I questioned ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb on how the regulator is standing up for everyday Australians against corporate giants.
I congratulated the ACCC on their major court win against Coles for misleading price discounts. While 14 products were selected by the judge as a sample set, the deceptive conduct ruling applies across more than 200 cases.
A decision on similar allegations against Woolworths is currently reserved in the courts.
Supermarkets are backed by massive global institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, with endless legal resources. The ACCC assured me they are not daunted and point to recent actions against Amazon and Microsoft.
The ACCC highlighted the urgent need for new Unfair Trading Practices laws to crack down on sneaky business tactics that current laws miss, such as subscription traps you can’t cancel and manipulative mobile interfaces.
I thanked Ms Cass-Gottlieb for her concise, upfront, and comprehensive answers.
We need strong, clear enforcement to protect Aussie families and small businesses from predatory corporate conduct.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. I’ll start with the ACCC and the court case against Coles for misleading conduct. Congratulations.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: That was a great result, and one which Coles richly deserved. I note you only listed 14 products in your prosecution when you identified over 200 cases of offering misleading discounts. What was the logic behind that choice?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We took action in relation to the 250. That choice of the 14 was by the judge in order to focus the proceedings on a sample set of products. But the conclusions the judge has reached—which is that 13 of that sample set are misleading and deceptive—and criteria will be applied across the full 250. It was a manner for the judge to more efficiently conduct the proceedings.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. A similar case for Woolies is still before the courts. Is there a timeframe on that case?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The judgement is reserved, and we will await the judge’s decision.
Senator ROBERTS: These supermarkets have corporations on their share register with trillions in funds invested: BlackRock, Vanguard, First State, State Street et cetera. They’re able to muster huge legal resources for Coles and Woolies. Are you appropriately resourced to conduct these cases for maximum benefit? I mean, you had a victory.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Firstly, we prioritise the matters that are most significant in terms of consumer harm—cost of living and aspects of that nature—and cost of doing business. We are well aware in the case of this sector that we need to look not only at consumers but at suppliers, including Australian farmers. So we do prioritise. In addition, in the last budget we received a $67 million uplift specifically to assist with enforcement in both competition matters and consumer protection matters, recognising the importance of setting clear standards and having clear guidance across the business community on the way in which the law applies.
Senator ROBERTS: So there are many factors involved in which cases you take on. Ms
Cass-Gottlieb: There are. We have to take account of a range of factors in order to determine where we can give most benefit to the public through our strong enforcement program.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re not daunted by the deep pockets of BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street? They own controlling interests in many Australian brands.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: No, we are not daunted. You will have seen other litigation that we commenced in the past year, including on allegations relating to Microsoft’s conduct with the rollout of integration of Copilot in the Microsoft 365 program, and only a week ago we commenced action against Amazon in relation to its online marketplace sales of products that we allege are unsafe. We are confident and dedicated to take action where it’s most important for the public benefit, and that includes against very major domestic and global companies.
Senator ROBERTS: These fines being awarded go into consolidated revenue. You don’t get to keep the money in your budget. Is that correct?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you get to deduct your costs in the prosecution before handing over the proceeds?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Not—
Senator ROBERTS: Would that incentivise you to—
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: If we win, we will recover our costs from the other side. But, if we don’t, we will also pay their costs.
Senator ROBERTS: Your February 2026 opening statement contained this passage: The ACCC continues to observe concerning business conduct that, while not necessarily breaching current consumer laws, nevertheless causes significant harm to consumers and small businesses … Can you expand on that comment, please.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: This was particularly reflecting the importance of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill that has passed the lower house and is before a committee in the Senate currently. The importance of that bill is that there is some conduct for which at this time we consider there is not sufficient coverage under the Australian Consumer Law to protect consumers or to protect small businesses. It includes conduct that is not expressly misleading and deceptive or expressly unconscionable as that has been interpreted. It is important to introduce the amendment that this bill will bring, which is to create a general principle prohibition upon unfair trading practices. The sorts of ones we have considered, which are the ones we were thinking about there, are, say, when an interface on a mobile phone is nudging you to make a purchase or confusing you with a significant amount of information which means you can’t focus on what really matters to you or a subscription that you find practically impossible to cancel. These sorts of examples need amendment to be covered by our law. This bill which the government has introduced is very important, and we welcome it and are looking forward to its passage so that we can then conduct investigations and move through a compliance and enforcement program with it.
Senator ROBERTS: That completes my questioning for the ACCC. I want to comment and put on the record that I appreciate Ms Cass-Gottlieb’s succinctness and comprehensiveness. It’s very clear; it’s wonderful.
During Senate Estimates, I questioned the Minister and Department about the long-overdue review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Comcare).
The report, delivered back in September 2025 with 124 recommendations, made one thing crystal clear: the 36-year-old Act is so outdated that there is “no option but to redraft the current legislation.”
Yet, months later, the Minister’s repeated answer to crucial questions on implementation, return-to-work duties, and preventing psychological harm caused by claims management was simply: “The government is considering the report.”
We are still months away from even seeing an exposure draft. Bureaucracy cannot drag its feet when injured workers are paying the price.
Safety shouldn’t be a compliance box. It’s a moral and strategic imperative.
I also spoke with Comcare about workplace health and safety. Cutting corners doesn’t create a competitive edge. It leads to tragedy, ruined lives, massive penalties, and destroyed businesses.
I shared a definition of safety I developed 30 years ago: “Safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage, and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss.”
True safety requires accountability at every level, especially from the top. A safe, highly engaged workforce isn’t just the right thing to do morally, it builds a stronger, more productive nation.
I’ll keep pushing to ensure our workplace laws are reformed quickly and effectively.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I thank the witnesses for appearing. Minister, a comprehensive review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has a date of September 2025. The review says: ‘Change is urgent. It is now time to deliver long overdue reform.’ On what date did you receive the final SRC Act review, and on what date were you first briefed?
Senator Walsh: The review was released publicly in December 2025. Is that enough information for you at this point?
Senator ROBERTS: When did you first receive the final copy?
Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Mr Duggan: I can help there. The final report was delivered to government on 25 September 2025.
Senator ROBERTS: What day were you first briefed, Minister?
Senator Walsh: I am the minister representing Minister Rishworth, so the secretary may be able to assist.
Mr Duggan: I’ll need to take the precise date on notice, but I imagine it would have been within a very short period of 25 September.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could put it on notice, please.
Mr Duggan: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the minister decided to accept the review in full or in part?
Senator Walsh: The government released the report in December, and the government is considering the recommendations and findings of the report.
Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to the question, ‘Do you have an implementation plan?’ would be no, not yet?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.
Senator ROBERTS: What about a recommendation-by-recommendation response table? Have you got one of those?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you approved further consultation?
Senator Walsh: There is work going on around the report. The secretary spoke to that earlier and can speak to that again.
Mr Duggan: We undertook some target consultations in March through April of this year. The intent is to consult further in the second half of this year to inform the response to what was a very comprehensive report with 124 recommendations. It’s a complicated area so, as you can imagine, we want to make sure that we do that work thoroughly before we provide advice to government on its response.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Secretary. Do you have opening and closing dates for consultation?
Mr Duggan: Do you mean for the consultation that has occurred, or the consultation that is to occur?
Senator ROBERTS: The consultation that will occur.
Mr Duggan: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will it include an exposure draft bill or clauses? If not, what exactly is being consulted?
Mr Duggan: We are a couple of steps away from being at the point of an exposure draft of legislation. So at this stage we are consulting for the purposes of informing our advice to government on the policy and programmatic design. That would include advice on any changes required to legislation. Following on from that, the process would be legislative drafting instructions and an exposure draft, et cetera. We’re several steps away, so I can’t give you a definitive answer to that question.
Senator ROBERTS: So the consultation is to develop the legislation changes, if any?
Mr Duggan: If any, that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The review explicitly says the extent of changes means, ‘no option but to redraft the current legislation.’
Mr Duggan: Yes, I am aware of that. So as we work through the 124 recommendations and our advice to government, were we to reach the same conclusion, then a legislative package would accompany our advice.
Senator ROBERTS: What time frames are you looking at—I know it’s early days—for redrafting and introduction of the legislation?
Mr Duggan: I gave evidence earlier that we are working through this. Again, there is a lot to work through, but we are working through it through the second half of this year with the intent of being in a position to provide comprehensive advice to government before the end of the year. Questions of the timing of introduction of any legislation, and the timing of any announcements around the way the scheme would work in the future, are questions for government and not something that the government has made a statement on at this point.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the single biggest issue holding things up?
Mr Duggan: I don’t think there is a single biggest issue. I referred to 124 recommendations in a very complicated area, the need to work through that rigorously and to consult broadly to make sure that we get right our advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you accept the review’s principle that the scheme must cause no harm, and that harm caused by interacting with the scheme should be prevented or reduced?
Senator Walsh: The work of the Comcare scheme is about assisting people. There should be no harm in relation to the scheme. In relation to all of this work, we commissioned the review. The review covers a whole range of issues around governance and usability and entitlements. We want the scheme to be focused on the people who need assistance through it, and that was the focus of the review. I repeat that the government is considering the recommendations. The secretary has laid out a time line for the department to consult around the recommendations. The act is almost 40 years old—
Senator ROBERTS: and complex.
Senator Walsh: and there hasn’t been substantial reform of it, so this review is comprehensive. There are, as the secretary has said, 124 recommendations. The department is working to consult on those recommendations and provide advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will you implement the review’s position that step-downs—lighter duties— should not apply where the employer has refused or been unable to provide suitable duties?
Senator Walsh: In relation to any recommendations of the review, the government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you legislate enforceable employer return-to-work duties, including the duty to provide suitable work, with consequences for noncompliance?
Senator Walsh: All answers around the review and review recommendations are that the government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: The review notes that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes. Do you accept that poor claims management can cause or worsen psychological harm?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I knew these things 40 years ago. There’s no gotcha in this one; all right? I just want to reassure our constituents, because we’ve had constituents come to us with problems. Surely you can acknowledge that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes.
Senator Walsh: As I said, in establishing the review, the government wanted to make sure that the scheme is centred on the people that it is there to assist and that it is fit for purpose to be focused on the people that it’s there to assist. You said you’ve been focused on this issue for a number of years. The act is 36 years old. It hasn’t been reformed. There are a lot of recommendations. The secretary has outlined the process which the department is following to assess the recommendations. We’ll provide advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: I know that 40 years ago we learned that selected duties or light duties—whatever you want to call them; I prefer ‘selected duties’—can be highly significant in getting people back to work, fully back to work, and getting them back to work quickly. That’s better for their mental health and their physical recovery at times. That’s why I’m interested in that. Will you implement or consider, or do you recognise, the review’s approach of trauma informed claims management, enforceable service standards and public reporting?
Senator Walsh: You’re asking me these questions, Senator, as you are entitled to do—
Senator ROBERTS: From our constituents. Senator Walsh: I welcome your questions. I’m just wondering whether some of them may relate to current practices of Comcare and whether Comcare would like to assist in some of the answers about how you approach these issues, if you’re happy with that, Senator.
Mr Radford: I’ll ask Mr Vivian-Taylor from our claims division to join us at the table, if that’s all right, Minister.
Senator Walsh: Yes.
Mr Vivian-Taylor: We do some trauma informed training for our claims managers. That’s what we do in claims management at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve finished my questions of the minister. Mr Radford, you were talking about Cleanaway with Senator Dolega. In my experience—and I use this strategically—safety has moral benefits. Safety has personal responsibilities and personal benefits. It also has economic benefits. What is the level of understanding in industry generally, and within Comcare, that safety can be used to improve a business—not just the moral, personal and safety benefits but the economic and business benefits?
Mr Radford: I agree with your proposition, Senator. I can’t speak for industry, in terms of the level of industry knowledge, but certainly at Comcare we are of the view that safer workplaces, by and large, are more productive workplaces. You have a more engaged workforce—
Senator ROBERTS: Lower turnover.
Mr Radford: Lower turnover, higher retention. We, as the regulator, focus very heavily on the human cost of unsafe workplaces, as you would expect. There is no doubt that safe, fulfilling work is a huge benefit to workers. As you mentioned earlier, it has a significant, positive impact on their mental health. It also has a very positive impact, as I mentioned earlier, on productivity. From my engagement with industry, in both this role and previous roles in this space, I know that the vast majority of employers want other employers to do the right thing, because employers that cut corners on health and safety are probably also cutting corners in other areas in terms of their regulatory responsibilities. The majority of employers want to know that someone is not getting an unfair or competitive advantage by essentially not adhering to their responsibilities under workplace health and safety laws. As I said, I can’t speak specifically for industry, but from my engagement with industry and industry leaders and industry representative groups, by and large, they want everyone to do the right thing so that it is a fair and even playing field. It obviously supports the economy.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to pick you up on something you said there—that people who take shortcuts on safety have an economic advantage. That’s what you’re implying—
Mr Radford: No, I said—
Senator ROBERTS: I believe it’s wrong.
Mr Radford: No. People can think that, if they take shortcuts, they can get a profit gain.
Senator ROBERTS: They think that, but they don’t, because they end up hurting the business.
Mr Radford: They end up hurting the business. As I said in evidence—I think prior to you joining, Senator— we certainly take the view that no profit or productivity improvement is worth the price of a human life. I think the majority of employers also think that way, but, unfortunately, there are those who think they can cut corners. The Cleanaway matter was resolved last week, on top of the very significant human cost of two people losing their lives and two people being seriously injured. Cleanaway has now been fined $1.1 million as a result of its failure in the training of the truck driver involved. That should send a very clear message that cutting corners has human consequences. It also has economic consequences for any company that thinks it can get away with it.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps, if Cleanaway had been more enlightened in its management, it wouldn’t have had the fatalities and it would have had a better bottom line.
Mr Radford: I can’t speak to their balance sheet, but in my experience no good ever comes from a serious injury or a fatality in the workplace.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s taken for granted. What I’m getting at is that just improving safety can be a strategic advantage, leading to reducing costs, increasing productivity and increasing profitability.
Mr Radford: Yes. I agree.
Senator ROBERTS: To what extent do people in the industry accept that? Is it still limited?
Mr Radford: As I said, I can’t speak for industry. Certainly, a large part of Comcare’s role is to educate industry and the economy more broadly about the benefits of safe work and the benefits of having a highly engaged, safe workforce, whether that’s physical safety or psychological safety. The more engaged your workforce is, the safer your workforce is and the higher your productivity is likely to be.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you make a comment on this. This is a definition of safety that I developed 30 or 40 years ago: safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss. Do you agree?
Mr Radford: I would agree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s about accountability all the way throughout an organisation.
Mr Radford: Through the whole supply chain, through all of the activity. I agree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Everyone’s responsible for safety, but the senior people have the ultimate responsibility.
Mr Radford: Yes. Under our legislation and the work health and safety laws right across Australia, everyone does have responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe workplace. But ultimately the responsibility at the highest level rests with those who have control of that workplace, and the workplace is controlled by the managers and the leaders of that enterprise.
Whistleblowers deserve protection not punishment when they expose major safety breaches.
I questioned ASIC in Senate Estimates about Roxanne Mysko, a brave whistleblower and former Compliance, Health and Safety Manager at transport company ECS.
Despite following whistleblower protocol to the letter when reporting serious, systemic safety failures, including zero safety audits conducted from 2007 to 2020, Ms Mysko faced severe retribution. Instead of stepping up to investigate fatigue-related risks and enforce the law, ASIC simply kicked the can back to the regulator, leaving workers and the public at risk.
I asked ASIC why they have failed to protect her and hold these corporations accountable. Instead of answering this question, they hid behind process, promising to address the matter in a private briefing.
To top it off, investors left out in the cold by the Lyon Property Group collapse are being denied access to administrative compensation schemes, with ASIC trying to pass the buck off to the Department of Finance.
I won’t let regulatory bodies off the hook for failing the people they are supposed to protect.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here. Ms Roxanne Mysko is a whistleblower who has not been protected by whistleblower legislation as she should have been. She was the compliance, health and safety manager for ECS Project Logistics, a major transport company. On 16 June 2020, she reported significant safety breaches in that company to SafeWork SA. She also reported to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and to Senator Glenn Sterle that ECS had done no safety audits from 2007 to 2020, and had no safety system as of February 2020—this was fully evidenced. ECS worked for Santos. Despite this, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator did not investigate the raised issues of fatigue and lack of safety audits. ASIC were notified in February 2022; ASIC simply referred the issue back to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, where nothing further has been done and the risks continue regarding limited attention to fatigue related deaths, systemic regulatory failures and domestic heavy vehicle safety. Ms Mysko followed whistleblower protocol to the letter and has been on the receiving end of significant retribution for her disclosures as a whistleblower. Evidence shows ECS was contracted to Santos, Ensign Energy and Easternwell. Why has ASIC shown zero statutory duty to uphold the whistleblower safety act and laws? Are you aware that these are very serious criminal offences and involve risking the lives of workers and public safety at extreme levels?
Ms Court: Thank you, Senator Roberts, and good morning. I know you have raised this issue with us previously, so thank you for your question. Since we last met, I have some more information in relation to the matters that you raised. The difficulty I have is that we’re unable to give evidence about whistleblower interactions in a public forum. So I’m in a bit of a bind.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a private briefing?
Ms Court: Of course, Senator, we’d be very happy to give you a briefing. I am aware that the issues you’ve raised date back, I think, to 2022, as you said in your question. I can certainly assure you that these issues were looked at carefully and in a considered way. But, if you’re comfortable with that, it would be preferable for us to have a briefing and let you know about this—to the extent, again, that we can by law. I’ll have to get some advice on that but, certainly, we’ll be as open as we can.
Senator ROBERTS: We prefer to get issues fixed for a constituent rather than to put on a show, so I’m happy to get a briefing.
Ms Court: Thank you Senator, that’s good of you. We will take you up on that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask some more questions, but just tell me if they’re appropriate or not. Why has ASIC not protected Ms Roxanne Mysko since the amended whistleblower act commenced on 1 January 2020?
Ms Court: Again, I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why has ASIC not prosecuted the CEOs of Santos, Ensign Energy, Easternwell and ECS for violence towards the safety manager and for whistleblower retaliation over the years?
Ms Court: And again Senator, I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Who is responsible for the statutory duty to be upheld for whistleblower protection inside ASIC? Why has ASIC failed to protect a whistleblower when, in this case, Roxanne Mysko reported the issues to Senator Glenn Sterle—who’s a good friend of mine—when he was undertaking a Senate inquiry into how dangerous the heavy vehicle transport sector is?
Ms Court: I can answer one part of that question, if that would be of assistance? We take whistleblowing complaints very seriously. There are legal rights and protections for eligible whistleblowers, and there are some statutory criteria that whistleblowers need to come within in order to get statutory protection. Those protections have been strengthened since about the middle of 2019. We have, internally, established the Office of the Whistleblower. So, in terms of your question as to what happens to a whistleblower request when it comes in, we have a specialist team that is experienced in dealing with whistleblowers and in making sure that ASIC applies the statutory obligations that we have in relation to whistleblowers properly. The issues that you have raised would have been dealt with through that Office of the Whistleblower and, as I said, we’re very happy to talk to you and give you a briefing on what we can and can’t do.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve looked at the remaining four questions on this topic, and we’ll cover them in the briefing.
Ms Court: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Investors in the Lion Property Group are currently being denied access to the administrative remedy under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme—the CDDA—by ASIC. They’ve been told that the Commonwealth is unable to process ASIC related Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme claims. I have quite extensive questions to submit on notice, but I wish to ask now why the government is unable to proceed with the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme claims in these circumstances?
Ms Court: I don’t know if you were in the room, but Senator Bragg raised a similar issue with me earlier. There are complications about the application of the CDDA to ASIC. Just in that regard, I might have to correct the answers I gave to Senator Bragg earlier—I think I said that the CDDA did apply, but it was just that ASIC didn’t administer it. I understand now that it actually may not apply. We are very familiar with, and concerned for, the various investors that have lost money in Lion Property; I understand that has been a very significant issue. But, in relation to the CDDA, it’s not clear that it does apply to ASIC. In any event, those complaints are not dealt with by ASIC—as would be appropriate, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: Who deals with them?
Ms Court: The Department of Finance would deal with them if they applied. Is that right? I’ll hand over to Mr Gregson.
Mr Gregson: That’s right. The relevant department for those inquiries is the Department of Finance.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you sure about that?
Mr Gregson: That’s my understanding—that would be the prime body.
Australians are being ripped off, while big corporations profits hit record highs. The reason? Excessive market concentration.
In sectors like banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance, four major players control over 70% of the market. In fact, 7% of Australian industries have market concentration over 80%, compared to just 1% in the US!
Take our four major banks for example. They offer identical products, use identical strategies and share the exact same major institutional shareholders like BlackRock and Vanguard.
We don’t have four distinct banks in Australia; we have one massive monopoly hiding behind four different logos.
When crony capitalism replaces genuine free enterprise, it’s Australians that pay the price.
The bureaucrats and the Government can offer all the excuses and buzzwords they want.
One Nation will never stop fighting to break up these monopolies and put money back in your pocket.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my first attendance in this session with the National Competition Council. My question is inspired by a common theme in many calls to my electorate office noting that we have an apparatus of government that’s designed to ensure free enterprise competition sets market pricing rather than crony capitalism and yet prices seem to be out of control for many people and corporate profits are at record highs. The perfectly legitimate conclusion is that something is broken, and the attention must fall on the National Competition Council. It’s your task to ensure competition, isn’t it?
Mr Bezzi: Thanks for the question. We have a range of responsibilities under the Competition and Consumer Act. They include the promotion of competition but within the context of national competition policy and within the context of specific research projects that we’re given. So, for example, we’re dealing with a research project at the moment which will help tradespeople and people in other occupations operate across state borders. That’s an important aspect of promoting labour mobility within the economy. We are also working to support states and territories that have identified a range of areas of regulatory reform which will help promote competition. I’ll see if my colleague Mr Biesaga wants to add anything to the answer.
Mr Biesaga: I’d like to add that, with the intergovernmental agreement being put into place in November 2024 along with the respective federation funding agreement, we are at the early stages of getting national competition policy and standing that back up. Over the past number of years, the NCC was mainly responsible for the National Access Regime, and we are now in a phase of gearing up to be able to be more active in backing the National Competition Policy space.
Senator ROBERTS: The internationally used measure of concentration of market power is called CR4. It simply shows how much market share the top four companies have within a specific market. A high—above 60 per cent—CR4 suggests the market could be classified as an oligopoly with limited competition. In an oligopoly, profits are high because the entrants work together to rip off their consumers, who all lose. Can we agree a CR4 is too high in any industry?
Mr Bezzi: As I mentioned, our role is to promote competition. The Treasurer has identified that, in many areas of our economy, sectors are significantly concentrated and more concentrated than would be preferred. There are a number of reforms that the parliament and the government have engaged in in recent years that have sought to address this issue. One of them is the development of the National Competition Policy. Another is—and this is something that the Treasury worked closely with the ACCC on—the reformed merger control provisions. Those provisions were explicitly targeted at giving the ACCC the capacity to tackle market concentration in sectors where it had grown too strong. I hope that response assists you.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go on to some specific examples. An example of what goes wrong in an oligopoly is in our supermarket sector right now, where the ACCC has prosecuted Coles and Woolies for false and misleading advertising, increasing retail prices—which is inflation—and increasing corporate profits. These facts were proven by the court judgement against Coles. Does this mean the National Competition Council has failed to ensure free market competition in the supermarket sector, or are you just winding up to do that?
Mr Bezzi: We share responsibility for promoting competition with the ACCC. As you pointed out, the ACCC has done an excellent job prosecuting that particular case and has a mandate to enforce the competition law. That’s a very important task in concentrated markets like supermarkets. They’ve also been given specific power to deal with mergers in the supermarket context. Ms Cass-Gottlieb is probably best addressed to discuss how those powers are being used, but our mandate at the NCC is about promoting the National Competition Policy. Over time, we’re hoping that that will assist to create a more dynamic, more competitive economy.
Senator ROBERTS: In Australia, many sectors of the economy have a CR4 concentration of market power above 70 per cent, including banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance. These are industries which directly affect the cost of living for millions of everyday Australians. How did Australia get to this position, and when are you going to target these inflation-critical industries to restore free enterprise and competition and shift market power back to consumers?
Mr Bezzi: I’m not going to speak for the ACCC, but I can say that, over many years, the merger control provisions perhaps did not give the ACCC the capacity to deal with growing [inaudible] in the way that it should have been able to. That was certainly pointed out in the debate on merger reform, and I think that parliamentarians were convinced that that was the case. I’m not sure whether Ms Cass-Gottlieb wishes to comment further, but these things happen over a long period, and they’re largely a result of historical legislative and regulatory settings that enable developments such as concentrated markets to occur.
Senator ROBERTS: What options are available to you, and what are you considering?
Mr Bezzi: It’s not the role of the National Competition Council to engage in enforcement action. That’s the role of the ACCC, our responsibility—
Senator ROBERTS: What options can you give the ACCC?
Mr Bezzi: Well, they’ve got a range of options that they can speak to, including significant enforcement powers under the Competition and Consumer Act. They’ve also got significantly enhanced merger powers. That’s something that probably should be addressed to them.
Senator ROBERTS: Just checking, I thought you implied that we haven’t been doing our job in Australia in banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance and that you’re now looking at addressing that. What options can you address it with?
Mr Bezzi: Parliament has sought to address the concentration problem through the merger reform process.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any others?
Mr Bezzi: There’re stronger enforcement powers that the ACCC has in relation to misuse of market power. As I said, enforcement isn’t really territory for the National Competition Policy. We’re also looking at supporting the process of National Competition Policy. Where there are states and territories that have come together and agreed over packages for reform, we support those reforms by recommending to the government that payments be made to states and territories to incentivise that reform process. Those payments will be made from the $900 million productivity fund that the government has established, and over time that should help to make the economy more dynamic and more competitive. There are a range of things that are being done.
CHAIR: I need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I just ask two questions?
CHAIR: If they’re very quick.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Australian industries are more concentrated than in the US, with seven per cent of Australian industries having a CR of more than 80 per cent, as against one per cent of industries in the US. Revenue of Australia’s top 100 listed companies as percentage of GDP rose from 27 per cent in 1993 to 47 per cent in 2015, almost 50 per cent. The source of that is the ACCC. This is not a new trend; it’s been going on for years. Minister, your government, your department and your National Competition Council are responsible. Seriously, the Liberals are paid by their donors to look the other way. What’s your excuse? You’re concentrating the market.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t think you’ll find a government who’s done more than we have to address competition across the economy. Seriously, go back and have a look. Yes, there’s always more work to be done, but a combination of the reforms that have already passed the parliament, the powers that we’ve given to the ACCC and their ability to enforce the laws that the parliament has played is making a real difference.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware the four major retail banks have similar strategies, similar products, similar services? Their products are the same.
Senator Gallagher: I think those issues have been well understood and well canvassed.
Senator ROBERTS: They’ve each got a controlling interest in them by BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State. We haven’t really got four major banks; we’ve got one major bank hiding behind four logos. The banks have got far too much power.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, are you finished with your question?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you want to make a comment?
Senator Gallagher: My answer is that there is a continued focus in this area. We have assistant minister Dr Leigh working with the Treasurer in this area. There was a lot of effort going into it in our first time term, and it continues in this term.
During my second session with AHPRA, I asked their representatives about their neutrality, bureaucratic overreach and entanglement with radical ideological and political advocacy groups.
When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on whether AHPRA caseworkers even possess the basic competence to distinguish between a psychoanalytic view of psychosis and a genuine psychotic disorder, or whether they’re weaponising ignorance to take unwarranted action against doctors, he could not provide an answer and took it on notice.
More importantly, I am extremely concerned about AHPRA’s institutional alignment with politicised organisations such as ACON and its Pride in Diversity program, including their active membership and participation in the Australian Workplace Equality Index.
Despite admitting that no formal assessment has ever been conducted to evaluate whether these ideological partnerships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest, Mr Untersteiner hid behind procedural bureaucracy and evasive talking points.
When asked how AHPRA can possibly claim to be an independent, unbiased regulator while paying to participate in programs designed to push progressive inclusion agendas, they dodged my questions, basically admitting they have no defence for the exorbitant legal costs hardworking Australian doctors face when forced to defend themselves against unaccountable regulators.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to skip a lot of my questions, Mr Untersteiner, and go straight to general questions. Would an AHPRA caseworker understand if a doctor were referring to a psychoanalytic view of psychosis rather than a psychotic disorder?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If they don’t understand, are they in a position to take action against such a doctor?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Given Ahpra’s affiliation with the Rainbow Tick scheme and ACON, a high-profile gender identity organisation, how can a doctor be sure that AHPRA is neutral and not biased against them?
Mr Untersteiner: I go back to an earlier point that I made, which is that we regulate one million health practitioners, and those one million health practitioners will see many millions of Australians as well. We have a paramount responsibility of public protection within the legislation. In order for us to fulfil that duty, we need to be engaging with all sorts of communities to understand their experiences in the health system and to understand their experiences with the regulator as well, and so we meet with many different organisations, including Australian Disability Network, for instance, Diversity Council Australia and many, many others. I could go on. We also work with Pride in Diversity for the exact same reason.
Senator ROBERTS: Can AHPRA confirm all formal and informal relationships it maintains with ACON and its programs, including Pride in Diversity.
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is AHPRA currently a member of Pride in Diversity or participating in the Australian Workplace Equality Index?
Mr Untersteiner: We do have a membership with Pride in Diversity.
Senator ROBERTS: At what cost, and when did you join?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What due diligence was undertaken before entering into these relationships, particularly given ACON’s explicit advocacy role on gender identity policy?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest in its regulatory functions?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m confident that they aren’t creating any kind of conflict. Again, as I mentioned, we use a range of different partnerships and memberships to ensure that we’re hearing different voices from the community. At the end of the day, our regulatory role is founded in the legislation and in the codes of conduct. Again, I’m very comfortable that we fulfil that duty without a conflict of interest.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts?
Mr Untersteiner: No formal assessment.
Senator ROBERTS: How does AHPRA reconcile its statutory obligation to act as an independent regulator with participation in programs designed to influence institutional behaviour toward progressive inclusion strategies?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I think I’ve answered that.
Senator ROBERTS: Not specifically.
Mr Untersteiner: Again, we apply legislation and codes of conduct in our investigations. To go further, ultimate decisions are made by professional boards under the legislation. Members of the professional boards are not employees of AHPRA. They are statutory appointees appointed by every state and territory health minister and the federal health minister, so they are independent of AHPRA in that sense. Again, there is an arm’s-length arrangement in decision-making. Beyond that, there is a right of appeal through to tribunals and even the higher courts. Again, there is a very robust regulatory and legislative framework that ensures that there isn’t a conflict of interest that occurs as a result of us listening to different members of the community to understand their experiences.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what it costs to go to court?
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to have to rotate the call. This is your last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA received advice, internal or external, on whether alignment with advocacy organisations risks regulatory capture or bias?
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you Mr Untersteiner.
I questioned representatives from AHPRA regarding their heavy-handed and unjustified actions against Dr Amos, an academic psychiatrist from North Queensland.
On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia slapped immediate restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, banning him from patient contact and social media commentary on gender.
This move was triggered by just four complaints (three were anonymous and none were from patients) concerning three X posts — one questioning whether trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis and another using biological pronouns during an exchange.
When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on what specific parts of those posts allegedly posed a “serious risk to public health and safety” to justify an immediate action order, he hid behind confidentiality provisions and refused to discuss individual cases. Even with support from Senator Henderson challenging their secrecy, the agency repeatedly dodged direct questions.
When I asked Dr Orchard whether a health practitioner has the right to refer to biological sex, or if doing so constitutes discrimination, they hid behind vague codes of conduct and social media guidelines instead of giving a straight answer.
AHPRA claims they only intervene when debate crosses into hate or discrimination, yet they couldn’t provide a clear set of guidelines defining what they actually consider “misinformation.”
I questioned their process of issuing severe penalties before facts are even established or investigations conducted, ultimately destroying doctors’ careers over anonymous complaints and standard public commentary.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have Ahpra please? Thank you all for being here. Dr Amos is an academic psychiatrist based in North Queensland. His academic work includes numerous published journal articles and conference presentations on gender medicine. On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia placed restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, preventing him from having direct or indirect contact with patients and banning him from posting on social media on the topic of gender. This was in response to four complaints about three X posts. Three of the complaints were anonymous. It’s important to note that there was no patient complaint. He had posted that ‘there is no reliable evidence that trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis.’
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, given that it is almost 10.30 and we’ve had all of these questions from senator Henderson—
Senator ROBERTS: No, we haven’t had these questions.
ACTING CHAIR: I think you’re going to get a similar response.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had this topic but not this question. Another complaint was that, in a post exchange, Dr Amos used biological pronouns and thereby was accused of misgendering a UK trans activist. The immediate action order used by Ahpra against Dr Amos is meant to be reserved, as I understand it, for when there is a reasonable belief that a health practitioner poses a serious risk to public health and safety. What specific elements of those posts did the board determine posed a serious risk to public health and safety under the socalled national law?
Mr Untersteiner: As the chair has highlighted, I’ve answered this question numerous times. My response will remain. I can’t comment on individual cases, because we have very clear confidentiality provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Does a health practitioner have the right to refer—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just one moment. I hope it is a point of order, Senator Henderson, and not commentary.
Senator HENDERSON: No, of course not. This is just a point of order in relation to advice that I’ve just received through the secretariat. If the information is public, there’s no basis not to answer these questions. We’ve checked the advice with the chair. So I would just challenge—
ACTING CHAIR: You haven’t checked the advice with the chair.
Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, I meant with the secretary. Apologies. I’m just saying through the chair that I don’t think it’s appropriate that you decline to answer these questions. It’s not consistent with the rules of the Senate insofar as—
Mr Untersteiner: Sorry, to confirm—
ACTING CHAIR: I think this is an interpretation issue. The information that that you have is not necessarily the stuff that is printed in whatever publication it is that has been quoted. There is a big difference in reporting from wherever you got it and the agencies actually providing you with their detailed private information that is protecting other people’s privacy. But I’m happy for Mr Untersteiner to take that on notice and provide the rationale and the breakdown. Perhaps you, Senator Henderson, could provide the information that you were reading from previously in terms of your—
Senator HENDERSON: I’ve tabled that, Chair. That’s been tabled.
ACTING CHAIR: Right. I still haven’t seen it. Nobody’s given it to me, I’m afraid.
Senator HENDERSON: Please speak to the secretary. Please don’t—
Senator Roberts interjecting—
ACTING CHAIR: I’ll just finish. I believe you’ve been asking the Clerk about a public interest immunity claim, and we can go to that point at that time. But let’s just take it on notice and come back with the rationale and the understanding, and then Senator Henderson and Senator Roberts can go through that and determine what steps they might like to take next.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate Senator Henderson interjecting, but the ultimate umpire is the TV camera—the people watching this at home, the Australians. Does a health practitioner, Mr Untersteiner, have the right to refer to a trans person’s biological sex?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m struggling a little bit with that question in regard to our role as the regulator. I don’t know—
Senator ROBERTS: Is it discrimination for a health practitioner to refer to a person’s biological sex? Is it discrimination?
Dr Orchard: I understand your question to be: is there an issue with a practitioner making public reference to someone’s gender or sex?
Senator ROBERTS: To refer to a person’s biological sex.
Dr Orchard: Generally, in respect of public comments by practitioners, you’ve heard earlier the discussion around the right of free speech and the fact that Ahpra and the boards are committed to those ideals, but there are limits to free speech and how people express themselves—
Senator ROBERTS: So a doctor talking about biological sex is going against free speech?
Dr Orchard: What I was going to say is that the codes of conduct and the social media guides that are published by boards set out quite clearly the expectations of practitioners when they are making public comments. They should make comments that are respectful and that rely on the best available information and so on—
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.
Dr Orchard: I beg your pardon?
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, it’s not appropriate to get personal with the witnesses. Please have some respect.
Senator ROBERTS: How can a doctor fulfil their ethical obligation to inform the public of potential harms of gender interventions and gender ideology without being accused of discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people?
Mr Untersteiner: I’ve answered this question several times. As a regulator, we think health practitioners have a right to have public debate about a range of different issues, which include, again, gender-affirming treatment, gender blockers and other like treatments. We would not be taking regulatory action on that basis. Again, I think I’ve got to be very careful here about selective media and about using that as the basis.
Senator ROBERTS: What specifically would Ahpra consider to be misinformation in a post? If you can’t speak to that now, take it on notice.
Mr Untersteiner: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: How do Ahpra staff acquire the capacity to know what is true or false information in this highly contested area? How do you know?
Mr Untersteiner: We rely on the existing clinical guidelines, but we also will look at the specific facts of the case, the specific facts of what was said and what context that was said in. Again, I want to be clear here that we will intervene where this goes beyond a debate about clinical pathways and treatments and moves into a place of hate or discrimination against individuals or groups. Again, I see firsthand the harm that discrimination and hate cause the community. I see vulnerable people in all walks of life in this country who fear seeking help because individuals go beyond debating appropriate clinical pathways or advice and move into very clear discrimination.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me specifically, please, a set of guidelines of what would be deemed by Ahpra to be misinformation in a post.
Mr Untersteiner: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t think I can answer that question.
ACTING CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re breaking careers on it. The Medical Board of Australia’s immediate action orders are implemented before the facts are established and before an investigation occurs. Is it reasonable to destroy a doctor’s career for three social media posts without conducting an investigation—three anonymous complaints, no patient complaints?
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’re working on a limited basis there.
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’d just say I don’t agree with your characterisation there. There’s a lot more information that won’t be public and isn’t appropriate for me to talk about. I’ve got legal obligations that I must meet—
I questioned Commissioner Kiss, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission regarding her comments warning against right-wing parties following the One Nation win in Farrer. She said that she did not recall making any such statements. 🤔
Moving on, I directed my questioning toward the “Aboriginal industry,” raising concerns that allocated funds are being consumed by middlemen, bureaucrats and activists rather than reaching impoverished Indigenous Australians.
Following interventions from the Chair, I asked about crime statistics and accountability within communities.
I then pressed the issue with the Minister representing the Government on the effectiveness of their spending and closing the gap.
As for an acceptable answer- crickets 🦗🦗🦗
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Kiss. You recently made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties. Apparently that was after the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election. Is that correct?
Ms Kiss: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: After the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election, you made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties.
Ms Kiss: I don’t recall using that language at all. Can you clarify what you’re talking about?
Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s all I’ve got here. What benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would such a statement bring?
Ms Kiss: Again, I’m not clear what you’re referring to. So, if you could, give me some clarity around where I might have used that language. I don’t recall using that language.
Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t use it?
Ms Kiss: Not that I can recall.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What are your thoughts on the Aboriginal industry—that is, what’s referred to as the Aboriginal industry, the lawyers, the politicians, the public servants, the bureaucrats, the contractors, the academics and the activists living off the money allocated to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in poverty despite receiving welfare payments the same as other Australians in need? The money is being allocated, but it’s not getting to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts on that?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that sounds an awful lot like you’re asking the commissioner for an opinion. That’s not—
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have an opinion?
Ms Kiss: I do have an opinion, but it’s not my role to share my opinion.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that that’s happening?
Ms Kiss: I can speak to the fact that we know that there is a fair amount of financial allocation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services and supports. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of welfare support, but I do have concerns about the fact that funding that’s being allocated to our communities and to our organisations and to government agencies is not actually meeting the needs of our communities. That’s evident in the Closing the Gap targets.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’re agreed. Are you aware that often more than half the grant money is eaten up by salaries and other middleman costs before getting to the people the grant was supposed to assist?
Ms Kiss: The indication of that has been presented in Productivity Commission reports and Indigenous expenditure reports, so, yes, I am aware that there is consideration of that.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m struggling to see the connection between your questions and the role of Commissioner Kiss.
Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ll see it fairly soon.
CHAIR: Okay, I’m looking forward to that. That would be helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that most assaults upon Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia are committed by Aboriginal men?
Senator COX: No, they’re not.
Ms Kiss: I’m not sure that those statistics are necessarily accurate.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Why does nobody comment that the large proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal people are in jail because they committed crimes warranting a jail sentence from a magistrate or judge? That’s called social justice.
Ms Kiss: I can’t make comment on that, Senator. That’s not a question for me.
CHAIR: Again, it’s asking the commissioner for her opinion.
Ms Kiss: Senator, I don’t make the decisions about who goes to jail and how they’re sentenced. Sorry. Senator ROBERTS: Minister, when will this government learn that throwing money around is not the solution? These people are living in misery, in poverty, and throwing more money at them and throwing it to the activists and the parasites in between is not being effective. It’s quite clear. Social justice includes people accepting responsibility for their own actions and genuine help on the ground. What is your government going to do about closing the gap, because it’s widening now?
Senator Green: Thanks for the question, Senator. I reject the language in your question. Yesterday, in front of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the National Indigenous Australians Agency appeared and gave a lot of evidence about all of the work that we are doing to improve outcomes and close the gap. Our government is committed to that. The Prime Minister gave a statement to acknowledge the Closing the gap reports. We acknowledge that not enough is being done and more needs to be done, and that’s why we’ve made significant investments in the budget. I want to thank the commissioner for the work that she does in highlighting not just to governments around the country but to everyone in the country how important it is that we do close the gap, not just for the people who are living these lives right now but for future generations of Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Kiss. Could I have Dr Cody to the table again please? I want to read a statement from the Australian newspaper. It’s wrong, what we’ve learned today. It’s wrong, so I’m not accusing you of doing this, okay? I want to ask you a follow-up question. It says: Yet it is women from across the political spectrum who are appalled by her relentless campaign to erase sex-based rights. The problem is not you, is it? The problem is the Labor Party’s 2013 law—correct?
Dr Cody: The law is as it has been passed. My role is to advocate for gender equality, for the rights of women and also for the rights of the LGBTQI+ community within a human rights context.
Senator ROBERTS: So what I’ve picked up today is that the problem is the law, the law is an ass, yet many people perceive you as an activist. Does that tell you anything about the way you fulfil your role?
Dr Cody: I’m not sure what the question is, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. This is another quote from this article: The global pushback Cody is witnessing isn’t against women’s rights—it’s for them. Do you agree or disagree?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think this is again veering into the territory of asking for opinions. If you’ve got questions relating to Commissioner Cody’s role and her responsibilities, feel free to ask.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just finish with that. The global pushback isn’t against women’s rights; it’s for women’s rights and women’s safety. Thank you very much for appearing.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/amYe8G92ff4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 07:56:292026-08-20 07:56:36Bureaucracy, Grants and Closing the Gap
When you can’t get through the front door — go through New Zealand
The Albanese Government has turned New Zealand into a back door for Australian citizenship. Under Labor’s 2023 changes, anyone who gets NZ citizenship, even if they weren’t born there, can come to Australia on a 444 visa, stay indefinitely, and become an Australia citizen after four years without ever becoming a permanent resident or passing our points test.
When I pressed the department on how many people become permanent residents without passing the points test, they took the question on notice. The response is staggering.
Only 29% of permanent visas granted in 2025-26 to 31 March 2026, were points-tested. That means 71% of people gaining permanent residency, and eventually citizenship, never sat the points test at all.
Even New Zealand’s Foreign Minister has warned his country is being used as a stepping stone. Yet when I raised these concerns, the Minister tried to spin migration numbers to mislead Australians, ignoring the truth that Morrison raised immigration after COVID, and Albanese then drove it two records high, followed by a slight dip he now claims is a “cut”. He fails to mention the latest year is another record.
Australians deserve honesty. This government created a back-door pathway that undermines our citizenship standards and disrespects migrants who did the right thing, followed the rules, and passed the points test.
The Minister needs to stop playing games with the numbers and start serving the Australian people.
One Nation will immediately deny permanent residency and citizenship to anyone who fails the points test.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are about the citizenship back door between New Zealand and Australia. Changes made by the Albanese government in July 2023 allowed New Zealand citizens who have lived here for four years to become Australian citizens without having to first become permanent residents. Is that correct?
Mr Layton: Technically, that is correct. The 444 visa is categorised as a temporary visa. The 444 visa holders have, since that time, become eligible for citizenship.
Senator ROBERTS: And a New Zealand citizen can come here without a visa and automatically qualify for a subclass 444 visa—that’s correct?
Mr Layton: No, that’s not correct. The 444 visa is applied, upon arrival, to a New Zealander. So they obtain that when they arrive in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Basically that’s the same as a permanent visa? Mr Willard: It’s a temporary visa, the 444.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it effectively a permanent visa—they can stay?
Mr Willard: They can stay indefinitely, but it’s classified as a temporary visa.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know why that’s the case, but let’s leave that. They can stay indefinitely. They arrive and get a 444 visa to stay indefinitely. Then, after four years, they can get citizenship without getting a permanent visa—straight from subclass 444 to citizenship. Is that correct? Mr Layton: Technically, that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Then aren’t we really just relying on New Zealand having the same standards for citizenship as Australia?
Ms Foster: This was a government policy decision. We are responsible for giving effect to it.
Senator Watt: It’s worth recognising that many if not most of those New Zealand citizens who are gaining Australian citizenship have spent many years in Australia working and paying taxes.
Senator ROBERTS: I recognise that. I’ll go on. Do they in New Zealand, though—you may become a citizen in New Zealand if you’ve been there five years, can hold a conversation in English and are of good character proven with a police check. Summary offences don’t take away your good character. That’s the bar these people are using to become Australian citizens. Yes, some Kiwis are here for 20 years. It’s annoying that they don’t become citizens, but there are certain loopholes. There are certain benefits of not becoming citizens. I’m talking about people who use this as an easy entry. It is why New Zealand is now the No. 1 source of Australian citizens in the two-year period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025. Isn’t it an easy back door? Someone who’s come to New Zealand can come straight here.
Ms Foster: Again, I think you’re asking us for an opinion. We can give you facts about the system, but we can’t comment on assertions of that nature.
Senator ROBERTS: They can do that, can’t they? I’m not asking for your opinion. They can do that. Ms Foster: Technically, someone can, as the officers have said, come to Australia on a 444 visa, and, after four years, they can apply for citizenship.
Mr Sharp: They would have had to have met the time threshold in New Zealand to acquire New Zealand citizenship as well.
Senator ROBERTS: But that’s at a very low threshold, a low bar. In that period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025, 48 per cent of New Zealanders who are now Australian citizens were not born in New Zealand. They came into New Zealand from overseas. That’s a backdoor entry to Australian citizenship with a much lower bar because they had to meet the threshold for New Zealand, which is lower than Australian citizenship. That’s a much lower bar than people moving here directly and following the rules in Australia to citizenship, including passing what is called our 100-point test with at least a score of 65. This New Zealand back door is way easier than getting 65 on the 100-point test. For clarity, children don’t generally need to pass citizenship tests. Can you clarify that rule by age please. What’s the age threshold?
Mr Willard: It’s 18.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you understand the position that offering this pathway to people from foreign countries to come in through the back door in New Zealand without passing the points test is a slap in the face for those who have come here fairly, waited, worked, studied and done the right thing but can’t get citizenship because this government wrote in a backdoor way for no obvious reason? Can you understand that?
Ms Foster: We can’t comment on opinions of that nature.
Senator Watt: I have to say, I think it’s pretty insulting to a lot of New Zealand citizens who become Australian citizens to talk about them coming through a back door.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about people who come into New Zealand, meet the lower threshold in New Zealand and come here. That’s who I’m talking about, Senator Watt. I’m surprised you can’t work that out. If this was about working with our neighbour New Zealand, why wasn’t there a provision for the pathway to be open only to New Zealand-born people rather than a deliberately set up back door to let in people that couldn’t pass a points test? What was the reason for that?
Mr Layton: The policy and the parameters around that are a matter for government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister?
Senator Watt: I’m trying to remember the reason the government made that change in our first term. My recollection is that it was partly in recognition that, because of a change that had been made by the Howard government, there was a very large number of New Zealand citizens who had lived in Australia and worked, paid taxes and contributed to the community in a range of ways but, despite having lived here for such a very long time, were unable to get Australian citizenship, because of rules the Howard government imposed. That, in our view, was not fair. I remember that being at least one of the motivations for changing the policy.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no problem with that. What I’m talking about is people who come to New Zealand, quickly meet the lower threshold for citizenship there and come here and automatically get citizenship.
Senator Watt: I’m not sure that people who, as you say, move to New Zealand and then move to Australia are necessarily of ‘low standard’. That’s what you’re implying in your question.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would also suggest that the New Zealand citizenship process is not a matter for Home Affairs.
Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s about using that threshold for people who are new to New Zealand. How many citizenships have been awarded to people who haven’t passed the points test under any circumstances?
Mr Layton: Sorry, the points test?
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian citizenship points test.
Ms Sharp: The points test is one way somebody can gain a permanent residency in Australia, but not every person who gains permanent residency in Australia comes in as a points tested migrant.
Senator ROBERTS: How many do?
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: They fall in love with someone!
Senator ROBERTS: How many come in without passing the points test?
Mr Willard: I would have to take that on notice. I would note that there are also employer sponsored migrants. There are many different types of permanent residents.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. According to an article: It has also prompted New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters to flag concerns his country is being used as a stepping stone by migrants wanting to come to Australia, and that the trend will further accelerate under an easing of its own migration rules which will grant residency in just 18 months for some workers. Those numbers, combined with the recent rise in New Zealanders moving to Australia, have raised doubts about Australia’s ability to meet a planned slowdown in migration— He doubts whether you’re going to slow down— as well as concerns it is robbing New Zealand of both its professional and low-skilled workforce.
Senator Watt: For starters, migration numbers in Australia have significantly fallen over the last couple of years.
Senator ROBERTS: Compared to when? What’s the baseline?
Senator Watt: Compared to the surge that we saw after COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: You mean the surge in 2023-24?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please let the minister finish.
Senator Watt: Yes. That was the surge that happened after COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: Your surge, where you went from 500,000 to 750,000.
Senator Watt: No, the surge that followed COVID.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have been very orderly throughout today, and you are usually pretty good at not interjecting. I would ask that you maintain that order and allow the minister to respond, please.
Senator Watt: Here are a couple of other facts about this situation. I think we’ve already heard that the process that now applies still requires someone who has moved to New Zealand and gained New Zealand citizenship to have that for five years—so they spend five years in New Zealand and then four years in Australia. If you want to characterise that as a back door, that’s a pretty slow back door. Second, you’ve been asking questions about the points test. Any person who wants to get Australian citizenship still needs to meet the character and identification requirements and pass the security tests as well. As I said earlier, I think it’s a bit insulting to be suggesting these people are running through a back door and are of low standard. That’s what you’re suggesting.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: There’s a bloody long garden path leading to that back door.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve worked and lived in New Zealand, turning around a business there for 12 months. They’re wonderful people. But Winston Peters is concerned that their immigration system is being used for quick entry into New Zealand to go to Australia.
Senator Watt: That’s a question for New Zealand to address.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s also a question for Australia to address, and that’s what I’m doing on behalf of the taxpayers. Minister, I agree with you on one point: mass immigration was started by John Howard’s government. It was pretty much doubled since then in Scott Morrison’s government, and then you tripled it in the early days of 2023-24. Senator Watt: What’s NOM stand for?
Ms Foster: Net overseas migration.
Senator Watt: Actually, net overseas migration has fallen by 45 per cent over the last 12 or 18 months. I can get you the exact timeframe.
Senator ROBERTS: You had two very high years, a low year and now a very high year again.
Senator Watt: Yes, after COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re playing with numbers.
Senator Watt: It’s another one of those ones. We’re never going to convince you.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, have you got a question?
Senator ROBERTS: I go by the data.
Senator Watt: During COVID, migration crashed. After COVID—
Senator ROBERTS: Correct.
Senator Watt: lots of people came home. Migration rose. We have now reduced NOM by about 45 per cent by—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s misleading, Minister, because—
Senator Watt: No; it’s actually called facts.
Senator ROBERTS: it increased dramatically under Morrison to re-establish what he thought were the right numbers of migration. Then you almost doubled it, then you decreased it slightly, and now you’re doubling it again.
Senator Watt: So we should have told all those Australians who wanted to come home after COVID that they weren’t allowed home?
Senator ROBERTS: No, not at all. I’m talking about immigrant—
CHAIR: Can I interject for a second here—
Senator ROBERTS: Mass immigration—mass immigration.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am not hearing any questions from you. Can I take it you have finished this line of questions?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/oXxezrA2pN8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-13 16:03:442026-08-13 16:03:4671% Visas Granted Without Points Test
These questions are directed at the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) where I wanted to get clear answers on the scale of misconduct within our vocational education and training (VET) sector, and to find out exactly what is being done to shut down rogue Registered Training Organisations (RTOs).
As of late 2025, ASQA had cancelled 16 critically non-compliant providers, issued notices of intent to cancel credentials to over 36,600 individuals, and ultimately stripped more than 30,000 people of improperly issued qualifications.
My primary focus remains on criminal accountability for blatant scams, such as RTOs selling qualifications for cash. To ensure these operators face justice, ASQA is actively sharing intelligence with the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, including the ATO, ASIC, and the ACIC, and passing critical financial details to law enforcement.
We must ensure these rogue operators cannot simply close up shop and re-enter the market under a different name.
At the same time, any student caught purchasing fake credentials must be deported.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Good evening. My question is pretty brief. I understand that, by the end of 2025, ASQA deregistered 11 critically non-compliant registered training organisations and 31,000 qualifications they had issued, affecting 25,000 people. Is this accurate? Is it the latest data?
Ms Rice: The latest data is that, as at 31 December 2025, we have cancelled 16 critically non-compliant providers. We have issued notices of intent to cancel qualifications and/or statements of attainment to more than 36,600 individuals. Of that figure, we have cancelled the qualifications and/or statements of attainment of just over 30,000 individuals.
Senator ROBERTS: Thirty thousand people. How many qualifications? Roughly 37,000?
Ms Rice: Sorry, no. It is 36,600. We’ve issued a notice of intent to individuals.
Senator ROBERTS: That is in addition to the 30,000 you’ve cancelled?
Ms Rice: No, sorry. It is a subset. It is 36,600. Of that 36,600, just over 30,000 we have actually cancelled. That is as at 31 December 2025.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your enforcement team investigated 189 serious matters involving 154 providers with 74 per cent relating to serious fraud. Wouldn’t they all be committing fraud? They are handing over a certificate that they knew was improperly issued and kept the money the student paid for the tuition. Shouldn’t they all have been charged with fraud?
Ms Rice: Those are investigations on foot. The current data in relation to that is we have, I believe, 201 serious matters currently under investigation relating to 136 providers. The difference in there is because we also have serious matters under investigation in relation to non-RTOs or individuals or joint investigations with other partner agencies or law enforcement. I guess it is pre-emptive. We certainly have concerns about fraud in relation to all of those matters, but they are all at various stages of investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t categorise them yet?
Ms Rice: No. That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: So I’m on the right track. I can see the cancellations in the CRICOS panel.
Ms Rice: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Where are the charges for fraud on the owners, managers and administrators of these companies?
Ms Rice: That’s a good question, Senator. We have undertaken a number of civil and criminal prosecutions or worked certainly with the CDPP. We don’t bring those matters ourselves.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t run them yourselves?
Ms Rice: No. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions does. We provide a brief around some of those matters. In many of these cases, we have certainly made adverse findings from a fit and proper person perspective as part of the investigations. That is certainly relevant in order to, again, work with other partner agencies on the implications of that. It is also important in terms of preventing their re-entry into the VET sector. But it remains an ongoing program of work in relation to the individuals associated with this work.
Senator ROBERTS: Once it is completed, the names will come out?
Ms Rice: Typically, there will be names associated with the cancellation decisions that we’ve—
Senator ROBERTS: I mean the officers of companies—administrators, managers—will be exposed?
Ms Rice: That’s right. We work closely with ASIC and other regulators from that perspective, including the ATO.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Some of the RTOs were running obvious scams. One sold the qualifications for cash. How many others were dealing in cash? Was any of this reported to the ATO for tax fraud?
Ms Rice: Certainly in all of the matters we have dealt with in this space, we have shared our intelligence and information with our Fraud Fusion partners, which includes the tax office.
Senator ROBERTS: What partners did you call them?
Ms Rice: The Fraud Fusion Taskforce partners.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What is to stop these people opening up another RTO ad running the same thing but this time different, having learned how not to get caught?
Ms Rice: Well, Senator, we are certainly very alert to the risk of individuals re-entering the market. That is where we have been particularly focused on including the reforms to the fit and proper person requirements so that we can be alert to individuals as much as entities seeking—
Senator ROBERTS: Do you track individuals?
Ms Rice: Yes, we do. We’ve also been uplifting our focus of assessment on market entrants. It remains a significant area of focus for us. We’re also alert to it, though, as I mentioned earlier, in relation to the change of ownership of RTOs.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Did you seize any money from the fraudulent RTOs as proceeds of crime?
Ms Rice: No, Senator. That would be for law enforcement.
Senator ROBERTS: That is what I expected. Did you report it to the police?
Ms Rice: Again, I guess we have certainly informed our Fraud Fusion partners about—
Senator ROBERTS: Who are they?
Ms Rice: There’s 22, I think, Fraud Fusion partners. It certainly includes the ATO, ASIC, the ACIC, NDIA and our portfolio department in DEWR. I can certainly provide you with the—
Senator ROBERTS: So basically, other government departments?
Ms Rice: That’s right. I can certainly provide you on notice with the list of members and the terms of reference for the taskforce.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Why not the police? That would put these criminals behind bars.
Ms Rice: Well, certainly in some cases, Senator, we’ve worked with state law enforcement in relation to some of those matters. If it would assist, Senator, I’m happy to come back to you on notice with some more of the specifics from that perspective.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question. Has the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 that was passed last year made it easier to deal with rogue RTOs, or is it too early to tell?
Ms Rice: It’s a good question, Senator. I think it is part of a suite of integrity measures. Together with the other measures, it has certainly helped to ensure greater alignment between the two pieces of legislation that we deal with the most in the ESOS Act and the NVR Act. It has certainly ensured consistency between those two acts from an integrity perspective. So we’re working through the implementation of that and certainly supportive of those changes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Chair, I want to put it on the record that for the second time today I’m going to compliment someone for the answers they’ve put—prompt, clear and concise. Thank you so much.
During my questioning of Australian Institute of Family Studies Director Ms Neville, I asked about the agency’s funding, definitions of family, and research focus.
The AIFS operates on an annual budget of approximately $23 million, consisting of a $4.7 million departmental appropriation and around $18 million in government-commissioned revenue.
I questioned Ms Neville on whether broadening the definition of “family” to include diverse structures, single parents and kin risks making the term meaningless. I also asked whether the institute’s remit has evolved since its establishment under the Family Law Act 1975.
I raised several concerns regarding the agency’s reporting on relationship dynamics and domestic duties, referencing Australian and international statistics on work hours, commutes, and divorce rates among different coupling types.
I’m not sure if this agency has left me confident they are genuine in providing data for Australian families. What I am sure of is that One Nation believes in promoting traditional family units rather than narratives of victimhood.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Neville. The name of your agency is the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Could you please define ‘family’.
Ms Neville: Families have been taken to include many diverse forms in contemporary Australia. It may include married, cohabiting and de facto relationships, but it might also include blended families, stepfamilies, same-sex families, families with disability and other families representing a range of different population groups.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s clear. Your income is composed partly of government allocations and partly income from commissioned research. Could you please provide your total budget, how much is allocation and how much is earned income?
Ms Neville: AIFS receives a departmental appropriation of around $4.7 million per annum and in the order of about $18 million in commissioned revenue.
Senator ROBERTS: So the total budget is about $23 million?
Ms Neville: The commissioned revenue amount varies from year to year.
Senator ROBERTS: But this year it’ll be $23 million?
Ms Neville: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: What percentage of earned income is on behalf of a client who’s also in government or government funded?
Ms Neville: All of our commissioned revenue is for government clients.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your agency was created in 1980 under a provision of the Family Law Act 1975, section 114B, which sets the functions of the director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies as: … to promote, by the conduct, encouragement and co—ordination of research and other appropriate means, the identification of, and development of understanding of, the factors affecting marital and family stability in Australia, with the object of promoting the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit in society … Do you believe the work you do is in keeping with the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit in society?
Ms Neville: I would take the view that AIFS is concerned with the family as the fundamental unit in society and that we take great care to explore factors that support family wellbeing, as well as the relations between families and societal institutions. Our remit has continued to evolve since we were established under an amendment to the Family Law Act in 1980.
Senator ROBERTS: In what way has your remit continued to evolve? Is it by legislation changes or society or—
Ms Neville: Primarily by virtue of being commissioned by government departments to perform research and evaluation that is broadly in line with our remit.
Senator ROBERTS: So other departments and agencies from the government have shaped what you’re doing?
Ms Neville: Where it aligns to our purpose and our function, yes, that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: However, you’ve redrawn the meaning of ‘family’ to include any blood relative—’kin’, I think, is your word—divorced families and care by others. Your definition of ‘family’ is, in short, anything comprising two or more people, who don’t even need to live together. Are you making the word ‘family’ meaningless?
Ms Neville: I don’t accept that characterisation, no.
Senator ROBERTS: I take it that you’re saying no. The explanatory memorandum to the Family Law Act provides further context in stating the reason for your agency was to provide eyes on the quite substantial changes made to the Family Law Act to assess the impact of it on families. That was a big concern because it was introduced in 1975, I believe, by the Whitlam government—Attorney-General Lionel Murphy. So this would have been soon after. The fundamental assumption in your enabling legislation is that divorce may be the enemy of family. Does the Australian Institute of Family Studies consider divorce as having a negative impact on family? Feel free to define or interpret ‘impact’ as you choose.
Ms Neville: The then government’s decision to introduce no-fault divorce had a very significant impact in terms of responding to latent demand for divorce. There was a huge spike in the number of applications for divorce in moving from the previous state based arrangements to the establishment of the family law system at a federal level. So there was a significant change that occurred, which was the government’s decision, and AIFS was established to monitor the changes to families in the wake of that significant decision. We have continued to monitor those trends, including the diverse forms of family that we now find in Australian society.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that perceptive observation about no-fault divorce. You mentioned the words ‘significant changes’, so I’m just clarifying; I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Are you saying divorce doesn’t affect families because a single mum and a child are still a family and the single dad by himself, who was formerly in the married family, is still family, even if he doesn’t live with his with his family or children? Is that correct?
Ms Neville: Single-parent families are a form of family, most certainly.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I charted the evolving reasons the Australian Institute of Family Studies has provided for rising divorce rates. Your 1999 research report titled ‘Towards understanding the reasons for divorce’ talked about rising divorce rates linked to social changes such as greater female economic independence, shifting expectations of marriage from duty to personal fulfilment, and declining stigma around divorce. By 2012, which was just 13 years later, the explanation had moved to separation dynamics, including family violence, conflict and relationship quality. Have I missed a clear statement from you on the causes of divorce since this 2012 statement? If I have, what was it, please? Has there been a newer statement than 2012?
Ms Neville: Senator, are you referring to AIFS research in 2012? It’s not clear to me what you’re referring to there.
Senator ROBERTS: The evolving reasons the Australian Institute of Family Studies has provided for rising divorce rates. Have you made any changes or additions since 2012 report?
Ms Neville: We produce facts and figures resources that draw from ABS and census data that provide roughly annual updates on patterns of divorce and separation. So, yes, we continue to monitor those trends.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Neville. That’s your core mandate. Your report titled ‘Couple relationships in Australia today’, dated March 2026, mentioned marriage rates and duties or responsibilities but not divorce. I noted it included the mandatory inclusion of overseas data showing men don’t do enough housework. Why didn’t you use Australian data, including your own HILDA data, which shows the difference is explained by fathers commuting much longer and working longer hours out of home than mothers where both are working full time? Why don’t you put balance into these anti-father digs sprinkled through your work?
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I wonder if we could maybe rephrase some of the questioning. Ms Neville is trying to answer your questions, but there’s an awful lot of emotive language in there.
Ms Neville‘s here to answer questions about the work of the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re not using Australian data with a clear explanation and instead are preferring overseas data. Is that putting balance into your work?
Ms Neville: Senator, I’m not sure what data you’re referring to.
ACTING CHAIR: Maybe you could give us a reference, Senator Roberts, to one of the reports.
Senator ROBERTS: I can’t. I’m sorry. I’ve got this much stuff—
ACTING CHAIR: It’s very difficult for the witness to respond to—
Senator ROBERTS: Hang on, here it is.
ACTING CHAIR: assertions as opposed to data.
Senator ROBERTS: I have it here. The University of Melbourne published a study in 2024 which said that mothers working full time do 1.5 hours a week of extra housework above fathers working full time. One and a half hours is less than the extra hours a man works or commutes to support his family. There’s no substance to the housework female victimhood argument that the AIFS promotes.
ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, you’re asking the witness to respond to somebody else’s report that she may or may not have read and certainly is unlikely to have in front of her.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, if you’re comfortable responding to it, do so. If not, don’t worry about it.
Ms Neville: I was just going to say I can’t comment on research produced by the University of Melbourne, Senator. I’m not familiar with it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
CHAIR, do you have the graphs that I sent around?
ACTING CHAIR: Yes. You are at the point where I’m going to need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m almost done.
ACTING CHAIR: Alright. The graph has been circulated.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s drill down on the graph. This is USA data.
ACTING CHAIR: Again, we’re in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-first state!
ACTING CHAIR: No, Senator Roberts, we most certainly are not.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. This USA data, which you also use, shows the different divorce rates by type of coupling. This shows lesbian couples have a 20-year divorce rate of 59.1 per cent, as against male-female marriages, at 39.3 per cent, and gay male marriages, at 29.3 per cent. These are significant differences that must have a reason, which you would have come across during the AIFS’s 45 years of study of families. Can you explain the difference, please.
ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, I’m going to tell you that you have provided some American data to Ms Neville, and we’re here to talk about the Australian Institute of Family Studies in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you cover this topic?
Ms Neville: I have not seen this graph before.
Senator ROBERTS: No, forget the graph for a minute. Do you cover this topic?
Senator Ayres: I do think, Senator, that it’s utterly legitimate to ask the witness questions about reports that the institute has prepared and issued, evidence that they have collected or relied upon and the way that they allocate their funds, but I think it is hard to ask for an opinion from a witness about a graph that’s been prepared by somebody else and that they haven’t seen before.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I can appreciate that view, Minister. Eighty per cent of the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ income comes from earned income and commissioned studies, four times as much as our budget allocations. I was just wondering if Ms Neville can talk about the research in Australia, if you’ve done any research in Australia on this topic.
Ms Neville: I personally haven’t undertaken research on this topic, Senator. I am happy to refer you to our facts and figures publications, which do produce trend data about changes in patterns of separation, divorce and marriage.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, section—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am going to have to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question.
ACTING CHAIR: Last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, section 114C of the Family Law Act provides you with the powers of direction to undertake specific activities within these functions and set priorities for them. Have you provided the Australian Institute of Family Studies with any directions regarding the operation of their functions?
Senator Ayres: That would be a novel power for the minister for industry to have.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I mean the minister you represent.
Senator Ayres: I have certainly not provided any of that kind of direction. It’s very unlikely that—
Senator ROBERTS: Has the minister provided it?
Senator Ayres: Given some of the questions that you’ve asked about the differential role of people pulling their weight at home, I reckon you’re on your own there, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: One Nation thinks it’s time to promote families, not victimhood.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/zTMdpIVK7X8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-07 16:03:092026-08-07 16:03:13Redefining “Family”: Is the Meaning Being Lost?
