Is the NACC Protecting Power Over Truth?

,

I recently asked questions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) about its refusal to engage with complainants who hold critical information—information that could help expose corruption at the highest levels. One such individual is economist John Adams, who has referred serious allegations involving the Prime Minister and ASIC officials. Despite providing extensive documentation, Mr Adams has been shut out of the process. The NACC confirmed they do not consult complainants before deciding whether to investigate. This raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability.

I also asked whether the NACC has served any legal notices or conducted compulsory examinations of the Prime Minister. Their response? “I’m not in a position to answer that.” The NACC “hides” behind confidentiality provisions in the Act, refusing to confirm or deny any action. Why is the federal body so secretive? Australians deserve to know if their leaders are under investigation.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the NACC refusing to engage with complainants in either preliminary investigations or corruption investigations—complainants who have critical information which can help the NACC fulfil its mission? One person, who has given me permission to name, is John Adams, and he has referred the Prime Minister and ASIC officials. Why haven’t you talked to him? 

Mr Reed: Mr Adams has made a number of referrals to the commission. We go through a process of triage and then assessment, and the outcome of that, if it goes from tier 1 triage to tier 2 assessment, is then considered by the NACC Senior Assessment Panel to determine whether or not there’s a corruption issue that could be investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you make that decision without consulting the complainant?  

Mr Reed: What happens is that people make referrals, and we assess them. We decide whether or not we’re going to proceed with any further work. Eighty-four per cent of the matters—  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reed, I accept what you’re saying. Can you make those decisions to take it from one stage to the next without taking to the complainant?  

Mr Reed: It depends on what material the complainant has provided. Mr Adams has provided enormous amounts of material.  

Senator ROBERTS: He’s diligent.  

Mr Reed: He is just one of those individuals who is very invested in one particular matter, and the commission has spent a significant amount of time considering the material that he’s provided and has made decisions about that matter. I don’t think that Mr Adams is happy about that or will ever be happy about the outcome. So we don’t have to go and talk to individuals who made referrals.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that you don’t have to.  

Mr Reed: It’s just the reality of it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reed, has the NACC served any legal notices on the current prime minister of Australia?  

Mr Reed: We have received 6,055 referrals since our inception, and it’s just not possible that we’re going to talk to all of them, and, in many ways, there’s no requirement to. Sorry, I missed your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC served any legal notices on the current prime minister of Australia. If so, how many and when?  

Mr Reed: I’m not in a position to answer that. We don’t talk about the work that we do. We don’t talk about referrals, unless they’re on the public record. We don’t talk about investigations. We don’t talk about where notices are served.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?  

Mr Reed: It’s just the nature of the act. The act requires us to do things confidentially and largely in private. That’s the reality of the act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC compulsorily examined the Prime Minister?  

Mr Reed: We will never talk about the work we’re doing until we publish a report at the end of the work we’re doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the same apply to ministers, not just the Prime Minister?  

Mr Reed: I’m not going to enter into a debate about the work that the NACC is undertaking in any of its investigations. It’s not appropriate to talk about it here.  

Senator ROBERTS: In October 2021, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption published a media release indicating that Premier Berejiklian was under formal investigation for corruption. This publication led to the resignation of the premier. Does the NACC have the approach of informing the public if a minister of the Crown or the head of a Commonwealth government or agency is under investigation for corruption? You’ve already said no, but it has happened before in a different state, in a different jurisdiction.  

Mr Reed: I worked at the New South Wales ICAC for five years. I very much understand how it operates. It has a different legislative base, a different approach. They ultimately end up in public hearings as part of an investigative process, but most of the work they do is done privately. If I can quote some figures to you out of the most recent annual report of the ICAC, they had one public inquiry in 2023-24, which occurred over 11 days, yet, in the same time period, they undertook 36 of what we would call private hearings and what they call compulsory examinations over 30 days. The bulk of the work done by the New South Wales ICAC is done in private. Then, when they get an investigation to a particular point, they have the option to go to public hearing. There are provisions that relate to that, and they use that option on a regular basis, but it’s a different bit of legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: In May 2024, the Prime Minister of Australia and senior ASIC officials were referred to the NACC after allegedly facilitating an illegal cover-up of a company called ABC Bullion. Are you familiar with that? It occurred during an official investigation.  

Mr Reed: We don’t ever comment on matters that are referred to us or where they’ve ended up unless it’s been put on the public record previously, and most matters have not. So I’m not going to answer either positively or negatively about that particular referral.  

Senator ROBERTS: Again, the NACC has resisted in engaging the key witness, so we’ll move on to the last issue. Given that there have now been two senior judges finding that Ms Brittany Higgins lied about not receiving support from her employer Senator Reynolds, will the NACC reopen the complaint about Ms Higgins receiving a $2.4 million payment of taxpayer money based on lies, being that she would never be able to work again.  

Ms O’Meagher: In relation to Ms Higgins, she wasn’t a Commonwealth public official at the time of the conduct you refer to, so it’s not within the jurisdiction of the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thanks.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/by

Build-to-Rent is Really Build-to-Never-Own

,

Labor’s decision to slash the withholding tax for foreign corporate landlords from 30% to just 15% is a slap in the face to everyday Australians. While families struggle to buy a home, Labor is rolling out the red carpet for global giants like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—offering them tax breaks to build rental stack-and-pack apartments that Australians will never own.

Let’s call it what it is: build-to-rent is build-to-never-own. It’s designed to lock Australians into a lifetime of renting from foreign billionaires, while those same corporations pay less tax than the hardworking people they’re renting to.

One Nation has been warning about this for years. We believe in the Australian dream—owning your own home, not renting it forever from a global landlord.

We stand with Australians, not greedy foreign corporations and parasitic predators driving the World Economic Forum and the United Nations agenda.

Transcript

Senator Bragg’s disallowance seeks to throw a spanner in the works of the build-to-rent scheme. That’s a very good thing and One Nation will be wholeheartedly supporting it. Foreign corporations used to pay a 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor cut that in half, to 15 per cent.  

Let’s be clear: this Labor government said to foreign, corporate landlords like BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and first state, ‘We’ll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.’  

Forget the Australian dream of owning your own home. Labor’s dream is that you live in a stack-and-pack shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock forever, while those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. That’s what build to rent means. 

Whenever you hear ‘build-to-rent’, remember ‘renting forever to a foreign corporation, a foreign corporate landlord and a foreign global wealth investment fund’. They’ll build homes, for sure, and Australians will never, ever own them—never. It’s built to rent forever. I’ll quote from the Economics Legislation Committee report into the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 and the provisions of the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024. The provisions of the bills include ‘reducing the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments—distributions of rental income and capital gains—from eligible managed investment trust investments from 30 per cent to 15 per cent, starting from 1 July 2024’. So there you go—a tax cut in half for those global, corporate, predatory investors, who own almost everything and are determined to own everything. I’ll say that again: they own almost everything and are determined to own everything. 

The report states: 

The draft legislation was adjusted as a result of this consultation to ensure the government’s policy objective of incentivising foreign investment in BTR— 

Build-to-rent— 

including affordable housing supply, is achieved. 

They are admitting that the objective of the bills is incentivising foreign and predatory corporations into owning your home. The report also states: 

The Property Council advised the 15 per cent tax rate for investment in housing is already available to Australian investors. The MIT— 

managed investment trust— 

withholding tax rate applies to withholding tax that goes back to overseas investors— 

Predators and parasites— 

but foreign investors can also capital partner with Australian investors. 

That is the most telling part of all. This bill would only change the tax treatment of foreign, predatory, multinational corporations. That’s all. There’s nothing for Australians. Australian companies could do it. Foreign companies pay a penalty—that’s a good thing. Yet the Labor Party of Australia would change that; you in the government would change that. Are Labor the party for Australia, or are they the party for global, foreign corporations? Build-to-rent answers that question clearly. Clearly Labor are for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. One Nation, though, is for Australians owning their own homes. 

I’m going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from the coalition senators’ dissenting report on the build-to-rent bills—an outstanding report. I hope you don’t mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what’s wrong with the new Labor Party: 

Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, ‘mum and dad’ investors, not institutions. That is appropriate. 

This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers. 

Why? The report continues: 

Dr Murray was critical of the Bill’s attempted perversion of our tax arrangements: 

It’s not clear to me why local investors shouldn’t be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don’t see that there’s a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It’s not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement. 

That’s just like One Nation policy. The report goes on: 

At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (‘ASFA’) suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation’s landlords— 

Really? You would? 

and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a ‘hobby activity’— 

How condescending; how arrogant— 

Senator BRAGG: Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund? 

Mr Clare: I think that they would be very happy with institutionally owned residential property where there is an option of having longer-term tenancies rather than the more-typical-in-the-market situation where there is a lack of assurance of continuity of tenancy because it’s a small-scale, hobby activity for individual landlords. 

The report continues: 

This is the view of a vested interest. Most Australians would not agree with this proposal. 

Other witnesses did not share ASFA’s view. Grounded Community Land Trust Advocacy told the Committee:  

Senator BRAGG: Are you concerned that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia? 

Mr Fitzgerald: Absolutely. This is delivering horrifying results in the Northern Hemisphere, and this legislation makes no account of that— 

No account of what’s actually happening— 

It perplexes me that this government, which purports to be in support of labour— 

That is, workers— 

is allowing rent-maximisation strategies to come through unabated. Yes, I agree: pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition— 

An oligopoly for the big fellas— 

What we’re seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice— 

Yet you want to bring it in— 

There’s just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what’s coming. 

The report goes on: 

The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia’s housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership. 

Senator BRAGG: But isn’t it the case that the character of the housing market in Australia is largely focused on individuals? … Do you think that’s a good or a bad design feature? 

Mr Reardon: I think that is a very positive outcome, with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose—all of those dynamics. 

This is reinforcing what we already know and what Senator Bragg has already discussed. Mr Reardon goes on: 

All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes. 

Personal responsibility is a cornerstone, a foundation of a safe and productive society. Personal responsibility enables and is the basis for a safe and productive society. 

Senator Bragg’s report then says: 

Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre: 

There are a lot of foreign investors using the MITs because of the withholding tax concessions and other benefits from using that structure, but there can also be domestic investors using the MITs; they just get a different tax regime. Those investors will be working in partnership with commercial developers to develop these buildings. 

The report continues: 

Cbus Super has previously committed to scaling up in the Build to Rent sector, announcing a plan to scale up its portfolio to approximately $2 billion in apartments. 

Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this Bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market. Dr Murray warned: 

I find it interesting because we’ve already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What’s even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We’ve got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we’re now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they’re already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill. 

It is bizarre. The report continues: 

Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market. 

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US— 

I will digress from Senator Bragg’s dissenting report for a minute. The bankers in the United States said in the 1920s that their dream was a combination of predatory behaviour and legislation to get a monopoly and own every house that they could in the country—to control people—because once people have their residence at stake, they are easily controlled. The report says: 

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office (‘the GAO’), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing. 

In 2023, corporate housing funds held $1 trillion USD in assets. In Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville, institutional investors own 25, 18 and 21 per cent of the rental stock respectively. 

That is what you are wanting here. We don’t want it. The report continues: 

This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting— 

This is exactly what we’ve been warning for the last five years. It continues: 

There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly— 

Watch what’s happening; this has failed— 

While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australians into it. 

Well, Senator Bragg, I’m not ashamed to admit we probably couldn’t have written it better ourselves; thank you. 

Build-to-rent is an abomination that destroys the Australian dream of owning your own home. One Nation raised this cruel reality years ago. One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations. 

An honourable senator interjecting— 

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s see if you repeat that: One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations, predatory parasitic corporations and parasitic predators driving the World Economic Forum and the United Nations agenda, on your conscience. All Australians should be able to work hard and one day own their own slice of this great, big, wonderful country with so much potential. Only One Nation has the policy to make this real for everyday Australians. 

/by

Scrap Net Zero, Stop Waste, Restore Australia

,

Australia watched the Treasurer turn the cabinet room into a stage for business and union bosses instead of using it for real cabinet deliberation. The roundtable wasn’t about shaping policy—it was about rubberstamping what the government had already decided. Their attempt to link productivity to higher taxes collapsed, and Australians are left wondering why this government keeps chasing revenue instead of fixing its spending problem.

One Nation will fight the Albanese government’s tax hikes and end the wasteful net zero transition that’s draining billions a year while driving private enterprise away. We will restore fiscal sanity by cutting unnecessary spending, imposing an eight-year residency requirement for Social Security, and cracking down on fraud in agencies such as Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS, and the PBS.

Smaller government and a sensible energy policy will deliver real productivity gains and prosperity for Australians—especially our young.

Transcript

Last week, Australia watched the Treasurer host business and union bosses in the cabinet room. The irony escaped the Treasurer—using the cabinet room to hold a policy debate cabinet itself should be doing. The usual suspects were not there to help form government policy; they were there to rubberstamp the policies the government intends to implement in this parliament. The roundtable even failed to achieve that. We know this because the ABC leaked the outcome of the week before. That communique remains in Treasurer Chalmers’s drawer, abandoned and unloved. The core intent—making productivity about taxation—failed.  

One Nation will oppose the tax hike the Albanese government will still try to introduce to cover its growing financial black hole caused largely through the increasing use of taxpayer money to pay for a net zero transition from which private enterprise is walking away—indeed, running away. This government doesn’t need more revenue; it needs to spend less money. One Nation will abolish the net zero transition, saving the government $30 billion each year in direct expenditure and generating that much again in extra revenue from a revitalised economy. One Nation will impose an eight-year residency requirement on access to social security, taking tens of billions of dollars off the cost of Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS and the PBS and giving auditors and police a chance to investigate and prosecute the rampant fraud. Net zero insanity, deficit spending and throwing cash at new arrivals are robbing our children of their future.  

Smaller government and a sensible energy policy are where productivity improvements will actually come from. One Nation’s policies will restore wealth and prosperity for all who are here, especially our young. The Albanese government will just take your money and leave working Australians with less—much less. A One Nation government, though, will restore Australia. 

/by

Hands Off Our Homes

,

Transcript

I thank Senator McGrath for this motion, which One Nation supports. This government is flooding the country with new arrivals who need a bed to sleep in. Home construction is 500,000 homes behind, and this figure is not reducing; it’s growing. A sensible party would simply impose a moratorium on new buildings until housing catches up. That’s One Nation policy.

This, though, is not a sensible government nor an honest government. The roundtable received a proposal to force Australians with spare bedrooms to take in new arrivals or pay a penalty tax. Elderly Australians living in their family homes, with children moved out and bedrooms galore, are terrified of this idea. Current best practice is for the elderly to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Now they are to be turfed out through taxation and forced into retirement homes. In answer to my question on this topic to Minister Gallagher yesterday, I did hear a qualified denial. The minister did not rule the idea out, though; rather she used vague words like, ‘The proposal was not raised while I was in the room.’ Really? That’s not a clear statement. The idea must be dismissed and never considered again.

I would raise this simple question: what’s a bedroom? Does ‘bedroom’ mean any room that can be used to house a new arrival? Studies, rumpuses, garages turned into granny flats? Who will make these decisions? SBS, who promoted the idea, has clearly never watched Doctor Zhivago, a movie depicting life under Soviet rule, which depicted this very thing. The Soviets actually did this, so it’s an idea with precedent. Will the government include compulsion in addition to taxation? Will all those Australians who are buying their homes under Help to Buy or government guaranteed mortgages, who have the government as the shareholder or guarantor on the mortgage, be forced to comply? Will they? Who knows, because no-one is saying. They won’t deny it.

I call on the Prime Minister to rule out any new taxes on the family home, including land tax, bedroom tax and grave tax.

/by

Mass Immigration Is Failing Australians

,

I’m an immigrant, and I love this country deeply. Like many others who marched in the March for Australia, I came here legally, embraced the culture, and built a life as part of the Australian community—not separate from it. We weren’t born here, but we’re proud Australians.

What we’re standing up against isn’t immigration itself—it’s immigration without assimilation. We’re tired of politicians pushing mass immigration without thinking about the social and economic hardship it causes. We’re fed up with being called racist or hateful just for wanting to protect our way of life, our jobs, and our communities.

Australians aren’t against migrants — we’re against policies that prioritise foreign workers over Aussie ones, that erode secure employment, and that replace permanent jobs with insecure subcontracting. Labor used to stand for workers, but now they’ve abandoned the working class in favour of globalist agendas, predatory billionaires and their corporate interests.

The truth is diversity is not our strength. Our strength lies in people from all over the world with different backgrounds coming together as Australians, respecting our laws, values, and culture. That’s the Australia I believe in – the Australia I marched for. If you love this country, if you want to contribute and be part of a united Australia, then join us.

Transcript

Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.’ So read the T-shirt that a lovely, older immigrant lady wore in the Cairns March for Australia on Sunday. Many of the tens of thousands of Australians who marched for Australia on Sunday were not born here. Like me, they’re immigrants. I spoke with marchers from all over the world, of every religion and skin colour. They are wonderful Australians who came here as migrants legally, who love this country and who have built a life in Australia, not on top of it—not those who impose their religion, their culture, their intolerance and their perpetual hate onto Australians and who marchers rightly criticised. Marchers criticised politicians and others who hate this country so much that they seek to flood Australia with like-minded arrivals to destroy our culture and to carve off religious and ethnic enclaves in order to divide us. The Australian public are not against immigrants. We’ve had a gutful of excessive, mass immigration—a simple distinction that the unhinged rants from Greens and Labor senators yesterday were designed to cover up. I appreciate the far left in this country have disappeared up their own nobility complex and have completely abandoned any pretence of democracy, decency or civil discourse. Vile, unhinged abuse devoid of facts—indeed, devoid of any relevance to the motion I presented yesterday—doesn’t work on One Nation. It doesn’t work on our supporters and it doesn’t work on those who attended the many marches for Australia. Our beautiful country can embrace and lift up only so many people before the economic and social costs cause the elastic of society to snap back, which is the process you’re watching with confused looks on your faces and fear in your eyes. 

The immigration debate is not an argument about someone’s past nationality, religion or skin colour. It’s an argument about wealth, opportunity and security. Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard knew this to be true. In an address to the University of Western Sydney in March 2013, then prime minister Gillard promised Labor would ‘stop foreign workers being put at the front of the queue, with Australian workers at the back’. She said: 

We will support your job and put Aussie workers first. 

What a difference 10 years makes! Now those foreign workers are being advanced to the front using DEI, and Australian workers are being told not to apply. Often, the application is not even for a job with secure employment, an award or guaranteed conditions. In the new Australia, jobs are now a subcontracting arrangement requiring an Australian Business Number, an ABN. A microbusiness with a single customer—the same business which used to employ Australians on permanent employment, with awards protecting wages and working conditions—is no more. In just 10 years, the Greens have pushed Labor so far to the left they have abandoned their working-class base, embracing a UN/World Economic Forum sustainability agenda which gives their members less and foreign, predatory billionaires more. 

It’s no surprise that marches included members of the AWU, the CFMEU, the ETU and other unions who’ve seen their wealth, opportunity and place in Australia be reduced. Labor has failed to defend Australian workers from employment arrangements that destroy the standard of living of everyday Australians. Instead of listening to the public, rightly complaining, Labor came into this place yesterday and ranted against One Nation. They name-called, lied and misrepresented out of confusion and fear. One Nation has a message for this government: go back to your masters at the World Economic Forum, go back to your owners—the world’s predatory billionaires—and tell them Australia has had enough. We’re not going to be ground zero for your evil plan to tear apart Australian society, culture and cohesion and rebuild in the image of the World Economic Forum. Everyday Australians want our country back. Our success is inevitable because our Australia, built on family, on community and, yes, on national pride, is paradise compared to your ugly vision of a society based on an ever-changing agenda relying on intimidation and bullying. 

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam found that the greater the diversity in a community the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and the less they work on community projects. A massive new study based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America supports those who marched on Sunday. In the most diverse communities, neighbours trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogeneous settings. The study found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. Ask the five tight monocultures—Japan, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Singapore. Diversity is not our strength. Our strength is Australians who’ve come here from all over the world, with different races and religions providing different perspectives on life, working together as a community of Australians old and new. One Nation welcomes anyone who loves our country, who wants to join in and who wants to pull their weight, follow our laws and, in so doing, lift themselves up. If that’s the Australia you love, please join One Nation and help us reverse the decline of our beautiful country. 

/by

COVID Vaccine Compensation: Why So Little for Lifelong Harm?

,

During this session of Estimates, I asked questions on the COVID vaccine redress scheme. By the closing date, 4962 claims had been lodged, yet only 522 have been paid—amounting to $50.9 million. A large portion of applications were rejected, withdrawn, or remain under assessment, with 722 still in progress. I pressed for details on why so many were refused, and it was confirmed that hospitalisation was a key eligibility criteria, a policy set by the Department of Health.

I questioned why compensation offers under the COVID vaccine redress scheme are so small, given the evidence of significant harm suffered by claimants that included lifelong disability. Mr Turnbull responded that this question should be directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, as the compensation policy and parameters are set by them, not by Services Australia. While Services Australia administers the scheme, they advised that payout levels and eligibility rules are dictated by the Department.

Mr Turnbull stated that he did not have the average payout figure on hand and would take that question on notice. However, he explained that payouts are calculated based on various categories of loss, including specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, and pain and suffering. Additionally, lump-sum payments are available for claims involving death.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending tonight. How many applications for redress were received by the COVID vaccine redress scheme before the closing-down date?  

Mr Turnbull: We received 4,962 claims by the closing date.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many were successful?  

Mr Turnbull: To date, 522 claims have been paid, to the value of $50.9 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many applications were refused. Was that the rest of them, or were some partially paid?  

Mr Turnbull: Of the remaining, 2,670 were not payable, 1,048 were withdrawn and there are 722 claims at different parts of the assessment process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the most common reason for being refused?  

Mr Turnbull: We assess each claim against the criteria—for example, the different vaccines that are eligible, the different conditions—  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re all covered?  

Mr Turnbull: Yes. I’d have to check what the most common reason is, but—  

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

Mr Turnbull: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the criteria to be satisfied, apparently, is that the applicant needed to be hospitalised. Is that correct?  

Mr Turnbull: I believe so, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is that?  

Mr Turnbull: We don’t set the policy. If you’re asking about the particular policy parameters of the scheme, those questions are better directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. They set the policy parameters, and they’ll have their rationale for that. Our role is to then administer the payment against the criteria that they set.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, this session is really just on the service delivery aspects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many complaints have been made about claims being rejected—appeals, I guess.  

Mr Turnbull: We would need to take that on notice. What I can tell you is that we do have a review process. For example, at the moment we have 144 claims that are undergoing a review of the decision. The agency has also finalised 161 review decisions. That gives an indication of the total number who, having received the assessment—  

Senator ROBERTS: The agency has reviewed them? They’ve already reviewed them?  

Mr Turnbull: There are 144 that are being reviewed. There are 161 where the review process has been finalised.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications are still being processed?  

Mr Turnbull: There are 722 applications still being processed. They’re at different stages of that assessment process. Of the 722, there are 221 with Services Australia at the moment for assessment, there are 344 claims where we are requesting further information from the applicant to support the claim, there are 103 claims with an expert panel—that’s either an expert medical panel or an expert legal panel—and there’s another group, which is 54 claims, where we’ve made an offer and the applicant has six months to decide whether or not to accept that offer. That’s the break-up of the 722 on hand.  

CHAIR: I’ll get you to wrap up, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What’s the average payout that has been made, and how are payouts calculated?  

Mr Turnbull: I don’t have the average payout with me. We would need to take that on notice. Payouts are calculated based on a range of categories of loss—for example, specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, pain and suffering. There are also lumpsum payments for claims involving death.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question—very simple. Why are the offers of compensation so small, taking into account proof of the significant damage that complainants have suffered, including some being crippled for life— debilitated for life?  

Mr Turnbull: I think that particular question is best directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing because it relates back to the policy. 

 Senator ROBERTS: Because they—  

Mr Turnbull: They set the parameters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you 

/by

Commissioner Doesn’t Get XX/XY

,

“I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around XX and XY ….”

— Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, during Senate Estimates.

How can you advise the court on sex-based rights if you don’t understand the science? Seriously!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to go to Dr Cody, and the intervention in Tickle v Giggle, please. Thank you for appearing, Dr Cody. Tickle v Giggle is the case of someone who was born a biological male being stopped from joining a women-only app. What are you arguing in your intervention? How much are you being paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men to be allowed into women’s spaces?  

Dr Cody: The role that we have within the case Giggle and Tickle is intervention, or amicus curiae: helping the court to understand the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the amendments from 2013, and also how the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women applies, whether or not there are special measures, and their understanding of section 5 and section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We were given leave by the court to assist them to understand those issues and also the constitutionality of the Sex Discrimination Act. In terms of the cost, we have two counsel who were briefed. Both agreed to appear on a capped fee basis, so that’s a reduced fee. One was paid $13,000, and the other one was paid $10,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I actually asked, Dr Cody, was how much are you paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men?  

Dr Cody: My salary is similar to that that you mentioned for Commissioner Sivaraman.  

Senator ROBERTS: About $400,000 a year, plus 15.4 per cent super?  

Dr Cody: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Just so I can be clear, your position is that the law means a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman can enter a female-only space?

Dr Cody: I would question whether or not Roxanne Tickle is not a man. She is a trans woman. She has gone through various processes and has transitioned, and she’s a trans woman. So she has access—or sought access and was provided access—to the Giggle for Girls app, and then was taken off the access to the Giggle for Girls app.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sort of chromosomes does she have—XX or XY?  

Dr Cody: I can’t answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t?  

Dr Cody: No, I can’t answer that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Can someone who was born with XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes—a male change to a female?  

Dr Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist. There are many variations of chromosomes. There are hormonal variations, there are chromosomal variations, there are genitalia variations—there are a lot of variations which are along a spectrum.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex—if born a man, they are a man; if they’re born with XY chromosomes, they’re a man and they stay a man?  

Dr Cody: No, I would not agree.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t agree?  If a woman took a case to court today trying to stop a person with a penis who identified as a female going into a women’s bathroom, which side would you be arguing for if you were there as a friend of the court?  

Dr Cody: No.  I would need to know more facts. I can’t make a judgement on that in particular.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your previous answer, you talked about XX and XY and how you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?  

Dr Cody: The issue around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.  

Senator ROBERTS: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Someone born female is XX.  

Dr Cody: Not always.  

Senator ROBERTS: No?  

Dr Cody: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an example of when not?  

Dr Cody: Because there are also people who have innate variations of sex characteristics, so they may be identified as male at birth, but in fact later find out that they have XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes. So it is more complex than just XX being female and XY being male.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll agree with that, but it’s a very, very tiny proportion of the population. Someone who was born a man, a boy, has XY chromosomes and cannot change to XX—is that correct?  

Dr Cody: If their chromosomes are XY, then I don’t believe their chromosomes can change. But, I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change it.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, if you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?  

Dr Cody: I’m not taking a side within a court case. Our role is as amicus—that is, to provide clarification and help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.  

Senator ROBERTS: So how can you clarify if you don’t understand?  

Dr Cody: I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around the XX and XY, unless the evidence is before the court. So my role is to assist the court with understanding the legal argument.  

Senator ROBERTS: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?  

Dr Cody: What would you like me to explain, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: What your position is.  

Dr Cody: On which issue? 

Senator ROBERTS: The Human Rights Commission’s position on biological males in female spaces. Could you please explain your position on that.  

Dr Cody: What do you mean by ‘biological males’, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: Someone born as a male, XY chromosomes. 

Dr Cody: If they are a man, and depending on which space they are wanting to enter and why that space has been created—if it’s a special measure, for example, for ensuring the quality of women—then there may be good reason to exclude men from that space.  

Senator ROBERTS: What would be some of the reasons?  

Dr Cody: For safety reasons, for example.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of safety reasons?  

Dr Cody: There is certainly a reason why men would be excluded from a domestic violence refuge for women.  

Senator ROBERTS: Female prison?  

Dr Cody: Female prisons are also made for women, and therefore men would be excluded from a women’s prison.  

/7 Comments/by

CCP Darwin Port Election Promise Still BROKEN!

,

Darwin Port under CCP control for 99 years! While PM Albanese calls Communist China a “friend,” they harass our aircraft, wage trade wars and control our most strategic northern port. Their actions speak louder than words.

One Nation stands firm: Australian assets MUST be in Australian hands. Our sovereignty and security are NOT for sale!

No more election promises – hand back Darwin Port now!

Transcript

Australians are sick of the benefits of our natural resources and critical infrastructure being siphoned off to foreign multinational companies. Chinese company Landbridge will operate the Port of Darwin for 99 years. Make no mistake; that means it’s under Chinese Communist Party control. While Australia differentiates between private companies and government, there’s no such separation in communist China. Every company is a direct arm of the ruling communist party and serves its purposes, so the Chinese Communist Party is running Darwin port. 

It’s not just a profitmaking venture; it’s Australia’s most strategic major northern port. Darwin in general is crucial for our Defence Force’s deployment. It’s crucial for securing our borders and millions of square kilometres of northern ocean. The security implications of having a potential foreign adversary decide how the Darwin port is developed and used over the next 99 years are obvious. Australians should own Australian assets, especially ones as critical as our Darwin port. 

To be clear, One Nation supports Australians with Chinese heritage, and they have been living here as Australians since our gold rushes in the 1880s, and we support the Chinese people. We oppose, though, the government of China, the Chinese Communist Party, with their totalitarian abuse of humans, censorship and rule though fear. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this week said communist China is a ‘friend’. Let’s see what our friend has said about Australia. During our diplomatic freeze for asking where COVID came from, a Chinese government official said, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’ and said phone calls would be meaningless. In 2020 communist China issued 14 demands of Australia, criticising us for not censoring the press and for having honest conversations about China’s activities. They’ve illegally waged trade wars on Australian lobsters, beef and barley, trying to coerce Australia because we dared to ask where COVID really came from 

This year communist China’s navy circumnavigated Australia, conducting unannounced live-fire exercises that diverted aircraft flights. This week Chinese aircraft harassed and released flares in front of an Australian aircraft over the disputed Paracel Islands, the latest in a string of similar dangerous incidents. It’s very weird behaviour for a friend! They seem to mean it when they say, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’ 

The United States seem to know the strategic value of northern Australia better than our own government does. They’ve been encouraging us to develop and fortify our infrastructure there so that we may have a chance of defending ourselves in a conflict. A US official reportedly said: 

We are surprised this issue has not yet been settled, and we are closely watching what the Albanese Government is doing. There has been some concern that getting back control of Darwin Port is no longer a priority for Australia. 

It’s hard to disagree. 

Before the election we heard again and again, as early as February this year, that a big decision was around the corner. Since the election, we’ve heard nothing—another broken election promise. In July, Prime Minister Albanese met with President Xi, of China, and had the chance to sort it all out. Instead, when asked if he raised the issue of the port, the Prime Minister said he didn’t need to—gutless. 

Should this foreign government have a 99-year hold on our most strategic northern port? On security reasons alone, One Nation’s answer very clearly is no. Putting aside the security and sovereignty issue, there’s basic common sense. As I’ve outlined, Darwin port will essentially be under the control of the Chinese Communist Party government for 99 years. They will operate, develop and profit from Darwin port for nearly a century. The communist Chinese government will reap the profits from Australia’s most northern strategic port. 

There’s a reason a foreign government would seek to get a stranglehold on a critical asset like Darwin port for 99 years: to develop it, of course, and then squeeze every dollar they can out of it to return a tidy profit back to their treasury reserves. If anyone is reaping some kind of profit from critical infrastructure in Australia, it should be the Australian government and the Australian people. At the minimum, it should be a publicly owned, wholly Australian company. This extends to Australian farmland, water, critical power infrastructure and residential homes. All critical assets in Australia should be in our Australian hands, not in the hands of a foreign government or foreign multinational corporation. Labor, get some courage and integrity and put Australia first. 

/by

Digital ID Spreads Across the West

How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control.

Last weekend, UK streets filled with thousands of people opposing Digital ID. The rally was prompted by their Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, declaring that Digital ID would be made mandatory by 2029.

His excuse?

Digital ID stops illegal migrants from working.

It was a claim that no one, not even left-leaning TV broadcasters, believed. Keir Starmer was grilled for days on end and never managed to make a single coherent argument about why Digital ID would ‘solve’ any of the major problems facing the UK.

Digital ID has no ability to stop the zodiacs full of illegal migrants washing up on British beaches. Nor can it resurrect the manufacturing industry and give desperate working-class towns back their industries which have been gutted by Net Zero policy. It also won’t stop their Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, threatening to raise income taxes on the poorest of Brits.

…sounds like Australia.

What Digital ID might do is allow the government to control what people think, write, and say online.

Indeed, many joke that you’re more likely to be jailed in the UK for political speech than serious criminal activity. Currently, the UK is making more than 30 arrests per day for ‘offensive social media posts’ and over 12,000 across the year.

The bulk of these offences relate to politically-contested ideas that ‘offend’ people.

It is much the same in Australia where high-profile takedown notices show no attempt to apply an equal level of ‘safety’. The stabbing of a religious figure in Australia and the murder of a woman in the US were targeted for censorship by the eSafety Commissioner, although not thousands of violent images and video coming out of foreign accounts aimed at radicalising Australian users.

We believe it is undeniable that politics plays a role in digital censorship and that destroying privacy will only make people more afraid to speak their minds.

Just as ‘child safety’ was used to implement wide-spread social media censorship, many rightly fear that Digital ID will give the government excessive visibility and control over the actions of citizens.

Privacy was a valued asset in democracy because it was recognised as necessary to limit the power of government.

Suspicions are raised, for example, when official UK Labour press releases started calling Digital ID ‘a boarding pass to government’.

As the director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch said:

‘[Digital ID] is fast becoming a digital permit required to live our everyday lives. Starmer has sold his Orwellian Digital ID scheme to the public on the lie that it will only be used to stop illegal working but now the truth, buried in the small print, is becoming clear. We now know that Digital IDs could be the backbone of a surveillance state and used for everything from tax and pensions to banking and education. The prospects of enrolling even children into this sprawling biometric system is sinister, unjustified, and prompts the chilling question of just what he thinks ID will be used for in the future.’

Today, politicians are exploiting public fears – Covid, terrorism, migration, crime, child safety – to coerce citizens into giving up essential privacy protections.

‘If you accept Digital ID now, it may be the last real choice you ever make.’ – UK protest sign

‘The systems involved are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people,’ said Sir David Davis.

Digital ID is the very definition of ‘mission creep’ where earlier calls to online safety and an upgrade to ailing government computer systems has been jumped on by data-hungry entities within the government.

The UK have used mass migration as their excuse – what of Australia? Our Labor-Liberal uniparty has decided to use children.

As we approach the December Under 16 social media ban, the widespread implementation of Digital ID is beginning to take effect.

Already, social media companies are taking steps to verify the identity and age of users – a necessary step if they are to avoid the crippling fines proposed by the Labor government.

Regardless of the specifics for each platform, the escalation of ID verification and near-total collapse of anonymity online has changed the relationship citizens have with the online world and – perhaps – the reach of the law.

Anonymity online has been used as a protection for political speech.

Australians have used their online accounts to add to the digital political conversation without fear that their employer might sack or demote them for something as simple as disagreeing with ‘pronouns’ or ‘Net Zero’.

This is necessary, given the rise of ‘Woke’ puritanical speech obsessions implemented by many employers.

The use of Digital ID and other forms of verification dramatically increases the risk for those Australians who wish to continue engaging politically.

We have seen how frequent data hacks have become and there is now a real possibility that people might be blackmailed for what they say.

Gmail confirmed that 7 million of its email accounts had been compromised. (People often use email to verify their identity for social media.) This was part of the enormous data link that involved 183 million accounts across Google and Apple. Earlier this month, Discord reported its proof-of-age ID data had been breached. These are the very same pieces of sensitive personal information that government wants all social media companies to collect.

Proof-of-age ID data is some of the most sensitive and can include driver’s licence or passport.

Forcing this data into the hands of more organisations is a public safety and privacy issue that has not been properly considered by the government as it rushed into so-called ‘child safety’ protections.

The only reason Discord was holding this proof-of-age data was, as they state, to satisfy UK and Australian age verification laws.

According to Proton, ‘Typically, Discord required a user’s selfie and then used software to scan the photo and estimate their age. Discord would then delete the photo at the end of the process. The system that was allegedly hacked was part of its appeals process.’

Essentially, when the photographs failed to correctly guess an age, users could back up their claim with government ID.

Everyone is talking about the Discord hack because it is a warning – a real-world ramification of rushed age verification laws that, without explicitly stating, require the widespread use of Digital ID.

Discord stresses it was only ‘a limited number of users’ except this reportedly equates to 70,000. That is a lot of people left vulnerable from information that never should have been surrendered.

It’s this under-handed spread of Digital ID via online safety rules that deeply concerns us.

Effectively, adults are being told that if they want to keep engaging online, they have to sign up to some form of Digital ID. We are social creatures. We have friendship groups online. Australian businesses rely on social media to operate and compete. Interfering in this space turns Digital ID from ‘optional’ into a heavily coerced requirement.

It’s like saying the Covid vaccines were ‘optional’.

Optional … but the government will ruin your life if you say no.

Digital ID spreads across the West by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control

Read on Substack

/by

China Strengthens Foothold in Antarctica

,

During this session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, I raised with them that in 2021, the Coalition government abandoned plans to build an all-weather, all-season paved runway in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Minister Watt confirmed that there are currently no plans to build such a runway and noted that Australia continues to rely on a blue ice runway during summer – leaving our bases largely isolated from the outside world for most of the year.

I pointed out that China is expanding its presence in the region, having already established three bases within the Australian Antarctic Territory. I also raised concerns about the recent reduction in the number of planned programs; however officials denied any funding cuts, asserting that Australia is meeting its obligations in Antarctic research despite China’s growing influence.

When questioned about China’s policy of conducting dual-purpose military and civilian research at its stations, the Department responded that military research would breach the Antarctic Treaty. China does not appear to share such concerns.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll be quick. In November 2021, the then coalition government made the poor decision to abandon the proposed construction of an all-weather paved runway near the Davis research centre in Antarctica due to perceived concerns of potential disruption of bird and seal colonies. It was a very poor decision, in my opinion, that missed the opportunity for Australia to advance its claims to usage of their allocated portion of Antarctica under the existing Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959. That will be up for renegotiation in some years hence or sooner if the treaty is challenged. My understanding is that there’s no formal expiry date. My first question is: will this government, the Labor government, reconsider and confirm the building of an all-weather runway to open up the Antarctic to year-round access via an eight-hour flight and replace total reliance on sea access that may take weeks?  

Senator Watt: I’m not aware of that being considered. The officials can elaborate if they have info on that.  

Ms E Campbell: At the moment, there are no plans for an all-weather runway, but we do have a really strong and capable blue ice runway. We have four-hour flights that go to Antarctica through the summer, and that’s a critical support for our stations and access. It’s at the Wilkins runway, which is about four hours, by tractor train, from Casey Station. I’ve had the pleasure of going on that flight a couple of times. It is a wonderful asset for Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that an all-weather runway would radically reduce the operating costs and logistics of accessing Australia’s research stations. It would be the first and only all-weather runway on the continent and provide access to speedy evacuation in medical or other emergencies.  

Ms E Campbell: We certainly use the blue ice runway for access to the station.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by blue ice?  

Ms E Campbell: It’s a runway set up on the glacier just above Casey Station. We land jets on that runway in the summer months. To your point about ‘cheaper and effective’, my understanding—and it was before my time in this role—is that one of the reasons that the previous government decided not to progress with the all-weather runway was cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the context of changing geopolitical dynamics, especially when China is expanding its influence in the Southern Ocean and in Antarctica, what else is Australia doing to protect its interests from encroachment in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica?

Ms E Campbell: We’ve got a really strong program in Antarctica. We talked previously about our science voyages and the step-up in our science work in Antarctica. Elements such as inspections, which we’ve talked about, are part of our influence in Antarctica. Going to international meetings, rebuilding our stations—these are all really strong parts. We can certainly provide references to the strategy and action plan. We’ve got a million year ice core where we’re travelling 1,200 kilometres inland with a traverse tractor to drill for ice. We’ve also reestablished the ability to go across our territory and explore new areas, which is really exciting.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that scientific programs have been cut. Why is the supply of critical food and medicine no longer assured? Has the government not heard of the phrase: ‘Use it or lose it’? That’s important for my next question.  

Ms E Campbell: I don’t accept that we’ve cut funding. The government has invested more than ever. Funding has gone up.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no cut to scientific funding?  

Ms E Campbell: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. China is currently the most active national player in the Antarctic, yet Australia has the largest designated proportion of area claimed of the Antarctic continent, at 42 per cent—so over 40 per cent. It is referred to as the Australian Antarctic Territory and, in landmass, is the largest territory of Australia. China has five research bases there, and it’s soon to be six, with three of the bases it’s built within the Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia has only three bases in the territory and a fourth at Macquarie Island. Am I correct so far?  

Ms E Campbell: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chinese research stations have a dual purpose, supporting both military and civil functions. Common sense suggests that this will influence a Chinese call for a recognised claim for a part of the Australian Antarctic Territory, at our expense. Australia must do something soon to reclaim its senior role in Antarctic affairs. Will this government do what the coalition failed to do and build this vital runway to protect our claim to our territory?  

Ms E Campbell: I might correct a couple of points of fact. First of all, you said at the beginning that—and I did say it was right—China was the most active player. China is certainly very active in Antarctica, as are many other countries. I think the US would say they have been the most active player, and I think we’re close behind. There’s not evidence that there is a dual-use function of Antarctic stations, and that would be a breach of the treaty. There has been no finding—  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘dual use’?  

Ms E Campbell: You talked about dual military and scientific use. That would be a breach of the Antarctic Treaty, and there is no evidence that that has happened. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think that would bother China?  

Ms E Campbell: I think you’re asking my opinion. Under the treaty, that would not be allowed.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re leaving it to the Chinese?  

Ms E Campbell: That’s not what I said. 

Mr Sullivan: They’re your words, Senator, not Ms Campbell’s.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Chair 

/by