Taxpayer Dollars and Legal Secrets

,

In the recent estimates session, I questioned officials from the Attorney-General’s Department about the Legal Services Directions – the rulebook that dictates how the government must behave when involved in legal proceedings.

The government isn’t supposed to play dirty. Under these rules, they are required to act as “model litigants”, meaning they must be honest, fair, and efficient.

The Department isn’t a “police force.” Government agencies are largely responsible for reporting their own mistakes. The Department just “supports” them in fixing those errors.

I asked officials if these rules were followed during the Brittany Higgins settlement and the ongoing cases of Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown. Their response: they stated that Comcover (the government’s insurer) is handling the cases and “complying absolutely” with the rules.

When asked why the government hasn’t “accepted” court findings that cleared Reynolds and Brown of wrongdoing, officials dodged, stating they simply “note” the judgments but see them as separate from the Higgins settlement.

When I asked about legal costs or why the government isn’t mediating with Fiona Brown, the Department passed the buck to the Department of Finance.

The big question? Is the government actually following its own rules, or is the system designed to let them off the hook?

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again today. What are the Legal Services Directions? Could you explain that, please?  

Ms Jones: The Legal Services Directions are established under statute in order to provide an overarching framework for the conduct of legal proceedings that the Commonwealth is party to. I have the experts to the right of me who can talk to that in detail.  

Mr Ng: Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts. As the secretary has indicated, the Legal Services Directions are made by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act, and they govern, in part, the conduct of much of the Commonwealth legal services.  

Senator Roberts: There are requirements for sound practice in the provision of legal services to the Australian government?  

Mr Ng: That’s correct. One of the aspects that they cover is in relation to, for example, how the Commonwealth is to conduct itself in litigation. One of the appendices to the Legal Services Directions reflects those model litigant obligations.  

Senator Roberts: Are they binding, and on whom are they binding?  

Mr Ng: The application of Legal Services Directions applies in full to non-corporate Commonwealth entities. There are aspects of the directions that apply to corporate Commonwealth entities, who are in a different category. Also, they won’t apply to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which are not covered. They’re referenced in a couple of points, but not directly covered.  

Senator Roberts: Does noncompliance have to be reported? If so, by and to whom?  

Mr Ng: There are provisions under the Legal Services Directions where noncompliance with the directions is reported to the Office of Legal Services Coordination within the department. It remains the responsibility of agencies, relevant agencies or named agencies, to assess those allegations of noncompliance, but the department maintains an overarching role in supporting those agencies to assess and deal with the complaints that they may have received.  

Senator Roberts: So it’s the department’s responsibility?  

Mr Ng: How I would characterise it is that agencies have a responsibility to notify our department of possible or actual breaches of the Legal Services Directions and to assess their compliance with that. The department has a role in that, in supporting those agencies in meeting their obligations and in addressing noncompliance. Absolutely, the department has a role, but the agencies themselves are the ones who, of course, are responsible, and are running their own cases, where some of these complaints may arise.  

Senator Roberts: Who enforces noncompliance?  

Mr Ng: The Office of Legal Services Coordination is not a regulator as such. Our role here as a department is to support agencies in the assessments they make. They submit what are called agency notification forms to the department which identify both the allegation of the breach and, where there are instances that the agency themselves has assessed as noncompliant, the corrective steps that are taken and the corrective steps they intend to take as well. The department plays a role in engaging very closely with those agencies to ensure that those steps are taken.  

Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions applied in the Brittany Higgins mediation and settlement?  

Mr Ng: The matter you refer to is a matter that was managed by Comcover; that is probably the first thing to say in that instance. Comcover, as a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, is required to comply with the Legal Services Directions, and that was managed in accordance with the Legal Services Directions.  

Senator Roberts: So they did comply. Are the Legal Services Directions being applied in Linda Reynolds’s and Fiona Brown’s cases?  

Mr Ng: Both of those cases are, again, managed by Comcover, within the Department of Finance. Comcover is obliged, as I outlined earlier, to comply with the Legal Services Directions in all aspects of the management of those cases.  

Senator Roberts: Were they complied with?  

Mr Ng: I’m sorry; I’m just trying to clarify your question, Senator. Is it whether there are allegations of noncompliance? What is it that—  

Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions being applied?  

Mr Ng: From the department’s perspective, Comcover are complying absolutely with the Legal Services Directions, noting that they’re managing those claims.  

Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against Fiona Brown were without foundation?  

Ms Jones: It’s not a matter for us to accept the findings of court judgements. We note the judgement, but those proceedings dealt with issues that were separate to the settlement that we had a role in administering.  

Senator Roberts: What are the total legal costs incurred to date by the Australian Government Solicitor in external legal assistance for the federal government in relation to Fiona Brown’s claim against the Commonwealth?  

Ms Jones: I think we’d need to take that on notice. It’s a matter for Comcover. In fact, I would request that question be put to Comcover. They are the instructing agency.  

Senator Roberts: What external legal assistance has been engaged, and from whom? What rates have been agreed, and who approved any extra rates? Ms Jones: Again, that is a matter for Comcover. They are the instructing agency. S 

Senator ROBERTS: Who does Comcover report to?  

Ms Jones: The Department of Finance. They’re a division within the Department of Finance, although set up as a separate entity.  

Senator Roberts: The bureaucracy is so big that we can’t comprehend it all. Why is the Commonwealth not mediating with Fiona Brown?  

Ms Jones: We couldn’t provide a view on that. I think that goes to the conduct of that matter, which is a matter for Comcover.  

Senator Roberts: Moving to Linda Reynolds—  

Mr Ng: As it’s an ongoing legal proceeding, of course it would not be appropriate for us to comment.  

Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against then minister Reynolds were, in the words of Justice Lee, ‘without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact’ and, in the words of Justice Tottle, ‘objectively false and misleading’ and ‘dishonest’?  

Ms Jones: I return to my previous comment. It’s not a matter for us to accept or not accept comments that are made by judges in the course of their decisions. Those proceedings addressed separate issues to the issue of the settlement of Ms Higgins’s claims.  

Senator Roberts: Have these judgements that I just referred to given you cause to review your actions in relation to then minister Reynolds over the Brittany Higgins settlement?  

Ms Jones: I think I’d just repeat my previous comment that the settlement in relation to Brittany Higgins’s claims went to related but slightly different issues than to the matters that were the subject of the two judicial observations that you’ve referred to.  

Senator Roberts: Is the current Reynolds litigation being handled as an exceptional case or as a major claim, and who made that determination?  

Ms Jones: I think—  

Ms Chidgey: It’s a matter for Comcover again. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, Senator.  

Mr Ng: Also, it’s been reported as a significant issue under the Legal Services Directions.  

Senator Roberts: Thank you. 

/by

The Illusion of Peer Review

,

My exchange with the Professional Services Review (PSR) during the December 2025 Senate Estimates only deepened my concerns regarding the integrity of their review process. It is becoming increasingly clear that their ‘peer review’ is a mere box-ticking exercise, dominated by lawyers rather than the medical peers the legislation intended.

I questioned why lawyers, rather than the doctors themselves, are drafting the reports. While the PSR claims lawyers only “put together” the doctors’ views to ensure procedural fairness, it appears to me that the heavy lifting, sometimes over 150 hours of drafting, is done by legal staff, while committee members may spend as little as seven to 10 hours reviewing the final product.

I raised the issue that there is no legal requirement for committee members to share the same subspecialty as the GP under review. A GP in a niche field like aerospace medicine could be judged by practitioners with zero experience in that specific group.

I questioned Professor Dr Dio and Ms. Weichert on the lack of basic legal protections, such as the absence of a presiding judge, the inability to cross-examine the committee on their views of “general body” standards, and the lack of a formal merits review.

Several questions were taken on notice, specifically around providing detailed log of hours spent by both staff and committee members on reports over the last three years. We need to see if the time spent by doctors actually justifies calling this a “peer-reviewed” outcome.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: At the December 2025 Senate estimates, Professor Dr Dio, you indicated that lawyers prepare their reports from the review scheme but that the committee members review the reports. In what way does the PSR monitor the performance of the committee—including if the committee has read the entire report and the material presented to it before signing it off? 

Prof. Di Dio: The committee diligently reads the draft reports and the final reports, and we have staff who liaise with the committee at various stages after draft reports and final reports have been sent to them. So should for any reason a committee member not do their duty and read in the draft report, the legal officer in charge of giving service to that committee would firstly of course remind the committee members to review the report, and if they do not, they would then come to me. But that’s a theoretical possibility, because I cannot recall that happening.  

Senator ROBERTS: The PSR committee process is supposed to be a peer review process performed by doctors. Why then don’t the doctors write their own reports? If administrative support is needed, why are lawyers drafting their reports instead of administrative or secretarial staff, which would come at a lower cost to the department?  

Prof. Di Dio: Because the reports are incredibly important. We are passionate about according natural justice and procedural fairness to all practitioners under review. It is my view that the best way to do that is to have the best qualified, quality people writing those reports. Reports of this nature would be best written by people who are very good at supporting doctors in providing their reports.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Best qualified’ to me would seem to be the doctors—and then trimmed up or modified by the lawyers.  

Ms Weichert: The lawyers are writing up what the doctors have formed a view about as part of that committee process, as part of the hearing process, the concerns they have put to a person under review and the things that have come back—the lawyers are just putting it together. They are the doctors’ concerns or the medical practitioners’ concerns. It is they who sign off on the report, who approve the report. They are the peer review committee members’ views.  

Senator ROBERTS: If it can be shown that a lawyer spends over 150 hours drafting a report, but a committee member only spends seven to 10 hours reviewing the material and reading the report, is this truly considered by the PSR to be a legitimate peer review?  

Ms Weichert: That’s not taking into account any of the time that was spent in the hearing, in questioning and the time that the committee members have turned the matter throughout the process.  

Prof. Di Dio: A hearing might take eight days; it might take 50 or 60 hours. The prehearing reading might take many, many hours. The contemplation of what happened during the committee hearing might take the committee members many, many hours to turn their mind to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Over the past three years, as an average, what percentage of the total services reviewed has the committee found the services provided by doctors to be inappropriate?  

Prof. Di Dio: I will have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: This question is about general practitioners. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners recognises 37 specific interest groups as subspecialities. If a GP is under review by the committee, is it correct that there is no legal requirement for the committee members to share the same subspecialty? For example, if a GP practices solely in aerospace medicine, there’s no legal requirement for the committee to have any experience in aerospace medicine, because they all fall within the category of general practitioners. Why is there no subspeciality matching?  

Prof. Di Dio: The subspecialty matching is that members of the committee are general practitioners. But the PSR strives to find general practitioners who have experience in those matters. I can assure you that for some practitioners who are in craft groups that are exotic, as you say, like me—I have particular special interests—we try to match those as much as we can. But, under the law, a general practitioner can review a fellow general practitioner.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it correct that the legislation allows just three committee members to decide what is unacceptable to the general body of general practitioners? In deciding what the general body of general practitioners find unacceptable, do the committee members have to have any regard to any external resources or consideration of other doctors? Do the lawyers draft that part of the report as well, about what the general body of doctors think?  

Prof. Di Dio: One of the things that we train committee members to do, to absolutely and scrupulously give fairness to the practitioners under review, is try as much as possible to ask one question at a time to avoid the risk of the practitioner missing the opportunity to respond to any and all of the questions put to them. I’d be very grateful if you could ask me the first couple, and I’ll go through them with you systematically. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is it correct that the legislation allows just three committee members to decide what is unacceptable to the general body of practitioners?  

Prof. Di Dio: Yes. Ms Weichert: It’s at least three. There are certain circumstances where there could be additional committee members appointed, but it is usually three.  

Senator ROBERTS: In deciding what the general body of general practitioners find unacceptable, do the committee members have to have any regard to any external resources or consideration of other doctors?  

Prof. Di Dio: The committee members have to have regard to all of the evidence before them so that they can—  

Senator ROBERTS: All of the evidence before them?  

Prof. Di Dio: Yes. The committee members welcome from the practitioner any materials that they wish to submit as further evidence either before, during or after the hearing.  

Senator ROBERTS: While PSR committees are intended to operate as expert peer-review bodies, concerns include the absence of a presiding judge, the lack of merits review, the inability to cross-examine the committee on what they believe to be the views of the general bodies, the downweighting of significant evidence, limited engagement with defence submissions and a lack of transparency. Why do PSR procedures deny these basic elements of procedural fairness and justice, and how does the PSR contend that the peer-review function is being properly exercised in their absence?  

Prof. Di Dio: Could you ask the six points one at a time, and I’ll gladly respond to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re intended to operate as expert peer review bodies. Concerns include the absence of a presiding judge.  

Prof. Di Dio: The process is a peer-review process. So, if somebody is trying to find out whether I’ve engaged in inappropriate practice, then the best placed people to do that are my peers, not a judge.  

Ms Weichert: And, ultimately, we are applying the scheme as it is set out in the Health Insurance Act, so that provides for a committee—  

Senator ROBERTS: That may be the problem. The lack of merits review?  

Prof. Di Dio: Under the act, there is no formal merits review; however, we try as much as we can to build fairness into this process by having multiple opportunities to respond and make submissions—multiple opportunities.  

Senator ROBERTS: The inability to cross-examine the committee on what they believe to be the views of the general bodies?  

Prof. Di Dio: The committee is there to ask questions and find out if the practitioner under review has engaged in inappropriate practice. It’s not the committee that is under review.  

Ms Weichert: But the person under review can put forward their information when they’re answering the questions and the information that they would like the committee to consider, and that will occur as part of the process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The downweighting of significant evidence?  

Prof. Di Dio: What do you mean by that?  

Senator ROBERTS: As I said, ‘the downweighting of significant evidence’—  

Prof. Di Dio: I don’t understand what you mean.  

Senator ROBERTS: with significant evidence being put cursorily or downgraded.  

Prof. Di Dio: What significant evidence? Who has reviewed something cursorily or downgraded it? I don’t understand.  

Senator ROBERTS: If there is significant evidence put before the committee, it’s downgraded in terms of the verdict.  

Prof. Di Dio: I don’t understand what you mean by that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Limited engagement with— 

Prof. Di Dio: I would gladly take that on notice if it’s clarified for me. I just don’t quite understand. I’m not in any way being disrespectful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I can’t understand how you can’t see that, because the words seem to be selfexplanatory.  

Prof. Di Dio: Are you suggesting that, during a committee process, a practitioner under review gives significant evidence and the committee then downgrades or chooses to ignore it?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Prof. Di Dio: I’m not aware of that occurring.  

Senator ROBERTS: Limited engagement with defence submissions and a lack of transparency?  

Prof. Di Dio: ‘Limited engagement with defence submissions’—again, practitioners under review can make submissions. Those submissions are welcome, and they are reviewed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Next question—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I interrupt you for one quick second. There are media in the room, and I need to give a short statement. The media have requested permission to film and take photos of proceedings, and the committee has agreed to this. I remind the media that this permission can be revoked at any time. The media must follow the direction of secretariat staff. If a witness objects to filming, the committee will consider this request. The media are also reminded that they are not able to take images of senators’ or witnesses’ documents or of the audience. Media activity may not occur during suspensions or after the adjournment of proceedings. Copies of resolution 3, concerning the broadcasting of committee proceedings, are available from the secretariat. My apologies, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. A former PSR director has been found liable in the Queensland court for misfeasance in public office for failing to perform her statutory duties. Given these matters raised, why should the PSR’s legislation, governance and current officeholders not be subject to a comprehensive independent review?  

Prof. Di Dio: We did have a comprehensive review in 2023 called the Philip review, which made findings. We have acted on all of those findings, including the appointment of associate directors to the scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: The former director was found liable for making a decision without adequately considering submitted materials. Isn’t that exactly what’s still happening?  

Ms Weichert: We do not consider that to be happening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What percentage of the department’s budget is spent on the committee review process, and how many cases per year go through a committee process?  

Prof. Di Dio: I can’t tell you the exact amount— An incident having occurred in the committee room—  

Senator RUSTON: You might want to turn your device off, Malcolm; you’ll have Bridget McKenzie after you! Prof. Di Dio: It might save us all a bit of time!  

Senator ROBERTS: Only if it’s in super-rational mode—other than that, it’s just filled with garbage. Can you take that percentage on notice?  

Senator CAROL BROWN: It hallucinates from time to time. You have to be careful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I might just turn it off.  

Prof. Di Dio: I woke up this morning, and ChatGPT told me I was going to have a stress-free day, so I think it was hallucinating! Without notice, I can’t tell you exactly what percentage of the budget is spent on committee hearings, but we can take that on notice and give you an accurate reading.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Prof. Di Dio: The second part of your question was—  

Senator ROBERTS: How many cases per year go through a committee process? Prof. Di Dio: It changes from year to year, but we get approximately 100 to 120 cases per year referred from Medicare, which in turn represents about 30 per cent of the cases that Medicare reviews. Of those cases, a ballpark figure of approximately 10 per cent get no further action under section 91, about 80 per cent get an agreement with the director or the associate director under section 92 and about 10 per cent get referred to a committee. So maybe 10 practitioners get referred to a committee in a year. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I need to put on record that we’re not debating whether or not the PSR should be there. They are process which I now understand are legislated. That’s what the problem is for us and for doctors. It is very concerning. Take this as a question on notice. Please table a log of the hours spent on each of the draft and final reports by the PSR staff combined and each of the committee members for the last three years of PSR committee matters. It’s expected that this log will table around 60 rows for each of the cases it reviewed over that period.  

Prof. Di Dio: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much for appearing. See you next time. 

/by

Beyond Friday is the Promise of Sunday

,

Easter is a time to reflect on the values of sacrifice, renewal, and truth. A moment to pause and find strength in the greatest story of hope ever told.

For many, Easter is the heart of everything we believe, built on two big moments: Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

On Good Friday we take a moment to remember the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. It was the ultimate act of selfless love and bravery. A day to remember the “price” he paid for us.

Easter Sunday is a time of celebration. It’s the Resurrection. It’s victory of light over darkness and life over death. It’s the ultimate proof that no matter how tough things get, a fresh start and a new beginning are always possible through Christ.

During this time, I particularly want to pray for our farmers in Queensland and across Australia. You are the backbone of this country, working the land with a toughness that shows what true faith looks like. We see how hard you work, and we appreciate everything you do to feed our nation.

Easter is about hope and the courage to face challenges head-on. It reminds us that after the sacrifice of Friday, the joy of Sunday is coming. May you find peace, rest, and a renewed spirit this Easter season.

“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” — John 1:5

Have a safe, happy, and free Easter.

Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

My Easter Address in the Senate 👇

Transcript

Easter is a time to celebrate Jesus’s resurrection and the joy of Christianity. We live in a time when Christianity is under attack. I spoke of those world events earlier this week. Remember, though, John 10:10, which says: 

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I — Jesus — came that they may have life and have it abundantly. 

Our young are returning to Christianity’s message of hope and joy in God. Our scripture says exactly that in Romans 15:13. It reads: 

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him. 

Christianity is a world free of artificial separations—no cis white privilege. No-one sees your skin colour. No-one carries a diversity card, and the only pronouns are the ones God gave us. It’s the original world of real inclusion—values that characterise One Nation. 

In the past year alone, Bible sales rose 19 per cent, with most of the growth in physical hardcover editions. These are quality bibles being purchased to retain and hand down. In the UK, the Catholic Church recorded a 21 per cent rise in baptisms to their highest level in 11 years. Adult first holy communions increased 44 per cent, and adult sacraments of initiation rose 60 per cent. Baptists recorded the highest baptism rate in 10 years. Fifty-seven per cent of churches are reporting growth averaging 13 per cent. Alpha UK are cross-denominational Christians. They run Welcome to Christianity courses, which grew 35 per cent in 2025, to over 10,000 groups. 

This Easter I invite all Australians to visit their families, make a call that may be months or years overdue, contact a relative who has slipped out of touch and celebrate life and our beautiful country. Happy, safe Easter to everyone. 

/8 Comments/by

Defending Those Who Defend Us

,

In November, the government officially admitted defeat. The “horrific” Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal) Bill has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper – a win for every member of our Army, Navy and Air Force.

This all started with a One Nation motion to inquire into the honours and awards system. Our veterans stood up, presented the facts and spoke with such strength that the “top brass” could no longer turn a deaf ear. It is a credit to our country that those who defended us were willing to stand up once again to protect the morale and mateship of our ADF.

One Nation will always hold the senior brass accountable. We will not let them kill the spirit of our forces or compromise Australia’s security.

To our veterans and currently serving members: You won. We are proud of you and we will always put Australia first.

Transcript

Our veterans won. Our Australian Defence Force members won—people in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. The government admits defeat on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill, which has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper. That’s what this motion’s about. This all started with a One Nation motion that I moved in the Senate to inquire into the honours and awards system. 

We supported the veterans who spoke so strongly and so well at the inquiry. They’re a credit to our country not only for their service but for the way they stood up and explained their case. They earned my admiration yet again. They earned my respect yet again. They based their submissions and their witness statements on data. They gave us hard, concrete examples. Then the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal spoke in the inquiry. They spoke clearly, strongly and with strong evidence. Then Defence ignored it, and the government ignored it. You turned a deaf ear to it. I want to thank the veterans again for their service and for standing up. I bet you never thought you’d have to stand up in your own country that you defended, but that’s what you’ve done. Thank you so much for that. 

With our political support, the veterans and the current serving members won. The veterans won, and I thank the Senate for that. I thank all the members of the Senate who backed us on this from the start. We are with you, veterans and current ADF members. We will continue to hold the Defence senior brass accountable and to stop the Defence senior brass from killing morale and killing the key to our defence forces that is our mateship. The Defence top brass and the government are killing our defence strength. 

Australia’s security is One Nation’s top priority. This amendment bill has to be discharged to maintain the morale of our gallant armed forces. That means supporting our veterans and currently serving Australian soldiers in all the defence forces. We will continue to support you. 

One Nation supports this motion to discharge this horrific bill from the Notice Paper. Veterans have won and currently enlisted Australian Defence Force members have won. I want to make it very clear: One Nation is proud to serve our veterans and Australian Defence Force members. One Nation will continue to put Australia first. 

/by

Ok Tedi: Australia’s Unfinished Business

,

This is my session with DFAT officials regarding the ongoing catastrophe at the Ok Tedi Mine in Papua New Guinea.

Since the tailings dam failure in 1984, an estimated 80 million tonnes of waste has flowed into the Fly River every single year. We cannot simply wash our hands of the legacy issues left behind.

I have received reports of growing civil unrest because promised aid isn’t reaching the ground. Additionally, I have heard of a rising death toll linked to heavy metal poisoning in local market gardens, and that although millions in Australian taxpayer dollars ($52.5M) was committed to the Western Province Strategy, “on-the-ground” results remain unclear.

I come from the mining industry. I know that everything we use comes from the ground, the ocean, or the sun – I support mining. I do NOT support operations that walk away from environmental disasters and leave local communities to suffer the consequences.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last set of questions, Chair. This is about Papua New Guinea. How much aid actually flowed to assist people under the Ok Tedi treaty compensation? 

Senator Wong: Sorry. Can I just take issue with what you said previously? You said that no-one had taken issue with it. The Labor Party in 2003 strongly opposed Australia’s involvement and with the benefit of hindsight that decision was clearly, I think, the correct one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has anyone held the—let’s leave it for another day.  

Senator Wong: Yes, leave that for another day. The question was about Ok Tedi?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, a disaster of significant proportions occurred in New Guinea in 1984 when an Ok Tedi Mining tailings dam failed and now releases 80 million tonnes of toxic poison into the Fly River per year. The Australian-Papua New Guinea Western Province Strategy 2022 promised millions of dollars of aid to local people affected by the poisoning of the land and the river. How much aid has actually flowed to assist the local people under the treaty?  

Dr Lee: The history of the Ok Tedi Mine clearly was a matter for the parties that were involved in that at the time. There were commercial entities that were involved in that. For Australia and the Australian government, we continue to appreciate the significant development needs in Papua New Guinea, including in the Western Province, where the Ok Tedi Mine is based and continues to operate. It continues to operate as a mine owned by the Papua New Guinea government and by the local landowners. We continue to have a program of development in Western Province. Under the Western Province partnership we’ve committed $52.5 million over 3.5 years for a range of development activities there. That’s part of ongoing development that we’ve provided to Western Province over many years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the growing civil unrest because the aid has not yet significantly been distributed? There are lots of question marks about that.  

Dr Lee: I’m not aware of specific incidents of civil unrest there.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the growing number of deaths apparently from the market gardens of those people being poisoned by heavy metals from Ok Tedi Mine? It was an Australian mine, largely owned by BHP, when the tailings dam failed.  

Dr Lee: As I say, that mine continues to operate and it’s now run by the government of Papua New Guinea and the Western Province government, so those issues should really be referred to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you confirm on notice whether or not there is unrest there? That’s what I’m advised. Could you tell me when aid will flow to those people in a meaningful way?  

Dr Lee: We can take on notice any further situation of unrest that might be occurring in Western Province.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m from the mining industry and everything comes out of the ground, either through agriculture or mines, or the ocean, but we’re not in favour of mines that walk away from legacy issues. 

/by

Avoiding the Next Robodebt

,

I questioned the Minister regarding Schedule 1 of the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, specifically the automation of Medicare Provider Numbers (MPNs).

My primary concern, as always, is ensuring that “automation” isn’t just a fancy word for another government digital disaster. We’ve seen the Robodebt fiasco, the Bureau of Meteorology website fiasco, Australia Post software fiasco and the Border Force Cargo management automation fiasco; my job is to make sure Australians aren’t the next victims of a “government stuff-up.”

I asked the Minister why legislation is needed for a process that is already using computers. She replied that this bill provides legislative support for existing practices and introduces safeguards, adding that computers will not be used to revoke or suspend provider numbers without a human request.

I asked if this automation of MPNs was a “Trojan horse” for Artificial Intelligence (AI). Despite the Explanatory Memorandum mentioning “computer programs” for non-discretionary decisions, the Minister stated on the record that there is no intention or requirement to use AI for allocating MPNs.

Finally, I sought clarification on changes to Commonwealth supported places. Under the new rules, medical students who withdraw from their degree, even late in their studies, will no longer be forced to repay the scholarship cost (though they remain liable for HECS). The Minister said that this is about “fairness” rather than recouping funds from students facing hardship.

I remain sceptical of any move toward “automated” government software, and I will be monitoring these automated systems very closely.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, schedule 1 of the bill automates the issuance of Medicare providers numbers, MPNs. ‘Automation’, I assume, means computer software. Computers are used now for the process. What is different about the process being proposed that it requires legislation to enact it?  

Senator McALLISTER (Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme): Thank you for your patience, Senator Roberts. I was just obtaining advice so I can advise you correctly. This new part of the act will ensure that the system can approve the use of a computer program for certain decisions relating to the allocation and management of Medicare provider numbers. It will not—and this, I think, will be important to you—enable the approval of the use of a computer program to make decisions about revoking a Medicare provider number or suspending a Medicare provider number where the suspension is not at the request of a health professional.  

It will also include safeguards around the use of computer programs to make decisions relating to Medicare provider numbers. Those safeguards include a requirement to notify a person where a computer program was used to make a decision about their Medicare provider number; a requirement to make it public when the use of a computer program to make decisions about Medicare provider numbers has been approved; a power to make substitute decisions where they are satisfied that a decision made by the operation of a computer program is incorrect; and a requirement to include information in the Services Australia annual report about the number and types of substituted decisions. 

Importantly, these things introduce safeguards, and they also, as is indicated in the explanatory memorandum, provide legislative support for an existing practice where some Medicare provider numbers have been allocated by use of a computer program, rather than by a human delegate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think you anticipated one of my future questions, but, in the meantime, who decides if a person is qualified for a Medicare provider number, including the decision to give a Medicare provider number to a new arrival in the country? I’m asking this to see how this automation will impinge on the process of determining qualifications.  

Senator McALLISTER: May I clarify. I think what you’re asking is, ‘How would a new migrant to Australia have their qualifications recognised for the purpose of practising in an Australian context?’ Is that correct?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s part of the question. The other part concerns any Australian who’s here right now; how would they be qualified?  

Senator McALLISTER: I’m terribly sorry. I might ask you to clarify further. You said that you’re asking about how a person who is here now would obtain a Medicare provider number. Do you mean an Australian citizen or another person? What are you trying to elicit from me?  

Senator ROBERTS: Anybody who’s qualified to get a Medicare provider number—how would you make sure they are qualified, and how would you make sure that we’re not excluding people?  

Senator McALLISTER: The advice I have is that the bill that’s before us doesn’t change any of the existing arrangements. Those arrangements, of course, include a series of processes to ensure that a person seeking to practise within the Medicare system is qualified.  

Senator ROBERTS: How extensive are the checks, and is there any hint of automation being more than just computer software? Is the bill intending to allow for the use of AI for automatic MPNs?  

Senator McALLISTER: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no requirement for artificial intelligence to be used in allocating MPNs?  

Senator McALLISTER: The advice I have is no.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll quote from the explanatory memorandum:  

The Bill will enable the Chief Executive Medicare to approve the use of a computer program to make appropriate, non-discretionary decisions relating to the registration and claims process.  

Can I confirm you intend to use AI for that process? If so, what checks are in place to make sure the AI is fit for purpose?  

Senator McALLISTER: The advice I have in relation to AI is that there is no intention. We do not require AI to perform the functions that are set out in the bill. In relation to your earlier question about the process by which a person becomes eligible for obtaining a Medicare number, the Parliamentary Library’s Bills Digest in relation to this says:  

To be eligible to provide a Medicare service, health professionals must meet certain criteria. Practitioners eligible to have Medicare benefits payable for their services ‘at the place of practice as well as refer patients to other health professionals for Medicare eligible services, such as pathology and diagnostic imaging from the place of practice’, may apply online or in writing to Services Australia for a MPN for the locations where these services/referrals/requests will be provided.  

MPNs are used by health practitioners both ‘as a means of identifying themselves and their place of practice for the purposes of claiming Medicare benefits for eligible services, and as an identifier to support other Medicare-related programs …  

Senator ROBERTS: To clarify for constituents and to get some reassurance: you didn’t hesitate when you used the word ‘intention’ with regard to AI and then said there was no requirement. After the robodebt fiasco, the Bureau of Meteorology website fiasco, the Australia Post software fiasco and the Border Force cargo management automation, constituents have every right to point out that these stuff-ups keep happening because of the way in which new technology is rolled out. That’s a big concern. Now you’re giving the software decision-making powers, and it sounds like there are no plans to do that with due care. What security steps are being taken to reassure our constituents that the automations proposed in this bill don’t become yet another government stuff-up? I acknowledge that not all of the stuff-ups have occurred on your watch. 

Senator McALLISTER: This bill puts in place safeguards to ensure that, to the extent that a computer is utilised, the circumstances in which a computer is being used are made very explicit. It also puts some constraints around the kinds of decisions that may be taken by a computer in the context of this process—that is, the process of obtaining a Medicare provider number. I read to you earlier some of those safeguards, which are set out in the explanatory memorandum. As I indicated to you, the advice I have is that this process, which involves the use of a computer for certain purposes that are quite tightly defined and constrained, does not require the use of AI.  

Senator ROBERTS: This final question has a lengthy preamble. Item 3124ZH1 removes the requirement for students who do not complete their degree to repay the Commonwealth supported place cost. Students can currently withdraw from the program without consequence up to the HECS census date in their second year of study. If the student withdraws after that date, they incur a debt to the Commonwealth equal to the full cost of their Commonwealth supported place up to the date of withdrawal in addition to any HECS or HELP liability. The proposed amendment, as I understand it, seeks to extend the existing grace period from the HECS census date in the second year of study to the award of the medical degree. Can you please explain that provision? It sounds like they can pull out right at the end of their degree and not have to pay back the cost. Is that right?  

Senator McALLISTER: Senator, you’re correct that at the moment a person who withdraws from their degree doesn’t need to pay the cost of the scholarship back if they withdraw prior to the census date you alluded to. I believe that they do remain liable for the HECS costs incurred by them in the pursuit of their studies up to that point. You are also correct that a purpose of this bill is to extend the period during which a person may withdraw without incurring a debt associated with their receipt of Commonwealth payments.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, that was my second-last question; I’ve got another one now. What is the rationale behind extending the withdrawal date so they won’t have to pay it back?  

Senator McALLISTER: Earlier in the debate I read out an email from a person who has incurred a debt in precisely these circumstances, and they spoke about the hardship they had experienced as a consequence of that. This person made the point that the purpose of the bonded nature of this program is to ensure that people who do qualify as medical professionals fulfil their obligation to work in an area that is underserved by medical practitioners. The purpose is not in itself to recoup funds from students, and we simply seek to make the system fairer. 

/by

Restoring Trust or Reinforcing Control?

,

Australia has now established a Centre for Disease Control (CDC) with a substantial budget, however the enabling legislation failed to outline a clear set of guardrails for this organisation.

The legislation states that the CDC will serve as the “source of scientific truth” on pandemic-related matters, which is concerning.

During COVID-19, the Government required health authorities to lie consistently to promote a medical response that we are now seeing was deadly and damaging to Australians.

With the credibility of our health professionals in tatters, the government has created a new body to serve as the “one source of truth.”

I asked several questions to understand the scope of this new body and the process by which they will establish this “one truth,” yet I remain none the wiser.

As you watch this video, ask yourself: is the attitude of these senior public servants acceptable for a Senate Estimates hearing?

Transcript

CHAIR: I also need to move the call. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I need to ask some questions about the recent enabling legislation for the CDC. I note the enabling legislation for the CDC received royal assent three weeks ago, so I am surprised to see you here so
quickly.

Ms Wood: Is that a question?

Senator ROBERTS: How long had preparations for the CDC been going on?

Ms Wood: The commitment by the government to create an Australian Centre for Disease Control was made in the election before the one last held.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2022?

Mr Comley: Yes, 2022.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. How much was spent preparing for an Australian CDC prior to the legislation passing parliament?

Ms Wood: The preparation activity for the CDC is one of the activities undertaken in the interim CDC group, so there are a lot of different activities. We can probably give a funding amount for one of the divisions which is largely responsible for the establishment activities: the policy development, the drafting of the legislation and the staffing considerations associated with setting up a new agency. We could probably take that on notice but it’s not a figure I have.

Senator ROBERTS: You could take it on notice to find out how much was spent in a parallel agency or department?

Ms Wood: The interim CDC is part of the department at the moment. We can take you through the high-level budget descriptions for that group and the activities, inclusive of which is establishment activities for the statutory agency.

Senator ROBERTS: This may be a guess—was it around $250 million? Can you take it on notice?

Mr Comley: There were actually three tranches of funding that came through budget and MYEFO measures. I think that number is broadly correct.

Senator ROBERTS: $250 million is broadly correct?

Ms Wood: That’s correct.

Mr Comley: Over four years, not up to the year.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a lot of money. It’s not really enabling legislation.

Mr Comley: Let’s go back a step—

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of money spent on it.

Mr Comley: There are functions and then there’s legislation. The CDC was an election commitment by the government in 2022. Work immediately commenced on what it would look like. There was already a public
health group within the department that did the sum of this work, some of which had been built up through COVID and the pandemic response. Some of those functions continued, but some money has also been appropriated to build up new functions of the CDC, such as data integration and surveillance systems, which will prepare Australia better for a pandemic. The legislation has the effect, though, of creating an independent body. So there are probably two different things here: one is the functions of the CDC, much of which transfer from the existing department; and the second is the legislative basis on which it operates, particularly the Director-General of the CDC, independent of government when providing advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That was an excellent summary. Who’s the director? Is there an interim director?

Mr Comley: At the moment, Ms Wood is the head of the interim CDC. There has been a selection process that I’ve been undertaking for the new director-general—no decision has been made yet as to who that is—bearing in mind that the CDC commences on 1 January next year.

Senator ROBERTS: What is your intent to fund, commission, conduct or cooperate with others on virus research, including what is commonly called gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: As the secretary has indicated, there will be a commission appointed by the minister for the CDC once it’s a statutory agency. They’ll obviously have responsibility to determine the work program in detail. We can take you through the research as a concept under the legislation, if that assists.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. What about gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: The CDC won’t be—I think this was indicated earlier—conducting research on matters that are in the remit of other organisations. The CDC is a complement to the Commonwealth public health capability. It will not be taking over or otherwise leaning in on research conducted by any other Commonwealth entities, whether that’s NHMRC or the Gene Technology Standing Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: We know that the CSIRO has admitted to conducting gain-of-function research, both here and in China. Will you assume responsibility for any aspect of the CSIRO’s Australian Centre for Disease
Preparedness in Geelong?

Ms Wood: The CSIRO is obviously a different organisation. The CDC will work with it, but the CDC is not inheriting or having functions transferred to it from the CSIRO, if that’s the question.

Senator ROBERTS: That is the question.

Prof. Kidd: If I can insert, the oversight of gain-of-function research is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s been bandied around. It’s sometimes in his purview; and sometimes it’s not in his purview. So it’s in his purview?

Prof. Kidd: Responsibility for the oversight of proposed gain-of-function research is.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO has a substantial live animal experimentation agenda, although the animals aren’t alive for long. Will you sanction live animal experimentation as part of your new role?

Prof. Kidd: Do we have the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in this section, Secretary?

Mr Comley: I don’t think so, but I think the senator’s question goes to a different question, which is more about research methodology. The other thing I’d comment—and Ms Wood or the others at the table can expand
on it—is that it’s not envisaged that the CDC would undertake research itself. That’s not the primary role of the CDC. I don’t think it needs to turn its policy mind to that question of animal research.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll finish early, with the mind to get back on the treadmill with the TGA.

CHAIR: You’re getting better and better, Senator Roberts. I’m very impressed. Senator Liddle?

/5 Comments/by

Labor Trapped Young People

,

RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits

Labor’s ‘Big Australia’ mass migration project, designed to shore-up Albanese’s vote at the next election, has created a catastrophic housing shortage.

Everyone knows it.

Even if the media and self-interested uniparty choose to deny the facts.

Young people across the country know it too. They are the ones standing in rental lines behind 50 people who cannot speak English, trying to decipher rental signs written in a foreign language and clearly pitched to everyone except Aussie kids.

They feel upset. Betrayed. Left out. And ignored.

These Australians know they are competing against Labor’s migration agenda, not organic competition like their parents and grandparents faced. This is not, in any way, a ‘fair’ housing market.

When these young Australians decide to ditch the soul-crushing rental queue and take on the dream of home ownership that changed their parents’ lives – they discover an even worse situation.

The price of homes, including small city apartments in the areas they need to live to keep their jobs, are unattainable.

Some of this price increase is to do with greedy government fees and charges, while the rest is a consequence of too much demand from people who live outside the Australian economic cost-of-living crisis. Foreign buyers often have the means to push prices well above what they should be.

In Australia, house prices have advanced much faster than the average wage. Even those earning $100,000 per year – once considered a mark of success – feel that home ownership is financially impossible. These people are no longer considered to be ‘doing well’. They are struggling.

Not to mention that the average worker has a considerable amount of their wage taken as ‘super’ and given to union funds to play the stockmarket. This makes union super funds rich and pushes huge volumes of investment money into projects – usually in the green industry – that otherwise would never receive private funding. $4.5 trillion has been taken out of people’s pockets and locked away. This money remains untouchable until someone turns 65. 8-10% of Australians will die before they access their super (or 56% of Indigenous Australians). That money used to be used for home investment and there is good reason to believe that compulsory super is one of the contributing factors to a major drop in home ownership amongst the middle and working classes.

There are ways to immediately improve the housing situation – the most obvious being the deportation of visa overstayers and a severe cut to migration. This would immediately free up hundreds of thousands of properties for domestic buyers and renters.

That would benefit Australians and massively hurt the political class and their major financial backers.

Instead of doing the right thing, Chalmers & Co have designed a system to turn a profit from the hardship and desperation of young Australians.

In August of 2025, the Labor government introduced their 5% deposit scheme for first home buyers. There is also another version of this for single parents to buy a home with a 2% deposit.

Labor described this as ‘helping more Australians realise their dream of home ownership’ where the government (taxpayers) ‘guarantee a portion of a first home buy’s home loan with a lower deposit and not pay Lenders Mortgage Insurance’.

Their argument is this:

‘All first home buyers will have access, with no caps on places or incomes limits. Property price caps will also be set higher in line with the average house prices, providing access to a greater variety of homes.’

Predictably, this did not unlock more desirable homes – it created an almost immediate increase in home prices. Labor said it would be 0.6% over the medium term. Instead, it was 3.6% in the first quarter. The developers win. Ministers in Canberra with property portfolios win.

Finder says the average loan amount for first home buyers in December 2025 was $607,624. This is a huge sum of money. In 2015, you could expect a first homebuyer to take on $333,500. Westpac says first homebuyers are typically over 40. This shows you how much harder it is to get enough financial security to consider buying a home.

And while the ‘average wage’ is listed as $104,000, it’s suspected that this figure is skewed and the real average is probably closer to $88,000. After tax that’s around $69,000.

If you think this whole thing sounds like a bad idea, you’re right.

To translate it into economic reality, Labor is encouraging and actively changing the rules to allow young Australians to take on loans they cannot realistically afford (and would not be normally given) right when the RBA has warned it will continue to raise the cash rate – which it has done multiple times since the scheme began.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he did his degree in ‘Paul Keating’ – now he is in danger of re-creating Keating’s gravest mistake.

A person with a normal mortgage that they attained under strict rules is already suffering under the RBA rate rises. Individuals who took on a 95% mortgage are at a very serious risk of defaulting. It only takes a small rate rise on a sum of money this large to lead them into disaster.

An entire generation of vulnerable, trusting Australians have been led into imminent economic ruin by a government that thought 5% deposits were nothing more than a vote-buying game.

It isn’t a game.

It’s people’s lives.

People’s futures.

This isn’t about ‘votes for Labor’ for people who think the government is ‘gifting’ them a house, it’s about Australians watching their savings burn and homes taken off them in a time of economic uncertainty.

It’s rare to find a government that cares so little about young people – although we know exactly why they did it.

Mass migration is a vote buying operation for the Labor Party. They cannot give it up, even though home ownership is the leading election topic among their rising young demographic that is in danger of being taken by the Greens. Labor has made a wager on a short-term vote winner with no regard for the coming disaster.

Even the Daily Mail warned of an impending catastrophe after the latest RBA cash rate rise highlighted a significant rise in risky mortgages (4% of the total market!)

To quote:

‘While the banks are insulated by the government guarantee, which covers the first 15% of any losses from these loans, households are exposed. The banks are fine. The main risk falls on individuals.’

It’s widely expected war in Iran, and the high petrol prices and fuel insecurity that flow on from this scenario, will increase inflation and lead to even more rate rises in the near future.

Government debt – also known as Chalmers’ spending spree – is the main driver of inflation and the interest repayments on this blackhole are climbing every day.

When debt passes $1 trillion – which it is expected to do shortly – interest payments will cost $60 million per day or $41,667 every minute.

Every Australian – whether they are an infant or retired – owes $806.65 every year in just interest. And that’s if Chalmers stops spending right now. And to pay off the $1 trillion debt tomorrow, it would require every person to cough up $36,850.01.

If fuel prices increase (or fuel rationing starts), we can expect a catastrophic loss of businesses and, therefore, jobs. How many young people will lose their jobs and be unable to service these mortgages?

The uniparty doesn’t care. The government never loses.

It raises taxes. It tightens your belt so it can eat more money.

Remember, if you think the LNP are any better, they have their own reasons for supporting ‘Big Australia’. The Howard government marked the start of mass migration. All Coalition governments since have done nothing to change it and they never will.

One Nation are desperately worried about the future young people face.

We have a comprehensive policy to cut immigration by over 570,000 and to deport 75,000 migrants visa over-stayers, illegal workers, and unlawful non-residents who threaten our national security. We also have a housing policy to ensure unnecessary fees, charges, and taxes are cut to get homes built without destroying our green spaces or cultural heritage.

One Nation is here to make a genuine difference for you, not Canberra.

Labor TRAPPED young people by Senator Malcolm Roberts

RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits

Read on Substack

/1 Comment/by

Can’t Subsidise Our Way Out

,

During Estimates, I tabled a graph from the ABS, showing that electricity prices surged by 23% over two years. While the Government used temporary subsidies to mask the pain, those subsidies have now ended, leaving millions of Australians to face the brutal reality of a 16% “catch-up” spike in their bills.

During our exchange, I pointed out that while subsidies briefly brought headline inflation down to 7%, the underlying cost of power never actually fell and that once the relief stopped, the inflationary shock would be incredible.

The RBA admitted that headline inflation would rise as rebates expired, yet they continue to “look through” these costs to focus on their own definitions of underlying inflation.

I discussed with Governor Bullock on how these soaring energy costs are gutting our national productivity. While the Treasurer talks about “strong real wages,” everyday Australians know the truth when they see their grocery bills and insurance premiums.

The RBA believes inflation expectations are “anchored,” yet you can’t anchor a household budget when the lights cost 23% more to keep on.

You cannot subsidise your way out of an energy crisis. You only delay the pain.

During this session, I also asked some questions on Central Bank Digital Currency, quantitative easing, credit creation and funding the deficits., and I thank Governor Bullock for her well informed and honest answers.

– Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I have circulated a graph from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Ms Bullock, I certainly appreciate your direct and concise answers. I think you have talked quite a bit about how the RBA is looking through the energy bill subsidies and impact on headline inflation. What are you seeing in the underlying increases in the price of electricity? As I show in that graph, it has increased 23 per cent in two years. That seems like an incredible shock to the economy. How do you think about that? What is the impact of your management of inflation?  

Ms Bullock: So there are two aspects to that. What you will see from this graph that you have pointed out is that it rises in June 2023. That was the delayed energy price shock that many other countries saw following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Basically, then, it’s a new price level. The price level has risen, but you haven’t seen inflation because the level has just been the same.  

Senator ROBERTS: Flat?  

Ms Bullock: So there is a step up in the level. There has been a more recent increase, as we’ve seen the default market offers rates come out. Basically, the way we would think about it is that, in a direct sense, if you’ve got a supply shock, you’ve got a new price level. That doesn’t necessarily lead to ongoing inflation and an impact on inflationary expectations. We can afford to say that’s a level shift and we will look through it. The extent to which it has indirect impacts through cost impacts on businesses, that’s where we would watch to see that it wasn’t feeding through into consistent and persistent inflation. So far, it doesn’t seem to be driving persistent inflation, the increase in the price level for energy.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are your thoughts about when the energy bill relief stops?  

Ms Bullock: Well, the energy bill relief, obviously, is government policy. They put it in place to address the cost of living. Your graph shows why—because energy prices rose quite a lot. It has moved the inflation figures around quite a bit. As I’ve discussed in many other contexts, we’ve therefore looked at the underlying inflation to get an idea of the underlying pulse of inflation. That is what we have been focusing on in order to base our interest rate decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: We saw the government’s economic roundtable was supposedly focused on productivity. What do rising energy costs do to productivity? What is the impact, then, on the standard of living?  

Ms Bullock: I don’t know if there’s a very direct impact of rising energy costs on productivity. There’s a much more fundamental thing about productivity, and that’s dynamism in the economy and dynamism among businesses. What we have been observing for decades is that productivity growth has been declining not only here but overseas. To some extent, at least, the evidence suggests that lack of dynamism in business is part of the reason for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the underlying inflation on the electricity index is at 23 per cent. Including subsidies, it has been brought back to seven per cent. Many consumers still have about a 16 per cent increase to catch up with. What will that do to inflation numbers in the future?  

Ms Bullock: Well, headline inflation, as you’ll see from our forecasts, will rise as the energy rebates come off. But the more important thing is what is happening to the underlying pulse of inflation. We are continuing to see that decline.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand that household inflation expectations have a big impact on inflation itself. At the economic roundtable, Treasurer Chalmers said: Real wages are growing at their strongest rate in five years, inflation has a two in front of it and interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. People are still talking about high grocery bills and inflation in insurance premiums and all kinds of insurance. What does that do to people’s expectations of inflation?  

Ms Bullock: Well, all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2½ per cent. That’s what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2½ per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have a quick question before I go to a separate topic. What does having 4.5 million visa holders, non-citizens, in the country do to demand for houses and to the price of houses?  

Ms Bullock: Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing you have.  

Senator ROBERTS: It has been six months since the new board arrangements started. How is that working so far?  

Ms Bullock: I think it is working well. The monetary policy board now has more time to focus on monetary policy decisions. The governance board, I think, is adding significant value in helping me. I was the sole accountable authority for the institution. Now the governance board is the accountable authority. My own view is that the people on that board are adding significant value.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there going to be a review of these changes?  

Ms Bullock: The governance board is going to do a report, I think, by the end of the year. It is going to talk about all of the recommendations from the review, where we’re at with meeting them and what our plans are to meet those that we haven’t yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You actually have three boards—the monetary board, the governance board and the payment system board. Have there been any developments coming from the work the Reserve Bank is doing on electronic payment systems, whether that’s some form of central bank digital currency, which I think your predecessor acknowledged was done, or a unified digital currency the banks have been talking about? Is anything happening there in either the domestic market or international settlements?  

Ms Bullock: A few things. We have done some experimentation. Back in 2023—we might have talked about this before—we did a pilot of a central bank digital currency. We asked people to come with use cases and so on. The main headline out of that was that the predominant use cases were not what I would call retail CBDCs. It wasn’t about putting central bank digital currencies in the hands of you and me and using them at shops. It wasn’t about that. It was about wholesale digital currencies—how you can potentially use central bank digital currencies in markets for wholesale assets. We’ve got another experiment going on now which is looking specifically at that issue. If you tokenise assets—you put them on a chain, a ledger—how can you use not only central bank digital currencies but stable coins, tokenised bank deposits and standard payment systems to settle tokenised asset sales. That is the current experiment that is going on. We are working with a number of organisations to do that. That will give us a bit more information about the sorts of issues that might arise in moving towards tokenised asset ledgers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. During COVID, the Reserve Bank pursued a policy which had the effect of creating money through electronic journal entries and using that to buy securitised mortgages from Australian banks. How many securitised mortgages originating in the Australian property market is the Reserve Bank now holding?  

Dr Kent: We have to take this on notice. I suspect it’s close to none. We don’t accept them as part of our regular operations. Most of them we would have held would have been a result of the term funding facility, which has now rolled off and completed.  

/by

Censorship or Safety?

,

I went into this session with the eSafety Commissioner, Ms Inman Grant, with a few goals.

Firstly, I asked Ms. Grant about her recent trip to Stanford University. If Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for a trip to meet with AI and social media giants in the US, they deserve to see the receipts. The Commissioner has taken on notice to provide a full log of her meetings, speeches, and the total cost.

I then shifted to the “international alarm” surrounding her conduct. I asked the Minister if it concerned the government that Congressman Jim Jordan and the US House Judiciary Committee are so troubled by her actions that they’ve called for her to testify.

Senator Green tried her best to dodge the question sprouting bipartisan support and protecting children, however I stayed focused on how the Commissioner is being seen as a “global censor.”

I asked about her personal philosophy on censorship. The Commissioner was quick to deny the label, claiming she only acts on public complaints regarding high-threshold harm. She insists she doesn’t regulate political speech, yet in my view, she wields enormous power.

While I’ve complimented her office’s work on child safety in the past, the potential for her “world-leading” reach to impact the free speech of adults remains a serious concern of mine.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I understand you have a few more questions.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, just three. Commissioner, you visited Stanford University in September this year as part of a USA trip. Did Australian taxpayers fund that?

Ms Inman Grant: Yes, I went, and I met with eight of the AI companies and the social media companies. Then I spent a day and a half at the Trust and Safety Research Conference.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide a log of meetings and a record of your speeches, or any other documentation, to assure taxpayers that their money was spent appropriately, as well as the total cost of the trip?

Ms Inman Grant: I sure can.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You’ve already answered a question from Senator Whitten about the House Judiciary Committee chairman wanting you to testify, so I don’t need to cover that. Minister, does it concern you that your commissioner is engaging in conduct that is so extreme that the US Congress, specifically the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jim Jordan, is alarmed?

Senator Green: Minister, I think the eSafety Commissioner’s address—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not a minister.

Senator Green: Sorry, Senator—maybe one day, if the LNP has their way.

Senator Henderson interjecting—

Senator Green: You never know. They wrote your net zero policy, so you never know. We are very proud of the reforms that we are undertaking. To be fair, I’m sure the coalition was very proud of the steps that they took in terms of online safety when the eSafety Commissioner was established. For the most part, we have had bipartisan support for these types of reforms, because they keep Australians safe. The social media ban or minimum age will seek to keep our children safe. It’s incredibly important. I know you come in here quite often talking about the safety of children and wanting to keep harmful material away from them. That is the work of the eSafety Commissioner. It’s open to other governments or other people in other parliaments to have their judgment of it, but from an Australian government point of view we are very proud of the work that she does.

Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, you said earlier, in roughly these words, that you’ve never claimed to censor the net globally. Why do you think people think this?

Ms Inman Grant: We talked about Elon Musk’s tweet that said she’s the eSafety commissar trying to globally regulate the internet, and then Ben Fordham then picked it up, and it’s just had a life of its own.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve complimented your office on its work in protecting children, quite clearly. There are other concerns we have with your work because it can cause consequences for adults that we don’t like, but it’s not appropriate to discuss it here. What’s your philosophy on censorship?

Ms Inman Grant: My philosophy is I’m not a censor. I respond to complaints from the public. We received many about the Charlie Kirk assassination and about the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska on a train where she bled to death and the decapitation of the Dallas hotel owner. If you think that that’s overstepping when that’s something that’s highly damaging and was determined—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that. I was wanting to know your thoughts on censorship—that’s all— because you’ve got enormous power.

Ms Inman Grant: My thoughts on censorship? Well, what has been helpfully built into the Online Safety Act is that we’re not regulating for political speech or commentary. It’s where either online invective or imagery veers into the lane of serious harm. You provide us with thresholds. Sometimes those thresholds are tested and sometimes they’re a grey area, but I think we help thousands of people every year. We’re doing world-leading work that the rest of the governments around the world are following. I think we’re punching above our weight. We’re a very small agency given the size of our population. So I guess I don’t have a view. I don’t see myself as a censor. I don’t tell you what you can or can’t say unless it’s refused classification or it’s trying to silence someone else’s voice by targeted online abuse that reaches the threshold of adult cyberabuse.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Lastly, I think it was Mr Fleming who invited us to have a briefing. We haven’t forgotten. We’d like to do that, but we’ve been a bit busy. We will do it one day.

Mr Fleming: Maybe in the new year. The offer still stands.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by