Can We Trust CASA?

,

I spoke with Ms. Spence from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and raised the issue of the agency’s poor history of integrity and transparency when handling complaints from industry stakeholders, including Mr. Geoff Barker. I pointed out that the Fair Work Commission had found that Mark Lewis, a disgruntled former employee of Geoff Barker and current CASA employee, had taken adverse action against Geoff Barker and had lied during Commission proceedings.

Ms. Spence admitted that CASA should have handled matters better regarding Mr. Barker; however, she declined to specify what should have been done differently or what changes would be implemented following the completion of internal investigations. She stated that CASA is currently investigating assertions that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Scott Duffy provided false and misleading evidence to the Commission while knowing that information to be untrue.

Furthermore, Ms. Spence confirmed that CASA has chosen not to release the independent probe into its remotely piloted aircraft system, which was completed in December 2021. When I requested access to the report, Ms. Spence took the request on notice.

I raised the question of whether CASA could still be trusted, given the volume of complaints regarding its lack of ethics and persistent abuse of authority.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. This one really disturbs me. Isn’t it true that CASA relied on a conflicted officer, Mr Mark Lewis, who the Fair Work Commission found had a personal vendetta against his former employer Mr Barker, and evidence was not credible enough—essentially lies—to take actions that severely harmed Mr Barker, his staff and his company?  

Ms Spence: I’m aware of the issue that you’re referring to. I would say that, certainly, CASA did not do things as well as we should have in relation to some of the issues that Mr Barker has been involved in. But I do not agree with the way in which you described it then.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Ms Spence. Isn’t it true that Mr Lewis was allowed to work on matters involving his former employer, with CASA knowing it was an obvious conflict of interest, and dishonestly tried to hide this fact? Isn’t it true that Mr Lewis and his manager Mr Scott Duffy gave false or misleading evidence to the commission?  

Ms Spence: Again, I don’t agree with the way you’re describing it. I’m not saying CASA was without fault, but we did have appropriate conflict-of-interest arrangements in place, and we’re looking into the issues Mr Barker has raised about the assertion of misleading evidence that was provided to the Fair Work Commission. But we’re looking into that at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: It must be serious, because you’ve admitted the slightest hint of responsibility, which I’ve never seen before, and you have also said you’re looking into it. Well, that’s not good enough. Isn’t it true that CASA, relying on Mr Lewis’s false claims that Mr Duffy knew were false, pursued heavy-handed enforcement, including criminal allegations and jail threats, that effectively shut Mr Barker’s business down and put his staff out of work?  

Ms Spence: No, that’s incorrect.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say is correct?  

Ms Spence: As I said, there are issues that we should have done better. I do not accept the assertions being made about CASA’s staff taking the kinds of actions you’ve just described. I think there were lessons that we’ve learnt around how we should manage conflict of interest, which does happen.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are those lessons?  

Ms Spence: I think they’re around the perception of conflicts of interest and making sure we’re closely monitoring how often these can happen. But I guess one of the things I would say is that in order to have people with the appropriate qualifications to operate as inspectors within the organisation they do need to have industry experience. We do have strong conflict-of-interest mechanisms in place, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be monitoring them more closely. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that integrity can be cast aside for industry experience?  

Ms Spence: Sorry?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that someone’s integrity can be ignored if he’s got industry experience?  

Ms Spence: No, I’m definitely not saying that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA regularly removed or downgraded Mr Barker’s firm UAS Pacific’s licence privileges without proper process and then sat on routine approvals for months or years, choking what was left of the business, destroying good will and reputation and driving clients away?  

Ms Spence: No, that’s not correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that multiple substantive bullying complaints were dropped by the commission only because CASA promised to change its behaviour going forward, not because CASA’s past behaviour was found acceptable by the Fair Work Commission?  

Ms Spence: A commitment was made around the engagement between the two staff members Mr Barker had raised concerns with, but I would not agree with the way you’ve described the outcome from the Fair Work Commission, where they I think first of all determined that they didn’t actually have jurisdiction on the matters being put to them, which is not the same as saying there was a guilty verdict in terms of the way our staff had behaved. And I do not accept the allegations that have been made.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Fair Work Commission found a personal vendetta against Mr Barker from his former employee.  

Ms Spence: I would have to check the transcript, but I do not accept the way you’ve described the outcomes from the Fair Work Commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA failed to hold anyone to account for bullying and giving false or misleading statements to the commission, effectively condoning that conduct as Mr Barker and his staff remained unsatisfied?  

Ms Spence: As I said, there is one element that we are looking into around the question of what information was provided to the Fair Work Commissioner, but in terms of the outcome of the process, I do not accept the way that you’ve described the way in which the matter has been handled.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the conflict of interest you’ve unearthed? What work did you need to do on conflict of interest?  

Ms Spence: No. As I said, we were aware of the issues relating to Mr Lewis, who’d been a former employee of Mr Barker, and we did have conflict-of-interest arrangements in place. That’s not the issue that I’m referring to. I do understand that some comments were made in the Fair Work hearing that we’re looking into to see whether they were misleading. We do not consider that they actually impacted the outcome of the Fair Work Hearing, but we are looking into it because, to your point, integrity is important. We want to make sure no-one has said anything that could be misleading to such an important organisation as the Fair Work Commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA has left false accusations on file about Mr Barker, his company and staff without correction, annotation or apology, allowing CASA to keep seriously hurting their ability to work and earn?  

Ms Spence: No. We have advised one person who was in a similar situation. There was one issue where the original allegation was subsequently withdrawn, and that was provided in writing. We have taken whatever efforts we can, without destroying official documents, to make it clear that (1) people can’t access our system to find the original assertion that was made, and that (2) if anyone were to get access to it, it would be very clearly marked to say that this matter was overtaken by subsequent events.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that an independent probe into CASA’s remotely piloted aircraft system, drones, branch’s alleged wrongdoing was finished on 12 December 2021 and that CASA refuses to release it or carry out all recommendations? And isn’t the real reason that public release would confirm systemic wrongdoing inside the CASA remotely piloted aircraft systems branch?  

Ms Spence: No. The report that you’re referring to has been considered within CASA. It was prepared for CASA. It looked at the way in which we were undertaking our regulatory arrangements. It identified reforms that we could implement, and we’re working our way through those. We didn’t accept some of them, but that’s perfectly reasonable. We’re making sure that we’re looking at how we do our work, and we’re improving things as we need to. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can we have a look at that report?  

Ms Spence: Can I take that on notice please?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. Isn’t it true that the combined effect of CASA’s conflicts of interest, discredited evidence, process breaches, suppressed report, punitive actions and leaving false allegations on file shut down UAS Pacific and left its people unemployed, consistent with an intent to destroy Mr Barker to hide CASA’s failures?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I do not accept the way in which you have presented it. We’ve had ongoing engagement with Mr Barker. I know that anything I say he will disagree with, but we’ve looked at these issues very seriously, and we’re looking into those areas where we have identified potential less-than-appropriate behaviour. But I do not accept the way you’re describing how those events occurred within the organisation.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can anyone trust CASA? We have so many complaints, serious complaints, from people in the aircraft industry about CASA—CASA’s lack of ethics, violation of ethics, violation of laws, violation and abuse of authority and misplaced public faith.  

CHAIR: We might take that as a statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is a statement. 

/2 Comments/by

Time to Clean Up Coal LSL

,

I questioned ANAO on the transparency, or lack thereof, surrounding Coal LSL.

While they’ve given the financial statements a “clean” bill of health, serious questions remain about the $2 billion sitting in this fund. I’m particularly concerned for our coal industry casuals. Employers are paying compulsory levies for these workers, but many leave the industry before the 8-year mark, meaning they never see a cent of that benefit.

Where is that money going?

The ANAO confirmed their remit is limited to the finances, not the management. It’s been decades since the courts flagged a lack of government accountability over this corporation, and it’s time we got real answers on board composition and the integrity of the scheme.

I won’t stop asking until we ensure these funds are serving the workers they were meant for, not just sitting in a pot controlled by an unaccountable entity.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing tonight. Have a good evening. The most recent audit report conducted by ANAO of Coal LSL—Long Service Leave—flagged higher risk related to both valuation of investments and the valuation of provision for reimbursements. What’s the real meaning of these two findings of risk as regards the effective operations of and the integrity of the scheme? These are risks of what and to whom?  

Ms Jago: That would be in relation to our annual financial statement audit for Coal Long Service Leave. That is setting out where we see the main risk areas. Often, when there are valuations of assets and liabilities, those are of higher risk in an audit because more assumptions and judgements are involved. In Coal Long Service Leave’s case, they are the two riskier items in their financial statements. We have completed that audit for the 2024-25 year, and they received an unmodified auditor’s report.  

Senator ROBERTS: That means you accepted it?  

Ms Jago: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What would be the fallout if these risks crystallised?  

Ms Jago: From a financial reporting perspective, it may be that we would conclude that it’s not a true and fair representation of the liabilities that are actually owed to others or assets held. If that were the case and it weren’t corrected, that may lead to what we would call a modified auditor’s report. That’s the financial reporting aspect. A more financial management aspect is that, if you don’t understand what liabilities you actually have, it’s very difficult to plan for how you’re actually going to meet those liabilities. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The funds arrive in the accounts of the scheme from compulsory levies upon the relevant employers. The funds held by the fund are now in excess of $2 billion. Who gets the excess income generated from the scheme after leave entitlements are paid out? I don’t know if you’re aware that there’s a significant proportion of casuals now in the Coal workforce.  

Ms Jago: No, I’m not.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of casuals. They don’t like the way they’re treated. They get in and get out before the eight years, so, effectively, their employer pays for their contributions but then they leave the contributions behind and don’t get it because they leave before the eight-year entitlement. Do you know what happens to that money?  

Ms Jago: I think that’s actually a question best directed to Coal Long Service Leave.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emmett J, In the Federal Court in 1998, had emphasised that there was a lack of control of the corporation by the government. He’s not talking about today’s Labor government or the last Liberal government; he’s talking about government and a lack of accountability to the government. Now, before I arrived in the Senate in 2016, COLE LSL, I was told, had never appeared at Senate estimates, and yet we saw some startling irregularities. That led eventually, when they were proven, to a review by the LNP, which in my opinion was a pretty soft review. But I would agree with Emmett about the lack of control of the corporation. What change in governance, if any, has occurred within Coal LSL since 1998?  

Ms Jago: That’s quite a long period of time. I don’t know that I could answer that today, and it’s how their governance arrangements changed is probably more a question for Coal Long Service Leave.  

Senator ROBERTS: So your assessment, your audit, was just to do with the financial reports?  

Ms Jago: Correct. We were auditing their financial statements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not the company—not the entity?  

Ms Jago: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got serious concerns about the board composition and many other governance factors. Given the fund was originally set up as a stopgap measure to cover an estimated shortfall of funds to cover Long Service Leave’s claims, can your office comment on what purpose is satisfied for the fund to continue generating millions of dollars per year after the original purpose was met a quarter of a century ago?  

Ms Jago: That’s not something that was part of our financial statement audit.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s beyond your remit.  

Ms Jago: We were just looking at the financial statements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all. Like me: short and sweet! 

/by

Patronage or Partisanship?

,

During this Estimates session, I questioned the Office of the Governor-General regarding their association with the political activist group Equality Australia.

My primary concern is the perceived loss of neutrality for the Governor-General’s office. I asked Mr. Martin how the Governor-General can justify being a patron of an organisation that advocates for irreversible gender treatments for children — positions that are political and non-neutral.

While Mr. Martin claimed patronage is “purely honorary,” I argue that it lends the credibility of the office to Equality Australia, effectively amplifying their specific political messaging.

I attempted to get to why Assistant Charities Minister Andrew Leigh intervened to grant Equality Australia charity status, despite multiple court and tribunal rulings finding they were not established for a benevolent purpose.

I raised the issue of Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status, which allows donors tax deductions. It’s my view that giving this status to such a group is a massive “favour” that warrants serious scrutiny.

Mr. Martin insisted that the Governor-General does not support specific advocacy positions of her patronages, though he did admit these matters are “always under review.”

I’m concerned that I did not get clear answers regarding this issue.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Australia’s Governor-General is supposed to be neutral as to taking political positions. My first question is: how is it that the Governor-General can be a patron of a political activist group, Equality Australia, that actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children?  

Mr Martin: The Governor-General is patron of around 209 organisations, at this point. The patronage is a purely honorary role. The Governor-General has no role in making decisions around policies or positions taken by the individual patronages. It’s purely an honorary position.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your answer and for being brief. Isn’t it that she lends her credibility or the office’s credibility to Equality Australia just by being a patron?  

Mr Martin: Yes, broadly speaking, the role of a patronage is to amplify the message of the organisation and to elevate it, to some extent, in their broad goals. But, again, the Governor-General’s patronage does not provide support for any position or support advocacy of any particular organisation. There are many patronages that seek to raise issues of all sorts of different types. While the Governor-General supports, through patronage, the general good work of the organisations, she doesn’t support or advocate any particular position taken by those patronages.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask the minister this, but I’ll ask you instead, Mr Martin. Why did Assistant Charities Minister Andrew Leigh intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when, on three occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings had held that Equality Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be noted—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to stop you there. That’s not a question appropriately directed to Mr Martin or this particular office. You would have to go back to—  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to have asked the minister.  

CHAIR: Well, no minister appears at this session—  

Senator ROBERTS: I can see that.  

CHAIR: because it’s not the appropriate session.  

Senator ROBERTS: I thought I’d try anyway.  

CHAIR: It’s just the office of the Governor-General.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have difficulty understanding patronage of an organisation that was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to DGR, deductible gift recipient status.  

CHAIR: In your opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Governor-General aware of this, or were you aware of it before tonight?  

Mr Martin: Yes, I am. The issues relating to DGR status were not in place when the patronage was accepted. Again, it’s an honorary position that has no role in those sorts of matters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Now that it is in place, do you have any change?  

Mr Martin: We regularly consider and review patronage. These matters are always under review.  

Senator ROBERTS: DGR, deductible gift recipient, status allows donors to claim tax deductions for their donations. Equality Australia was given such a massive favour by—  

CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, this question is not appropriately directed at these witnesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to ask a minister, but okay.  

CHAIR: As I’ve said, this is not the appropriate session. We can help you find the appropriate session for you to ask those questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I might put them on notice to the minister.  

CHAIR: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: My fourth and fifth questions are not appropriate. They’re for the minister.

/by

Vaccine Trials: Fact vs. Fiction

,

In this session, I asked about the system for testing childhood vaccines before authorisation and during use. I asked because the United States FDA has recently de-listed approximately half of their scheduled vaccines due to adverse events (side effects).

It was a simple question, yet the answer was “tag-teamed” across the panel of witnesses from the TGA to avoid answering it directly. It is damning that their own Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN) shows numerous adverse events, which the TGA simply ignores.

Instead, they quote the benefits of vaccines, which have never actually been proven in field trials. I have spoken about this before: in comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the unvaccinated were healthier. I will return to this line of questioning during the next estimates.

You will also note they relied on an answer provided to me in Question on Notice 3212, which has neither been published nor provided to me.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I come back to two separate points you raised. Ms Peatt, you mentioned that Australia assesses the vaccines. Do they do actual testing? What is the method of assessment? Trials?  

Dr Peatt: I’d have to throw to Professor Lawler about the assessment that the vaccines go through, but, from my knowledge, we don’t assess the vaccines. What we do do is rely on evidence and data to ensure their safety. I’ll hand to Professor Lawler.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Where do that evidence and data come from?  

Mr Henderson: We have a process where we rigorously evaluate submissions provided by sponsors of these vaccines.  

Senator ROBERTS: The drug companies?  

Mr Henderson: The pharmaceutical manufacturers, who then sponsor—  

Senator ROBERTS: Submissions from the drug companies?  

Mr Henderson: Yes. We require a significant amount of evidence to support our assessments of the safety, efficacy and quality of those vaccines before they can be marketed and supplied in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand this. I go back to March 2021. I think it was. I asked the previous head of the TGA, Professor Skerritt, or Dr Skerritt, what testing was done in this country on the COVID injections. He said none. They relied on the FDA. At the time he said that, it was after the FDA had admitted they did no testing themselves; they relied on Pfizer. You’re telling me you’re doing the same thing. Okay. The next—  

Mr Henderson: Sorry, Senator. I might just jump in there. No, all the COVID-19 vaccines are now what we call fully registered, so they have been assessed on a full suite of evidence to support safety, quality and efficacy of those vaccines. For COVID-19 vaccines, as well, we did have a program in place where we did batch testing of all vaccines in the TGA laboratories before they could be supplied in Australia.  

Prof. Lawler: I might add to that if I may, Senator. I note your use of the word ‘testing’. The role of the regulator—and this regulatory practice is standard worldwide—is that we undertake an unbiased and objective assessment of the evidence that is presented to us, particularly—  

Senator ROBERTS: From what entity? The supplier?  

Prof. Lawler: That was part of the rest of my answer, Senator. I’m going through the process that we follow. While, for the most part, that is supplied by the sponsor who is seeking registration of the product, it does undergo an appropriate assessment by our own experts to determine that the size of the sample, the controls that are placed, the primary endpoints, the outcomes and the adverse events—all of those elements of the study—indicate that the risk-benefit analysis is positive. The process that we undertake is similar to others.  

As Mr Henderson’s highlighted, during COVID we had a provisional registration pathway. This was during a time, as you would recall, when the risk-benefit of providing a provisional authorisation for that vaccine was high. Since then we have undertaken a transition of that vaccine through to a full market authorisation. There are other mechanisms for assessing the evidence, and obviously in this instance we can also rely on the real-world evidence that the overwhelming benefit—that the risk to benefit is positive given the number of lives saved by the administration of the COVID vaccine when compared to the incidence of adverse events.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Lawler, before I ask my—  

Prof. Lawler: Professor Lawler. Sorry, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, you said a minute ago in another answer ‘Australian disease patterns—forget overseas’. Now you’re saying they’re similar to others, so our testing is similar—or our assessment is similar to others; you don’t do testing.  

Prof. Lawler: I actually said neither of those things, Senator. I certainly didn’t say that we should forget other countries. What I said is that we make our own vaccine schedules based on the demography, the epidemiology, the disease patterns and so forth of Australia. We certainly have a mind to others. Just as an example, the disease patterns in the northern part of the world circulate to the southern part of the world some six months later. So we certainly have to be mindful of what’s going on in the rest of the world. We don’t forget what’s going on there. What I then said was that there are consistent, if not identical, approaches to regulatory decision-making around the world. There is significant positive collaboration and work sharing between regulators so that we can know what the appropriate practices are, particularly horizon scanning, so that we know what’s coming up. But I would highlight that the answer that I gave actually went to how we regulated during COVID, which was different to other countries. Other countries undertook what’s called an emergency-use authorisation. We undertook a process of provisional registration, which was an abbreviated and expedited process that did not lift from sponsors the requirement to provide appropriate evidence, particularly real-world evidence, and then the appropriate, more fulsome transition to full market authorisation thereafter.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can only go by what your predecessor said—that they relied on the FDA. Dr Peatt, you said the childhood injections are free.  

Dr Peatt: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re actually paid for by $750,000 by the taxpayer.  

Dr Peatt: Yes. That’s correct. What I should have said is that they are provided free to people who are eligible for those vaccines. But, yes, they are fully funded by the government.  

Senator ROBERTS: The taxpayer.  

Dr Peatt: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no such thing as government money. It’s all taxpayer money.  

/by

One Nation Leading Where Others Follow

,

The Liberal-National coalition and Labor are playing a desperate game of catch-up.

For years, they’ve ignored the real issues — energy, housing and mass immigration crisis, which started under John Howard and has exploded under the Albanese government. Now, they’re copying One Nation’s homework.

They drop the right buzzwords and borrow our rhetoric because they’re terrified of the polls, yet they still lack the data and the backbone to actually do good instead of just trying to look good.

People see through the “fluffy and vague” policies of other parties.

One Nation aren’t here to play status quo politics; we’re here to put Australia First.

It’s time to hold these politicians accountable and return the power to where it belongs: with the people.

/1 Comment/by

The High Price of False Virtue

,

For over 15 years, I have warned that the climate scam is a direct assault on the Australian way of life.

And it’s not just our hip pockets being hit — it’s our humanity.

Labor and Chris Bowen are selling you a “renewable revolution,” yet they aren’t telling you who’s paying the real price.

While Australian families struggle with soaring power bills, children in the Congo are forced into medieval conditions, digging for the minerals that fuel our “green” future.

Women are working in toxic, open-cut mines controlled by the Chinese Communist Party – all so we can pretend we’re “saving the planet.”

Our environment is being destroyed, our wildlife killed off, our economy smashed – and everyday Australians are getting poorer.

It’s not a revolution. It’s a scam!

Note: The data for 2026 confirms that our energy security has been sold off to foreign interests, with the vast majority of these large-scale wind and solar projects owned by overseas entities.

We need to stop this madness and put Australian families and human decency above the “renewable at all costs” cult. There is nothing virtuous about “renewable” energy.

/by

The 95% Mortgage Cliff

,

During this session with Housing Australia, I call out the lack of transparency and the questionable math behind the home deposit guarantee schemes.

I asked Mr Langford why it took nine weeks to get an answer to a simple question: how many borrowers have exited the scheme? They finally admitted that of the 185,000 guarantees issued since the scheme was launched, over 45,000 have already been discharged.

I’m highly sceptical of their reported “success” rates. They previously claimed that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000. The actual arrears rate on bank loans is around 1% – 227 times higher than the claimed arrears rate of 0.0044%. Therefore, it’s statistically impossible!

My point is simple: they don’t actually track people once they exit the scheme, so they’re essentially flying blind when it comes to the data.

Despite Minister Ayres’ attempts to paint every exit as a “success story,” the data proves it’s not that simple.

As at the end of December 2025: ❌ 0.3% or 336 of borrowers are 90+ days in arrears, ❌ 0 .8% or 1000 are currently under hardship arrangements and ❌ 347 are in early-stage arrears (30–90 days).

While they boast that many are ahead on payments, I’m concerned about the “cliff” ahead.

When I asked for modelling on what happens to these 95% mortgages if interest rates rise three more times this year, they admitted they have no modelling for that scenario.

Ms Jarman has committed to providing me with a copy of the information guide for first-home buyers. I want to see for myself if it properly warns Australians about the massive risks of a 95% mortgage in a rising-rate environment.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: I’m going to rotate the call. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again today, Mr Langford. You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. That should be a number you have to hand very easily. You haven’t answered it in the nine weeks since the hearing. Why not?  

Mr Langford: I’ll ask my colleague Ms Jarman, who has just come to the table, if we have that information to hand. As to the delays, we apologise. There may have been some delay if we didn’t have that information to hand.  

Ms Jarman: Sorry, Senator—can you repeat exactly what information you’re after?  

Senator ROBERTS: You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two per cent and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. I’d like the number, please.  

Ms Jarman: Yes, we do have the number that have exited. Of the 185,000 guarantees that have been issued since the launch of the scheme, 45,837 of those have discharged.  

Senator ROBERTS: You told me at the last hearing that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000 guarantees issued. The actual arrears rate on banks’ loan books is around one per cent. That’s 227 times higher than your claimed arrears rate of 0.0044 per cent. Do you accept that your number is almost statistically impossible and only appears good because you don’t actually track the people who exit the scheme? Once they’re gone, they’re gone.  

Senator Ayres: Exiting is good.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t track them once they’re gone.  

Senator Ayres: These are people who have bought a home—  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t try and change the topic. I’m asking the question. I want to know—  

Senator Ayres: under the scheme, then sold their home and moved on to their next home. That is the foot on the ladder that the scheme is designed to provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Ayres, at the last hearing, you said—  

Senator Ayres: That’s what it’s for.  

Senator ROBERTS: that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance. Do you know that that’s false?  

Senator Ayres: What do you mean?  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘People who are facing hardship can’t refinance,’ you said. That’s false.  

Senator Ayres: I said that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what you said. 

Senator Ayres: I don’t know what context I said that in. You’re moving—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on—  

Senator Ayres: from one proposition, demonstrably not the case—  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’re changing my proposition. I’m trying to get on with it.  

Senator Ayres: which is that it’s a bad outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you running from this, Minister Ayres?  

Senator Ayres: No. I’m running to this. I’m running to this. This is a good outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: You changed my first proposition.  

Senator Ayres: This is a good outcome. I’m sorry if you’re confused about it. This is a good outcome for young Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re misleading.  

Senator Ayres: Buying a home, selling a home, buying a new one—this is a good outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on your latest percentages for in advance, on schedule, in arrears and hardship?  

Ms Jarman: I can do that. As at the end of December, 0.3 per cent of the portfolio were 90 days plus in arrears, 0.8 per cent were under hardship arrangements, 26 per cent of the portfolio were on schedule with payments and 73 per cent were in advance of their repayment schedule.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you also have the actual numbers each of these percentages represent?  

Ms Jarman: I do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them please?  

Ms Jarman: Sure. We had 33,134 on schedule, 93,104 in advance, 336 ninety days in arrears and 1,000 in hardship. There is another category, for completeness. If you’re adding up to the total number of guarantees, in arrears of 30 to 90 days—so early arrears—there are another 347 customers there.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many total guarantees are those percentages of—is it less than the 250,000?  

Ms Jarman: The 250,000 is the number of Australians supported under the scheme. We’ve only ever issued 185,000 guarantees, but only 127,000 of those are active in the book at the moment. The rest of those have already discharged out of the scheme.  

Mr Rimmer: I gave evidence earlier in the day that the 0.3 per cent 90-day arrears rate is better than the other relevant arrears.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I heard that.  

Senator Ayres: I also should have said, Senator, again for the sake of completeness, that people exit the scheme if they sell their home. They also exit the scheme when they hit the 80 per cent loan-to-value ratio. That is, they come in at five per cent and make repayments that pay the 15 per cent gap over time, and then they’re considered to have exited the scheme. That’s also a good thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many five per cent mortgages that you got first home buyers into do you expect a default if interest rates are raised three times this year?  

Senator Ayres: Your One Nation colleague asked the same questions about an hour and three-quarters ago.  

Senator ROBERTS: He actually said ‘if we are entering a cycle’. I want to know what would happen with three interest rate rises.  

Mr Langford: I don’t believe we have modelling for that proposition that you’re putting forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you, as the administrator of the five per cent deposit guarantee, provide first home buyers with any warnings about the risk of a 95 per cent mortgage?  

Ms Jarman: Yes, we do. As part of the application process, we’ve got an information guide. That guide clearly outlines what the guarantee is and how the guarantee is there to protect the lender and not the borrower. It also outlines the obligations of the borrower in terms of repayment of the mortgage and the circumstances in which the borrower is still liable.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have a copy of that on notice, please? 

/by

Protecting our Coal Miners

,

During this session with the Fair Work Commission, I asked Mr Furlong if he agreed that you cannot use an enterprise agreement to strip away rights provided by the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. He agreed.

During our exchange, I highlighted several concerns:

I reminded Mr. Furlong that the High Court in Rossato was clear — contract terms must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. You can’t take away annual leave or award entitlements if the law says otherwise.

When I asked how losing annual leave and getting lower pay could possibly make a worker “better off,” the Commission hid behind “abstract” assessments. There is nothing abstract about a coal miner losing their leave and being underpaid compared to the Black Coal Award.

The Commission tried to tell me we’ve “traversed” this ground before. My response was simple: I will keep traversing it until these workers get what’s owed to them in full compliance with the law.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, you have previously agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove all applicable award entitlements. You have agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove entitlements provided under the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. Both of them were in November 2022. Do you still hold the same views today?  

Mr Furlong: I do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that these propositions were confirmed by the majority of the High Court in the Rossato decision?  

Mr Furlong: I can’t talk to the High Court decision, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The court went on to say: …where there are express terms of the contract between the parties, they must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: It has been a long time since I’ve looked at that decision. I can’t comment on it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I know what you mean. If an agreement includes terms that would remove statutory rights such as annual leave and other award entitlements, wouldn’t those terms be considered contrary to statute?  

Mr Furlong: It’s difficult to talk in the abstract about such matters. The terms and conditions in an enterprise agreement are that they need to be better off overall. It’s a global assessment in determining whether or not an enterprise agreement will satisfy a member of the commission and subsequently be approved by that member.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This issue was further considered in One Key Workforce v CFMEU. The full bench of the Federal Court held that: It is an error of law to fail to have regard to relevant material in a way that affects the exercise of power. An administrative decision-maker— the Fair Work Commissioner— who makes such an error exceeds his or her authority and acts without jurisdiction. Isn’t this exactly what the commissioner did when approving an enterprise agreement that ignored the Black Coal Award, which was relevant material? 

Mr Furlong: I think that the circumstance of One Key relate to the One Key enterprise agreement. Are we are talking about Chandler Macleod and other agreements about casual coalminers? Senator ROBERTS: If an enterprise agreement takes away annual leave by calling someone a casual, is that going against statute? Mr Furlong: It depends on whether the employee is a casual or a permanent employee. If they are a permanent employee, they would be entitled to annual leave and sick leave and all the other conditions that would be applicable to a permanent employee. There are casual conversion entitlements now for employees that they can exercise if they want to transition from casual employment to an ongoing role. Senator ROBERTS: How does it comply with the National Employment Standards and the Fair Work Act if someone loses annual leave, ends up on lower pay and doesn’t meet award provisions? It goes against statute.  

Mr Furlong: The Fair Work Act provides the framework that members of the commission have to observe before they can approve an enterprise agreement. If there is an aggrieved party to a decision made by a member of the commission, those decisions can be the subject of an appeal. If the agreement has reached its nominal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can make an application to have that agreement terminated.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the express terms of the contract or EA must be given effect unless they are contrary to this statute?  

Mr Furlong: No. What I’m saying is that for a member, in assessing whether or not to approve an enterprise agreement which has been lodged with the commission for approval, a number of statutory tests need to be satisfied. One of them is the better off overall test. Once a member of the commission who has been allocated that file is satisfied that each of those conditions has been met, they are required to approve the agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me how the loss of annual leave, a pay rate that is less and the loss of other award provisions complies with better off overall, because the award prevails? That’s the High Court.  

Mr Coyle: It’s very difficult to talk in the abstract here. It’s a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: The loss of annual leave, a lower pay rate and the loss of other award provisions—that’s not abstract.  

Mr Furlong: We’ve traversed this several times.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will keep traversing it until we get these people their fair due in compliance with statute. 

/1 Comment/by

One Nation is Protecting Cash – Not the Treasurer

,

Those who heard Senator Michaelia Cash’s speech about One Nation’s decision to vote against Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 might have been left with the impression that One Nation has abandoned cash.

Senator Cash said:

‘The obvious question that is before the Senate in relation to the disallowance motion is, “Why does One Nation want to ban cash?” Because that is exactly what this disallowance motion does.’

The Senator then implied that the reason Coles, Woolworths, and service stations are required to accept cash is because of this new regulation.

‘This is what this mandate does. That legal obligation exists because of the regulations that Senator Roberts and One Nation, for some very strange reason, now seek to disallow.’

I was astonished by this comment from the Senator.

Our reasons for wishing to disallow the Treasurer’s regulation are not bizarre at all. We have explained them clearly and repeatedly.

As has always been the case, our goal is to protect cash in the long-term – not allow its erosion through a thousand pieces of deceptively named regulation.

One Nation has been leading the national conversation on cash protection for decades, including against shameful attempts during the Morrison era to put limits on the size of cash transactions through their wildly unpopular Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019. The Liberal Party sought to re-frame cash as the realm of crime, tax evasion, and the black market.

Then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison said:

‘This will be bad news for criminal gangs, terrorists, and those who are just trying to cheat on their tax or get a discount for letting someone else cheat on their tax. It’s not clever. It’s not okay. It’s a crime.’

He added: ‘Cash provides and easy, anonymous, and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity.’

What an astonishingly bad-faith way to present cash transactions which have been the backbone of this nation. If the government wishes to crackdown on criminal activity, it could always try arresting criminals.

Public backlash forced the Liberals to stall the legislation in 2020, following which One Nation were successful in striking out the legislation.

This vocal opposition came from the same places it comes from today – rural and regional areas, community groups, churches, and even the Labor Party’s own ethnic branches. Meanwhile, the Liberals and Nationals never apologised for forcing Parliament to waste time stopping another unnecessary creep of a paranoid government.

As you can see, the Liberal Party are not friends of ‘cash’ … they never have been.

It is important to understand that the protection of cash as legal tender is something that has always been poorly defined and left to languish in significant legal grey areas as the banking system developed electronic currency.

Our Constitution requires the Commonwealth government to make cash available. The definition of ‘available’ is open to discussion and likely includes electronic transactions. Contrary to common assumption, banks are not required to make physical cash available.

Businesses are expected to accept cash, within reason, unless they put up a sign that explicitly states, ‘We do not accept cash.’ These signs are not common because customers, like myself, are often put-off by anti-cash sentiment.

Online businesses with no physical storefront cannot reasonably be forced to accept cash, nor would anyone ordering from their phone on TikTok expect them to. There are also market stalls or pop-up shops that lack the ability to handle cash safely. And then there are trading hours when it is deemed unsafe to handle cash.

To make things even murkier, a business is not required to take cash when doing so would place their staff at risk, which is fair, or where cash is not readily available. This is most common in rural areas where greedy banks have closed branches and removed ATMs.

The rise of the digital world has created an economic and political interest – particularly within the global banking sector – in discontinuing cash. This has prompted a public call for its explicit protection. In early June of 2024, Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, and Dai Le put forward the Private Member’s Bill Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 to seek clarity on – and strengthen – the status of cash as legal tender.

This would have reinforced the legal obligation for all businesses, within reason and where appropriate, to accept cash up to $10,000 (but would not impose a ceiling). In clarifying the Reserve Bank Act (1959), it would then be possible to determine what the bones of the modern and future economy would look like before adding additional complexity through programmable currency and Bitcoin.

In other words … policy housekeeping.

Unfortunately, a proper debate on this important bill never took place, largely because Treasurer Jim Chalmers implied it would be addressed in Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.

During the press conference that followed in November of 2024, Chalmers said:

‘Our objective when it comes to payments is to modernise our financial system … to make sure that there’s an ongoing role for cash … we’re making sure that people can pay cash for essentials if they want to and if they need to … what this means is that businesses selling essential items will have to accept cash with some appropriate carve-outs for small businesses and with a particular emphasis on regional areas.’

The Treasurer’s pinky-promise led to the Private Member’s Bill being dropped on good faith.

These regulations eventually manifested as a shadow of their former promise and, in my view, perfectly encapsulate the evil genius of the Uniparty anti-cash movement.

The Treasurer’s final regulation only provides that cash be protected as legal tender in supermarkets and petrol stations between 7am-9pm to a value of $500. That’s it.

For all other situations, the grey area of cash has been clarified – it is no longer protected.

What does this mean for cash throughout the rest of the economy? What about newsagencies? Public transport? Basic shopping? Parking? Pharmacies? Post-offices? Church collections? Buskers? Cultural celebrations? Greek weddings? The million other things that keep society moving…?

By proposing a mandate that only covers supermarkets and petrol stations, the Labor government did not protect cash. They issued an extermination order. The Uniparty are supporting an economy-wide restriction of cash. Remember, 23 per cent of adults do not have a credit or debit card, especially the elderly those challenged by technology.

One Nation predicts that as a consequence of these regulations, banks – who have already shown hostility to cash – will rush to stop accepting cash over the counter. The dwindling supply of ATMs will die out. And cash will drain out of our economy.

Concerned pharmacists came to see me last week to ask for pharmacies to be included, they were not – and yet still the Liberals support these government regulations. Are we going to see people turned away from buying medication because they don’t have a bank card?

An economic change of this significance should be put to the people, or opened to far more scrutiny than a regulation which is not subjected to the same Parliamentary rigour as an amendment.

To be clear, One Nation is not voting against protecting cash. That’s absurd.

We are voting against the specific regulation put forward by the Treasurer which we believe would confine cash protection to a small number of essential suppliers and leave the rest of the economic landscape open to a widespread loss of cash.

These regulations represent a broken promise to Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, Dai Le, and the Australian people.

We want to see banks held to their obligation to provide cash to Australians in a reasonable and easily accessible way. For the banks to be held to account when they attempt to cut regional communities off from ATMs and branches. We wish to see cash maintained as commonly accepted legal tender to ensure Australia has the flexibility to endure blackouts and digital malfunctions, and to take precautions that the banking sector is never in a position to hold money hostage. This is especially important in regional areas where the digital world struggles, and as we approach an increasingly dangerous geopolitical situation. We have seen conflict target energy grids and telecommunications. It would be insane to remove the protection of cash at this point in history.

Ultimately, what the banks want … what the corporate world wants … and what is best for the security of the Australian economy are not always the same thing and it is our duty as elected representatives of the people to act in their best interests.

Senator Cash has presented the option as a binary choice: support the Treasurer or condemn cash. I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation.

One Nation will not void the legal assumption that cash is protected by replacing it with a declaration that it is not. Let’s protect cash properly and permanently.

And, if we really are heading toward a fully digital world, and that march cannot be stopped because of cultural and ideological changes, then we absolutely must sit down and have a proper discussion about safeguarding citizens from the known dangers and exploitation made possible in a digital-only environment.

One Nation demands that this topic be taken seriously and soberly for the protection of Australia’s economic future.

Whether it is basic redundancy from energy and internet disruption, or protection against nefarious banking practices, cash is a vital safety net.

And it is obvious that the public wish to see it preserved.

One Nation is protecting cash, not the Treasurer by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Read on Substack
/5 Comments/by

A Private Line to the Minister

,

The Labor government is overriding our courts and regulators to hand-pick which advocacy groups get tax-deductible status.

In a recent Senate Estimates hearing, I questioned why Equality Australia was granted specific Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status in the 2025 Budget, despite being rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), and the Full Federal Court. All three bodies ruled that their work is political advocacy, not “direct benevolent relief.”

When I asked for the legal basis or the principles used to bypass these independent determinations, the government hid behind “Cabinet confidentiality.”

This isn’t just about one group; it’s about the integrity of our tax system. We cannot have a system where groups who lose in court simply lobby a Minister for a custom-made law.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are actually brief, but I have to untangle the acronyms. I have to give you some background first to set up my questions. Equality Australia applied for public benevolent institution status in 2020 and was rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission because its primary purpose was advocacy and law reform, not direct benevolent relief. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission found its activities were ‘too indirect’ to qualify as benevolent relief. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission’s decision. The Full Federal Court dismissed Equality Australia’s appeal in September 2024, confirming that advocacy and campaigning for law reform did not meet the statutory definition of a public benevolent institution.  

After losing in court, Equality Australia wrote to Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh in November 2024, seeking a specific listing for deductible gift recipient status under the Income Tax Act 1997. Cabinet approved the listing in early 2025 and the March federal budget included Equality Australia as a named deductible gift recipient entity for five years. Media commentary highlights concerns that this decision effectively overrode determinations by three accountability bodies, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court.  

My questions are: why did Treasury support a specific deductible gift recipient status listing for Equality Australia after the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission refused public benevolent institution status, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed and the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 5 September 2024 all on the basis that Equality Australia’s activities are advocacy, not direct benevolent relief? What principles justify overriding three independent determinations?  

Ms Berger-Thomson: Decisions made on DGR-specific listings are decisions of cabinet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what principle justifies overriding three independent determinations?  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t have anything further to add to that. I’m not aware of it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did Treasury advise cabinet that a specific listing bypasses the ordinary deductible gift recipient pathway for a single organisation?  

Ms Berger-Thomson: Typically, we do provide advice on specific listings. Specific listings are only for those organisations that do not qualify for any of the other 52 DGR categories that are administered by the ATO.  

Senator ROBERTS: You did give advice?  

Dr Johnson: It’s not appropriate to talk about cabinet material in Senate estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about Treasury advice?  

Dr Johnson: That’s Treasury advice for a cabinet process.  

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t provide it on notice?  

Dr Johnson: No, not in relation to things that relate to a cabinet process.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s pretty handy. I have two final questions: on what legal basis did Treasury rely to proceed where the courts found the activities did not meet the public benevolent institution test? Secondly, how does Treasury ensure consistency with the statutory meaning of ‘benevolent relief’ used by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court, when recommending by name a deductible gift recipient? What legal basis did Treasury rely on?  

Senator Gallagher: As to specific listings—there are a few every budget that the ERC or the government considers when other avenues have been exhausted. That reflects a decision of government.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what legal advice Treasury received.  

Senator Gallagher: Treasury provide advice on the listings that come before us. Ministers get briefed appropriately, but ultimately it’s a decision for government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the government ignore or bypass three institutions with experience in this area and responsibility for this area—the Federal Court, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Australian Charities—  

Senator Gallagher: I’ve taken that on notice. I was just more generally saying how the decisions are taken. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide an answer to that?  

Senator Gallagher: I have undertaken to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: And also the basis for the decision?  

Senator Gallagher: Yes, I have taken that on notice.  

/by