Avoiding the Next Robodebt

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator McALLISTER: No.  

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

Senator McALLISTER: The advice I have is no.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Restoring Trust or Reinforcing Control?

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

Ms Wood: Is that a question?

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: In 2022?

Mr Comley: Yes, 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: $250 million is broadly correct?

Ms Wood: That’s correct.

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

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

Mr Comley: Let’s go back a step—

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of money spent on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: That is the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/5 Comments/by

Labor Trapped Young People

,

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

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

Everyone knows it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their argument is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It isn’t a game.

It’s people’s lives.

People’s futures.

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

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

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

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

To quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labor TRAPPED young people by Senator Malcolm Roberts

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

Read on Substack

/1 Comment/by

Can’t Subsidise Our Way Out

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Flat?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Censorship or Safety?

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

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

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

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

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

Ms Inman Grant: I sure can.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes.

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not a minister.

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

Senator Henderson interjecting—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Integrity in Parental Leave

,

One Nation fully supports the heart of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025. Losing a child to stillbirth is a crushing, heartbreaking tragedy and parents deserve the full support of our paid parental leave system during such a dark time. We agree that no employer should be able to unilaterally cancel leave when a family is grieving.

However, I introduced an amendment to fix a serious flaw in the current drafting. As it stands, the definition of “stillbirth” would allow a woman who undergoes a voluntary late-term abortion to claim 26 weeks of taxpayer-funded parental leave.

Our position is clear: ✔️ YES to supporting parents through the tragedy of stillbirth or infant loss. ✔️ YES to protecting mothers who need emergency medical terminations for health reasons. ❌ NO to using taxpayer dollars to provide “parental leave” for elective abortions.

Paid parental leave is a benefit designed to support families and the bond between parent and child. It should not be extended to those who voluntarily choose to terminate a pregnancy.

I called on the Senate to support our common-sense amendment to ensure this bill serves its true purpose: supporting grieving families.

Transcript

The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025 amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to extend entitlements to paid parental leave in the case of stillbirth or death of a child. Stillbirths or deaths of a child are crushing—heartbreaking to parents. My wife, Christine, and I have two children and one grandchild. Nothing else comes close, as I’m sure every parent feels. Nothing else comes close to having a child, except possibly losing a child. One Nation supports the bill’s core intent for the very reason I’ve just mentioned.  

The bill only deals with paid parental leave; it does not alter the existing provisions around unpaid parental leave. The bill will prevent employers from unilaterally cancelling periods of paid parental leave in cases of stillbirth or the death of a child during the paid parental leave period. The bill will not prevent employers and employees from agreeing between themselves to cancel such periods of leave, usually so the employee can return to work early for sound reasons. And the bill does not change arrangements for payment of allowances to parents who are not employed. The bill does not impose any requirement on employers to provide employer-funded paid parental leave, because the employer does not pay parental leave; the government does, at a cost of $2.9 billion a year. Some companies pay parental leave at a higher rate. Often, they pay the employee’s regular pay and top up the government payment themselves. In this case, the bill will make those employers pay this higher rate to an employee who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy when their child was delivered stillborn. I will say that again: in this case, the bill will make those employers pay this higher rate to an employee who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy when the child was delivered stillborn. 

Why has One Nation submitted an amendment to the Baby Priya bill? Why have I submitted an amendment to the Baby Priya bill? The bill requires employers to provide paid parental leave to employees who have a stillborn baby, or where the baby dies during the parental leave period. One Nation do not oppose this measure in principle; we support it. Our amendment does not change the outcome of the bill for most women, including the situation Baby Priya’s parents, very sadly, found themselves to be in.  

The definition of a stillborn baby in the bill relies on section 77A(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which defines a stillborn child as one: 

(a) who weighs at least 400 grams at delivery …; and 

(b) who has not breathed since delivery; and 

(c) whose heart has not beaten since delivery. 

Yet here’s a key concern of many constituents across Australia and my state of Queensland: nothing in this definition takes account of a voluntary abortion resulting in a stillbirth, which is most late-term abortions. These involve injecting the human baby with a drug that stops their heart and then is delivered as a stillbirth. In the bill as it was introduced, a mother in that situation would qualify for 26 weeks of paid parental leave. This is the very specific issue One Nation’s amendment seeks to correct. We do not believe it is right for a woman who deliberately terminates her pregnancy to then qualify for 26 weeks paid parental leave at taxpayer expense. I must emphasise that neither this bill nor One Nation’s amendment changes anything around emergency terminations in the event of serious health issues affecting the mother. Nothing changes. That’s already protected in legislation; I want to make that very clear. For example, early delivery without killing the baby first is normal obstetric practice for emergency health conditions late in pregnancy such as high blood pressure, liver or kidney disease or cancer that requires chemotherapy. 

Here are some more important facts on abortion that have informed One Nation’s amendment. There is no upper gestational limit on abortion in any Australian state jurisdiction—none. In each jurisdiction, abortion is permitted until birth with the approval of two doctors after a certain gestation. In some jurisdictions such as Queensland, the second doctor who approves the late term abortion is not even required to examine the pregnant woman. A late term abortion is an abortion at 20 weeks or more in gestation. This is consistent with the definition provided by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in its practice guideline on late term abortion. 

How many late term abortions are performed in Australia every year? We don’t know because only Victoria, Queensland and South Australia publish the figures. The other states are obviously ashamed of how many they perform. The total number of known late term abortions in 2024 was 5,559. Of those, 75 per cent were for non-life-threatening conditions. This makes a complete mockery of the leftist talking point that women don’t abort their babies on a whim. Some do. 

There is a strong case for the productivity benefit of paid parental leave though, including in cases of natural death of the child. One Nation quite clearly supports this. It’s only the extension of this benefit to women who deliberately kill their baby, murder their baby, that One Nation objects to. I ask the Senate to support this amendment. 

In good conscience, we cannot wave through legislation that forces employers and taxpayers to fund 26 weeks of parental leave for terminated births or neonatal neglect.

While the loss of a child to natural causes is a tragedy, we are currently witnessing a horrifying reality in our hospitals: babies born alive after termination are being left to die alone in cold steel tins. This isn’t just a policy debate; it is a question of fundamental humanity.

Australia must stop and listen. We refuse to let this be treated as a tool for social media points or gender warfare. The Australian people deserve a formal inquiry to review these harrowing circumstances and have their voices heard.

Transcript

One Nation supports Senator Hanson-Young’s amendment. This bill will have far-reaching impacts on Australia. It’s not to be rushed through the parliament. One Nation is the party of the natural environment and the party of the human environment. We want to give Australians a say. Workers, employers and small businesses—the parliament needs to listen to these people and give them a say. 

I’d also like to now move my amendment to the Selection of Bills report as circulated in the chamber. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you can’t. We are dealing with Senator Hanson-Young’s amendment at this point. You can speak to your motion if you wish to, but you can’t move it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will speak to it now, and that’ll save us time later. One Nation has moved to send the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025 to committee. The bill, as worded, allows employer paid parental leave for the parents of a baby who has been born still as a result of a termination or of a live birth abortion. Loss of a child due to natural circumstances is crushing, but where a child is terminated and born alive that child is cast away into a cold steel tin and left inhumanly to die from neglect in a bucket of cold steel. This is what’s going on our country. Alone, scared and suffering, the child dies a slow and terrifying death. 

This happens every few weeks in a hospital somewhere in Australia. The mother’s employer or the taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for 26 weeks paid leave for an aborted baby or neonatal murder—they should not. This is too important an issue to wave through parliament for social media likes and gender warfare points. A committee inquiry is needed to review this position and allow the public their say. The people of Australia need to have an opportunity to have their say, and we need to listen. 

/1 Comment/by

Our Environment Sacrificed for Green Profit

,

The “Green” agenda is bulldozing our forests, blasting our mountains, disrupting whale migration and clubbing koalas – all to “save” the planet from “climate change”.

Labor, the Greens, and the Coalition are sacrificing endangered species for subsidised industrial “renewable” energy projects.

Only One Nation is consistent. We will always protect our environment against the multinational corporations pocketing billions in subsidies while destroying our natural environment.

Transcript

The Australian Greens have abandoned nature, bulldozing forests, blasting mountain ridges, disrupting whale migration, clubbing koalas so that subsidised parasitic billionaires can cover our country in solar panels, wind turbines and transmission lines. Senator McKim says of Tasmania’s Robbins Island industrial project: 

Its habitats, landscapes and sea scapes should be protected under international conventions – not exploited for profit by a multinational corporation. 

Senator Whish-Wilson says: 

… it would be a cruel irony if Australia’s renewable energy projects come at the expense of our threatened and iconic species. 

They’ve done plenty to oppose this project, only for Greens leader Senator Waters to say on national TV: 

I don’t very know much about that … 

Despite endangered species, the project was approved because of claimed climate change.  

Labor, the Greens, the Liberals, the Nationals and the teals are killing the environment and endangered species, supposedly to save the planet. Only One Nation is united and consistent on protecting our beautiful natural environment against multinationals ripping billions off Australians.

/3 Comments/by

The Truth About Tokenisation

,

I’ve been keeping a very close eye on the Reserve Bank’s moves toward a digital future. During this exchange with Governor Bullock, I pressed for clarity on exactly where they are headed with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) and the “unified digital currency” the big banks have been whispering about.

I asked about developments in both domestic and international settlements. The Governor admitted that while they ran a pilot back in 2023, the focus has shifted. They aren’t looking at a “retail CBDC” right now, which would be digital cash for everyday shopping. Instead, their focus is firmly on looking at how to settle “tokenised assets.”

Tokenised financial products, also called asset tokens, are a way to turn traditional money-related things into digital versions that live on blockchain technology, the same as that used by Bitcoin and Ethereum. These could include shares, real estate, artworks and precious metals.

Normally these are hard to buy and/or sell quickly, especially in small amounts, and often involve lots of paperwork, middlemen and high minimum investments. Tokenisation changes that by creating a digital token that acts like a certificate of ownership for a piece (or all) of that real thing. The token is recorded on a blockchain, which is theoretically secure.

You would be able to buy a share of a home, business, art or precious metals within minutes, allowing small investments to grow your savings more than bank interest would do.

Note: This technology is not there yet! The RBA is scoping it out – as many institutions are.

I will continue to monitor these experiments to ensure that this doesn’t come at the cost of our financial privacy or sovereignty.

— Senate Estimates

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Beyond Labor and Liberal

,

Premier Malinauskas is wasting taxpayers’ money in the name of woke politics. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is now costing $3.2 billion, yet it has fewer services than the new Tweed Valley Hospital in NSW, which only cost $720 million — in part owing to its grandiose design over actual function.

More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen-powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind — with hydrogen as a backup — could provide baseload power. That is $580 million wasted.

More “woke” can be found in Premier Malinauskas’s decision to legislate an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, despite South Australians voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters; in fact, he has treated them with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. The $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke virtue signaling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes.

For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, then switched back again. Now, voters finally have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger, and more professional than it has been in any previous election.

We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Vote One Nation.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate their vote between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, and then back again. Now, though, finally, voters have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger and more professional than it has been in any previous election. We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Supporting One Nation is not voting against two parties, Liberal and Labor; it’s voting against one—the uniparty. 

Sixty years of their failure have decimated our standard of living and made all except the government class poorer, less happy and less healthy than they were even just 10 years ago—a loss of wealth that’s even worse for Australians under 35, who are the first generation that will have less than their parents. The median income in South Australia, inflation adjusted, has risen from $1,290 per week in 2022 to just $1,300 this year. In other words, wages have gone nowhere under the Malinauskas Labor government. In that same time, the median rental in South Australia has risen from $480 a week to $630 a week. That’s 10 bucks more a week coming in to pay 150 bucks extra in rent. South Australians are going backwards. Great job, Premier! 

When I came to Canberra 10 years ago, I was told a joke that was more of an observation. The Liberal Party, I was told, run Canberra for the benefit of their wealthy owners. The Labor Party run government for the benefit of union bosses. The Nationals run government for the benefit of themselves, and the Greens can’t govern at all. 

To be clear, there are good union officials and there are good unions that are run for the benefit of their members. The Red Union is a great example of an old-fashioned union that just gets on with the business of looking out for its members. One Nation will have to prise South Australia out of the hands of Labor’s union mafia and woke climate change agenda zealots. 

To illustrate this point, let’s compare the new Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital with the recently completed Tweed Valley Hospital, in New South Wales. Tweed has 430 beds. Adelaide has 410 beds—almost the same. Emergency departments and operating theatres are the same. Maternity services are the same, although Adelaide has 70 parental units. Tweed has oncology, renal, mental health and outpatient physical therapy. Adelaide has none of these. Tweed was built in under five years. Adelaide is two years into a build scheduled to finish in 2031—seven years, hopefully. Tweed Valley Hospital cost $730 million. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is at $3.2 billion, and further increases are expected. 

The Adelaide hospital is larger as a building and more grandiose, despite providing fewer services. At $3.2 billion, the Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is what happens when woke is combined with political ego. The Malinauskas government has wasted more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money, which keeps CFMEU union bosses happy—stealing from taxpayers. 

More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind with hydrogen as a backup could provide base-load power—$580 million wasted. Only coal, nuclear and hydro can provide cheap, stable base-load power, and that’s exactly what One Nation will build.  

More woke can be found in the decision of Premier Malinauskas to legislate an Aboriginal voice to parliament despite South Australia voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters in the Voice referendum. In fact, he’s treated voters with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. That’s the difference between One Nation and the Labor Party. We listen to the people. Labor treats you with contempt. In reality, the $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke, virtue signalling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes. The Premier has misread the room badly. 

Far from bringing chaos to parliament, as Ashton Hurn and the Liberals said last night, One Nation, if elected in South Australia, will bring honesty and authenticity, just as we have at a federal level now for nine years—a decade—and just as Pauline Hanson has done for 30 years. We will decide policies through the consideration of facts, not feelings. We will be a woke-free government of real people dedicated to doing what’s right for South Australians. I ask South Australian voters to choose a new path this election. Choose One Nation.  

/1 Comment/by

Protecting the Institution, or Protecting our Troops?

,

During the February Senate Estimates, I asked questions of the ADF about the tragic case of LAC Andrew Armfield.

From what I’ve been told, the facts are damning:

Mandatory suicide management policies were ignored after his first attempt.

Evidence suggests FOI redactions were used to smear Andrew’s brother, a whistleblower, to protect the ADF’s reputation.

Senior leadership was briefed on “media risk” while claiming elsewhere they were unaware of the situation.

It’s the same old story: The top brass is more worried about bad PR than the lives of our sailors, soldiers, and aviators.

Mateship and trust are strategic assets, yet you can’t have either without the TRUTH.

The ADF leadership has taken my questions “on notice.” I’ll be holding them to it.

Our service members deserve justice, not excuses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard today that people are important, and that’s reassuring. My understanding is that in the ADF mateship and trust are of strategic importance. They’re strategically significant. Going to safety and trust, I’d like to get to questions that relate to the way that the ADF has mismanaged the suicide of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield and failed to provide him with the support he needed after his first suicide attempt in June 2011. Are you aware that the royal commission transcripts dated 6 March 2024 and a ministerial background brief from the Deputy Chief of Navy, Commodore Ray Leggett, to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022, copied to Vice Chief of Defence Force David Johnson and Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell, warned of negative media risk if Mr Armfield’s story became public?  

Adm. Johnston: Of course it is very difficult for us to talk about the individual circumstances. As we have explained to you before, we can talk around the support that we are doing to improve suicide awareness, our proactive response to reducing the prevalence of it in the force. Mr Armfield’s circumstances were very much a part of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. For officials to talk on the particular nature of his circumstances, there is very limited that we can say without his authority to do so. If it is helpful for you to have officials come forward and just explain how we are responding to the types of circumstances that Mr Armfield experienced and what we are doing to improve our response to it, I would be very happy to do so. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll point out that Mr John Armfield has been involved in developing these questions. We got the data from him. He’s happy for us to talk about it.  

Adm. Johnston: That might be true of what he’s provided to you, but that’s not an authority that we have from him.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask again: are you aware that you were copied as Vice Chief of Defence Force on the royal commission transcripts?  

Adm. Johnston: I am aware of Mr Armfield’s transcripts, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given that ministerial brief, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by then Vice Chief of Defence Force, yourself, claiming you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation was incorrect as you had been copied in?  

Adm. Johnston: Sorry? I’m just not clear on your question about which part you mean was incorrect.  

Senator ROBERTS: The ministerial brief to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022. Given that brief, which you said you got, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by yourself claiming that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation?  

Adm. Johnston: My comment to you was that I’m aware of the transcript of Mr Armfield’s evidence after the royal commission had occurred. I would have to go back to my own testimony of the evidence to be able to answer that question for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s claimed that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation, but you were aware.  

Adm. Johnston: Mr Armfield appears directly prior to me appearing as a witness. I heard his evidence. I would have to check the circumstances of that question. I heard the evidence that Mr Armfield gave, because he appeared immediately prior to me on the morning that I appeared at the royal commission. If you could allow me to go back and clarify the question you’re asking to make sure I get the accurate response to it?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fair enough. At the time of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s first suicide attempt in June 2011, was DIGPRS 1626 a mandatory policy requiring a risk management team? Is it accepted that no risk management team and no crisis management plan were ever established by Dr Suresh Babu or Wing Commander Peter Davies?  

Adm. Johnston: You’re asking me particulars of details of that set of circumstances. We would take them on notice and do our best to answer them for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your desire for accuracy. Do you accept that, by failing to comply with that mandatory policy, Defence removed structured oversight of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s care and therefore failed to discharge its duty of care regardless of treatment occurring in a civilian hospital?  

Adm. Johnston: Again, I’m not in the position to answer the detail. I just don’t have sufficient knowledge of it. I would look at it, but I would restate the importance and the amount of work that we have done to address suicide within the Defence Force and that with veterans after. There are considerable initiatives, and we have learnt from each one of these tragic circumstances about how we need to change our policies, the awareness of our people and the proactive environment that we can provide in order to minimise the circumstances of suicide occurring. That was a tragic set of circumstances. We are doing our best to learn from them and to change the environment to prevent suicide occurring within the force.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a nice broad fluffy statement, and it’s honourable, but I’d like a specific answer to that question, if you could give it to me. I accept that you’re putting yourself in a difficult position if you just answer off the cuff, so we’d appreciate the answer on notice.  

Adm. Johnston: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did Defence redact freedom of information material under sections 47E and 47F relating to statements by Flight Lieutenant Carlisle Miles, Commodore Fiona Southwood and Colonel Matthew Freeman when an FOI review later revealed those redactions concealed false and subjective statements portraying Petty Officer Armfield—that’s the deceased’s brother, and he’s also the complainant—as dishonest or mentally unstable? Some of those statements were emailed 11 times to 14 commissioned officers, thereby damaging his professional reputation and shaping a false narrative to protect Defence.  

Adm. Johnston: I’m sorry. I don’t have that knowledge, but we will take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s the brother.  

Adm. Johnston: Sorry? What is the question within what you’ve just presented?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s Petty Officer Armfield.  

Adm. Johnston: If your question is why did the Inspector-General of the ADF come to that conclusion, that is best, of course, presented to the inspector-general rather than to the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know if what he said was true and you’re aware of it?  

Adm. Johnston: I would have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What authority or qualification did Commodore Bannister rely upon to decide that Mr Armfield’s allegations of criminal conduct, supported by ADF legal advice and reviewed by senior external lawyers, were not referred to police or prosecutors?  

Adm. Johnston: Again, I will take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Petty Officer Armfield reported alleged breaches of Commonwealth law on the advice of an ADF lawyer to Commodore Fiona Southwood, Warrant Officer Navy Andrew Bertoncin, Captain Anne Andrews, Chief of Navy Mark Hammond, IGADF and the Defence Force Ombudsman. All were provided the evidence. Process and policy was followed. If each officer deflected or claimed it was not their remit, who exactly does an enlisted sailor, soldier or air crew report allegations of criminal conduct to within the ADF?  

Adm. Johnston: That is one of the areas where we have extensively sought to enhance the options that are available to individuals of how they report. Some of them, as you were referring to, would be up through their leadership chain. We have ensured there are independent options that are outside of an individual’s unit or command structure so that in those circumstances where they feel more comfortable reporting externally they have multiple options, whether it is to military police or the inspector-general of the ADF. We now have a centralised reporting mechanism where reporting can be made that is separate to the command chains. We have ensured there are multiple pathways available to people when either they believe that reporting that they may have made to their leadership is not being acted on or where they are uncomfortable with reporting in that environment and they wish to be able to report externally to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m hearing—correct me if I’m wrong—is that mandatory defence suicide management policy was not followed, that oversight failed and you’ve made changes since. Serious concerns raised by Petty Officer John Armfield, the deceased’s brother, were known to senior Defence leadership and possibly yourself while being denied under oath elsewhere; is that correct?  

Adm. Johnston: That’s not what I said, with respect.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t saying what you said—what I’ve heard, what I’ve interpreted.  

Adm. Johnston: No, I didn’t comment on the individual circumstances of the case but did explain what we had done. If your question is around that set of circumstances, I will need to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could take it on notice, please. I accept your correction there. We’ve heard that reputationally damaging material was withheld under freedom of information, that flawed and unqualified investigations occurred and that allegations of possible criminal conduct were not referred despite legal advice; is that correct?  

Adm. Johnston: Again, I do not have that detail. I would have to come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Notably, the only person referred to law enforcement in this matter was the whistleblower himself, who was acting on the advice of an ADF lawyer, and none of the officers whose conduct is now in question. Could you confirm or correct that, please?  

Adm. Johnston: I would have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see this as support for a whistleblower. It’s avoidance. It goes to the heart of institutional integrity and accountability. I look forward to your answers to questions on notice, because the public deserve the truth. Your officers and your enlisted people deserve the truth—Army, Navy, Air Force—and they deserve justice. Anything less confirms that protecting the institution still matters more than protecting those who serve it. That’s what I’ve seen, being blunt, for the last few years in Senate estimates. The senior brass of the ADF is not standing up and providing leadership. 

Adm. Johnston: I hope you have seen significant evidence that, as we have already canvassed this morning, people are critical to our capability, and that the work we are doing through implementing the royal commission recommendations within Defence is a significant priority for us. The structure of support and the environment and culture that we are seeking to build, both within the Defence Force and more broadly across Defence, is highly supportive of our people. There are circumstances—and the royal commission was clear—where we have let people down, and we have acknowledged that. We have put significant effort and priority around doing everything that we can to change those circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: I look at the report from the inquiry into honours and awards. There was a clear recommendation that Defence put in place a more objective process, and that was nixed by the government. I still don’t see that desire for accountability and truth at the top of the Australian Defence Force.  

/by