The Price of Transition

,

This discussion with Matt Kean, Chair of the Climate Change Authority (CCA) and former Liberal NSW Energy Minister, focuses on the accuracy of his advice regarding energy prices, the reliability of renewable transitions, and the global commitment to Net Zero.

I challenged Mr. Kean on a 2020 claim that Australia could become an “energy superpower” with low-cost power. I argued that power prices have actually “increased astronomically” since then.

Mr. Kean maintained that wholesale prices are currently trending downward due to increased renewable penetration. He cited ABS data showing a recent 10.2% monthly drop in prices and AEMO reports showing a 38% quarterly decrease in wholesale costs. He attributed high bills to network charges and the unreliability of ageing coal plants rather than the renewable transition itself.

I questioned the $1 billion expenditure on the Waratah Super Battery, calling it a “wasted” stopgap for the Eraring coal plant, which has not yet closed. I asked how a short-duration battery could replace a 24/7 coal station.

Matt Kean said that the Waratah project is a “systems battery” (SIPS), not a standard storage battery. He said its purpose is to act as a “shock absorber” for the grid, allowing existing transmission lines to operate at higher capacities and “sweat” existing coal assets harder while integrating renewables.

Mr. Kean and Senator Ayres argued that the primary driver of cost and instability in the grid is the extreme age of Australian coal plants (averaging 38 years).

Senator Ayres noted that there had been daily unplanned outages from major coal plants (like Bayswater and Loy Yang) over the preceding three weeks, totalling 2.5 gigawatts of lost capacity, which spikes market prices.

Matt Kean corrected his previous figure (53% of global GDP), stating it is now much higher. He claimed that 165 countries representing 79% of global GDP and 87% of the world population have now committed to Net Zero targets, with many (including Australia) enshrining them in law.

This insane transition to renewables is a threat to our economic stability and industrial capacity. A One Nation government will dismantle Australia’s climate bureaucracy by abolishing the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, along with advisory bodies like the Climate Change Authority and the Net Zero Economy Authority.

Further, we will withdraw Australia from the Paris Agreement, repeal the Climate Change Act 2022, and eliminate the Renewable Energy Target.

Scrapping agencies such as ARENA and the CEFC, One Nation will end all subsidies for renewables, shifting the nation’s regulatory and administrative focus toward lowering electricity prices through the expansion of coal-fired power and the introduction of nuclear energy.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. Mr Kean, my questions go to you. Your responsibility is to give the government correct advice. Is that correct?

Mr Kean: Frank and fearless correct advice—that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: That advice could steer the direction of our entire country and potentially affect every one of the 28 million people in Australia. Is that correct?

Mr Kean: We provide advice that’s frank and fearless to the government of the day. It’s up to the government of the day as to whether or not they’ll accept that advice.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’d agree that it’s vital for the country that your advice is accurate and correct?

Mr Kean: We provide the best advice based on evidence and science to the government. As you well know, Senator, it goes through the cabinet process, the party room process and the parliamentary process. It’s up to the government and the parliament as to whether or not they accept the CCA’s advice.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to go to your track record and some forecasts. I’m going to quote you from the Energy Insiders podcast in 2020 with Renew Economy. You said: ‘If they’re looking for a global competitive advantage when it comes to low-cost energy, we can provide it. But we’ve got to move quickly and we’ve got to move now. That is an opportunity for us to be an economic superpower—not just an energy superpower but an economic superpower. It’s too big an opportunity not to grab.’ Since you said that you can provide low-cost energy in 2020, power prices have increased astronomically. When are Australians going to get the cheap power you promised?

Mr Kean: According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, they are already seeing those power prices coming down as a result of renewables. Look at power prices in October. They were 10.2 per cent lower than in the previous month. We know that they bounce around, particularly as state and Commonwealth rebates come into force or conclude, as it just happened to be. I, as a former energy minister in New South Wales, and we, as the Climate Change Authority, are acutely aware that some households and businesses are doing it tough and are looking at what costs they can contain. In the energy and climate war that we seem to be mired in yet again, perspective can be the first casualty. In the present consumer price index basket of goods and services that the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses to track inflation in the economy, electricity prices have a 1.84 per cent weighting. That’s not nothing, but I think it’s an important bit of context for you. Going back to those price trends that you talked about and that I stand by, no doubt you will have noted that wholesale prices have largely been in retreat of late, and that’s because renewable energy’s share of the grid is increasing. Check out AEMO’s Quarterly energy dynamics report for the September quarter. If you need the facts, they’re right there available to you. You’ll see that wholesale power prices across the national electricity market were on average 38 per cent below those of the June quarter this year. Compared with the September quarter last year, the fall was 27 per cent. That’s not because more fossil fuels have entered the market; that’s because renewable energy is pushing down wholesale prices. The more cheap energy we get into the market, the better off consumers and businesses will be.

Senator ROBERTS: Are wholesale prices going to be cheaper or more expensive than they were five or 10 years ago? Are they cheaper or more expensive than they were?

Mr Kean: As I said, just look at the Quarterly energy dynamics report that AEMO has just put out. It is clearly showing that wholesale prices are only heading in one direction. They make up about a third of a typical household’s—

Senator ROBERTS: Are they cheaper than they were five or 10 years ago?

Mr Kean: I’m not referring to the wholesale dynamics report comparing them to 10 years ago. I’m referring to the most recent one, which shows that wholesale prices are coming down.

Senator ROBERTS: My question was: are they cheaper or more expensive than they were five or 10 years ago?

Mr Kean: I don’t have that data in front of me, but I’m very happy to table that data for you.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Wholesale prices are only one part of someone’s bill. There will be many people watching here—small businesses, large businesses, families—who will have taken issue with what you said. An increasing part is the network charges, especially for transmission. Are the network charges going down as well?

Mr Kean: As I said, wholesale prices make up about a third of the typical household bill, and we know that the cheapest form of new generation is renewables. We know that ageing coal-fired and even gas-fired power plants will shut in the coming decade or so. So, to unlock that cheap wholesale energy produced by renewables, you will need more networks built. That’s for sure. Certainly I can talk to the situation in New South Wales, and perhaps some of these questions can be directed to the energy minister, which I am no longer. But what I will say, as the former energy minister in New South Wales, is that, when we legislated the roadmap, we looked at the net impact on consumer bills of transitioning towards a firmed renewables-based grid, including transmission line upgrades. What we were able to clearly demonstrate is that net, on average, consumers would be much better off as a result of the transition.

Senator ROBERTS: In your role as New South Wales energy minister you commissioned the $1 billion Waratah battery, which recently suffered a catastrophic failure. You commissioned and designated as a top priority project this huge expenditure as a stopgap for the closure of Eraring this year. It was forecast to close this year. Eraring didn’t close this year. Experts are saying it might not close before 2030. So the $1 billion shock absorber you put in place as New South Wales energy minister isn’t needed anymore as a stopgap. If you wasted $1 billion on a battery that wasn’t needed, why should we trust that you can provide good advice to the federal government? Can you explain exactly how a 0.7 gigawatt battery that lasts for two hours is meant to replace a coal-fired power station that can run at 2.8 gigawatts for 23 hours a day.

Mr Kean: I’m very happy to explain what we did when it came to considering the exit of Eraring. It’s a matter of public record that Origin Energy suggested they would bring forward the closure of that coal-fired power station seven years earlier than we anticipated. As the former minister for energy, I can say we conducted an arms-length process headed up by a number of experts, including Kerry Schott, the former chair of the Energy Security Board. We ran a competitive tender process for different technologies to fill that gap. We had input from AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, the engineers who the run the system, and we compared the cost of extending Eraring for 18 months with a number of other options to fill that capacity gap. In terms of the work that was done by independent expert advice, we were advised that the best option for the total New South Wales power grid was to build a systems battery, a SIPS battery, that would unlock greater capacity in the transmission networks to be able to sweat the other coal-fired power stations harder and would open up the ability to bring more renewable energy into the system. You’re characterising the battery as a storage battery. It’s not a storage battery; it’s a systems battery that unlocks more capacity and new transmission networks. That means you can run your existing coal-fired power stations harder—think Vales Point and Bayswater—and you can get more renewable capacity stored. That was the basis from which we went down that path, and anyone suggesting otherwise is being dishonest.

Senator ROBERTS: On New South Wales election night, when your government was defeated in 2023, I distinctly remember the incoming Labor energy minister flagging the need to keep Eraring open. She was quite clear about it. She was on a panel and on the night of the election she said, ‘We’re going to have to do something about keeping Eraring.’ They weren’t her words, but that was basically what she said. Why would she have that point there? Many people think that New South Wales cannot operate as an industrial economy without Eraring continuing, and now there are talks of Eraring continuing. What did she know as opposition energy minister and spokesman that you didn’t?

Mr Kean: Maybe I could refer you to the evidence of Deputy Secretary Duggan who just appeared before the inquiry. He made the point that the average age of our coal-fired power stations in the national energy market is 38 years and the average end closure date of coal-fired power stations is 42 years. We can’t keep putting bandaids or temporary solutions in place. We need to plan for the future. What you need are clear targets and good policies to get new capacity installed. Just because you say you’re going to extend an aged, clapped-out coal-fired power station doesn’t mean it’s going to work. We need to build new capacity before the old capacity closes. That’s the responsible thing to do. Whether it be in my role as the former New South Wales energy minister or in my current role as the independent chair of the Climate Change Authority, I will always act on the best evidence and advice of experts. I’m advising you to do likewise.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re hiding behind averages. A lot of damage can be done doing that.

Mr Kean: No. I’m just making the point.

Senator ROBERTS: I asked you a question about Eraring. Why did the incoming Labor energy minister want to keep Eraring open?

Mr Kean: It’s another question for—

Senator Ayres: I think it’s outside of—it’s pretty hard for Mr Kean to put—

Senator ROBERTS: It goes to the accuracy of forecasts.

Senator Ayres: himself into the mind of the current New South Wales energy minister. I think that’s a very difficult thing for him to do. But Mr Kean’s right—the biggest driver of cost in the electricity system at the moment is our ageing coal generators and the incessant, regular outages. There has not been a single day over the last three weeks where there hasn’t been an unplanned outage. A couple of days ago we had Bayswater, Gladstone, Loy Yang, Vales Point and Yallourn—a total of 2½ gigawatts of unplanned outage. That drives cost in the system. Mr Kean’s point is right. The way to deal with that is to build more renewables, build more storage and build more transmission. Nobody from Cape York to Bruny Island or from Sydney to Perth is going to build a coal-fired power station, because it’s a dumb idea. It’s a dumb idea economically.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the national electricity market been tested?

Senator Ayres: It’s a dumb idea in commercial terms. It’s a bad idea for the grid. It builds additional cost into the system. At the moment we are dealing with the reality of the fact that it’s coal that’s driving cost. A decade of disinvestment is compounding that. That’s the truth of it. If you want to keep prosecuting the imported culture wars, go for your life.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question?

CHAIR: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The minister seems to be unaware of the electricity rules and the national electricity market, which favour solar and wind and destroy coal. We’ll leave that aside. You say: ‘The world is moving in this direction. Fifty-three per cent of the world’s GDP has signed up to achieve zero net emissions by 2050, so it’s only going in one direction.’ Yet we’ve seen the USA China and India—we’ve seen massive numbers of countries—walk away from net zero, and others don’t bother complying. Do you still stand by your figure that 53 per cent are committed to achieving net zero by 2050?

Mr Kean: No, I don’t. I’d like to revise that number. It’s now 165 countries that have announced a net zero target. These countries account for 78 per cent of global emissions, 79 per cent of GDP and 87 per cent of the global population. That was in 2022. That’s a vast increase since I cited those figures a few years ago. So 149 countries have announced a net zero target by 2050 or sooner and around 50 countries have enshrined their net zero target in domestic legislation—including Australia—with more planning to do so. That’s 37 out of 38 OECD member countries having a net zero target. So, no, I don’t stand by those previous comments. They’ve been exceeded since then, and people denying the reality of the momentum behind the need to reduce our emissions are not acting in Australia’s interests.

/0 Comments/by

Virtue Signalling vs. Australian Jobs

,

These bills are a complete betrayal of Queensland, Australia and our democratic process. The establishment parties are so terrified of One Nation, the only real opposition, that they’ve resorted to “shuffling” the speakers list to bury our voices.

This is nothing more than another dirty, backroom deal between Labor and the Greens, who are prioritising TikTok-ready virtue signalling over the needs of everyday Australians.

Shockingly, this environment bill doesn’t even define what “the environment” is.

This government wants to build homes while simultaneously destroying the timber and coal industries. How do they expect to build without wood or steel?

Following the National Farmers’ Federation’s lead, I want to know why this bill introduces “closer controls” on land clearing that will actually increase bushfire risk, hike up food prices, and destroy rural communities.

One Nation says no. We will repeal this nonsense and replace it with honest stewardship based on data and outcomes, not feelings.

– Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Minister, these bills are a betrayal of Queensland, a betrayal of Australia and a betrayal of democracy. As an aside, before I start my question, on the first list of speakers to this bill in the second reading debate, I was speaker No. 9. The other One Nation senators were further down the list. On the revised speakers list, I was third last, Senator Bell was second last and Senator Whitten was last. No chance at all of getting to speak! One Nation is the party the other parties fear. We are the real opposition. 

Minister, another day another dodgy deal between the Labor Party and the Greens, which, as usual, sells out everyday Australians to advance the government’s overarching agenda of virtue signalling and TikTok video production. From the moment the deal was done, this government has chosen to make a mockery of parliamentary process. What matters to the Labor Party is not the outcome. No, it’s the so-called win. Yet all Australians lose. The Greens are the spiritual bedfellows of the ALP in this regard. No sooner is the ink dry on this dirty, backroom deal than they immediately move the goalposts. The Greens now want one set of rules for Australia’s natural environment and a whole new set for Australian Aboriginal environment. I thought all our land was unceded and belonged to Aboriginals. Surely, the Greens motion doesn’t in fact acknowledge that Australia belongs to Australians, regardless of skin colour. Who knows! One could go mad thinking too much about Greens motions. Certainly, they don’t do much thinking about them. 

It will be left to a One Nation government to clean up the mess this bill will create, and we shall clean it up. One Nation will repeal this bill and replace it with protections to our natural environment based on sensible, honest stewardship—on outcomes and on data, not on feelings. Our second reading amendment set out some of our objections to the bill. Given time constraints, I’m not going to repeat these now, Minister. 

Liberal senator Duniam has an amendment coming up which has a fair crack at fixing one of the major errors of this bill. This is an environment bill that does not define what the environment is! Senator Duniam’s amendment sets out what areas, which most Australians would agree, are the actual environment—World Heritage areas, listed wetlands, the Great Barrier Reef and so on. One Nation will support that amendment. 

One area of our environment which the government and the Greens misunderstand completely is forestry logging. The whole point about logging is that it provides timber for use in Australian home construction—the same homes the Labor-Greens government are promising to build, apparently without timber! Oh, and, yes, apparently they’ll do that without steel frames either, because they want to stop coal. 

The National Farmers’ Federation has provided a question to the minister, which is as follows because they’ve said it very well: 

As stewards of more than half of Australia’s environment, farmers understand the importance of doing the right thing by the land— 

it is in their own interests— 

They’ve also historically borne the brunt of complex federal environmental laws, often at odds with state obligations. That’s why the NFF has supported genuine reform, but not this deal. Our key concern is the announcement of ‘closer controls’ of ‘high risk land clearing’. The specifics of this remain unclear— 

what a surprise!— 

and we are urgently calling for clarity.  The introduction of reduced regrowth thresholds to the long-established ‘continuing use’ provision will promote poor environmental outcomes and increase bushfire risk— 

which, as an aside, will increase fire damage, hurting the natural environment and the human environment. The NFF quote goes on: 

It will interfere with routine vegetation management of regrowth to prevent bushfires, keep land productive, and manage weeds. The misunderstanding of agricultural practices is bitterly disappointing. 

That’s the end of the quote. Minister, why does this bill include measures which will ‘increase bushfire risk’ and place lives in danger; reduce the health of our forests; reduce food production—and, from that, increase food prices for all Australians—destroy the timber industry; destroy the communities that rely on timber; and damage the home construction industry, which will be left to bid in the international market for timber which is already in short supply and is from countries with lax environmental protections?

/0 Comments/by

Stop Terrorists, Not Free Speech

,

Judge for yourself: does the head of the department overseeing security and immigration seem reluctant to answer simple questions? Do her answers give you confidence?

Secretary Stephanie Foster refused to say how safe Australians currently are. Instead, she tried to deflect the question to ASIO, only belatedly mentioning that the government had allocated $102 million to assist with security for Jewish sites.

Minister Watt and the government haven’t received the message: One Nation will not vote for legislation that packages necessary legal provisions we support with “bundled” provisions that strip away basic rights such as free speech and instil needless control over the people.

The answer to terrorism is not to take away the basic freedoms of Australians; the answer is to stop terrorists from entering Australia in the first place. Based on Minister Watt’s response today and Minister Ayres’ response yesterday, it’s clear that Labor is growing concerned about the surging support for One Nation.

Rather than misleading by omission and spreading falsehoods about One Nation, wouldn’t it be more effective if the “Uniparty” — Liberal and Labor — started serving Australians?

Telling the truth can be tough. However, as One Nation does, it’s better for the long-term interest of the country to raise difficult truths and facts. Instead of dragging others down out of fear, Labor should try lifting itself up.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: These questions are for Home Affairs. What is the risk to Australians of a terrorist attack on Australian soil since the Bondi atrocity at the hands of Islamic terrorists of Middle Eastern extraction and the failed bombing attempt by homegrown white supremacists?

Ms Foster: You’re absolutely right that is a question for the Home Affairs portfolio, but the threat assessments are actually done by ASIO. Director-General Burgess will be appearing later today.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask him similar questions. Isn’t it pertinent that you should know as well?

Ms Foster: That’s a specific role assigned to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you interact with ASIO and AFP to coordinate activities?

Ms Foster: We do. In terms of actually formulating that assessment, that’s a role that belongs with them.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you whether or not you formulate the role. Thank you for explaining that ASIO does that. I thought they did that. What I’m asking is: do you know it? I can ask you questions about your department’s response based on the level of threat.

Ms Foster: I’m hesitating because an amount of the assessment work is classified in nature. I’ll need to take the question on notice before I answer about what is my state of knowledge of the classification level of the material that I have.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know whether or not your department knows what the level of risk is right now. What’s the rating?

Ms Foster: That’s the question I’m being cautious of. When agencies make assessments about threat, that can often be drawn from classified sources. It’s on the public record that the Director-General raised the threat level for terrorism to ‘probable’ on 5 August 2024. That’s the national terrorism threat level, which as he explains means a more than 50 per cent chance of that occurring.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask him this question as well, and thank you for that answer. My understanding is that the risk level rating has to be increased immediately after an attack. Has it been increased? What I’m getting to, Secretary, is: what are you doing differently now compared with before Bondi?

Ms Foster: Again, publicly, the director-general has affirmed that the national terrorism threat level remains at ‘probable’, that he did not, on the basis of information available to him, change that at the time. In terms of what we collectively have done since Bondi, you’ll see a very significant range of activities—obviously some of which you participated in in the debates on the bills which were passed a couple of weeks ago.

Senator ROBERTS: How safe are we now, living in Australia?

Ms Foster: I can only give you my previous answer, which is that it is the director-general of ASIO who makes assessments of Australia’s national terrorism threat level, and he will be appearing later today. But I’ve given you the publicly stated information to date. Mr Hansford has just reminded me that, in terms of another very significant action since Bondi, there is the allocation of a $102 million investment in security for Jewish institutions, places of worship and educational facilities.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do anything to educate everyday Australians or citizens of Australia as to what we can do to enhance our safety?

Mr Hansford: We—as in the Commonwealth—have a range of actions, including information on the national security website and a range of information that can help people to be informed about security issues in Australia. We also play a leadership role, and I co-chair the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee that has met post Bondi a number of times to talk about how we prepare, knowing what we know about Bondi from the law enforcement and policy community across Australia. We’ve had discussions around how law enforcement and policy agencies can respond to and learn from what’s happened in Bondi, cognisant of the inquiries that are underway.

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound very concrete to me. What about things like tightening up immigration standards regarding who we let into the country?

Senator Watt: We recently passed some laws to strengthen the minister’s powers to cancel visas of people promoting hate, and your party voted against those laws.

Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things that we did not like in the bill.

Senator Watt: So you voted against what you were asking for?

Senator ROBERTS: We voted against the other provisions of your bill.

Senator Watt: Which were to make it easier to ban association with Neo-Nazis. Was it that bit that you didn’t like? What was it that you didn’t like?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we could talk for hours about the specifics of that bill. This is a time for you to answer my questions; it’s not for me to answer your questions.

Senator Watt: The problem with One Nation is that you call for things to happen and then vote against them. You’ve done that now on hate speech and hate crime.

Senator ROBERTS: We do not vote against tighter immigration.

Senator Watt: You voted against same job, same pay, when you called for better labour standards.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you increase the immigration vetting standards?

Senator Watt: You voted against cheaper medicines when you wanted things done for poorer Australians. At some point, Australians are going to see through One Nation and observe that you make promises that you don’t keep when you come to Canberra. You did it again recently, by calling for hate preachers to be banned and restricted and then voting against laws that would do that. You called for migration screening and then voted against it. So I’ll leave it to Australians to see through what One Nation does rather than what One Nation says.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you think Australians are fools and not seeing what you’re doing right now? We’ve asked for tighter immigration standards. Will you answer the question: will you provide tighter immigration standards to keep terrorists out?

Senator Watt: We just did that, and you voted against it.

Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things in your bill.

Senator Watt: But we did what you were asking for, and you voted against it—

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, because of the other things.

Senator Watt: just as you always vote against the things that you say need to be done, and we’re onto you.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re happy to leave it in the hands of the Australian people.

Senator Watt: The Australian people, over time, will be onto you.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you call out ideologies that promote terrorism?

Senator Watt: We’ve done that, and we’ve just passed laws.

Senator ROBERTS: It took a long while for you to call out ideologies—

Senator Watt: We’ve done that. We’ve gone and done more than just call it out; we’ve passed laws. We’ve just passed laws. We don’t just call things out; we pass laws to restrict hate speech and hate preachers, and you vote against those laws.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, until the Bondi attack, only one party was calling out ideological Islam, and that was us. Now, all of a sudden, we’ve got more doing so.

Senator Watt: That’s not true.

Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister didn’t.

Senator Watt: There’s a long series of statements from the Prime Minister and ministers in this government. They have condemned some of the hate speech that we’ve seen in the community, whether it be from Islamic preachers or white supremacists; there is a long series of those statements. But we don’t just call things out. When we come to Canberra, we pass laws to restrict that kind of activity. So I invite you to work with the government to restrict that kind of activity, rather than just pretend that you care about these issues.

Senator ROBERTS: Secretary, do you have adequate resources to do what needs to be done?

Ms Foster: The Department of Home Affairs has a very substantial budget and staffing level, and I am able to deploy those resources to the government’s priorities.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/0 Comments/by

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. 

/0 Comments/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. 

/0 Comments/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