During this session, I raised critical questions with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator regarding the life-and-death matter of rising heavy vehicle road fatalities, noting recent increases in New South Wales and Queensland.
I questioned Ms Rosie about anecdotal insights regarding the source of these high-risk drivers.
Speaking objectively as a migrant myself, I passed on widespread reports I’ve received from Western Australian and Queensland truckies suggesting a high number of Indian immigrants are obtaining licenses too easily or operating without them.
While Ms Rosie maintained that their compliance and reporting systems are strictly risk-based and agnostic to ethnicity, I wanted these serious, on-the-ground concerns from our truck drivers formally put on the record.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Rosie. This is a life-and-death matter. It’s killing people. Which are the states where there has been an increase in heavy vehicle road fatalities?
Ms Rosie: New South Wales has had a slight increase, and so has Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: What about Western Australia?
Ms Rosie: WA I can’t give you because we don’t regulate WA. At a high level, I understand WA is pretty flat.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve heard a few stories, and that’s all they are; you’ve got the official figures. Anecdotally, are you hearing anything from drivers with experience on the road as to what sort of groups are the source of the new unlicensed drivers, new untrained drivers or inadequately trained drivers?
Ms Rosie: We’re always hearing insights. We’ve got a line that people can call if they want to give us information on illegal or other dangerous activity within the trucking sector. We do get insights on sham contracting and arrangements that are deemed to be illegal or unsafe, and we do track that. One of the things that we’re doing—I would say to the committee this is one of the things that we’re very keen on—is getting the industry to call that line and to give us as much information as possible if they are worried about those concerns. If your constituents are worried about those concerns, please call in. We are using that data very actively to track risk profile of operators and drivers. We have a risk profile of every operator and every driver, and if there are increased calls about particular operators or particular drivers, we will be regulating them more strongly.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any groups that appear more often anecdotally or in the data—nationalities, ethnicities?
Ms Rosie: By operator? We know the operators who are appearing more in the data, and I wouldn’t say that there was any particular profile other than the way they operate.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’ve heard—I was born in India. I’m a migrant. I look at data objectively. That’s why I’m asking. I’ve heard so many stories from WA truckies and Queensland truckies that a lot of Indians are getting licences very easily—or not getting licences. I don’t know if anyone else has heard that. The chair has.
CHAIR: All of us in the industry know it.
Senator ROBERTS: You all know. I’m not accusing you of anything, by the way.
Ms Rosie: I know. All I can say to you is we take a risk based approach. Irrespective of ethnicity, we will be looking at all operators and all drivers and we will be taking a consistent approach across all of those drivers. If there are groups that are higher risk, you can be assured we will be acting on those groups. We’re doing it right now; we’re acting on a number of groups that we consider high risk and we will take action. Whether that’s stopping accreditation, whether that’s prohibiting their vehicles or whether that’s removing them from the system, we will be doing that. We are agnostic about that. Irrespective of their ethnicity or their backgrounds, we will be taking action against all operators who are operating outside or are high risk.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’m just passing on anecdotal information from WA truckies and Queensland truckies, and the chair has verified it.
Ms Rosie: Understood.
CHAIR: I’m just wondering when we let the rabbit-proof fence down and let you into WA, Malcolm. When did that happen? You snuck in!
One Nation strongly opposed the Online Safety Management (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 and its draconian amendments – which passed the Senate today.
The social media minimum age framework has fundamentally failed because a nanny state cannot outsmart tech-savvy children using VPNs and other “workarounds”. Instead of protecting kids, it isolates them and pushes them into less supervised spaces like game chat rooms, peer-to-peer apps and Tor.
This Bill increases penalties to nearly $100 million and grants the eSafety Commissioner terrifying, unchecked powers over Australians, including the power to compel people to travel (at their own expense and under threat of prison) to answer questions before her.
Which platform do you think she will demand appears first?
And more importantly, the dangerous abolition of the right against self-incrimination without proper age protections or mandatory legal representation.
The eSafety Commissioner’s office has become a heavily politicised weapon rather than a protector of children. When in government, One Nation will abolish this position, moving staff back into the department of media communications so they can focus on their actual, vital work of removing abuse material, revenge porn and deepfakes.
The legislation relies on vague definitions of “reasonable steps” completely dictated by the commissioner. The government is simply doubling down with massive fines because their initial unworkable ban is failing in the courts.
How much government is too much government? This is too much government and too much control over the people.
Transcript
Officially, the Online Safety Management (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 amends the Online Safety Act 2021 to strengthen the operation of the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA. The bill expands the eSafety commissar’s information-gathering powers and increases civil penalties for noncompliance to around $100 million—$100 million—depending upon state. In reality, the social media minimum age framework legislation has failed, and now the government is doubling down.
One Nation does not support the social media minimum age ban, for two reasons. Firstly, what children do online is the responsibility of parents, not the nanny state. Secondly, the technology will never be smarter than a resourceful and tech-savvy child.
In November 2024, I moved an urgency motion arguing that a blanket ban expropriates parental power. Parents in the home can supervise a child’s device better than a tech company or a Canberra bureaucrat. No country has made age limits work, and the ban would make parents who let children watch educational YouTube content law-breakers. I call for better parental locks from platforms and device makers instead of a nanny state rule. Parental locks from platforms and device makers have been proven to work.
I quoted the Australian Human Rights Commission warning that a ban would isolate young people. I predicted that the ban would fail because of VPNs, impersonation and other tricks while pushing children onto less supervised spaces, such as game chat rooms, peer-to-peer apps and Tor. This is exactly what’s happened. The ban has failed, and the answer from the eSafety commissar is bigger fines, more power over you and more removal of human rights. A government amendment circulated overnight is draconian and terrifying. The amendment will provide powers for the eSafety commissar to demand that a person travel at the person’s cost to appear before her in person and includes penalties of up to a year in prison for refusing to do so. Which platform do you think will be the first that the eSafety commissar demands to appear? No doubt X, to continue her obsession with Elon Musk. If the commissar thinks she will be demanding that witnesses appear from overseas, I would point out that Julie Inman Grant, the commissar, refused to appear before a US congressional inquiry into her actions last year. One can’t demand a higher degree of accountability than the commissioner was prepared to demonstrate herself.
The amendment abolishes a basic human right against self-incrimination. While it does say the evidence can’t be used in a court of law against a person, there is a known backdoor entry to this. The amendment does not protect young people, which is ironic, given it sits in a bill supposedly designed to protect young people. The subject of an examination order can be a person of any age. There is no age restriction on that power. There are no protections requiring a minor to be legally represented or have a parent present—none. There is a right to have a lawyer and not the requirement for one. We know how that works in practice. In short, turn up and get done over or go to jail. That’s life in the ‘Soviet Republic of Australia’ under this Albanese Labor government.
One Nation will oppose the amendment. We will oppose the bill and, when in government, we will abolish the position of the eSafety Commissioner. The role was intended all along to be a political appointment, and the incumbent is proving the truth in that statement. One Nation will not, though, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will maintain the functions of the office of eSafety and move the staff back into the department of media and communications. The staff are doing very good work taking down abuse material, revenge porn and deepfakes and must be allowed to continue that work.
Other provisions of the bill include a doubling of fines on social media companies for failure to demonstrate reasonable steps to comply with the ban. The problem with the legislation is and continues to be the definition of ‘reasonable steps’, which is—hang on, there is no definition. The commissar sets the rules in a legislative instrument titled ‘Social media minimum age: regulatory guidance’. Then the commissar enforces them as the commissar sees fit. Reasonable steps is anything the commissar decides it should be. Defy the commissar, and you will cop a fine that’s been increased from $48 million to almost $100 million in this bill. What next? How about $200 million fines? No, $500 million fines. Do I hear a billion? That’s not how legislation is supposed to be drafted, and this is not how government power is supposed to be used. This is power over the people. They should be serving the people.
The real problem around compliance from social media companies, though, is the inconvenient truth that the eSafety commissar has lost all except one court case her office has started. Perhaps strengthening the legal basis for these fines in the first place would have been more important than simply allowing the commissar to threaten a larger fine. I say ‘threatened’ because no social media company has been fined under legislation relating to age verification—not one. So why increase the fines—the ones that haven’t been used yet? The government continues to pursue a strategy it can never win. Harsher penalties are a typical bureaucratic response to being defied when in fact the defiance is because the ban is not technically feasible.
Moving on, the bill enables the commissar to compel the production of information or documents from any person. All that’s needed is for the commissar—or the commissioner—to believe on reasonable grounds that the person has information or documents relevant to compliance from a provider of an electronic service that is or may be—notice the opening of the envelope!—an age restricted social media platform. If this looks like unchecked power, it is—unchecked power over not just children and social media platforms but over every Australian, adults included. For example, information from third parties, such as age assurance providers or app store operators, may assist in validating or testing claims platforms made about their compliance with the minimum age obligation. Once again, these powers are not limited by age. An individual who discovers a workaround may be compelled to provide information around how they did that, no matter the age. The committee report recommended the bill pass as written. There were concerns from submitters whether the measures imposed, increased discovery and higher penalties, were necessary and proportionate to enforce the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA ban. the office of the information commissar made a great point that the information-gathering powers in the bill should be extended to their office. This would allow them to determine if the information that age-verification companies are collecting was being dealt with according to Australian privacy legislation.
The Law Council of Australia criticised the new information-gathering powers under section 63G as being too powerful for the stated outcome, as did Free Speech Union, and X sounded like they were lining up to challenge them in court. Multiple submitters complained about the very high fines, up to slightly over $100 million, depending upon the state. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommended a review after 12 months into the effect of the social media minimum age framework, SMMA ban on children, which is faster than the statutory two-year review. I would recommend that submission to the government. How much government is too much government? This is too much government and too much control over the people.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/bgRC0t8robs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-10 14:59:202026-09-10 14:59:24The Terrifying Scope of the eSafety’s Power
Some have claimed that no One Nation Senators showed up to the Senate hearings into the Illicit Tobacco industry.
I sat through it myself, questioning publicans, tobacconists and small business owners about what this trade is doing to their towns.
What they told me was blunt. Smoking rates rising, legal tax revenue in freefall, and organised crime filling the gap — firebombings, shootings, communities losing businesses that will never reopen.
That’s exactly why One Nation will cut tobacco excise by 75 per cent – to take the market back off the criminals who are getting rich off this Government’s failed policy.
I did the work. I heard the evidence. And it backs our plan.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today and for the effort you’ve gone to. I’d like to go to each one in turn. Mr Allen, you’re a publican. You used to make some money out of cigarette sales?
Mr Allen: I did.
Senator ROBERTS: And you’re not a smoker?
Mr Allen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: But you have come up with a comprehensive integrated solution in your submission. It’s multifaceted and it includes a component to decrease smoking rates. So you’re not against cutting smoking, but you just want it to be done fairly, sensibly, honestly and legally.
Mr Allen: Correct. If you look at the trends in Australia at the moment, smoking rates have—for a threedecade period, they were on their way down, until now. I’d argue that when this household survey comes out towards the end of this year, not only will they have flatlined; they’ve gone up. That’s based on the Roy Morgan research report and the wastewater report. That wastewater report, you’ve got to remember, says between 2024 and 2025. We’ve still got this year to go, so we could go up even further. I’ve lost my train of thought.
Senator ROBERTS: This is defeating the actual purpose of the—
Mr Allen: Sorry, yes. Smoking rates are coming down, alcohol consumption is coming down naturally, sugar consumption is coming down. If you look at soft drink consumption in Australia—it’s all naturally coming down. We don’t have a sugar tax in Australia. People are making better choices about their lives. It’s as simple as that. My kids don’t smoke, they don’t drink a lot. Some of them don’t drink at all. And that’s the choice they’re making. We don’t need big government telling us what to do, putting in these punitive taxes on things to try to stop us having choices in life. People are making their own choice to live a healthier life and that’s why we’re seeing tobacco, we’re seeing alcohol and we’re seeing sugar consumption come down. But unfortunately, because of what government has done with tobacco, we’re starting to see that plateau and then potentially even spike.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. You said margins are so big that an illicit tobacco store gets shut down and they lose $200,000 of stock confiscated and it means nothing.
Mr Allen: It’s a cost of doing business; that’s all it is. When you’ve got a $10 billion—the illegal illicit tobacco market in Australia is as big as the footwear industry. It’s huge. That’s how big it is. We’re taking a knife to a gunfight at the moment with the states trying to control this. It’s just not working.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve spoken up and spoken out in Bega. You’re speaking out very plainly and clearly here. Is there any fear behind that?
Mr Allen: No. As I said, I’m not renewing my licence in three months. I can see no future in selling tobacco in my bottle shop, and that’s my position. I’m here to tell people how it is. I’m not here to hide behind things or try to fiddle at the margins. I’m trying to tell people what is happening in Australia and what it’s doing on a fiscal level, on a health level and on a crime level. And, as I think my evidence has shown, it’s a disaster.
Senator ROBERTS: But there have been threats against people. There have been murders.
Mr Allen: Absolutely. There was one in Melbourne: the young lady who was in the wrong house at the wrong time. The wrong house was firebombed. She was killed along with the dog. It’s terrible. And there have been people just killed. There’s the lady who was making kebabs in Auburn last year and just going about her business and they’ve come in and shot her and she’ll never be the same again. There was an armed robbery in Narooma a few months ago where that the poor guy behind the bar was hit in the side with a shotgun—in Narooma. He’ll never be the same again. It’s all to do with this criminality that’s coming into our regions because of illicit tobacco.
Senator ROBERTS: So we either comply with the law or we let the unlawful—
Mr Allen: The underworld will take it over, I’ve got no doubt. I went to the state inquiry last year and all the senators, whether they were Labor, Liberal, Green, National—like Cate Faehrmann, the Green, Stephen Lawrence from Labor—grilled Amber Shuhyta, the ITEC Commissioner, fairly hard. They were interested in what excise levels are doing. This inquiry is very politicised. The Greens and the Labor senators seem to be interested in anything else but excise. And if we don’t focus on excise, nothing is going to be solved here. I can guarantee that.
Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of excise, I’ll just divert slightly. One Nation policy is to cut excise on alcohol—on beer and spirits served in hospitality venues. And the reason for that is that the excise is so damn high and alcohol prices are so high that they have binge drinking and what they now call preloading, tanking up before you go out, so the hospitality venues get bugger-all revenue.
Mr Allen: I absolutely agree, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: It is causing a decrease in service from where they have responsible serving of alcohol to now binge drinking.
Mr Allen: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s damaging.
Mr Allen: It was very similar when the alcopops tax came in, if you can remember, back in, I think, 2008. Kevin Rudd said, ‘We’ve got a binge drinking problem in Australia, so we’ll bring in the alcopops tax. We’ll tax premixed or RTD drinks at the same level as spirits, at 66 per cent.’ So what happened? Everyone went out and bought spirits. The kids went to the parties; they took their bottle of spirit and their bottle of Coke and just mixed it up. And often it was a much higher concentration than the four per cent premixed RTD in the can. God knows what percentage it was. But that’s the problem when you try to solve things with taxation and excise. It’s just madness.
Senator ROBERTS: What you’re all arguing for is getting back to the core issue, the core problem, the driver of this problem, and that is excessive excise tax.
Mr Allen: The sweet spot was 2020. We collected $16.3 billion in tax, and that adjusted is $20 billion in today’s money. In 2020 we collected $20 billion. In 2030 we’re going to collect $2 billion. And I doubt that’ll be right. That’s a 90 per cent drop in 10 years. Now, if that is successful policy, I’m not here. I don’t know what is.
Senator ROBERTS: And smoking rates are going up.
Mr Allen: And smoking rates are going up. It’s just absolute madness.
Senator ROBERTS: All of you have given very direct answers, so I’ll move on to Ms Wishart. You’re a legal family-owned tobacconist. In a small town in regional New South Wales, Junee. You say that the illegal tobacco industry has devastated your small business, with income down by 80 per cent. So you’re down to 20 per cent of what you had. In your submission you’ve called for the excise to be rolled back because of the huge social aspects for the community and society in general. Is that correct?
Mrs Wishart: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you want to expand on that?
Mrs Wishart: Particularly in regional centres, if a business closes down, another one may never open.
Senator ROBERTS: You lose that knowledge of the community.
Mrs Wishart: Yes. And banks don’t like small business. You’ve got to fight to open one, let alone to survive in one. And small towns are communities. That word just isn’t a catchphrase. We are communities. So when the four local schools, when Can Assist, when the swimming club, the football club and the soccer club all come in for donations, they’re guaranteed it, or they were. I haven’t been able to donate for two years, which is horrible as a member of the community. They know not to even ask now because they know the position that I’m in.
Senator ROBERTS: And the criminal pushing illicit tobacco doesn’t donate.
Mrs Wishart: He’s not supporting anyone but himself. Nothing’s getting put back.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. Mr Rodie, you’re a tobacconist at Margate?
Mr Rodie: I’m a tobacconist at Deception Bay.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, you said that. That was my mistake. You’ve come up in your submission with a list of 10 recommendations that show the comprehensiveness of the solution. You’re not opposed to cutting smoking; you just want to go about it fairly so that everyone benefits—correct?
Mr Rodie: Yes, that’s right. I’d like a level playing field. At the moment there’s no level playing field at all.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Alexiou, you’re from Devonport, Tassie?
Mr Alexiou: Yes, Senator Roberts, I am.
Senator ROBERTS: And you’ve got a Foodworks, so you’re a supermarket?
Mr Alexiou: Yes. We’ve been in our business for 40 years.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re asking the Senate to recognise that illicit tobacco is not a victimless issue. It’s hurting real businesses, real workers and real communities in Tasmania—correct?
Mr Alexiou: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: And the social knock-on effect is important to the whole community. You’ve also said that the long-term viability of neighbourhood retail in Tasmania is at risk.
Mr Alexiou: Of course. Have you heard the previous speakers? I concur with those comments.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all because your evidence has been succinct and direct. I appreciate that.
The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 gives the ACCC and the minister wide ranging power to exempt large corporations from anticompetitive and fair trading laws during crises like the Iranian oil shock.
It lets the government “tear up the rulebook” by rubberstamping illegal anticompetitive behaviour through a Ministerial instrument.
Using the Iranian fuel crisis as an example, major fuel importers deliberately withheld fuel from the spot market to inflate prices, hurting independent regional stations and everyday consumers while securing windfall profits.
The Labor government is backdating the bill to retroactively cover up corporate profiteering, which is being done to push high fuel prices and artificially boost lagging electric vehicle (EV) sales to advance its Net Zero agenda.
The Albanese Government is turning out to be the most totalitarian government in Australian history.
Transcript
This is not a matter of urgency; to the contrary, it’s a matter for considered scrutiny. Let me explain. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 provides the ACCC with significant new powers. These powers create a new framework for actions that can be taken in exceptional circumstances such as the Iranian oil shock. These powers allow the ACCC to exempt big business from normal fair trading and anticompetitive laws—exempt. This allows big business, once an exceptional circumstance has been declared, to do whatever they like. The framework is wider than fuel; it can be used for anything the minister decides to use it for. This otherwise illegal behaviour will then be simply rubberstamped in the minister’s office using a legislative instrument that cannot be disallowed. It won’t even come before parliament. The ACCC already has the power to allow uncompetitive behaviour in the national interest—it already has the power, in the national interest. This legislation clarifies those rules but little more. I note the proposed amendment from the crossbench which changes that provision to make these legislative instruments disallowable in the parliament. One Nation will be supporting that amendment, as the government should.
This bill is, in effect, the government granting itself the power to tear up the rulebook to allow large corporations to use their market power to screw the competition, expand their market share and leverage that market share to make more profit at the consumers’ expense. There is a real example of this occurring. In the early days of the Iranian fuel disruption, Australia’s fuel importers—major importers of fuel—despite having full storage tanks, withheld from the spot market. The major importers of fuel deliberately withheld fuel from the spot market, despite having full storage tanks. This is the market into which fuel importers and refiners supply their fuel once their own supply contracts have been met. This is where the smaller independent petrol stations, especially in rural and regional Australia, get their fuel. In the first weeks of the Iranian oil crisis, petrol went above $2.50 a litre—we all remember that—and diesel went over $3 a litre. The increase in the oil price did not justify those retail prices, which were high because of price gouging and manipulation. We know what these large multinational companies did. They held their supply back from the spot market to inflate the retail price, even for fuel which was already in the supply system at the old price. This delivered windfall profits to multinational oil companies—for doing nothing except colluding.
Labor is now advancing this bill with a clause backdating the bill to the start of the crisis to cover up this profiteering. Labor is covering up this profiteering. Why would the Albanese Labor government excuse foreign multinational fuel companies for profiting at the expense of everyday Australians? The answer is simple: to sell electric vehicles, whose sales had been languishing. Remember all those stories about people rushing out to buy EVs because petrol was so dear? How evil is that? With all the financial hardship in the bush and the regions and the suburbs which resulted from big oil profiteering, the government is using this bill to cover it up to advance its net zero agenda—yet another hidden cost of the net zero agenda. This Labor Party does not give a damn about everyday Australians; it does not care at all. And now they’re helping companies cover it up. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians. I’ll say that again to the Greens. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians.
I note the amendment from the Nationals to remove the retrospective nature of the cover-up in this bill. One Nation will support that amendment.
Competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers and small business. It stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition. Any exemption from competition law needs to be treated very seriously, because it’s the people who pay. We can’t normalise anticompetitive conduct. It will lead to more and more exceptions, less and less consumer protection, higher and higher prices, and weaker and weaker service. Clearly, when Labor talks about consumer protections, they don’t really mean it. I’m just checking; this is still a Labor government, isn’t it? Is that right?
One Nation is the party of everyday Australians now. One Nation wants this bill to go to a committee inquiry so everyone can have their say, and, from that, a fairer bill will have emerged. We want the public to have their input, yet here we are. Once again this Labor government is talking about ramming through without proper debate, without transparency, legislation which contains significant provisions.
In 2019 the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, frequently criticised the coalition for lacking transparency in key legislation and vowed Labor would operate differently, including better parliamentary scrutiny. This bill is not getting committee scrutiny. We want better parliamentary scrutiny, as Anthony Albanese sought back in 2019. In his victory speech in 2022, Prime Minister Albanese promised to end secrecy, to lead with integrity and to treat the public with respect, framing his win as voters choosing accountable government versus the previous cult of secrecy. He repeatedly claims a mandate with just 34 per cent of the vote—one-third of the vote. That’s why he’s got no accountability now. Where is that accountability? Where is the transparency now? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny now? Unless all the substantive amendments presented to the Senate are passed, One Nation will oppose this legislation.
The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is the culmination of two years of consultation aimed at fixing a long-standing issue with orphan works, expanding online education exemptions, and making minor technical updates.
Division 2AAA in the Copyright Act 1968 limits remedies against those using copyrighted works when the owner can’t be found after a “reasonably diligent” search. While we still need clearer industry guidance on what qualifies as “reasonably diligent,” modern tools like TinEye, web searches, and AI make checking copyright straightforward.
This bill introduces requirements for copyright owners to issue a takedown notice before seeking a charge. Crucially, any claim must now be reasonable. I’ve seen copyright trolls demand over $1,000 for minor, low-traffic uses of dormant works. This new requirement gives small businesses leverage to negotiate and provides courts with clear guidance to lower litigation costs.
This is a major win for our galleries, libraries, museums, and educational institutions. With up to 70% of some collections categorised as orphaned, this bill grants them the freedom to finally share these works.
However, this bill completely misses the elephant in the room: AI training and data scraping.
Under current law, using copyrighted material to train AI generally requires a license, and reproducing substantial parts of works in AI outputs is an infringement. The real danger is how search engines and AI platforms (ChatGPT being a primary offender) scrape copyrighted websites to generate direct answers. By doing so, they eliminate the need for users to visit the original creator’s site, effectively appropriating their work. This critical issue must be addressed in the very near future.
Although One Nation supported this bill, we will be watching closely to see how it performs in practice. If small businesses acting in good faith aren’t adequately protected from predatory claims, we will push for further measures.
Transcript
The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is the result of consultation over two years to solve a problem that’s existed around orphan works. Schedule 1 of the bill creates a statutory framework that enables lawful use of orphan works when the copyright owner cannot be identified or located despite a reasonably diligent approach. Schedule 2 makes clear that copyright exemptions for learning institutions teaching in person extend to lessons taught online. Schedule 3 makes minor technical changes and updates.
The orphan works scheme creates division 2AAA in the Copyright Act 1968 to limit remedies for copyright infringement where the owner cannot be found despite a reasonably diligent approach. It would be good to have that further guidance on what ‘reasonably diligent’ means. I do expect there will be guidance from industry and media around that definition when the bill commences. Using internet search and websites like TinEye or asking AI if something is copyrighted is not hard to do; it’s quite easy. The act already limits backdated claims to six years; where the use predates that, only the last six years can be claimed as copyright infringement.
The bill requires a copyright owner who has detected use of their material to give the offending use a notice to take down the material. If they do, a charge does not result. It’s the copyright owner’s discretion. Any charge they do claim must be reasonable—there’s that word again. There’s a real issue with copyright trolls, who buy up dormant copyrights, look to see who has used that writing, photo or art then send a copyright claim. I’ve seen many examples of copyright trolls making claims above $1,000 for insignificant use such as a photo on a website that attracts little to no traffic. This legislation does introduce words like ‘reasonable’ to describe the charge. That is new, and it should help in these cases, because it gives a small business a chance to negotiate the charge. It may stop claims being made for minor use when no quantifiable benefit has resulted. The legislation provides the courts with clear rules and guidance that will reduce the cost of litigation for both parties.
One Nation will watch how this legislation works in practice. If small businesses are not being properly protected for in-good-faith breaches, further measures may be necessary. The good news is that this bill will allow galleries, libraries, museums and education institutions greater freedom to use works they have on hand. With an estimated 70 per cent of some collections being orphaned, this is a significant step forward.
The bill does not address the major concern about copyright law, which is using copyright material to train AI. Under the Copyright Act 1968, teaching and AI on copyrighted works generally requires permission or a licence from the copyright owner. Reproducing producing substantial parts of copyrighted works in an AI’s output, such as quoting long excerpts or reproducing poems or images is usually an infringement. The exception is a narrow fair-use exception for academic and news purposes. Where this becomes a problem is in areas of search where the old ten blue links in Google’s page of search results have been replaced with an AI answer, which uses information from a copyrighted website, generally removing the need to visit the site. Many artificial intelligence sites—ChatGPT being a major offender—will use data from a copyrighted site to answer a user question and even make recommendations for which website to use based on the data from a different site. The issue of AI appropriating copyrighted works or copyrighted webpages is an issue that will need to be addressed in the near future. One Nation will support this bill.
This is my interaction with federal agencies at the Illicit Tobacco hearing in Canberra on 18 May 2026.
Tobacco excise tax losses range from $7.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually (ITEC report).
The agencies confirmed that illicit tobacco is a massive, highly sophisticated, and growing threat tied directly to organised crime.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) stated that intergang violence, property destruction and loss of lives can be directly linked to this illegal black-market trade.
I pointed out that the real safety issue facing everyday Australians involves fire bombings, gang violence, and murder on our streets, not just general health advice.
The agencies pointed to successful operations, such as the AFP citing specific busts netting millions of illegal cigarettes and $93 million in evaded excise. However, when I pressed them on concrete metrics to show whether they are actually making a dent in the trade or if these seizures are just a “drop in the ocean,” they struggled to give a clear percentage or ratio against the total market.
Success isn’t just about slowing down market growth or rattling off isolated seizure statistics. The Australian public deserves to know the exact scale of the impact being made.
We shouldn’t be merely managing or stopping this illegal trade from “growing,” we should be eliminating it entirely.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing. Let’s explore your understanding. I’m going to give you free rein to show the people of Australia and the parliament of Australia what you know and are doing. Perhaps you could answer these questions in turn, please, starting on the left. Do you accept that there is a significant problem with illicit tobacco? If so, why? If not, why not? How do these problems manifest? Could you be specific about the impacts on human life and also the dollar cost.
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, I’m not sure whether we’re best qualified to provide an answer. We’re prosecuting offences, but we’re certainly very much engaged in relation to prosecutions arising from the illicit tobacco trade.
Ms Sirec: As we said in our submission, any criminality is a concern for the Australian Federal Police. Illicit tobacco is an illicit commodity and we will target that. We do know that it’s having an impact. As we’ve heard from our ACIC colleagues, it’s impacting our communities, it’s impacting health and it’s obviously causing some violence and harm in the community. So, certainly, we work very strongly with our partners on being able to impact and disrupt the criminal environment in connection with illicit tobacco. I have forgotten the second part of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: How do these problems manifest—if you could be specific—in terms of the cost to human life and the dollar cost?
Ms Sirec: As for how it manifests, we know that competition is happening across organised crime gangs, so we see intergang violence. We see property destruction occurring in our jurisdictions, which our state and territory partners also have to target. We’ve heard from the ACIC regarding the loss of three lives, and I think the ACIC are on the record already about the dollar value of illicit tobacco being in the billions, in terms of impacting community.
Mr Meyer: Building on what has been said already, I think the other element, from our perspective, is the recycling of the profits that are made through illicit tobacco into a range of other organised crime activity, as I mentioned, whether it be drugs or a range of other activities which flow on to a range of harms within the community. Just in terms of metrics and numbers, I know that the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s report estimates the total amount of excise evaded in 2024-25 to be between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that the total economic and social cost of illicit tobacco in 2023-24 was approximately $4 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: The other group, AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: In response to your first question, in 2024 AUSTRAC developed the national risk assessment on money laundering. At the time, it assessed the illicit tobacco market as posing a medium and increasing threat of money laundering. That same product forecast that, over the next three years, the illicit tobacco threat was likely to increase. We have recently published an update to that national risk assessment which shows that illicit tobacco has increased in volume and we’re seeing that criminal groups are becoming more sophisticated and diverse in the ways in which they’re laundering that money. That’s really driven by high market demand and profitability. I think, to your second question, just referencing the ITEC annual report 2024-25, ITEC estimated that in 2024-25 the illicit tobacco market was worth up to $6.9 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: Again, each in turn, what are the three most important points that you would like to make to this committee?
Mr de Crespigny: From the CDPP’s point of view, there are two things that we are seeing about the place. Firstly, of the prosecutions that we’re doing, more of them involve multiple defendants, indicating large, organised crime groups. The other thing that we’ve seen about the place is a rise in state prosecutions, so the states are very much taking it on. In both New South Wales and Victoria, they’ve increased the penalties for relevant offences, such as the sale of illicit tobacco. It’s not something which is just being done by the Commonwealth; it’s also being done by the state authorities.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a third point?
Mr de Crespigny: I do think that there’s possibly a need to understand its impact upon the community, both in loss of revenue and in the health impact that it has. That’s something that we try to get across in our sentencing matters, because part of the point of the exercise is to, in actual fact, lower Australia’s smoking rates.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the safety of people?
Mr de Crespigny: People are safer if they don’t smoke.
Senator ROBERTS: I meant in terms of firebombings and murders.
Mr de Crespigny: That’s something that, certainly, I observe because I have heard it at the committee and read it in the newspapers, but it’s not something which falls within the CDPP’s speciality.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AFP?
Ms Sirec: The AFP knows that the threat is dynamic, interconnected, tech enabled and resilient. There are three points that I would like you to take away. Firstly, our approach, with our partners, is that we target supply chains, enablers and trusted insiders. Secondly, we exploit and dismantle criminal communication systems. Thirdly, we identify, restrain and seize criminal assets and financial facilitators to take the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you be more specific, please. How do you do these things? What do you need? What actions do you actually take?
Ms Sirec: As for actions, we target the supply chains. For instance, in New South Wales, we partner with New South Wales police and the Crime Commission to target trusted insiders—that is, those individuals who allow the illicit flow of tobacco to come through the borders. We exploit and dismantle the criminal comms systems, through understanding our capabilities around encrypted communications, and being able to infiltrate and use our powers to be able to identify organised crime. Through the additional funding that the government has provided regarding our Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, we can identify, restrain and seize the criminal assets, and we’ve done that successfully. We’ve seized directly over $39 million worth of property since 26 June 2025.
Mr Meyer: As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, serious and organised crime see there being lower barriers to entry and lower penalties associated with illicit tobacco and the market. A bill is going through parliament at the moment, and I know that, across our state and territory counterparts, they’re also looking to have greater consistency, in terms of their own regulatory and legislative approach. Firstly, being able to level out and make it harder for serious and organised crime to operate, and increase the penalties, obviously will help to deter some of those actors. Secondly, targeting the efforts the whole way through the supply chain, as Deputy Commissioner Seric said, not just here in Australia but at the border and internationally with our partners, will be incredibly important, and we continue to do that. Thirdly, in addition to the commodity itself, it’s being able to dismantle the actual groups behind it. Those groups are involved in a range of other illicit activity as well. By effectively deterring and dismantling those groups, we’re actually going to have a significant effect across a range of threat types.
Senator ROBERTS: AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: Coming to this from the perspective of an intelligence agency, the first point that I’d make is about partnering with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies that we work with. AUSTRAC is a member of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, we support the national disruption group and we work with the ITEC. It’s really through those partnerships, and their ability to leverage our data, that ensures there is financial intelligence that gives a good picture of the activities there—the supply chains, and how profits are generated and moved. It gives those investigative agencies greater insights, in order to target these groups. The second point I’d make is that it’s essential for AUSTRAC, as both an intelligence agency and the financial regulator, to work very closely with our industry partners—the banking sector, the remittance sector and the digital payments sector—so that we can not only continue to get those insights from them but also work with them on increasing their risk controls, their transaction monitoring and their understanding of the nature of the threat and the way it’s evolving, in order to help them detect that activity. The third point that I’d make goes to a real investment in our crypto-tracing capability. With the impact that government is having, we’re starting to see that increase in online sales and more movement of these proceeds through digital currencies. It’s important for us to keep up with that and continue to be able to have the tools and the capability to follow those fund flows through those digital transactions that are made as well.
Senator ROBERTS: How do each of you measure your effectiveness? Is the taxpayer getting value? And, if so, how do we know? We’ve pretty much all agreed that this problem is worth billions of dollars, it is costing lives and it has health impacts. What are you doing to reassure the taxpayer?
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, our effectiveness is measured by the prosecutions that we undertake; we think we’re undertaking those effectively and we’re getting quite reasonable results. The offence provisions are quite complex. These offence provisions—say, the Customs Act provisions—aren’t just focused on the actual importation of the tobacco; it’s a requirement that the person also had an intention or was reckless in defrauding the revenue. They’re not the most straightforward offence provisions. Our effectiveness is in working with our referring agencies and pursuing prosecutions.
Ms Sirec: From the AFP’s perspective, we would measure our effectiveness by our ability to partner, disrupt and dismantle organised criminal groups. Only months ago, Commissioner Barrett identified her No. 1 target, who was involved not only in a myriad of other crimes but also in illicit tobacco. Through our partnerships with our offshore law enforcement agencies, we’ve been able to disrupt his ability, to directly impact. There’s a success measure there. Of course, the number of prosecutions and seizures of illicit tobacco and our ability to understand the criminal networks are another measure of success. Finally, as I said before, with the investment that the government has made in terms of our asset restraint, we’ve been able to restrain more than $39 million since June 2025 and taken the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me some quantified specific effect that you’re having with each of those measures? What indicates success, and what indicates how far we have yet to go?
Ms Sirec: Sure. I can give you a couple of case studies. As per our submission, for instance, with Operation Collinsville, late last year, with the Australian Border Force and Victoria Police, we arrested six senior syndicate members and charged them with various charges. There were 14 search warrants across various factories and premises. We seized over 24 million cigarettes, six million kilos worth of looseleaf tobacco and 51,000 vapes, while also being able to seize various other items and instruments of the commission of the crime—mobile phones, cash machines et cetera. That’s just one investigation. In another investigation, in 2024, Operation Centinel-South-Tyres, over 10 million cigarettes were seized and a number of the syndicate members were arrested. This syndicate was responsible for the importation of more than 77 million cigarettes, so we disrupted that syndicate, which equated to $93 million in excise tax. In 2025, we also successfully obtained restraining orders for over $800,000 in property.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a big problem. How big is it? Is this a drop in the ocean, or has this had a significant impact on their illegal business?
Ms Sirec: Every criminal group that we can disrupt creates an impact.
Senator ROBERTS: In your answer, you’re not giving me anything specific, in terms of indicating your understanding of how big the problem is financially.
Ms Sirec: We’ve heard already from our colleagues here about the dollar value, in terms of the cost of this criminality, and also—
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, I want to know what your understanding of it is.
Ms Sirec: As we’ve heard, it’s a $7 billion harm to the community.
Senator ROBERTS: Is what you’ve done, in the cases that you’ve just rattled off, five per cent or 50 per cent of the trade?
Ms Sirec: I can’t give you a quantum of the percentage of the trade, but they are only two examples—they’re in our submission—of multiple examples that I could provide of the impact that we’re having.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s good to see that success, but is that five per cent, 50 per cent or 90 per cent? How much further do we have to go?
Ms Sirec: I won’t speculate on the percentage; I believe that sits there. Certainly, the fact that we are sitting here today means that we’ve obviously got more to go. But we have the right capabilities and the right people involved in this to do everything that we can to disrupt this.
Senator ROBERTS: How do the people and the parliament know from your answers—you’re not being very specific—in terms of the overall figure? Are you making a dent in it; again, is it five per cent?
Senator COLBECK: It’s $93 million worth of excise seizure versus a $12 billion loss in excise; it’s a drop in the ocean.
CHAIR: Perhaps I can assist, Senator Roberts. We’re all here to try to stop this market growing, and it’s great to have numbers of cigarettes, like 10 million, being confiscated at the border and so forth. But it would be really helpful if you could provide to the committee, on notice, in percentage terms, the amount of disruption that you are making with what is being confiscated versus the size of the illicit market. I can appreciate that you may not have that in front of you, and this is not to take away from any of the great work that you are doing, but I think it is an important piece of evidence for the committee, so that we are able to look at just the pure scale of what is coming into the country.
Ms Sirec: I’ll have to take that on notice.
CHAIR: Thank you; that would be very helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to make the point that we’re not just interested in stopping the business growing; we’re interested in stopping the business altogether.
When harvest fuel bills double and take weeks to recoup from supermarkets, family farms simply can’t finance the food on our tables.
If Canberra keeps treating our fuel sovereignty like someone else’s problem, store shelves will empty fast.
Our food producers are already feeling the heat.
Government needs to step up and start looking after Australia.
Transcript
Yesterday, I met with Johanna Brighenti from NSW Farmers and member organisations across horticultural and meat industries. They raised issues caused by the Albanese government’s fuel crisis that are terrifying. The cost to get produce to market is going up by between 25 per cent and 75 per cent because of increased fuel costs.
Farmers and truckers using diesel are only getting 30 per cent of their fuel order. This is making Australian produce unaffordable. After the drought years, family farmers have nothing left to get through this.
It’s even worse for farmers in the middle of a harvest. One farmer saw their harvest fuel costs double, from $15,000 to $30,000 a week. Fuel bills have to be settled in 14 days. Supermarkets pay two months. Farmers can no longer afford to finance their harvest, and food will not get to supermarkets.
If the Canberra bubble think that this is someone else’s problem and that they need do nothing about it, I can assure you it’s going to get very real very quickly. For food producers it is already real.
During this Senate estimates, I confronted officials over their “dodge” of my earlier question regarding M1 motorway works between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Instead of a brief summary, they dumped a staggering 1,535 pages of unindexed data on my office, effectively telling my staff, who have already been halved by resourcing cuts, to dig through it themselves while conveniently handing spreadsheets directly to other senators.
Minister Chisholm tried to defend this bureaucratic brush-off as “too much information,” however I pointed out that “burying answers is not transparency”.
I went on to request a real, functional summary of all federal funding for M1 roadworks and the officials finally put the data on the record. Mr Brummitt walked through a comprehensive list of projects spanning current commitments, planning phases, and completed upgrades.
In total, the Australian government’s commitment is $2.2 billion to M1 projects since 2019. While I’m glad we finally got the numbers, it shouldn’t take a grilling in estimates just to get a straightforward summary. Transparency matters!
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here again. It seems like only yesterday, doesn’t it?
CHAIR: It’s their pleasure.
Senator ROBERTS: In February estimates, I asked a question regarding the extent of works on the M1 motorway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Mr Bourne replied that there were a lot of projects on the M1 and offered to take the question on notice. Your answer on notice, SQ-26, said that the information on M1 projects can be found in documents tabled by the secretary on 9 February 2026. These are the first few pages of the documents. There are 1,535 pages, covering all of your projects, some of them going back to grants awarded in 2014—12 years ago. I interpret this answer to be you telling my staff to find the answer themselves amongst the 1,535 pages of data. You provided another senator with a spreadsheet electronically. Do you dispute my interpretation?
Mr Bourne: Senator, that document holds all the information in relation to the question that you asked.
Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister & Cabinet document on the correct behaviour of estimates witnesses and the privileges committee rulings over the years all require a witness to provide a full and accurate answer. Minister, how is this any sort of answer, let alone a full and accurate one? I asked for a summary.
Senator Chisholm: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think Mr Bourne said it was full and accurate information. It might have been more information than you needed; that is the suggestion. I feel as though it’s a bit critical to be disappointed at receiving too much information.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, you’ve cut our staff in half. We have only limited staff. We can’t go through 1,535 pages. It’s organised by state, not by project. We wanted the M1 project. The M1 project is not even named. You gave Senator Canavan a spreadsheet but not us. Burying the answer in 1,535 pages is not an answer, not a summary. So, I repeat my question. You can take it on notice. Please provide a summary of all roadworks funded at any point in their project life cycle, in whole or part, by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts on the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.
Mr Bourne: I’ll just ask my colleague Mr Brummitt to take you through that.
Mr Brummitt: I’ll run through the projects in order. The M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, is in progress, with an Australian government commitment of $50 million.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that 50 or 15?
Mr Brummitt: Fifty.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Mr Brummitt: The M1 Pacific Motorway exit 45 north is in planning. That’s a $10 million commitment. That was a budget commitment, a new project. The construction funding for the M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, exit 45, is a $10 million commitment, with a total project cost of $20 million. For the construction funding for the M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, which has not commenced construction yet, there is an Australian government commitment of $450 million, with a total project cost of $900 million. The M1 Pacific Motorway Varsity Lakes to Tugun was completed in 2025, with an Australian government commitment of $750 million and a total project cost of $1.5 billion. For the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, exits 41 and 49, completed in 2025, there was an Australian government commitment of $117 million, with a total project cost of $234 million. For the M1 Pacific Motorway Eight Mile Plains to Daisy Hill, completed in 2025, there was a $510 million Australian government commitment and a $750 million total project cost. The M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, exit 45, completed in 2022, had a $7.3 million Australian government commitment, with a $14.6 million total project cost. The M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes upgrade, was closed and the project was completed in 2020. We’re going back a little bit there, but I wanted to be as comprehensive as I could for you, Senator. That was a $194 million Australian government commitment, with a $217 million total project cost. Another one completed a while ago, in 2020, was the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade, the Gateway Motorway/Pacific Motorway merge, with a $111.5 million Australian government commitment and a $189 million total project cost. Also, under the SEQ growth/Brisbane 2032 business case development program there are three planning projects in progress. That’s planning for the Pacific Motorway Worongary interchange improvement, which is a $1 million Australian government commitment, with a total project cost of $2.9 million. This is the project I mentioned earlier, and I’ll explain. For the Pacific Motorway exit 45 north business case, there was a $750 million contribution from the Australian government and a total project cost of $1.5 million. Then what was announced at budget was $10 million, which was additional funding for detailed design and pre-construction work to get that project really shovel ready and well prepared. The final one under that program is the Pacific Motorway, Logan motorway to Nerang, planning for smart motorways, also still in progress, and that was a $700,000 Australian government commitment and a total project cost of $1.5 million. Since 2019, that’s a total Australian government commitment to projects on the M1 of $2.2 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Was that available last time?
Mr Bourne: I think I did offer to go through those with you last time, but you asked us to take that on notice.
I questioned Minister Murray Watt and departmental officials to get straight answers on how much taxpayer money is being spent on United Nations climate events and whether the government’s policies are hurting economic growth.
I asked the department questions on taxpayer spending regarding Minister Chris Bowen’s role as president of negotiations for COP31 in Türkiye. They confirmed that $147.8 million over three years was allocated under a budget measure titled “Standing with our partners in the Pacific”.
While Dr Box explained this covers events, Pacific delegates, pavilions and staff travel, I asked what the real return on investment for everyday Australian taxpayers was. Furthermore, officials admitted that the total budget for attending COP31 itself and whether grants will again be handed out to climate activists as was done for COP30, has not yet been finalised.
I requested a complete breakdown of international travel costs within the climate change and energy portfolios for the 2026–27 financial year. The Department could not provide specific figures on wages, airfares, or days spent abroad, stating decisions are made on a “case-by-case basis.”
I asked Minister Watt why Australia should have international climate agreements imposed on us, pointing out that sovereign nations like the United States have withdrawn from these arrangements and that the UN cannot enforce anything unless Parliament legislates it.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Good morning, Minister.
Senator Watt: Good to see you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re looking chirpy.
Senator Watt: Always chirpy, just like yourself.
Senator ROBERTS: The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, is the president of negotiations for COP31—the Conference of the Parties—in Turkiye taking place in November this year. Has the department incurred any expense in respect of that role for travel, expense for extra staffing or expense in any other related purpose, and, if so, how much?
Mr Kaiser: Yes. We covered some of that ground in answer to questions from Senator Henderson just moments ago.
Senator ROBERTS: The specific amounts for staffing, travel and related weren’t covered, though, were they?
Mr Kaiser: I think what we said was that a number of staff did travel with Minister Bowen, most recently, as part of his responsibilities but that those figures had not been reconciled yet because, I think, the staff literally arrived home on Saturday.
Senator ROBERTS: Does he have any additional staff as a result of his duties, not just travel?
Mr Kaiser: In terms of his ministerial staff?
Senator ROBERTS: In terms of his position as president of negotiations, does he have any additional staff in his—
Mr Kaiser: In his ministerial office?
Senator ROBERTS: Are the taxpayers paying for anything for the United Nations role?
Mr Kaiser: There was a specific budget measure which provided funding to the department to assist him with that role.
Senator ROBERTS: What is that amount?
Mr Kaiser: My colleagues will be able to help you with that.
Dr Box: I’ll take that, Senator. The amount allocated for the budget measure ‘Standing with our partners in the Pacific’ in the 2026-27 budget was $147.8 million over three years.
Senator ROBERTS: $147 million over three years?
Dr Box: That’s right.
Senator Watt: Just to be clear—because what that money is for shouldn’t be misrepresented—it might be helpful to have Dr Box set out what that money is going to. It’s not to create an office, for example.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m all ears.
Dr Box: The money is for a range of activities: the delivery of the pre-COP, the preparatory meeting in the Pacific, in Fiji, and with the leaders element in Tuvalu; things like sponsored travel for Pacific delegates; additional events in the Pacific; and to support a pavilion at COP31. It also includes some funding for the presidency youth champion and to support our Pacific climate envoys, and of course it also includes some funding for staff and travel.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Was there an amount—I may have missed it—for the cost of attending COP31 itself?
Dr Box: For COP31? No.
Senator ROBERTS: So that is yet to be added?
Dr Box: That budget measure will support attendance at COP31, but the delegation for COP31 and associated costs hasn’t yet been determined.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are the Australian taxpayers, Minister, paying to raise Minister Bowen’s international profile? Where’s the benefit to taxpayers? Where’s the return on investment? What is the return?
Senator Watt: Well, you won’t be surprised to hear me say that that funding is not about raising Minister Bowen’s profile. It’s about ensuring that Australia has a leading role in international negotiations regarding climate change and energy. I know you and I, Senator Roberts, have a pretty different view about whether climate change is real and what we should be doing about it, but the reality is that countries all around the world are negotiating and reaching agreements about this, and our government’s view is that it’s a very good idea and it’s in Australia’s national interests to be helping to lead those negotiations. We’ve got a view that you’d rather be involved in negotiations than have outcomes imposed on you by the rest of the world, and, through Minister Bowen, occupying that role gives Australia a front-row seat in those negotiations. The other reason for us doing this is that it’s an opportunity for greater partnership with our Pacific neighbours. I’m sure, Senator Roberts, one thing you and I could agree on is that the Pacific is a region where there are a lot of national security interests for the Australian people and there is an opportunity for Australia to work in partnership with the Pacific on an issue, being climate change, that they consider to be arguably the biggest challenge they’re facing. That is a good thing for Australia, and dealing with those national security interests as well.
Senator ROBERTS: I think the better way to go about dealing with our neighbours, who are very important to us strategically, is to tell them the truth. That’s much more important for me. You said ‘costs imposed’ or ‘agreements imposed’. The UN cannot impose an agreement on us. The only way it can be imposed is if parliamentarians in this place legislate it.
Senator Watt: Well, again, you and I might disagree on this, Senator Roberts, but our government, and I personally, believe that it is useful to Australia and the Australian people to be part of international agreements about how we manage a range of challenges facing the world. There are some governments around the world that have withdrawn from those sorts of agreements—
Senator ROBERTS: The United States of America, for example.
Senator Watt: For example.
Senator ROBERTS: Keir Starmer calling it now the ending of climate catastrophes— Senator Watt: I don’t think the UK has withdrawn from those agreements, and we think it would be a negative for the Australian people if we were to withdraw from those agreements. I know One Nation’s got a different view. You’re entitled to your view, but we think it’s better to be at the table, in this case in a leadership role, leading the world to negotiate outcomes that are in Australia’s interests.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you aware that 65 per cent of the voters in the recent Farrer by-election voted for a party that wants to end net zero?
Senator Watt: Are you adding the Liberal and National Party votes to your—
Senator ROBERTS: No. We’re not.
Senator Watt: I didn’t think you got 65 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: No, we didn’t. We got about 40 per cent.
Senator Watt: That’s what I’m wondering—how you got from 40 to 65.
Senator ROBERTS: The other minor parties. Have a look.
Senator Watt: I recognise that there are different views about this in Australia. I think this government has been pretty clear, going into the last two elections, that we support action on climate change and that that is not only a good outcome for our environment but good for our economy and jobs as well. We’ve gone to the election with that policy. We’ve won the last two elections. We’re now implementing that policy. But you’re entitled to a different view.
Senator ROBERTS: I may have missed something here, Mr Kaiser or Dr Box, but COP30 in Brazil was extremely expensive at $1.6 million in taxpayer money. What’s the budget for the actual attendance at COP31?
Dr Box: We don’t have a specific budget for attendance at COP31 yet, because we haven’t determined how many people will go to COP31. The travel to COP31 will be taken from that $147 million that I mentioned that’s in the budget.
Senator ROBERTS: In COP30 you gave away $395,612 in grants to bring along climate change activists and so-called stakeholders. Will you be doing that again in COP31? If yes, why? What is in it for the taxpayer? Mr Rudd took, as Prime Minister, to Copenhagen 114 people, including his hairdresser. Will that same graciousness be extended to Mr Bowen?
Dr Box: You’re correct that we did have a grants program for COP30 that supported a range of organisations to attend COP30 in Belem in Brazil, including youth organisations, First Nations organisations and organisations from a range of sectors, including the agricultural sector. There is funding in the budget to support organisations to attend COP31 in Antalya in Turkiye, but the parameters of that haven’t yet been decided.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers. This next question comes up frequently, so I assume you have the data on hand. What is your budget for international travel within the climate change and energy portfolios—that’s wages, airfare and accommodation—in the 2026-27 financial year? Could you include a breakdown of how much over how many days for how many employees?
Ms Munro: These decisions, in terms of what the required travel is, are always taken on a case-by-case basis. A lot of the work that we do is done virtually, and it’s really by exception that there will be that international travel, but it is necessary to build the relationships and to negotiate outcomes. That’s the responsibility that the government has given us. We don’t have the detail that you are asking for, given that we need to plan through what are going to be the priorities for this year, and, as I said, we make those decisions almost on a case-by-case basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me a broad idea of the categories of considerations that will go into that or could go into it.
Ms Munro: Go into travel?
Senator ROBERTS: Selecting travelling companions.
Ms Munro: Yes, we’re happy to.
Dr Box: There are a range of factors that we consider. Value for money is obviously a very big consideration. Another is whether the intended meeting outcomes are of significant benefit for Australia’s climate, energy, environment and water agenda. We also consider whether virtual or alternative representation options aren’t suitable, and, of course, all approved travel requests include a contingency. We look at the intended meeting outcomes and whether virtual participation is available and, of course, value for money as an overarching consideration in coordination with the PGPA Act.
Senator ROBERTS: Value for money is a pretty subjective thing. It depends on the goals of your party going there. Coming back to the EPBC Act, your website page for the new national environmental standards under the EPBC Act does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says that the circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April, and it wasn’t. When will the new standard be made available to senators?
Senator Watt: I’m not sure when that research was done, but, in the last month, we have begun a second round of consultation on two of those national environmental standards. In outcome 2, we’ll be able to talk to you at length about that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. As things stand, the EPBC Act is, in our opinion—we differ on this, no doubt—a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia said, and I quote: Average decision times for resources projects have increased by 60 per cent, from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025 … What steps are you taking to increase your throughput?
Senator Watt: Again, we could have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but that was exactly one of the key reasons for the reforms that we passed in the parliament last year. I know you voted against them, but one of the key objectives of those reforms was to speed up decision-making on projects after that blowout of timeframes that you referred to, and we’re confident that will happen.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that the budget—and you’ve answered a related question from Senator Waters— includes a measure for introducing AI. Will that help in data collection and analysis or will that be actually making decisions?
Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about this in more detail in outcome 2, but the primary purpose of that AI pilot and tool is essentially to help proponents in preparing their applications. There are people who know a lot more about it than me who will be available to talk to you about it in outcome 2.
Mr Kaiser: I’ll just add to the minister’s answer an important principle in the application of AI in the public sector generally, and including in this department, is that humans remain the decision-makers.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you using ludicrously long delays in approvals for minerals projects to discourage application for minerals projects?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project, the holding cost of the project across a 3.8-year development application cycle will cost the proponents $25 million per year—almost $100 million total across 3.8 years to four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by a procedural failure in your department?
Senator Watt: Again, we can have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but a key objective behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up assessments and approvals of projects.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get a benchmark going. How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects?
Senator Watt: There will be officials available to answer those sorts of questions in outcome 2.
Senator ROBERTS: What is your expectation for reductions in this figure of 3.8 years? When will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth and the breadwinner jobs that go with minerals projects?
Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about that in more detail in outcome 2.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we talk about mining being a driver of the economy, of standard of living, and the six-to-one jobs multiplier in coalmines?
Senator Watt: In my opening statement, Senator Roberts—and I realise you weren’t here for that—I referred to the fact that, along with greater protections for the environment, one of the key objectives behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up decisions around housing, energy and critical minerals projects.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the things that’s become clear with new Labor is that it appeals to activists to get more votes.
Senator Watt: That’s your view.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the government aware, Minister, that obstructing resource projects stifles funds for social and welfare programs for caring for people?
Senator Watt: I would agree with the general proposition that economic development delivers economic wealth for the country that can be used for those sorts of social services.
Senator ROBERTS: And mining is a key to developing economic—
Senator Watt: It’s a big industry. I recognise that.
I questioned the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) CEO Ms. Spence regarding the authority’s heavy-handed treatment, regulatory delays and conflicts of interest directed at Mr Barker and his company, UAS Pacific.
When pressed about why Mr. Lewis — a former UAS Pacific employee whose credibility, motives, and personal “axe to grind” were flagged in Fair Work Commission materials —was allowed to be involved in matters concerning Mr Barker, Ms Spence insisted that Mr Lewis has had no involvement since 2019. However, she agreed to take on notice requests for conflict declarations, management plans and access records.
CASA was also questioned over its use of disputed claims to justify severe enforcement actions, licence restrictions and prolonged delays that choked UAS Pacific’s business. Although Ms. Spence claimed a third party verified an initial 2018 issue, she agreed to provide summaries of completed jobs and confirm that neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Duffy were involved in them.
Regarding Fair Work Commission proceedings and the undertakings put in place, Ms Spence maintained there were no formal FWC orders or findings of bullying against CASA officers, though she conceded the transcript reflected a preliminary view that a CASA officer indeed had a personal “axe to grind” against Mr Barker.
Despite admitting failures in implementing conflict-of-interest policies regarding Mr Lewis, Ms Spence refused to commit to an independent review and as for the false or unsupported accusations kept on file, she noted that access to specific 2019 records has been restricted and annotated and agreed to provide details of that approach on notice.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Spence, at the last Senate estimates I put to you that CASA relied on Mr Mark Lewis, a former UAS Pacific employee, to essentially destroy his former employer, Mr Barker, and UAS Pacific, Mr Barker’s company. The Fair Work Commission material raised serious concerns about Mr Lewis’s conflict, motive and credibility. CASA now relies on a full prohibition of access to criticisms of Mr Barker from January 2021. Isn’t the real question why Mr Lewis was allowed any involvement before or after that date?
Ms Spence: Without going over the ground that we’ve gone over before, I don’t agree with the way you’ve described the situation. We did point out previously that there were issues with the way in which, initially, the conflict of interest was managed in relation to Mr Lewis. That was addressed some time ago—I think around 2019. So he has no involvement whatsoever with UAS Pacific now.
Senator ROBERTS: We know that he doesn’t have any involvement now. Will you please provide all conflict declarations, conflict management plans, access records and decision records concerning Mr Lewis and UAS Pacific.
Ms Spence: I’ll take on notice what we can provide.
Senator ROBERTS: You told this committee that CASA was looking into whether evidence given to the Fair Work Commission was misleading. CASA’s written answer now says that a broad review began on 8 October 2025. It gives no terms of reference, reviewer identity, scope, affected officers, documents being reviewed, external referral or completion date. Isn’t it true, Ms Spence, that CASA has still not provided enough information to show whether this is a genuine integrity review or merely another internal containment process?
Ms Spence: I think that was referring to some material that Mr Barker has provided to the board. Over the period from September through until as recently as April, we had about 790 pages of documentation provided to us. Every couple of months it’s being sent through. We are taking it seriously. We’re working through the material that Mr Barker has sent through to us, but, obviously, the time for us to be able to conclude the review is dependent on us actually getting Mr Barker to say there’s no more information for him to provide to us. So we are working towards having advice to provide to our board on the serious allegations that Mr Barker has raised about CASA’s behaviour. We have also been very clear that—should Mr Barker wish to take this up with the AFP, the NACC or anyone else—we would obviously support any investigation that anyone else wanted to raise. We are working through the information that’s been provided to us, and we’ll be reporting to the board at their next meeting later next month, subject to Mr Barker not providing any more information that we would then need to review and assess.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s an invitation for Mr Barker to tell you two things: provide further information and notify you when the end has come.
Ms Spence: My strong hope is that Mr Barker has provided us with every piece of information that he thinks the board needs to have in order for us to be able to complete an assessment of whether there was inappropriate behaviour within the organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, provide the terms of reference for your inquiry.
Ms Spence: There are no terms of reference to the inquiry. We’re reviewing the material that Mr Barker has provided to us, which, as I’ve said, has come through over a number of emails—from September until April this year.
Senator ROBERTS: Any external referral?
Ms Spence: We have said that, if he wishes to make an external referral, we would be happy to support that. But we have not seen any evidence, and we are acting on information as we review to see if there is anything else we need to do rather than wait till the end point. We haven’t seen anything to suggest we should be making referrals, but, if Mr Barker wishes to make a referral, we would be very happy to support any investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you just provide me, on notice, with material that proves this is a genuine inquiry. Tell us what you’re doing.
Ms Spence: I’ve just told you what I’m doing. I’m not sure what else—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s pretty loose.
Ms Spence: We’re reviewing the information. It’s based on the request that Mr Barker has sent to us saying, ‘Here is a list of my concerns about the way CASA has behaved, and here is the documentation that supports it.’ We are forensically reviewing the information that Mr Barker has provided us, to determine whether there is evidence to support the allegations and assertions that he’s made.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you conduct a forensic review?
Ms Spence: The Industry Complaints Commissioner is reviewing all the material that is being provided and will provide advice to the board on the matters that he’s identified as part of that review process.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve previously put to you that CASA relied on disputed and allegedly false claims to pursue heavy-handed enforcement, including criminal allegations and jail threats, which effectively shut down Mr Barker’s business and put staff out of work. Given CASA now admits it is reviewing potentially false and misleading evidence, has CASA reviewed every enforcement action, show cause process, licence restriction, downgrade, refusal, delay or adverse assessment involving Mr Barker or UAS Pacific?
Ms Spence: The first point that I would make—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sorry, just the restrictions that may have relied on Mr Lewis, Mr Duffy or the disputed material.
Ms Spence: To start off with, while I don’t want to go into the details of what the original issue was, we have third-party independent verification that the initial issue that occurred back in 2018 was verified. It was a serious issue that was identified, and we took appropriate action as a result of that identification. What we’re doing now— as I said, we have found no evidence to suggest that the first issue that was identified was incorrect on our part. We do have someone external to CASA who has confirmed that the issue identified was correct. So if we can just keep in mind that the regulator has to take appropriate action when a serious issue is identified, and that’s what we did. We have been reviewing all the jobs that Mr Barker has worked on with CASA, and we are working through to make sure that there’s no evidence to say that we have unduly delayed things. He sent some information as recently as yesterday, identifying two other examples where he suggested that we were being unduly slow or making life difficult for him. We’re reviewing those at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Are either Mr Duffy or Mr Lewis part of the reviewing team?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Will CASA now table a positive involvement schedule stating for each UAS Pacific matter whether Mr Lewis or Mr Duffy had direct or indirect briefing, file access, referral, drafting, review, approval or no involvement?
Ms Spence: I’m sorry, Senator, I don’t understand the question.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you now table a positive involvement schedule? In other words, were Mr Duffy or Mr Lewis involved in any direct or indirect briefing, file access, referral, drafting, review, approval or no involvement at all with UAS Pacific?
Ms Spence: I can’t remember the actual date, but I know that neither Mr Duffy nor Mr Lewis have had any involvement in relation to UAS Pacific, certainly for the last four years that I can recall. I don’t know how I can put a statement together which says, ‘Here are all the approvals and here’s confirming that Mr Lewis and Mr Duffy weren’t involved.’ I am telling you they have not been involved. That’s my positive assurance that they have—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s in the last four years. What about prior to that?
Ms Spence: I would have to check to see the last time that Mr Lewis was involved, but I think it would have been about 2019.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you take that on notice and give me the circumstances around his involvement and what the topic was.
Ms Spence: Certainly.
Senator ROBERTS: I also put to you that CASA removed or downgraded UAS Pacific’s privileges and delayed routine approvals for months or years, choking what was left of their business, destroying goodwill and driving away clients. The 2021 independent remotely piloted aircraft system—you guys go for acronyms, don’t you?
Ms Spence: Yes, we do. Usually they’re three-letter acronyms, so RPAS is special.
Senator ROBERTS: The 2021 independent remotely piloted aircraft system review records industry concerns about substantial business losses caused by CASA delays, inspector inconsistency and over-prescriptive risk management. Could you please provide a full schedule of every UAS Pacific approval, variation, downgrade, refusal, delay or regulatory service request since 2017—that’s nearly a decade—showing the decision-maker, the reason, the timeframe and whether it was reviewed in light of the RPAS review?
Ms Spence: As I said, we are looking at the applications that UAS Pacific has made. We will provide on notice a summary of the jobs that have been completed and just who has been involved in them, confirming that neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Duffy have been involved in them, and whether they met our normal service level standards in terms of how long they took to process.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want a summary. I want more than a summary. I want to see the regulatory oversight since 2017, showing the decision-maker, the reason and the timeframe.
Ms Spence: We will provide as much information as—I’m just trying to work through how our system will actually provide the information that you’re asking for. So, if you can allow us to take that on notice—I understand what you’re asking for—I will provide you with as much information as is available to give you a level—
Senator ROBERTS: And where you can’t provide it, provide the reason why you can’t.
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You suggested the Fair Work outcome did not amount to findings against CASA. But isn’t it true that the bullying matters were not dismissed because CASA’s conduct was found acceptable, but only after substantial undertakings and restrictions were put in place to prevent future bullying conduct? Isn’t that true?
Ms Spence: No. There was no finding that was made because of the undertakings that were provided, which was not a response by CASA to say that we were concerned about bullying or harassment; they were simply—in light of the issues that Mr Barker continued to raise, it was an undertaking to say that we would keep those relevant staff members away from UAS Pacific. It was never a reflection of our concern about the behaviour of those two officers.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the bullying?
Ms Spence: There was no suggestion that there was any bullying or harassment by those two officers.
Senator ROBERTS: No, by anyone.
Ms Spence: By anyone.
Senator ROBERTS: There was no Fair Work Commission decision referring to bullying?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Will CASA now table the bullying investigations that you did, and any undertakings, restrictions, monitoring arrangements and any internal assessment of whether CASA fully complied with any or all of the Fair Work Commission orders?
Ms Spence: There were no Fair Work Commission orders.
Senator ROBERTS: None at all.
Ms Spence: None. No, there were no Fair Work Commission orders.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the Fair Work Commission’s involvement?
Ms Spence: They reviewed the issues to determine whether they had jurisdiction, and they also tried to understand the basis on which Mr Barker and Mr Nowak were making their allegations. In both instances, there was no finding against CASA. In the first instance, there was nothing for them to look at because of the commitment to not engage with Mr Duffy and Mr Lewis and Mr Barker; and, in the second one, there was no evidence to support the assertions that had been made. It was found to be outside their jurisdiction.
Senator ROBERTS: When I put to you that the Fair Work Commission had found a personal vendetta or axe to grind—quote—by Mr Lewis against Mr Barker, you said you’d need to check the transcript. Have you now checked it?
Ms Spence: Yes, and I provided written advice to the committee, which was to say that the transcript did not use the word ‘vendetta’. It did indicate a preliminary view that the CASA officer had an ‘axe to grind’ with respect to Mr Baker, but that was not a finding or an order or any kind of action that the Fair Work Commission was telling CASA to take action on.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you now accept that the Fair Work material raised serious adverse credibility and motive issues concerning Mr Lewis?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: You told this committee that there were lessons to be learned about conflict of interest management, yet CASA’s written answer to questions on notice says, ‘CASA has not reviewed or amended its conflict of interest policies.’ How can you claim to have learned lessons while admitting you haven’t reviewed or amended the relevant policy framework?
Ms Spence: It was around the way in which we applied the policy to Mr Lewis, and that was the lesson that we learned, and—
Senator ROBERTS: Could you be specific.
Ms Spence: We identified that the language in the conflict of interest could be stronger. But the policy itself was not the issue; it was more how we implemented it.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you now commit to an independent conflict of interest review and table the outcome?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Ms Spence: We review our policies on, I think, an annual basis. I’d have to take that on notice. But I’ve got no evidence to suggest that, as a result of one incident where we did not implement the policy as effectively as we should have, there’s a fundamental issue with our conflict of interest policy.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the only breach—one?
Ms Spence: That’s the only one that I’m aware of.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether CASA has left false or unsupported accusations on file about Mr Barker, UAS Pacific and their staff. You answered by referring to one person and one withdrawn allegation and by saying that records simply cannot be destroyed. But isn’t it true that Mr Barker is not asking for unlawful destruction of records but for CASA to meet its legal obligations to correct, annotate, withdraw, restrict and prevent false or unsupported allegations from being used in future CASA decisions?
Ms Spence: We have updated the approach that we used for Mr Nowak in relation to a specific event, which occurred in 2019 at a licensed aerodrome in Queensland, where we have increased—or reduced the number of people who can access it, I think, down to myself, and I’m not sure—very limited people can access it. We’ve also put an annotation on it so that anyone, if they do get to see it, would know that this notice was overtaken by events. But that was in relation to one specific event; that was not in relation to every issue that Mr Barker has with us.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you table a complete record correction?
Ms Spence: I can certainly table the approach that we have taken, or I can provide on notice the approach that we have taken, in relation to that specific event about ensuring that the information is not available to anyone in the organisation who shouldn’t have access to it. Anyone, if they did find access to it, would see very clearly that it was overtaken by subsequent events.
Senator ROBERTS: CASA confirmed that CASA did not fully accept all recommendations of the 2021 independent RPAS review and that CASA focused on the recommendations rather than the review’s analysis commentary. The review records series concerns about regulatory overreach, retribution, passive-aggressive delays, vindictive enforcement, procedural unfairness, personal animosities and conflicts not properly mitigated. Will you now table the full unredacted review, the 6 May 2024 CEO DAS approval package and the recommendation by recommendation—
Ms Spence: Senator, that was included in the questions on notice that we tabled. The only redactions, I think, were to remove a few names, consistent with our normal practices. That’s been tabled.
Senator ROBERTS: My apologies for that one. Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair.
