remaining rail spots to bring container trains to the Port of Brisbane, the capacity of the port and the expected volume of container traffic Inland Rail would generate from import and export traffic for the Port of Brisbane.  

Mr W Johnson: Sorry, I’d have to take the details of container movements on notice; I’m happy to do so. We continue some interaction and engagement with the Port of Brisbane around what connectivity would look like in the future, but there are a significant number of products that are domestic bound from both North Queensland and also southern states into Queensland. That is the purpose of the connectivity of the existing and the future inland rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, going back to the previous question, is there any way you can get onto the Gladstone Ports Corporation and ask them to resolve the application immediately?  

Senator McCarthy: I’d have to take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by