This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.
On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.
Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.
On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.
These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.
Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.
These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.
As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.
To panic people.
To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.
An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?
Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?
Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.
The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.
This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.
Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.
Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.
An inhuman, uncivilised society.
Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.
The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.
They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.
And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.
They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.
They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.
And cruelly treats its own citizens.
Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?
You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.
What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.
It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.
As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’
I look around and think how far the left have fallen.
This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.
It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.
The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.
This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.
If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.
We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.
This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.
I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.
After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.
This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.
It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.
As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.
And yet we do NOT use those laws.
Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?
We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?
If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?
It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.
Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition
The “Australian Dream” hasn’t just faded—it’s been sold out.
Young Australians are being forced into a impossible choice: become a lifelong debt slave to the banks, or pay rent to a foreign corporate landlord like BlackRock forever.
Here is the reality the major parties are trying to dodge: 👉 It now takes 30 years to save a deposit near the city – a national tragedy. 👉 The government is using insane mass migration to prop up GDP and hide the fact that we are in a per-capita recession. 👉 We’re giving tax breaks to foreign investment funds to “Build to Rent” while local families are priced out of auctions. 👉 Bureaucracy is stopping our tradies from actually building the homes we need.
We don’t need cringeworthy TikToks or “election bribes” disguised as subsidies. We need a government that isn’t afraid to speak the truth about the root causes.
While the “Uniparty” of Labor, the Liberals, and the Greens runs and hides from these facts, One Nation is the only party standing up for everyday Australians. We’re committed to putting your family’s future ahead of global corporate interests and fixing the migration numbers so the next generation can actually own a piece of Australia.
It’s time to put Australia first. It’s time for One Nation.
Transcript
I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with mass-migration adding to the 4.7 million non-citizens in the country, tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords like Blackrock under ‘Build to Rent’, foreigners continuing to buy Australian homes and red tape stopping tradies from building more.
The government has offered young Australians starting out in life two equally terrible options: either become a debt slave to the banks forever or rent from a foreign corporate landlord like BlackRock and never actually own a home. Successive Liberal-National and Labor-Greens governments—uniparty governments, that is—have failed to address the root cause of the housing crisis: mass immigration. Why would they do that? The answer is simple: necessity. After years of selling Australia out to their foreign masters, such as BlackRock Inc, Australia’s domestic economy was performing so badly that immigration became the government’s lifeline.
Australia has had negative per capita income for five successive quarters. What that means is that everyday Australians are going backwards. Their small pay rises do not compensate for inflation.
The reason the Australian economy as a whole is not in recession is the spending from new arrivals, as they furnish their homes and buy clothes, appliances and so on. This feeds on the GDP. But, per capita, we’re in recession. It’s economic sherbet. Once the sugar hit wears off, these new arrivals wind up in the same cost-of-living recession as Australians.
Instead of developing infrastructure, reducing red tape, reducing green tape, reducing blue UN tape and getting private employment going again, the government takes the easy way out: more migrants, and more, and more. Decades of mass immigration have led us to this place we are in today, where we have 4.7 million visa holders in the country who are not citizens of Australia. We now have absolute confirmation that neither Labor nor the Greens, the Liberals or the Nationals are capable of solving, nor can they be trusted to solve, the real cause of the housing crisis: mass immigration.
And it’s a crisis. The latest CPI data shows that housing has now risen 5.9 per cent in the last year—an accelerating rate of increase. And electricity, by the way, went up 37 per cent, as those election bribes Labor gave you—sorry, electricity ‘subsidies’—started to expire. According to CoreLogic, it now takes someone on the average wage 12 years to save for a home deposit on the outskirts of Sydney and 30 years to save for the deposit on a home close to the city—30 years, for a deposit! Servicing a home loan now costs 42 per cent of income. The point at which a mortgage is considered to be impaired used to be 30 per cent. That’s insane! It’s a tragedy for young Australians.
The blame for this rests squarely with the Liberal-National and Labor-Greens parties. You have taken the option of homeownership away from young people with your insane mass immigration and your net zero agendas. You, and you, have allowed foreign multinational corporations and superannuation funds to bid up the price of Australian homes, and you’ve stood idly by while young people have walked away from auctions in tears. Instead, you make cringeworthy TikTok videos. You make promises that are not and cannot be kept, because you run and hide from the real reasons for the crisis: the Ponzi scheme that mass immigration has become. You run and hide.
Here’s what One Nation wanted this parliament to vote on today:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with mass-migration adding to the 4.7 million non-citizens in the country, tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords like Blackrock under ‘Build to Rent’, foreigners continuing to buy Australian homes and red tape stopping tradies from building more.
Yet the other parties want to remove the facts, the data, from One Nation’s motion. No-one wants to talk about the fact that there are 4.7 million visa holders—people who are not Australian citizens—in the country right now, all needing homes. No-one wants to talk about the tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords BlackRock Inc. No-one wants to talk about foreign ownership of Australian homes—no-one, except One Nation.
There is a reason why One Nation is the most trusted party in the country on the issue of migration—that’s what the polls are saying quite clearly. The reason is simple: we care; they don’t. One Nation will govern for everyday Australians. It’s time for a One Nation government now.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5A4xddamdpo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-15 13:50:092026-01-15 13:50:13The Great Australian Sell-Out
Let’s call “Net Zero” what it really is: a massive wealth transfer to parasitic billionaires – making you poorer, your bills higher, and our country weaker.
The reality is: ✔️ High electricity prices driving up the cost of food, groceries, and transport. ✔️ Record high closures and insolvencies of established businesses. ✔️ Manufacturing, smelting and heavy industries are struggling to stay afloat while the government chases “green” pipe dreams that don’t work. ✔️ BILLIONS in debt being dumped on our children’s shoulders.
Billions of dollars is being wasted on “carbon abatement” and “green hydrogen” schemes that physics and chemistry tell us are a sham. Meanwhile, mass immigration is being used to mask the true cost, forcing you to cut your standard of living just to meet their impossible targets.
A One Nation government will: ✅ Abolish Net Zero, terminating the net zero transition, scrapping carbon accounting for businesses, and shutting down any project where cutting losses is cheaper for the taxpayer, or environmental damage is too great—running existing assets only until they they inevitably fail in 10 to 15 years. ✅ Repeal fraudulent flood maps being used by mostly foreign owned insurance companies to price gouge consumers, raking in record profits. ✅ Stop the subsidy “gravy train.” ✅ Use our own affordable energy to keep the lights on and the prices down. ✅ And most importantly – stop the mass immigration that’s crushing our housing and infrastructure. Remigrate the hundreds of thousands of people who have broken their visa conditions, limit new arrivals to people holding skills we actually need, especially in housing. REMIGRATE — SEND HOME – DEPORT!
Since 2005, Australia’s population has surged 40%, yet this government is demanding we slash total carbon dioxide production to 2005 levels by 2035 —meaning every single Australian is being forced to pay the price to accommodate mass migration. The more the population grows, the harder you are hit – and it will only get worse until we have the courage to say: enough is enough – not one cent more.
We must stop the madness before there’s nothing left to save.
Australia belongs to us, not the globalists.
Transcript
Let’s call net zero for what it really is: fraudulent, supposed science covering up income redistribution protected with big brother government measures—that’s it—making everyday Australians economically, environmentally and socially worse off. Net zero measures are driving up the price of electricity and increasing prices with flow-on effects throughout the economy—food, groceries, clothing, transport, travel and accommodation. Everything you buy goes up if electricity goes up. Manufacturing, smelting and heavy industry all use electricity and are struggling to stay in business.
In 2024, there were 5,136 closures of established businesses, meaning those in business for five years or more. In 2024, there were 10,497 business insolvencies—up almost 30 per cent on 2023. Has anyone on the Greens benches bothered to ask what these Australians who have lost everything think about what you and net zero have done to their businesses? Has anyone asked? We have. Some of these measures are idiocy—green hydrogen, green steel, green aluminium. This technology does not work. That is proven. It does not work, and it never will. Physics and chemistry tell us that. It’s nothing but a scheme to farm parasitic subsidies, without which the idea would not even be contemplated.
These appropriations bills channel billions of dollars of taxpayer funds into the pockets of crony capitalists, lining up by pigs in a trough, and there’s Minister Bowen, throwing more and more taxpayer money into the trough—wasted, but who pays? The people pay. Small businesses pay. These appropriation bills contain significant allocations for net zero measures.
Firstly, the department of climate change and energy—$1,234,567,890. There’s $1.2 billion for what? Support for net zero emissions by 2050 through renewable energy initiatives and emissions reduction programs. This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound ball. No. 2, $987,654,321—nearly $1 billion for what? Funding for decarbonisation projects and clean energy infrastructure to achieve low emissions targets. Carbon is in every living organism’s every cell. And then No. 3, $456,789,123 almost half a billion dollars. What have we racked up so far? $2.7 billion. For what? Investment in carbon abatement strategies and sustainable development to mitigate climate change impacts—carbon is in every cell of every living organism. This is just one appropriation bill. This gravy train for the government’s parasitic, big-business mates—collecting subsidies, feeding off subsidies—has been going on for years, encouraged by both major parties and the Greens. Yet the Albanese government is projecting deficits in every year of the 48th parliament totalling over $100 billion. That’s money that will be needed to be borrowed and debt that everyday Australians will have to repay—$3,700 for every man, woman, baby and child in this country plus interest, and we’re already paying interest in such a large quantity that it’s almost the single largest line item in the budget.
A One Nation government will abolish the net zero transition. Our policy includes terminating all projects and removing all carbon dioxide accounting requirements on businesses, repealing fraudulent flood maps being used by insurance companies to price gouge consumers and to generate record profits for mostly foreign-owned insurance companies. Think of BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Colonial First State et cetera, the global wealth funds. They own and control our insurance companies. We will terminate any existing project that’s at a stage where termination is cheaper for the taxpayer than the continuing or where the project is too damaging to the natural environment to continue operation. We will, of course, use the generation that has been put in place until they inevitably fail in 10 to 15 years. And, most importantly, our immigration policy will remigrate hundreds of thousands of people who have broken their visa conditions, and we will limit new arrivals to people holding skills we actually need, especially in housing—remigrate, send home, deport.
Remember, net zero is not reducing carbon use per person. It’s supposedly reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide production to 2005 levels in total by 2035—supposedly. Think about this—Australia’s population has grown by 40 per cent since 2005. That means we all have to reduce our carbon dioxide production by an extra 40 per cent, and this figure goes up with every new migrant arrival. The pain is only just getting started unless the Senate has the courage to stop this madness and the integrity to stop this madness. Join One Nation in saying to this government, ‘Not one cent more—you’ve blown trillions.’ I foreshadow my amendment on sheet 3466 to remove net zero funding from this appropriation bill. Thank you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/VJTqSaHX5E4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-15 13:37:552026-01-15 13:37:59Australians Are Being Sold a Lie
Victoria has taken another step toward eroding democracy and destroying the natural environment. Premier Allan’s extremist government approved the Meadow Creek industrial solar project, completely ignoring objections from locals. Under new laws in Victoria, there’s no right to appeal this decision.
This is about appeasing wealthy urban voters under the guise of a false climate emergency—not saving the planet.
The project will turn 566 hectares of prime farmland into an industrial site, destroying property values, tourism, and jobs. Toxic runoff from degrading panels will flow into the Ovens River water supply catchment and then into the Murray-Darling Basin.
RMIT planning professor Michael Buxton described the approval as “an autocratic imposition without regard for liberal democracy.” No wonder many Victorians are leaving Victoria-stan!
Labor’s climate crusade is a façade—behind it lies the destruction of our human and natural environment.
– Senate Speech | November 2025
Transcript
Last week, Victoria continued its incremental destruction of human rights and the natural environment. Premier Allan’s extremist government has approved the Meadow Creek industrial solar installation against the wishes of local residents. Five hundred submissions opposing the development were lodged by people who did not realise Victoria is no longer a democracy and the will of the people is a joke to Premier Allan. Under new laws in Victoria, there can’t be any appeal to this decision. Premier Allan will happily run roughshod over communities it doesn’t need votes from to pander to constituents it does. In this case, rich urban voters with an ability complex, happy to destroy the natural to assuage their guilt at living lives of plenty on the back of Australia’s coal power—all in the name of a fictitious, dishonest climate emergency. What they’re really doing is denying young Australians the same life they led—a life which included homeownership on a single wage, proper holidays, a decent education without a lifetime of debt, and a healthy natural environment.
RMIT planning professor Michael Buxton has described approval of Meadow Creek as ‘the autocratic imposition of a project without any regard for the principles of a liberal democracy’—a massive $750 million development turning 566 hectares of prime farmland into a toxic industrial site, destroying the value of neighbouring properties, destroying the natural environment, destroying tourism, destroying employment in agriculture and tourism and destroying the human environment. The toxic run-off from the solar panels, once they start to degrade, will go straight into the Ovens River water supply catchment and then into the Murray-Darling Basin. The Labor Party lies say they’re not running a war on the bush. No wonder so many Victorians are leaving and seeking political asylum anywhere other than Victoria-stan. Victoria is dishonestly pretending to save the planet while killing the human environment and natural environment. (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/K3RMhnkka8U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-15 13:23:112026-01-15 13:23:15Killing the Bush to Please the Cities
The International and Foreign Investment Group is still trying to tell us that foreign ownership of Australian housing is less than 1%. They’re sticking to a figure of 0.8% and say they have “full confidence” in it.
I asked them a simple question: Does any real estate agent or any Australian actually believe that?
The truth is, they’ve never conducted market research to see if the public trusts their data. They track the “flow” of new sales while ignoring the massive amount of housing already in foreign hands.
Australians are being priced out of the housing market, while bureaucrats ignore what’s really happening in our suburbs and rely on data that just doesn’t pass the pub test.
I will continue to question these figures until we get answers that reflect reality.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have the International and Foreign Investment Group, please. Do you still maintain the view that, in Australia, foreign ownership of housing is less than one per cent of the housing market?
Ms Di Marco: I’ll hand most of these questions to Mr Tinning and Ms Sloan, who I think have the statistics in front of them and can speak to any policies of the government. But I just want to caution at the beginning of the session that, if we start to get into questions of application of residential real estate, many of them may need to be taken on notice because that is the remit of the Australian Taxation Office. But I’ll hand over to Mr Tinning.
Senator ROBERTS: The chair will be happy with that.
CHAIR: I will be.
Mr Tinning: We don’t have figures for the total stock of housing, but we do have annual figures for purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still believe that they’re under one per cent?
Mr Tinning: We have figures for 2023-24, with the latest available figure being purchases at 0.8 per cent, so that is under one per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: You do. Do you honestly believe that any real estate agent in Australia accepts the claim that foreign ownership is less than one per cent of the housing market?
Mr Tinning: These figures are from the ATO, and we have very strong faith in their ability to accurately monitor these figures. They have very strong systems, so we are confident in those figures.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’ve been on that merry-go-round, and I used to ask you questions. You told me to go to the ATO, so I went to the ATO. Do you honestly think any Australian believes that foreign ownership is less than one per cent?
Mr Tinning: I can’t comment on the views of the Australian populace, but we are very confident in those figures.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you for your views.
Mr Tinning: My views are that those figures from the ATO are accurate.
Ms Di Marco: I’m not sure that it’s for Mr Tinning to provide views on whether he thinks those figures are accurate; however, we do have those figures from the ATO. Also, just to reiterate his earlier point, the figures that we have from the ATO are about the flow, the investment number that’s been made as a proportion over the year and not the total ownership of foreign investment.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about both, but I understand that. He made that very clear. Have you ever conducted any market research or surveys around public confidence in your figures?
Ms Di Marco: No, we haven’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Ms Di Marco: In April or May 2025, the government made a range of announcements regarding strengthening controls around foreign investment in residential real estate. But I would argue that it’s not really for us to go out there and conduct market research on these sorts of matters. The government has made a range of policy decisions, and we’re looking to implement those as quickly as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: Lastly, how many forms have been lodged since the vacancy fee returns foreign owners have come into effect?
Ms Di Marco: I think we’d have to take that on notice. The ATO would hold those details.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s understandable. Could we have them on a yearly basis, please?
After raising concerns about the use of Pyriproxyfen in the fire ant prevention program, I was told by CEO Scott Hansen (APVMA) that it should not be used as a preventative measure—even after I pointed out that this is exactly what’s happening in South-East Queensland under the Queensland Fire Ant Eradication Program. I also presented evidence of widespread breaches of the permits governing the use of these chemical poisons.
In addition, I raised concerns about confusion in the permits regarding the use of chemicals near and in waterways, particularly given that S-Methoprene is highly toxic in marine environments.
Mr Hansen made it clear that treatment responsibilities fall under state jurisdiction and that the Commonwealth does not exercise oversight over how these chemicals were used. While there is a Commonwealth–State partnership, he explained that governments rely on international safety data rather than local studies. He confirmed that permit requirements are currently under review.
Mr Hansen also advised that complaints can be submitted through the Adverse Experience Reporting Program, and noted that there are currently 28 reports under consideration relating to fire ant concerns.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. My questions are about red fire ants and about the chemical side of things. I note that the permit number PER87728, related to the permitted use of the chemical pyriproxyfen, says, ‘Do not apply as a preventative for red imported fire ant control.’ This being the case, why is it being spread widely by aerial and ground application to properties where no fire ant activity has ever been identified by people from the national fire ant eradication program, in breach of the permit?
Mr Hansen: That’s an issue I think we talked about last time. The prophylactic use of that chemical is not available under that permit and that needs to be referred to the control-of-use authority, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the effect of this chemical, pyriproxyfen, to persons who have respiratory or autoimmune diseases when applied in close proximity to them?
Mr Hansen: If applied as per the label it’s quite safe, but if applied in close proximity to them then there would obviously be concerns for them.
Senator ROBERTS: What Australian research has been done in relation to the effects that this chemical has on humans?
Mr Hansen: All of those products are either variations of existing registered products or under permit and have been assessed against the safety criteria for humans, but, again, all of those uses are as per the label requirements, in terms of our assessment for safety to people and safety to the environment.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve said that they’ve been assessed relative to Australian requirements, but that doesn’t mean that Australian research has been done, does it?
Mr Hansen: No. In some cases, we’ll use international benchmarks and international research—that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that the first Australian permit number, PER90213, related to the permitted use of the chemical S-methoprene, says: ‘Do not apply where fire ant populations are not evident or no longer evident.’ This being the case, why are people from the National Fire Ant Eradication Program insistent on applying the chemical on properties where no fire ant activity has ever been or is evident, in breach of the permit?
Mr Hansen: That sounds as though it’s in breach of the permit conditions and should be raised with the Queensland government with regard to control of use.
Senator ROBERTS: Why must baits be laid only where it is not possible for poultry to have direct access to the baits? Is it a poison to birdlife? What about our native birds?
Mr Hansen: I’m not able to answer that one.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the impact on birds?
Mr Hansen: Again, all of the assessments as to environmental impact will have been taken into account, with regard to controlling those risks, via the conditions on the permits. I don’t have that permit in front of me. There are 13 permits that we have issued, at the moment, with regard to chemicals for use in the red imported fire ants control program.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a lot of questions that might shock you if I raise them, but, in the interest of speed, I will continue. I’m confused by this permit because, on one hand, it says that treatment may be applied into waterways up to 1.5 metres from each bank, yet, in the same permit, it states that the chemical is very toxic—emphasis on ‘very toxic’—to aquatic life. How can both of these statements apply? Waterways in Samford Valley near Brisbane have already been contaminated and the aquatic life wiped out.
Mr Hansen: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems a contradiction: you can apply it close to waterways but you can’t apply it in waterways, and it’s very toxic.
Mr Hansen: It is, but there is a slight difference between ‘close to waterways’ and ‘in waterways’. But let me take that on notice and have a look at that permit for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What action have you taken to prevent a repeat of the contamination of waterways?
Mr Hansen: Again, once we set the directions on the permit, it’s the state and territory governments whose responsibility it is to control and ensure that the permits are used in accordance with those instructions. If we receive information that that’s not the case, we forward it to the control-of-use authority—in this case, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What agency in Queensland would have responsibility and do you have direct oversight of them?
Mr Hansen: Not oversight. All states and territories are partners in the national registration authority scheme, and we supply that to Queensland DAFF biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Just for your information, it’s not working in Queensland, because only yesterday the program’s staff used a drone to dump poisons directly into a waterway.
Mr Hansen: I heard that evidence being given earlier.
Senator ROBERTS: Why has there been no Australian environmental impact study done in relation to the application of both of these chemicals?
Mr Hansen: Because if we can run off the back of good international data we will do so, if it makes sense to do so. If we need to tailor it to the Australian environment, then we do do so before we make a decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Why hasn’t it been done?
Mr Hansen: In that case, it would be either that we are confident in the ability to use the international data for our assessments or we’ve been able to tweak the international data to factor in Australia’s native wildlife and environment.
Senator ROBERTS: This is not being critical of you, because you have got limited authority in Queensland, but how do you know that Queenslanders are complying with it?
Mr Hansen: That’s something for the control of use, and, unfortunately, we don’t police the control of use; that’s for the state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no accountability? I’m not saying you’re—
Mr Hansen: There is, but it’s at the state and territory government level.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. The federal government gives them money and the states use it without oversight.
Mr Hansen: I think that there is a shared oversight there. The use of chemicals under permits that we issue sits with the state and territory governments—in this case, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that in 2001, when fire ants were discovered in Brisbane, a decision was made to attempt eradication based on a study and modelling predictions made by USA’s RIFA program which predicted that the ants could spread throughout the majority of Australia? An off-label permit may be applied for to use a chemical in a way that is contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions for minor use, for emergency use or for the purposes of research. Is that true?
Mr Hansen: The last piece, on the permits, I’m confident about. The first piece I’m not sure about.
Senator ROBERTS: What evidence was provided, do you know, to support the proposed limited permits? Was it data from the failed USA RIFA program?
Mr Hansen: I think it would have been environmental data and human toxicology data from around the globe with regard to those chemicals. Given the fact that the majority of those chemicals were registered products that are now being used in an alternative way, we would have looked at the original suite of data that was provided when they were registered as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I like your answers. They are direct. The chair will be very happy, I’m sure. In 2001, according to Mr Craig Jennings, the principal policy officer at the Fire Ant Control Centre, the total area to be baited during the eradication program was to be 71,000 hectares. Within the area, he said, 1,236 properties were found with infestations. By August 2004, over one million property treatments had occurred and the area had ballooned to 850,000 hectares. If the off-label permit allows for limited use, how did the APVMA consider this expansive area as limited?
Mr Hansen: There are two pieces on that. The first piece is that whenever permits expire they come back up for consideration and we look at the scope and scale of the program and how they’re going to be used. On that front, we are currently reviewing a suite of the key permits that we have in play at the moment because there’s obviously been an indication from across the program for a rapid ramp-up of both size and scale of response and we need to make sure those permits remain appropriate to that size and scale.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you do your due diligence to make sure Queensland is compliant, or how do you get the evidence to change the permit-use factors?
Mr Hansen: We look at what the proposed use pattern is. What kind of area are they talking about it being used for? How are they looking to apply it? How frequently are they looking to apply it? We factor all of that into our health assessment and environment assessment and work out if it is still appropriate for use.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you go on site up in Queensland?
Mr Hansen: No, we don’t. We get the plans that they submit to us with regard to how they intend to use it and we run that against our assessment criteria.
Senator ROBERTS: In addition to pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene, permits for Chlorpyrifos and Fipronil were provided by the APVMA—two highly toxic chemicals. On 3 October 2024, the APVMA made a regulatory decision to remove the use of Chloypyrifos for most agriculture and pest use ‘due primarily to worker health and safety and environmental risk that the APVMA does not believe can be mitigated’. There was a 12-month phase out period for remaining products. Has this poison use now ceased?
Mr Hansen: The permit held for Chlorpyrifos expires in line with that phase-out date.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2000 a number of products for use around the home were cancelled. In 2019 all home, garden and domestic uses of Chlorpyrifos, as well as uses which could result in exposure to children, were cancelled. Why, if they knew of concerns, did the APVMA allow the use of these chemicals in treating homes, farms, parks, sporting fields and agricultural land?
Mr Hansen: Because the requirement for that treatment was people who were qualified and trained to carry out the treatments as opposed to allowing people to buy it off the shelves from their local retail stores and do it themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: The material safety data sheet for pyriproxyfen states that the chemical is for R&D use only. It has a rating of ‘H410 Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects’ and ‘P273 Avoid release to the environment’. Section 13 says: ‘Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal and do not discharge to sewer system.’ The APVMA is most certainly aware of this, and so why, for 25 years, has it permitted these chemicals to be used?
Mr Hansen: Again, we would have conducted the assessments against the controlled use under the program and determined that they met the safety criteria.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we get, on notice, access to those records, please?
Mr Hansen: We can see what we can provide, definitely.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many people work within APVMA?
Mr Hansen: 226.
Senator ROBERTS: The APVMA has certain powers to manage and monitor compliance with the AGVET legislation and undertake enforcement activities when required. Is that correct?
Mr Hansen: Enforcement of the control of use in each state and territory is the responsibility of that state or territory.
Senator ROBERTS: So what I just said is not correct?
Mr Hansen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you monitor compliance at all?
Mr Hansen: No, we don’t monitor the compliance. We work in partnership with states and territories. We make the assessments as to what’s safe and how to manage the risks of chemicals that are required. We put those controls onto a label. We then work with the states and territories, and they ensure it’s being complied with and they monitor—in part with other, broader scale monitoring programs like the National Residue Survey—to ensure that we’re seeing compliance across the board.
Senator ROBERTS: So no powers have been used by the APVMA—you don’t have any powers to ensure compliance, even within the permits granted?
Mr Hansen: We have powers to ensure compliance with regard to people who are selling, distributing and using registered products. But, in terms of the control of use of a registered product or a product under permit, that role and responsibility sits with the state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is there no public register for people to report their experiences with baiting?
Mr Hansen: There is. It’s called the Adverse Experience Reporting Program. It’s on our website. We’ve received 28 reports over the past year. They range from concerns about the impact on pets to their own health to the environment. All of those have been assessed, documented and forwarded up to the Queensland government as the controlled use agency.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you name that program again, please?
Mr Hansen: The Adverse Experience Reporting Program.
Senator ROBERTS: Who specifically is responsible at the APVMA for the authorisation of these chemicals?
Mr Hansen: Ultimately, the power in the legislation sits with me, and then I delegate it down to suitably qualified and technical people to make the assessments and make the judgements.
Senator ROBERTS: Who makes the final decision?
Mr Hansen: It’s whoever the delegate is on individual permits. It could be a range of people across the organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Name the dangers of these chemicals. What has the APVMA done to monitor their impact on the environment and wildlife and the impact on the health of the communities affected?
Mr Hansen: Again, if we had evidence and data supplied to us that suggested—if they’ve been used in accordance with the permit conditions—that there were impacts, we’d reassess those conditions. If we’re getting evidence that it’s been used not in line with the permit conditions, then we raise it with the controlled use authority, that being the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What recourse have you got if you learn that they’ve done nothing about it?
Mr Hansen: Ultimately, we have to consider whether we renew the permit, and at that point in time we consider whether the instructions and the conditions on the permit are able to be followed by those that have sought the approval for use.
Senator ROBERTS: So you might either cancel the permit or not renew it—
Mr Hansen: Or not renew it—yes.
Senator ROBERTS: depending upon whether it’s deliberate noncompliance or whether it’s impossible to comply with.
Mr Hansen: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. Over a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money has been spent so far on a program that’s failing to eradicate fire ants. It has completely failed. They’re now into the Darling Downs and into the Murray-Darling Basin. They’re up in Central Queensland. They’re in northern New South Wales. It’s been a complete failure. The eradication has completely failed. Not only that but it’s done enormous damage environmentally and to the human community. When will the government stop wasting money and destroying the environment at the same time, and hurting people and hurting animals?
CHAIR: I don’t know that that’s a question for the officer. I’ll let the minister have a crack.
Senator Chisholm: We disagree with you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: On the basis of what evidence?
Senator Chisholm: I know that there was evidence given earlier—and I wasn’t here for that; I apologise. But I know Minister McCarthy was. The reality is that the work is slowing the spread of fire ants, compared to what we’ve observed internationally. We think that work is important, and we’ll continue to work with the Queensland government on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I challenge you on what you just said. You said that the work is slowing the spreading. By definition, that means eradication has failed—completely failed.
Senator Chisholm: We think the work that we’re doing is important and we don’t want to see the fire ants spread, so we’ll continue to invest with the Queensland government on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you say that the work is important when it has failed? The eradication program has failed. It’s even failed as a containment program.
Senator Chisholm: We’ll continue to do our work with the Queensland government, because we think it is important.
Senator ROBERTS: But it’s failed. How can it be important when it’s failed?
Senator Chisholm: You might want to give up, but that’s not what we will do.
CHAIR: I’d say at this late hour, Senator Roberts, that I would say thank you very much. That conversation will go around in circles. Mr Hansen, arrivederci.
Mr Hansen: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your concise and direct answers.
The Albanese Government has appointed an Illicit Tobacco and e-Cigarette Commissioner to tackle the illegal cigarette market. I asked what impact the $188 million already spent has had, and where the additional $156 million allocated for the next two years will go. I have serious concerns about waste, and the response I received did not provide clarity. These issues will need to be revisited in future Estimates as accounts and outcomes are released.
What’s clear is that there is no baseline for the Commissioner’s operations. I would have thought that the first step should’ve been to determine the size of the market, identify the crimes being committed, and calculate how much revenue the government is losing in duty. Those fundamental questions have not been asked. The Commissioner suggested that seizures was the benchmark of success. I strongly disagree. If the illegal market is booming, then naturally, seizures will increase—this metric does not reflect real progress.
I will continue to push for hard data showing a reduction in the illicit tobacco market as a result of this role. At present, it feels like a mechanism to shift blame without holding anyone accountable. If that proves true, One Nation would abolish this position.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are about the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner. Is she in?
Ms Foster: Yes. We’ll just get the right officers up to the table for you. It will be a combination of the ITEC Commissioner and the ABF Commissioner.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll try to be brief. The budget allocated $156.7 million over two years from 2025-26, to expand programs to tackle the illicit tobacco trade. What programs are they, please?
Ms Shuhyta: I think I might defer that to the ABF Commissioner. That money was referred to—sorry. There are two amounts of money. Could you just repeat the budget year that you were referring to?
Senator ROBERTS: ‘$156.7 million over two years from 2025-26 to expand programs to tackle’—
Ms Shuhyta: Yes. I can go through the number of agencies that have that. Sorry, I was thinking about the previous budget year, which went to ABF. Just let me get that list for you. So $49.4 million went to the Australian Federal Police to expand the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce; $7 million went to support the Australian Border Force to utilise emerging technology to screen and detect more illicit tobacco at our borders; $19.9 million went to fund my office, the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s office; $1.4 million went to establish a new international collaboration for regional assessment of criminal network behaviours—that’s where we’ve engaged the UN office of drug control to conduct an Asia-Pacific/Pacific regional threat assessment; $40 million went to support states and territories to establish local-level capability; $31.6 million went to strengthen compliance and enforcement functions under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 and the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989; $4 million went to extend the national tobacco and e-cigarette public health campaign, to target motivations and behaviours of the people who use illicit tobacco; and $3.3 million went to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute contraventions under the public health act and the Therapeutic Goods Act.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s quite a wide net. You were allocated $19.9 million, as you said, of this money, to administer your office. What is that being spent on?
Ms Shuhyta: That’s being spent on the functions that my office was set up to deliver under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act. That includes activities that support intergovernmental governance functions, support national strategy development and implementation, support reporting on the size and consequence of the illicit market and support advice on new laws. It is staffing to undertake those functions.
Senator ROBERTS: How many staff do you have—full-time equivalents?
Ms Shuhyta: We are budgeted for 24 full-time equivalents at the moment. We have 12 APS staff and we are undertaking a recruitment process to fill the vacancies, and we have a number of contractors on board to assist with those functions.
Senator ROBERTS: How do the taxpayers know this cost is justified by the outcomes it generates? Have you got KPIs?
Ms Shuhyta: I have reporting obligations under the legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: What are your KPIs under the legislation?
Ms Shuhyta: I have to report on all enforcement actions and consequences undertaken in the last financial year and the size and nature of the illicit markets so we can monitor that year on, year out. It’s also on excise and customs equivalent duties evaded.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can track your effectiveness?
Ms Shuhyta: That should be able to assist us and monitor the intergovernmental activities that are responding to this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you know whether or not you are being effective?
Ms Shuhyta: It’s a good question. My role is to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and coordination to bring the efforts together across states and territories, across portfolios and across multiple points of the supply and demand chain. The value-add that the office brings is to support that force multiplication effect instead of all of the separate agencies working separately.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d make the comment that with the AFP there I would have thought they would be better equipped, knowing their expertise in criminology or countering criminology, to do that. Do you have a starting point for your own measure of success? How many illegal cigarettes entered Australia in the last 12 months?
Ms Shuhyta: I think the ABF might have that data, in terms of cigarettes that they’ve seized coming into the border.
Mr Reynolds: To give an indication of how much we interdicted on the border, we interdicted 2.5 billion sticks of cigarette during the financial year 2024-25. We also interdicted over 439 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco, and we interdicted six million vape devices and accessories during that financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: Those are pretty impressive figures. Do you have any idea from that, extrapolating, how many came into the country?
Mr Reynolds: That is an assessment that will be in a report provided by the ITEC Commissioner to the government.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible to get that number on notice?
Mr Reynolds: That is a matter for the government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, would it be possible to get that number on notice?
Senator Watt: Which number was that?
Senator ROBERTS: The AFP man can tell you. It’s the number of cigarettes that would have come into the country illegally extrapolated from the number of captured or known cigarettes.
Senator Watt: I’ll take that on notice, and we’ll do our best to answer that question.
Ms Foster: If I could just revert to your last question to Ms Shuhyta, I think there are two points to make. The AFP has an incredibly important role in this mission, but it’s quite a specific role, consistent with their mandate. Ms Shuhyta’s role is to try and make the whole work as effectively as possible together. She’s got an example of the work she’s doing with police forces across the jurisdictions which will illustrate the kind of value that the office can add.
Mr Reynolds: May I also add that the Australian Federal Police is a member of the national disruption group, and their expertise is being used as a part of that group to break the illicit tobacco business model.
CHAIR: Final question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: In January 2024, Minister Butler announced:
TheAlbanese Government cracks down on illegal tobacco imports The Albanese Government has committed $188.5 million to crackdown on the importation of illegal tobacco.
It’s been almost two years now. There must be some tangible benefit for the money. Commissioner, what reduction in the importation of illegal tobacco has resulted from this initiative so far? I know of police in Queensland—I know of good citizens in Queensland—who are now going to the illicit tobacco trade because they see that the excise is so damn high.
Mr Reynolds: I mentioned the metrics before. That’s a 38 per cent increase compared to the previous financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that what you’ve interdicted?
Mr Reynolds: That’s correct. I’ll just provide a very quick vignette from Queensland where, just recently, the Australian Border Force and the Queensland Police Service executed a series of warrants that resulted in one of the largest illicit tobacco and vape seizures in Queensland’s history. The total duty evaded for the combined seizures, of over 30.5 million cigarettes and 5.1 tonnes of tobacco, is estimated to be over $53.8 million with the estimated street value of over 4,000 vapes to be $20.05 million. It was an extremely successful joint operation between the Australian Border Force and the Queensland Police Service.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, we can only assess whether it’s successful or not by comparing it to the total quantity of cigarettes coming in—tobacco and vapes coming in illegally—and finding their way to the market. Apparently that is still huge, and it’s causing crime around Australia with tobacconists getting firebombed.
Mr Reynolds: The fact that we’re able to conduct that successful operation—that breaks that particular criminal syndicate. It’s only through breaking the criminal syndicates that we can reduce the scourge of illicit tobacco in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Some people would argue that it’s only cutting the excise back to sensible levels that would break that, because people now find it’s worth going to the criminals to get their tobacco.
During the December Senate Estimates, I asked Ms Carly Kind, the Privacy Commissioner, what action had been taken regarding the Optus privacy breach in 2022. She explained that the matter is currently before the Federal Court.
I then raised two complaints that have been ongoing for more than two years. Ms Kind advised that those questions would need to be taken on notice, as would my query about the expected timeframe for a response. She was clear and firm on one point: the Commission operates independently.
Finally, I put it to Minister Nita Green that many Australians simply cannot afford access to justice. For them, the only safeguard is government agencies doing their job properly—and that responsibility cannot be understated.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. I’ve got some simple questions on the data breach by Optus. Could you please confirm the current status of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s investigation into the major Optus data breach that occurred in 2022?
Ms Kind: I might speak to that. In August of this year, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner filed civil penalties proceedings against Optus with respect to contraventions of APP 11 that we allege contributed to that breach in 2022. That matter is now before the Federal Court.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain the prolonged administrative inaction including the handling of complaints CP22/02004 and CP23/00456 that’s been going on for two years?
Ms Kind: I’m sorry, I don’t have those complaint numbers before me to cross-reference. Unless you’re able to provide me with more information, I will have to take any question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Take it on notice. I hear that you’ve taken the case to court. Could you provide a timeline for expected resolution and publication of the findings of your investigation?
Ms Kind: With respect to those matters that you’ve just referenced?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Ms Kind: I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you provide an assurance that the OAIC’s regulatory powers will be exercised independently of civil proceedings?
Ms Kind: I’m very confident to provide that assurance with respect to all matters. We operate entirely independently and rigorously in every matter we take on.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the government commit to reviewing and strengthening data protection enforcement mechanisms, Minister? I’m very worried. Many Australians are worried; they’re marching in the streets about it—the increased digitalisation. It just needs one hack, and there can be devastating consequences for so many people. I mentioned this so many times in the Senate, outside the Senate. We’ve got huge databases linking many, many people. It just needs one hack and it’s gone.
Senator Green: Senator, I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the government has committed to privacy reform. There’s a second stage of that being undertaken now. We’re committed to uplifting privacy laws because we understand that they’re essential for Australia’s trust and confidence in the digital economy and digital services, as you raise.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m worried about data protection, though—not just privacy but data protection. What is the government doing about it? The consequences now will be devastating. The majority of hacks, I understand, are suffered by big tech platforms and government. Most of the problems are breaches of human oversight, undersight.
Senator Green: I understand what you’re saying, Senator. We passed laws in 2024 as a first tranche of privacy reforms through the Senate. We understand that the Australian Privacy Act is outdated and not fit for purpose for the digital age; that’s why we’re undertaking additional reforms. There will obviously be a process for that legislation to be brought to parliament to be considered and to go through committee processes, in which I’m sure you will participate. We’re undertaking that work at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: When do you think we will see the first signs of—
Senator Green: The department might be able to give you more advice about that work.
Senator ROBERTS: People are worried about it; they’re terrified of it.
Senator Green: That’s why we’re doing something about it.
Ms Chidgey: I can say we’re working on that second tranche of privacy reform as a priority. Timing will ultimately be a matter for government. I can also say that the privacy reforms do have a data protection aspect to them, and the Privacy Act contains within it requirements for securing personal information. I would also highlight that the government has a cybersecurity strategy that complements the privacy work.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that, as I understand, the majority of breaches are human error, it’s going to be hard to make a bulletproof performance against that. Is there any sign of increased penalties for deliberate breaches or negligent breaches?
Ms Chidgey: There were some changes made in the last term of government around penalties for breaches and enforcement, and the Privacy Commissioner might want to say more about that. We’ll obviously look at education that crosses both the digital and human error aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. Is there any provision for increased access to justice for the people? At the moment so many people cannot afford to go to court. That’s just a fact.
Ms Chidgey: I think this is where the role of the Privacy Commissioner comes in; Ms Kind might want to say more about her role. But that is the role of the Privacy Commissioner—to assist in addressing data breaches.
Ms Kind: If I might add—and share your concerns and your urgency—one of the really positive reforms that was adopted by parliament last year in the tranche 1 reforms included the ability for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to seek orders from the court for compensation for individuals with respect to privacy breaches. We already have the power to issue or order compensation for our own decisions, but we can now also seek them from the Federal Court in civil penalties proceedings. And I think that goes to the concern you have about remedying privacy complaints for individual Australians.
I’ve been pressing the federal government on its oversight of the fire ant eradication program. While Canberra funds half of this national program, responsibility for delivery lies with the Queensland government. Landowners are reporting serious issues — intimidation, property damage, and environmental harm — yet the department insists there’s “no evidence” of wrongdoing.
I asked questions about residents’ rights to refuse access when health or safety is at risk. What happens if someone has asthma and chemical exposure could trigger an attack? What about pets, livestock, or crops at risk? The department wouldn’t give me an answer. Even more alarming, I’ve received reports of chemicals being used unlawfully — S-methoprene dumped into waterways, aerial spraying of pyriproxyfen in areas with no fire ants — all in breach of permit conditions.
And then there’s Dawson Creek in Samford Valley where locals report native species have been killed. Where’s the environmental safety research proving these chemicals are safe for people and wildlife? The department claims the program is “supported by science,” and insists it won’t suspend funding—even when breaches occur. That’s taxpayer money being spent on a program that could be putting lives, health, and ecosystems at risk.
I’m not backing down. Biosecurity matters, yet it should never come at the expense of people’s rights, health, or trust.
If you’ve had problems with the fire ant program, please reach out — I’d like to hear from you.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. What oversight is the federal government exercising to ensure the states are successful in eradicating fire ants and are doing so safely?
CHAIR: I will say that we have touched on fire ants, but please feel free.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I raised this at the last Senate estimates. I’ve got quite a few questions.
CHAIR: Carry on.
Ms Sawczuk: As we mentioned a moment ago, we continue chairing the national governance—the national management group—around the program. There is a program-level meeting and also a consultative meeting. That is happening regularly, and the next national governance meeting is on 15 December. Taking on board the concerns that you raised at the last estimates hearing and correspondence that has been provided to the department but also to the program in Queensland, we have been engaging with the program to pass on the specific feedback that has been provided. They have confirmed that they are taking on board any considerations raised by landowners, but there has been no damage to property and also no unlawful behaviour in regard to accessing properties for treatment et cetera. The safety of the program is absolutely critical. It’s something that is discussed at the national management meetings in particular, and we take quite seriously any concerns that have been raised around specific treatment types, whether it’s broadscale treatment or direct nest injection. The APVMA is the authoriser of those particular treatments and can confirm that the program has been undertaking independent toxicology analysis, which has found that there is no direct correlation with any negative impacts to animals et cetera around the fire ant treatment.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’m stunned. When you say ‘take on board’, what do you mean? What action do you take specifically to hold them accountable?
Ms Sawczuk: We directly engage at all levels.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?
Ms Sawczuk: We meet with the program to talk about the specifics.
Senator ROBERTS: Where do you meet?
Ms Sawczuk: Virtually and face to face, and quite regularly. Every piece of correspondence that has been sent through is provided directly to the program, and then we have followed in meetings to understand the specific circumstances. While there are some claims, there is definitely no evidence that would warrant concerns about anything untoward about the behaviour of the program. I appreciate that there are some sensitivities for specific landowners et cetera, but all of the treatment, and all of the action by the program, has been within the Queensland biosecurity legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: There have been assaults on people, injuries to innocent people. There has been complete disregard for people’s health. There have been violations of the permits, which I’ll get onto. So I don’t accept your response at all. Last time we appeared at Senate estimates on this topic, we were deluged with people saying they would contact you. Have you been contacted by residents?
Ms Saunders: We have received correspondence since our last hearing, and, as Ms Sawszuk just outlined, all that information is provided to the program, who’s ultimately accountable for delivery, compliance, assurance and oversight of the work that occurs.
Senator ROBERTS: Who is responsible?
Ms Saunders: The relevant state department in Queensland is responsible. There are ongoing discussions with them in regard to the issues that have been raised, but, ultimately, it’s the Queensland government that is accountable for delivering the program.
Senator ROBERTS: So the state is responsible but you’re funding it to do these activities.
Ms Saunders: The nation, because it’s a national program, to which we contribute funding—correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The majority of funding.
Ms Saunders: It’s 50 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: For eradication. You don’t seem to be aware of the overreach and intimidating tactics being undertaken by the state government, particularly in South-East Queensland, forcing their way onto properties unlawfully, causing fear and distress to landowners, upsetting women and terrifying crying children, polluting the environment, negligently and wilfully killing fauna and pets. Are you aware of those?
Ms Saunders: I know you’re disappointed with the response that we give you, as a department, but I can only give you the same advice I gave you at the last hearing on these matters, and that is that we are not accountable or responsible for the issues you’ve raised, nor do we have evidence of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Since when is it okay for gates and fences, with your funding, to be broken down, with police threatening those with reasonable excuses who withhold consent—for strangers to force their way onto properties and sneakily and deceptively distract people from their properties, with a view to spreading poison, when there are no fire ants on their property, not even in the valley?
Ms Saunders: I’m not sure what else I can add to our earlier evidence on this.
Senator ROBERTS: This is exactly what happened recently at Beechmont and Laidley, when property was damaged and officers behaved like criminals in a home invasion while trespassing on private land. The violence came from the officers, not the landowners. The landowners have been professional and peaceful. Why?
Ms Saunders: These are the responsibilities of the state government. I’d really encourage those allegations and concerns being directed to them. As indicated by the deputy, the legislation which they’re operating in compliance with is entirely the responsibility of the state government.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re funding it. I attended another property some kilometres away from the two locations I mentioned that had multiple fire ant nests—I saw them six metres apart in places and two or three metres apart in places—that the program refused to attend and treat. Why is that?
Ms Saunders: I can’t comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you like the name of the property?
Ms Saunders: Certainly, we’re happy to take any information you have. We would relay it to state government for action, noting we have no authority.
Senator ROBERTS: A property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers if they have a reasonable excuse. Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when a resident has an illness, such as asthma or other respiratory ailment, confirmed by a medical certificate as likely to be made worse by exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly when being sprayed? Is that a reasonable excuse?
Ms Saunders: I’m not prepared to comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals represent a threat to domestic animals—dogs, cats and birds—if they’re exposed to the toxic chemicals, including chickens?
Ms Saunders: I’m not prepared to comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals that you’re funding represent a threat to poultry, livestock and fruit and vegetables growing on the property?
Ms Saunders: If you have a long list of allegations, we’re happy to take those allegations and raise the matters with the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I will do that with most of these questions. Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals are not being administered according to the safety requirements under the permits issued by the APVMA?
Ms Saunders: I don’t have a comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Just yesterday I was told—this is so common—that the program distributed S methoprene directly into a Samford waterway, against the safety rules for application, by way of a drone. Are you aware of that?
Ms Saunders: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Aerial application of pyriproxyfen is occurring on a wide scale on areas where no fire ants have ever been identified, when the permit number PER87728 clearly states by way of restraint: DO NOT apply as a preventative measure for Red Imported Fire Ant control. If the permit has changed, why? Are you aware of that?
Ms Saunders: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the administering authority has already admitted to disastrously polluting a significant waterway in the Samford Valley near Brisbane, Dawson Creek, killing extensive native water, reptile and insect species? I’ve seen that. Is that a reasonable excuse?
Ms Saunders: I couldn’t comment on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Did you take photos?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Can you produce them for us?
Senator ROBERTS: The locals can.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: What about you? You said you took photos.
Senator ROBERTS: No, the party I was with took photos.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Oh, I see.
Senator ROBERTS: Where is the environmental safety research that’s been done to establish the safety of humans and our native birds and small animals when poisoned insects form part of their food chain? Have you done that?
Ms Saunders: I’ll hand over to Dr Bertie Hennecke—he can probably comment further—but the program is absolutely supported by scientific evidence and safety. It’s been looked at nationally, with people who have credible experience in this field, all of whom are satisfied with the arrangements that are in place and the chemicals that are being used for the purpose intended.
Senator ROBERTS: In distributing these chemicals, they’re breaching the permits—they’re breaching the authorisation—to use the chemicals. Does that bother you? You’re funding it.
Ms Saunders: If there’s evidence of that, we’re happy to take that evidence and take up the matter with the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Will DAFF step up to pay compensation to those affected by the misapplication of the Fire Ant Eradication Program?
Ms Saunders: It wouldn’t be the responsibility of the department—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re funding it.
Ms Saunders: to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding this using taxpayer money, doing injury to the environment and to people?
Ms Saunders: It’s a national program aimed at eradicating red imported fire ants. It’s that simple. We know it’s incredibly invasive and, if it were to take hold, would have catastrophic implications for the country. That’s why we’re doing it.
Senator ROBERTS: So why are you putting lives and the health of humans and the environment at risk?
Ms Saunders: We don’t have evidence of that.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you like some?
Ms Saunders: As I’ve said several times now, I’m happy to take information you have, and we’ll take it up with the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you stop funding this program, or at least suspend funding of this program?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Sa2XuYW45mc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-31 09:56:592025-12-31 09:57:03Biosecurity Must Not Breach Our Rights
