One Nation vs. The ABC

This is my exchange with ABC representatives and Minister Green regarding bias, accuracy, and fairness.

I raised a podcast appearance by the ABC Chair where he criticised One Nation’s approach to choosing which journalists and media outlets we engage with, labelling it “undemocratic” and a “dark and dangerous place,” noting that this pejorative phrasing has uniquely targeted my party.

I pointed out that politicians across all parties routinely give interviews to trusted journalists and use written statements or text messages for others, to prevent their words from being manipulated. I questioned why One Nation exercising this standard discretion is treated as uniquely improper.

I confronted officials over biased and insulting commentary from prominent ABC commentators such as Patricia Karvelas implying One Nation is an “illegitimate” political force and guest panellist Niki Savva labelling our party as fundamentally “racist and bigoted” – without any pushback from the taxpayer funded network.

The mainstream media is increasingly being seen by the public as partisan mouthpieces. Why should taxpayers continue to fund a $1.3 billion public broadcaster in an era of abundant independent digital media?

A One Nation government will strip the ABC of public taxpayer funding for its broader operations, pushing it into a subscription-only or commercially funded broadcaster where it’s supported only by those who choose to watch or use it. This does not include regional and rural areas, as local and regional radio provides an essential service to people in these locations.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is a slightly long question, although it is important to be accurate as the public’s perception of ABC independence or bias is central to your role as a public broadcaster. Mr Williams, the Chair, on the Poll Position podcast around 23 May this year was asked about an incident when ABC employees were removed from a press conference in the Farrer electorate and a separate incident in South Australia where a staff member continued to shout questions at Senator Hanson after the press conference was over. Your reporter was asked to shut up, for which the party apologised and the staffer involved apologised. The interviewer’s question to Mr Williams included the statement that One Nation were picking and choosing who we let attend our press conferences, calling it pretty undemocratic. Mr Williams’s response was: Well, I would endorse that view—that it’s undemocratic— I think if you’re going to choose who you talk to and who you don’t talk to, you’re in a dark and dangerous place in democracy. And I think politicians are accountable to the people and they don’t get to pick who’s going to question them. Mr Marks, can we agree that this is an accurate summary so we can move on to the questions? 

Mr Marks: I think you referenced a journalist who was told to shut up. I’m not aware that was our journalist.  

Senator ROBERTS: No.  

Mr Marks: Sorry, I thought you said it was an ABC journalist.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I thought. Sorry.  

Mr Marks: No, it wasn’t an ABC journalist. I’m sorry; it was my understanding.  

Mr Fang: I don’t believe it was either.  

Senator ROBERTS: My apologies for that mistake, but I’m getting to the key question, which is Mr Williams’s response.  

Mr Marks: I think Mr Williams’s response refers to the importance in a democratic society of informing the audience. The audience must come first. In doing so it’s important that all parties of prominence and otherwise as well—people who have an impact in our political system—are able to bring views, opinions and statements from those parties to the public. We operate on the basis that the public must come first. To the extent that our people who turn up to do the job are deprived of their ability to inform the public, I think that can be a problem. That’s something that we need to keep investing in, the importance of making sure that the public are informed about everything that has to do with what happens in this place.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your budget is around $1.3 billion. What’s the exact number?

Mr Marks: Here’s an answer for Ms Kleyn.  

Ms Kleyn: Yes, that’s correct. The exact number in FY26 is $1.229 billion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Value and accuracy—you left out the word ‘accurate’ public interactions?  

Mr Marks: Sorry. Accuracy comes first. Accuracy goes to impartiality. Accuracy is the most important standard that we operate by.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re agreed—good. My questions go to value, accuracy and compliance with the ABC Charter. Every day in this place politicians give interviews to journalists they trust and emailed press statements or text messages to those they don’t trust to prevent their words being manipulated. Isn’t it true that One Nation’s actions are about lack of trust in the quality, accuracy and motivation of ABC reporting, a discretion we’re entitled to exercise and is exercised every day in this place by all parties?  

Mr Marks: I won’t comment as to the motivations behind any One Nation action. That’s obviously a matter for you and your colleagues.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can tell you we think we’re getting reported in a very biased way.  

Mr Marks: We have an obligation, as you say, to report matters accurately and we have an obligation to report matters impartially. If anyone has a concern about our performance on those metrics, we are more than happy to have a conversation about that. In fact, I am endeavouring to do that, without much success, at the moment. That also comes with the expectation that policies, people et cetera should be subject to scrutiny. That is the journalistic process. Yes, we have to report accurately and we have to impartially, but also the notion that people should be subject to scrutiny and questions when performing all of the functions that happen in this place, I think, is a really important principle that goes along with that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would agree. Minister, isn’t it true that in this place parties give interviews to journalists they trust and send written statements to journalists they don’t trust?  

Senator Green 

: It’s not really a question for ABC estimates, but I’ll answer it for you to assist you. Members of both parties of government give interviews to a range of news outlets and they invite a range of news outlets to their press conferences because that public scrutiny is important, particularly if you are promoting yourself as a party that not only has policies that could be formed in government. What we are now seeing is that your party has a primary vote that means you may now be the new opposition. It’s important that every member of parliament is scrutinised by news outlets, whoever they may be. I’m not going to pass a judgement on which news outlets are more trusted or least trusted. I think the judgement of Australians is that, when you turn up to this place and you’re asked a question, you should answer it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the judgement from Mr Williams when he said that, if you’re going to choose who you talk to, you’re in a dark and dangerous place?  

Senator Green: I’m not going to comment for the Chair. I think that’s a question for Mr Marks.  

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t the fact, Mr Marks—  

Senator Green: Are you in a dark and dangerous place?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not.  

Senator Green: There we go.  

Mr Marks: I think the answer to that question is what I referred to earlier, which is that it is very important that we perform our role accurately and impartially, but with due inquiry, due inquisition and due curiosity in everybody who operates in this environment to ensure that we are informing the public of the things that are important to them and relevant to them and the things that are of interest to them. I have no doubt at the moment with the way that the political landscape is forming that things that are happening within your party are of interest to Australians, and it is important as the ABC that we’re able to inform them, and it’s important that we’re able to engage with your party on the basis that we’re able to serve the public. I think that’s a very important function for us to fulfil.  

Senator ROBERTS: The public want fair engagement and impartial engagement. Doesn’t the fact that Mr Williams highlighted us doing that, in terms of responding verbally to interviewers we trust and responding in text messages to interviewers we don’t, without mentioning that other parties do that as well show that he is biased against One Nation? He tried to say we are the only ones doing it; that’s the clear implication of that leading to a dark place for democracy.  

Mr Marks: You’re referring to a podcast that I haven’t seen, so it’s difficult for me. I can only talk about the quotes that you’ve referenced and the quotes I’ve seen in the press, and I can’t talk to Mr Williams’s motivations in that particular podcast. All we can talk to is facts, and the facts are the ABC currently is the most trusted media organisation in the country, according to the public. We have strong editorial principles and practices that are very important that we operate; I agree with you on that. We have the most robust complaints handling process that’s available in the media in this market that’s available to people who view they’re not being treated fairly in that process. We can always do better; there is no doubt about that, and that is our constant aim. The principle of informing the public and being very vigilant in doing that is the most important principle we abide by. I think not being able to engage fully with all political parties in that process inhibits our ability to do that effectively and I think that is a problem.  

Senator ROBERTS: Again you missed the word ‘accurate’—to inform people accurately. A search of Mr Williams’s media statements shows he has not used the phrase ‘dark and dangerous place’ in previous media comments around any other party, just One Nation. How is using a pejorative like that in keeping with your need to maintain a perception of independence and accuracy?  

Mr Marks: Again, I can’t comment on Mr Williams’s motivations. I know he is a passionate advocate of democracy and I know he’s a passionate advocate of informed democracy. I know he’s a passionate advocate for accuracy and impartiality. Maybe he gets some of the words wrong, but they are his motivations, which I think we’re all agreed with in this place. Did he get every word right? It doesn’t sound to me necessarily based on your assessment; because I haven’t seen the podcast or listened to the podcasting questions, it’s hard for me to comment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to a topic you raised a minute ago, policies. Mr Williams said in the podcast: Perhaps their concern is because they are such a policy-free zone, but I say that objectively, not in any spirit of partisanship. One Nation has statements. It doesn’t have policies. However, our website has many more policy statements than the Liberal or Labor parties. Some of our policies have been copied by both the Liberal and Labor parties and by other parties. In the last election we used fully costed policies and are releasing even more detailed policies at the moment. Why is Mr Williams perpetuating an internet falsity to denigrate One Nation?  

Mr Marks: Again, Mr Williams is the Chair of the organisation. I am the editor-in-chief. There is separation of powers between the board and Mr Williams, who represents the board as Chair, and me as editor-in-chief. They were comments made by Mr Williams. They don’t reflect the views of the ABC. As you say, it is important that the policies of One Nation are subject to the same interrogation as every party’s policy and they should be treated equally, accurately and impartially.  

Senator ROBERTS: We welcome that. We love it. Our gas policy is getting plaudits everywhere. That’s fantastic. Patricia Karvelas allowed her strong bias against One Nation to show through in the Farrer election program. She stated: It was actually people like Ron Boswell … who campaigned to put One Nation last … you’ve got the most conservative people who believed it was a big and dangerous mistake to legitimise One Nation and to embolden One Nation. She also stated: Here we’ve had … Angus Taylor make a deliberate decision to preference One Nation above the independent, which tonight could really be one of the reasons they get across the line and that will legitimise them. Patricia Karvelas also stated: I used the term earlier on … the permission structure—if they are able to win their first lower house seat, that begins the process of legitimising them. She’s clearly implying that we’re illegitimate. How is this acceptable commentary? It’s clear bias and it’s insulting and denigrating and it’s hurting the ABC and that $1.3 billion that the taxpayers are investing in your corporation. 

Mr Marks: I’m going to disagree with you in relation to that particular broadcast, which I’ve gone back and watched a few times. If you watch that broadcast in its entirety, Patricia Karvelas also makes a number of other comments. She says that there’s no better poll than an election. She says that this is the result of 30 years of work by Senator Hanson to lift the party at this stage. She says that this is a major political shift. She says that this is a major win for One Nation. In the comments that you’re referring to, which are a selected part of that whole broadcast, she’s referring to comments that were made by Senator Boswell—I’m not sure in what era or what time—that refers to the politics. Remember Ms Karvelas is a political analyst. That refers to the political decision to preference one party over another and what the outcomes of that might be. If you listen to the broadcast as a whole, I think you can be in no doubt that broadcast was accurate; it was impartial. We would stand by Ms Karvelas’s comments when taken as a whole across the broadcast. Do you want to add anything that I might have missed in that?

Mr Fang: No, I think you captured it. Senator, you read out some more of Patricia Karvelas’s analysis that has been quoted in some other places, including the reference to Senator Boswell. I think Patricia Karvelas was making reference to previous politics around One Nation and around the Liberal and National parties’ approach to One Nation in the past, and that was contextualised across the coverage.  

Senator ROBERTS: Anyway, we can all celebrate Senator Whitten, because the ABC has now given us the blessing of legitimacy. The next day on the Insiders program—  

Senator Green: I think Angus Taylor did that. Maybe the people of Farrer did that.  

Senator ROBERTS: The next day on the Insiders program regular panellist Niki Savva made the statement that the ‘Liberal Party, in preferencing One Nation, was aligning with a party which, at its core, is racist and bigoted’. When comments like this are not corrected—they’re not factual, they’re dishonest—when your staff are not told to keep commentary to factual matters, how can you whinge about us not empowering you to take another swing? This isn’t journalism. The ABC is creating a dark space through political advocacy.  

Mr Marks: I’ll ask Mr Fang to respond to that particular instance.  

Mr Fang: You’re referring to comments made by Niki Savva on the Insiders program. She’s not an ABC staff member. Insiders is a panel show where various journalists—  

Senator ROBERTS: She is being legitimised by being your guest.  

Mr Fang: are brought on to express their opinion. It’s pretty clear to the audience that was her opinion and not the opinion of the ABC.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to have to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question. A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a retired person who had been a miner in the Pilbara in the 1980s. He said back in the eighties all they had in terms of entertainment broadcasting was ABC Radio and ABC TV. He says nowadays we can go anywhere in the world, get podcasters, get independent news sources, private, government—a huge range. So, why do we need the ABC?  

Mr Marks: It’s a really good question and it’s a question that we occupy ourselves with constantly, looking at that changed competitive environment.  

Senator ROBERTS: We can give you some help with policies if you like.  

Mr Marks: I don’t think we’re here for policy. I think we’re here to create an organisation that should be the universal source of accuracy, that should be the place of due impartiality, because a lot of the context that you refer to is actually an increasingly divisive and more perspective driven media environment. Our role in that environment has to be—and this is why it’s so important that we meet our editorial standards—that we are the place that should be the source of truth, the place where people know, even though they’ve heard a lot, they say, ‘I’m going to go to the ABC and see what they have to say about those facts.’ That’s No. 1 when it comes to news and current affairs. No. 2, why do we need the ABC? When it comes to children’s programming, nobody else in the country or in the globe is servicing Australian children other than the ABC. When it comes to emergency broadcasting, the ABC carries unique responsibilities for ensuring the dissemination of information about emergency matters both through the ABC and through other third-party channels in relation to issues of national importance. When it comes to telling Australian stories, whether that be comedy, whether that be documentary, whether that be adult drama, whether that be entertainment shows, increasingly it is the ABC that is becoming the home of those Australian stories and becoming the supporter of the independent production sector. Many medium and small businesses all around the country rely on commissions from the ABC to function. When it comes to Australian music, we are the one big supporter of Australian music that exists still today. We operate on the basis where our channels cover more than 50 per cent music across Triple J, Classic Country, Double J—various channels, all very focused as big supporters of Australian music. Again, it is an environment where most other music services are very globalised. If we really want to invest in what is the nature of Australian social cohesion, what is the nature of the Australian story, who are our Australian characters, that is our responsibility; we take that very seriously. Without us, a lot of that would be lost and lost forever and subject to a globalised environment. I actually think we have more in common than not. I actually think we’re all in it for the same reason: to ensure that Australian stories are connected with Australian audiences, and that is a big part of my function. We talk a lot in this room about news and current affairs, and there will always be views and perspectives on the quality, editorial strength, accuracy and impartiality of our news and current affairs. We accept that’s part of the exercise, that’s part of our attendance here today, but we do a lot more than that and that lot more, I think, can often be underestimated.  

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to the day when the ABC achieves the standards you’re talking about.  

Mr Marks: Wish me good endeavours to achieve the best possible vision of the ABC that we can. We are going to have to reposition ourselves into the competitive environment that you mentioned. It means doing things differently. It sometimes means choosing to do different things. I think it will mean partly being more distinctive at times and partly doing more detail in other environments. We need to be able to be changed to reflect the different competitive environment that you’ve identified.  

Senator ROBERTS: I put it to you that the free, independent people’s media is rising because the mainstream media, the mouthpiece media, is now being seen through by people increasingly all over the world. 

/0 Comments/by

The Price Tag of the Suburban Rail Loop

The Victorian Premier puts the cost of Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) East between $30 billion and $34.5 billion, whilst the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates the combined cost for both the East and North stages at a staggering $132 billion once loans are repaid by 2084.

When I broke down the numbers based on the business case’s projected traffic (calculating that recovering a total projected cost of $132 billion over 50 years would equate to a ticket price of about $30 a trip or $300 weekly), officials conceded that no urban railway in Australia covers its capital costs from fares, relying instead on heavy taxpayer subsidies.

Shocked at these massive capital costs, I asked what happens if the expensive North stage is dropped and how this project can be justified when it will perpetually drain taxpayer funds.

I contrasted this with the termination of the Inland Rail project, questioning how the government could funnel money into a project like the Suburban Rail Loop while ignoring the accountability of Victoria’s broader infrastructure budget.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions go to the Victorian Suburban Rail Loop. The Victorian Premier has put the project costs for Suburban Rail Loop East at between $30 billion and $34.5 billion. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has put the cost of both stages at $84 billion for the East and $132 billion for the North, by the time that the loans are paid back in 2084. This includes the full cost of construction, interest and operation. Do you agree or dispute the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office figure?  

Mr L Wood: I don’t dispute the PBO figure. When we’re looking at it from an Australian government investment perspective, we look at it from a capital cost point of view, and the total project cost that we’re using is $34.5 billion. That is the total project cost that we’re operating under for SRL East. The Australian government hasn’t committed to SRL North.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. Following the completion of all stages of the Suburban Rail Loop between Werribee and Cheltenham, the business case puts the traffic at 400,000 trips a day, when averaged across a year. This works out at seven billion trips in the first 50 years. Recovering the $216-billion cost from seven billion trips equals a ticket cost of about $30 a trip, or $300 for a weekly, in 2026 dollars. How is this project financially feasible without billions of dollars in subsidies every year?  

Mr Betts: Because, like every suburban train system in Australia, we rely on taxpayer subsidies to make the farebox affordable. There isn’t an urban railway in Australia that washes its own face by recovering revenue and making a profit.  

Senator ROBERTS: These are staggering figures though, Mr Betts.  

Mr Betts: If you look at the Sydney or Brisbane network, the level of taxpayer subsidization—I don’t have the figure in front me—would be 60 or 70 per cent. As things such as free fares are instituted, that proportion goes up. It’s fairly commonplace.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the typical fare in Sydney? Averaged out, this is $30 a trip.  

Mr Betts: It would be $30 a trip if you were to recover the entire cost of the project through what people pay at the farebox, but there’s no railway in Australia that does that.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my point, though. This is a pretty hefty capital cost and, at $30 a trip, it’s a very hefty allocation of that capital over the years. I accept that we don’t have many unsubsidised suburban rail networks, but this is huge. It’s staggering, and I’m surprised that you’re not falling out of your CHAIR.  

Mr Betts: It’s a big project, but then so are the metro projects in Sydney, which normally don’t cover their capital costs from farebox revenue, nor has any railway done since the 19th century.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it $30 a trip in Sydney too? Is that what the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for?  

Mr Betts: Taxpayers are already paying a very significant proportion of the cost of running that railway.  

Senator ROBERTS: So let’s add more, a huge amount more. Are you aware of this, Minister?  

Senator McCarthy: I don’t travel the Sydney or Melbourne lines.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re a minister in the government of Australia.  

Senator McCarthy: May I answer, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Senator McCarthy: I don’t travel those lines, and I don’t know the cost of doing so, but I am listening here to Mr Betts.  

Senator ROBERTS: The second stage, the North stage, which includes the airport link, is much more expensive. If the North stage is not built because of cost, what effect will that have on the ticket revenue on the smaller first stage? How much of the $84 billion will taxpayers lose by 2084 or, as you say, $35 billion; how much?  

Mr L Wood: The $34.5 billion is the capital cost to build SRL East. That will be completed by 2035, and that’s underway now. SRL North would be a future decision of government if it were to choose to invest in that.  

Senator ROBERTS: If SRL North does not go ahead, what would be the impact on East?  

Mr Betts: We’ve looked at the economics and associated benefits of Suburban Rail Loop East, and that project continues to offer benefits even if the northern stage is not ultimately built.  

Senator ROBERTS: At what cost? Minister, how can you terminate a real infrastructure project, such as Inland Rail, and give the money to a project like the Suburban Rail Loop, which, even if it’s finished at all, will never pay for itself and will always be a blackhole for taxpayers’ money? How can you do that?  

Senator McCarthy: In terms of funding, the minister has made the decision and has made it based on advice from the department, so I’ll refer that to the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: So what is that advice? What I want to know is how they’re going to do it.  

CHAIR: I’m sorry, Senator. I heard clearly this morning, when we were speaking about Inland Rail, that a certain amount of money—$1.8 billion—would go to existing rail infrastructure, but I hadn’t heard that all the rest of Inland Rail money was going to a suburban rail loop.  

Senator McKENZIE: I expect that the department did not advise the estimates—  

CHAIR: I’m sorry, Senator. You just touched on this and I’m trying to clear it up for you.  

Mr Betts: I’ll have a go at giving you an answer. Unlike the Inland Rail project, the Suburban Rail Loop project was subject to a business case, which was independently reviewed by Infrastructure Australia. That evaluation is on the website. The Commonwealth government’s contribution to Suburban Rail Loop, even allowing for the $3.6 billion, is a capped contribution—  

Senator McKENZIE: So was the two.  

Mr Betts: whereas the budget for inland rail, established by the previous government and handed to the current government, is a third of the cost of building that project, and that would be sheeted home entirely to the Australian taxpayer.  

Senator ROBERTS: In other words, there’s nothing to see here. Snowy 2.0, Inland Rail, all missed. Minister, will you suspend funding for the Suburban Rail Loop, until you find where the missing $15 billion from Victoria’s Big Build went, or are you happy to fund criminals ripping off the taxpayers?  

Senator McKENZIE: You’re copying my questions.  

Senator McCarthy: Senator, isn’t it my understanding that you did not support the Inland Rail?  

Senator ROBERTS: Not where it was, but we’re supporting it now and we have been supporting it. Pay more attention, Minister, because we have been vigorously supporting it and we’ve been connecting it to the east-west northern line.  

Senator McKENZIE: Yes.  

Senator McCarthy: They’re having a good laugh there, Senator McKENZIE, but we know what your previous Leader of the Nationals thought about all of that as well. But I’ll take your question on notice, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you answer it now?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice, Senator. 

/0 Comments/by

Who Controls the Classroom?

In this estimates session with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), I asked whether they can attribute any measurable improvements in education outcomes (such as academic performance or attendance) to its 17-year history.

Mr Gniel defended ACARA’s role, clarifying that its KPIs are tied to its legislative functions, namely, developing the national curriculum, administering national assessments (like NAPLAN) and reporting data. He noted that education outcomes are a shared responsibility involving teachers, parents and state education systems.

I raised concerns about state autonomy, referencing New South Wales’ “back-to-basics” syllabus reforms from early 2025 and suggesting the national curriculum is overly complex. Mr Gniel responded that all state and territory ministers approved the Australian Curriculum, and that state-level documents are simply a localised framework to enact it.

I asked whether ACARA was pushing “propaganda” and “indoctrination,” pointing to Freedom of Information (FOI) documents regarding the UN’s UNESCO Greening Education Partnership. Did ACARA perform due diligence on climate change science integrated into the curriculum? Mr Gniel rejected the premise of indoctrination, stating the curriculum is evidence-based and approved by all education ministers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today, ACARA. Thank you, Minister. ACARA was founded in 2009. After 17 years, are there any improvements in education indicators which can be shown to result from your work?  

Mr Gniel: We publish information about the performance of students across the country every year through the national results, and we only have that information because ACARA runs national assessments. Certainly at a subgroup level we’ve seen some improvements. We’ve also seen some more challenging areas. ACARA’s responsibility around reporting is making sure that that is available to education ministers across the country, to systems, to schools and to the broader community. I think it’s obvious—and I’m sure you would agree—that education outcomes for all children are not a single entity’s responsibility. We rely on the great work of our parents, as the first educators of our children, through to schoolteachers, principals and those groups that support them. ACARA’s role is around curriculum—making sure we have a national curriculum; assessment—sure we have a national assessment program that provides that information; and reporting, which has been delivered every year as per the functions we have in our legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: I admire your point that the education of a child involves many, many people right through the community. I accept that, but is there any improvement that’s come as a result of your work? Academic performance, attendance, course continuation, education costs, teacher satisfaction, which is very important—can we attribute any of those, or any others measures, to ACARA’s work? What KPIs are you measured on?  

Mr Gniel: The KPIs for us are within the functions of our legislation, which is that we produce and administer the Australian curriculum. I think we can tick off that we have done that. That’s been in place for a number of years now. In fact, as you would be aware, we’ve just been through a significant review and republication of that, in 2022, with the approval of all ministers around the country, which is no small feat. That’s certainly one of the KPIs for us, against our legislation. We’ve also run the National Assessment Program, year on year, for nearly 20 years now, as apart of that. We’ve delivered the reports, through the national reporting. They are the KPIs, in terms of what we’re responsible for delivering, whereas responsibility for the improvement in outcomes, as I said before, is a shared endeavour.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about a metric suggestion? You produce a national curriculum, which is guidance about what should be in the coursework, right?  

Mr Gniel: Sorry—what’s the question in that?  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s not a question there. You produce a national curriculum, which is guidance about what should be in the coursework. Am I right?  

Mr Gniel: The national curriculum provides the content and achievement standards, and it’s what we collectively expect our children to develop in terms of knowledge, understanding and skills. That’s implemented across Australia through the jurisdictions, who have the constitutional right for delivery of education, as I’m sure you’re aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Gniel: That then is translated into each and every school. Of course, some of those nearly 10,000 schools I was talking about before are in the bush, in remote communities. Others have thousands of kids in the middle of the city. That is why we hand that to the profession, to teachers and principals, to translate content and achievement standards—our expectations, our promise to children in our community. They need to do that with the children that are in front of them. Of course, those children are aged from five to 18. So those are the things that change.  

Senator ROBERTS: Quite a range.  

Mr Gniel: It is, absolutely. Yes. To go to your point, Senator, what we provide is content and achievement standards—what we want children to learn and then demonstrate. The translation of that into everyday practice, though, of course happens in the classroom.  

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage of coursework in active use in schools around Australia follows your national curriculum?  

Mr Gniel: Ministers have approved the adoption of the Australian Curriculum. Some of the jurisdictions use that in their classrooms directly. Other jurisdictions choose to adapt the Australian Curriculum, using the curriculum as a backbone and then providing further supports for schools. For example, in New South Wales they have the syllabus documents, and they’re the things that they’ll provide to their schools for delivering in their classrooms.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In early 2025, the New South Wales education minister, Prue Car, publicly positioned the New South Wales government’s reformed syllabus as a slimmer—to quote her—’back-to-basics’ alternative to your national curriculum, which was criticised as overly complex or ‘bizarre’. Have you failed in your core mission to produce a curriculum which is high quality or indeed even usable? I must commend Mr Minns, the Premier of New South Wales, for having the courage to do what he did.  

Mr Gniel: Sorry. What’s the question there? If you can provide me with what you’re quoting from, that would really help, because I just want to be clear about what the minister said in this before I respond to that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m quoting from news reports.  

Mr Gniel: Of the minister’s—  

CHAIR: Are you able to distribute the statement?  

Senator ROBERTS: No. My staff did the research on it.  

Mr Gniel: In that case, I’ll just say that the New South Wales minister for education at the time, along with all other ministers, approved the Australian Curriculum. So have we delivered on that responsibility and function? Absolutely. We don’t position the Australian Curriculum in competition with New South Wales syllabus documents. They’re fundamentally different. If you go on their website, Senator, the New South Wales syllabus documents are their way of enacting the Australian Curriculum. It’s very clear. So these are not in conflict. They are part of New South Wales supporting their teachers and schools to deliver the Australian Curriculum and provide the guidance through syllabus based documents.  

Senator ROBERTS: My staff do excellent research, and I can recall the statement from New South Wales early last year about getting back to basics.  

CHAIR: It would assist the committee, Senator Roberts, if you bring a copy of the documents. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Victoria and Western Australia use a modified curriculum. Is your next version going to take on the criticism from the states and dial down on the woke and whatever they mean in New South Wales by the word ‘bizarre’?  

Mr Gniel: Again, I don’t agree with that, and I’d want to see the document you’re referring to. Again, all ministers from around the country approved the Australian Curriculum. It is then up to the states and territories to deliver education. I’ve mentioned before that that is part of the Constitution. The fact that they then maintain that responsibility to translate that into things that are particular for their communities, I think, is absolutely appropriate.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, when a state or a state education department approves the national curriculum, it doesn’t mean it’s going to abide by it?  

Mr Gniel: I’d say there are two parts to that. They approve the national curriculum, as they’ve all done. The delivery of the Australian Curriculum is in the Australian Education Act, and all school authorities and systems are required to deliver the Australian Curriculum or another curriculum approved by ACARA.  

Senator ROBERTS: So ACARA controls either the national curriculum or any alternative curriculum?  

Mr Gniel: ACARA is responsible for writing and administering the national curriculum—the Australian Curriculum—and also for the approval of any curriculum that can be considered as an interpretation of that Australian Curriculum but still with the same level of content. For example, Steiner education and Montessori are the two that we’ve currently got on there—and also International Baccalaureate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Freedom of information LEX 81815 and 82204 appear to show that ACARA are adding the United Nations UNESCO Greening Education Partnership to the curriculum, which requires the inclusion of nationally determined contributions in the curriculum. This suggests you’re not dialling back but doubling down on the propaganda. Why are you pushing indoctrination over education?  

Mr Gniel: Senator, I probably have to reject most of the assumptions that you’ve made in that question. To go to your question, you mentioned the numbers related to an FOI. Can you just explain to me what that FOI is and if you’ve got a copy of it for us.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t.  

Mr Gniel: Right. I think, Senator, you’d appreciate—  

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t get across everything—every FOI that we cite. My staff make sure it’s—but I’ll get it to you.  

Mr Gniel: Great. I think the CHAIR has asked for the previous one as well. If you can provide those for us then I think we’d be in a better position to be able to answer. I’m happy to take that one on notice, but I do want to make sure that it’s also on notice that I do not agree with the assumptions about us indoctrinating children. The Australian Curriculum is a promise we make to our children. It is approved by all Australian ministers— Commonwealth, state and territory. So I completely reject those statements.  

CHAIR: Perhaps you can work with the secretariat to lodge the original document with the question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. The UNESCO Greening Education Partnership is a voluntary global initiative launched in 2022 aimed at integrating climate change education and sustainability across education systems. Did you check the scientific basis for the greening education program and, in particular, climate change education, or did you just take what the UN is feeding you?  

Mr Gniel: We haven’t taken—I mean, this is where, Senator, I really need you to provide the information you’re basing this on so I can provide the answer appropriately.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s really simple: did you just take what the United Nations claims is science and put that into the curriculum, or did you do your due diligence?  

Mr Gniel: Once you’ve provided me with the details about specifics of what you’re talking about, I’m very happy to provide you an answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was the previous question. Now I’m talking about a very simple question: did you take the UN propaganda or UN material on climate science, or did you do the due diligence on it?  

Mr Gniel: Senator, again, if you provide the specifics on that, I can then give you an answer on the specifics. But I can give you a general answer, which is that the Australian Curriculum is based on the evidence that we gather as part of the process for both the development of the curriculum and also its review, and that’s taken through the ACARA board and on to ministers for their approval. As you would expect, they are very keen to make sure it is based on the evidence, and that’s what we have in the Australian Curriculum.  

Senator ROBERTS: By ‘evidence’ you mean scientific proof?  

Mr Gniel: Again, Senator, I think ‘scientific proof’ is a fairly broad term, if I can put it that way. I’d like to see the specific one that you’re asking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: Earlier this year in a Senate inquiry, I asked a senior UN executive in charge of information to provide the scientific proof. She failed to provide it. What she gave me was complete crap. What due diligence did you do on the United Nations material?  

Mr Gniel: I think I’ve answered that, Senator. I’m happy to take on notice, when you provide the specific example of what you’ve asked me to check, whether we’ve put that and used that in the Australian Curriculum. I’m very happy to.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll get it.  

Mr Gniel: Great. Thank you, Senator. 

 CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Roberts. 

/0 Comments/by

Age Limits on Explicit Content

We first brought this issue to light several years ago, urging stronger safeguards to protect children from explicit, graphic and pornographic books, comics and other harmful publications.

Recognising the validity of our concerns, the department acknowledged the problem and is working to reform the classification system for these materials.

During this session with the Classification Board, I raised the proposed update to Australia’s classification scheme to transition from MA 15+ to MA 16+, noting that aligning this age limit with an under-16 social media ban makes sense for consistency.

I questioned whether the intent of the MA 16+ proposal is to legally block children under 16 from accessing this material in retail stores, libraries, or online – using the book ‘Welcome to Sex’ as an example.

Officials clarified that the current public consultation (which closed May 29) is focused on changing the age limit from 15 to 16 for games, films and publications and does not guarantee that children under 16 will be completely barred from accessing them. Ms Vandenbroek noted that MA-rated content can typically still be accessed with parental consent and library/retail restrictions largely fall under state and territory jurisdiction.

Mr Mackay added that any final scheme changes will require a decision by the federal government alongside unanimous agreement from all states and territories.

I expressed frustration over the slow pace of the process and asked the department when legislation would be introduced. Mr Cole confirmed that no official commitment has been made yet, as they are still awaiting the conclusion of the consultation and subsequent government and state/territory decisions.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I have very simple questions and they’re very short too. In the last Senate estimates session, ACMA suggested I should ask these questions here. Your review into modernising Australia’s classification scheme has moved on slowly to this draft proposal. I note the need for something in printed publications rated between G and R is still accepted. I thank the department and ACMA for that. The new classification applying to all content, including publications, is MA 16+. This harmonises with the under-16 social media ban and other measures of maturity, so I agree with making the ages consistent. My question is: can you confirm that the MA 16+ classification is intended to ensure that no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, in a library or through an online purchase? 

Mr Betts: Chair, for your benefit, this is not a corporate question. But I understand that Senator Roberts has many commitments during the course of the day, so we will answer this question, noting that it is probably part of outcome 5.  

CHAIR: It may not be to do with Senator Roberts’ commitments. From what he said in the preamble, it may be that ACMA suggested it be asked somewhere else. But if we are able to answer it now, that would be wonderful. Senator Green: Yes. It’s under the next outcome, but we can answer it.  

Mr Mackay: It is a question for the department, but it does come under outcome 5.  

Senator ROBERTS: We were both right.  

Senator Green: Column A, column B.  

Senator ROBERTS: Or both wrong.  

Mr Mackay: Would you mind repeating the last part of the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please confirm that the MA 16+ classification is intended to ensure that no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, in a library or through an online purchase?  

Mr Cole: No, we’re consulting on that at the moment. We are open for consultation on the update to the guidelines and they will close this Friday 29 May. There have been recommendations by our external provider we had come in to do some work on that. They’ve made recommendations with regard to MA 16+, as you talked about before, but they’re open for classification. Sorry for consultation at the moment to work through whether we should introduce those. So it’s a consultation period.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let me clarify. The intent behind the proposal as it stands now, subject to consultation, is that no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, library or online purchase if it’s accepted?  

Mr Cole: Can you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: What you’re saying is that you cannot confirm it at the moment, because it’s still a proposal and you’re seeking consultation?  

Mr Cole: That is with regard to the introduction of 16.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the driver behind the introduction to make it so that no child under 16 can access the material in a retail environment, library or online purchase?  

Mr Cole: That’s not what’s being proposed at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is being proposed?  

Mr Cole: Some recommendations have been proposed that are outlined in the report that you talked about there. There has been discussion around the MA 15+ changing to MA 16+. That would include not just publications but films, games—what’s actually there now. That’s what’s being proposed through the consultation process. But what would be taken from there would be a decision of government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Is the intent that a child under 16 cannot access this material in a retail environment?  

Mr Cole: Not at this stage. Again, it’s a public consultation process.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that. Given that it’s subject to public consultation, I accept that. That’s beneficial. Is the aim of this at the moment that, if it goes through as is, no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, a library or online purchase?  

Mr Cole: No, that’s not what’s being proposed.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the intent?  

Mr Cole: The intent with regard to changing from MA 15+ to MA 16+ is changing the age limits of the way people can access that material, whether it be games, publications or films.  

Senator ROBERTS: Under this proposal, if it survives public scrutiny—consultation—could a child legally get their hands on a copy of books like Welcome to Sex? 

Mr Cole: I can’t answer questions for the way that libraries, state governments et cetera provide publications. That’s not a federal government decision, so I’m unable to answer that.  

Ms Vandenbroek: At the moment, for example, for films that are rated MA 15+, people under the age of 15—correct me if I’m wrong—are able to view those films with their parents’ consent. So it’s not that they can’t legally see it, but they do need their parents’ agreement. That would be what would happen for films.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about libraries? How do we protect kids?  

Ms Vandenbroek: Very few publications are actually classified. It’s only if they’re called in for classification. Because of the volume, it’s not feasible to classify all written publications. If a book were to be classified currently as MA 15+, it would then be a matter for the library or the bookstore to deal with how that is displayed and how access is restricted.  

Senator ROBERTS: So children could still get access to this material?  

Mr Mackay: As my colleague indicated, that really is a question for state and territory governments. Following the consultation that is underway at present, any changes to the scheme would require unanimous state and territory agreement, given the issues we’ve been discussing for any changes to the guidelines or to the national code, and that’s a step that would follow from the consultation process that’s on foot at present.  

Senator ROBERTS: You proposed a PG 13 classification? Is that correct?  

Mr Cole: A PG 13 classification has been consulted on. That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve gone back out for further consultation, as we’ve discussed?  

Mr Cole: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: When will this legislation come before parliament? The process is taking too long. We’re not saying don’t have consultation—we believe in that—but it’s taken such a long time. When will it come before parliament?  

Mr Cole: There hasn’t been a commitment by government to introduce legislation. At the moment, we’re going through the consultation process for the update to the guidelines. That concludes at the end of this week. Then the findings will be considered and provided to government, and how that’s taken forward will be a decision of government. As Mr Mackay mentioned, any changes have to be unanimously agreed by states and territories, so any changes that are proposed would still then need to go through that process agreed by states and territories before anything could progress.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

EPBC Overhaul: The Price of Bureaucratic Delay

I am extremely concerned that the EPBC Act harms economic growth. Data from the Minerals Council shows average resource project decision times increased from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. This imposes a heavy financial penalty on applicants.

Minister Watt countered that the reforms passed last year (which we opposed) are specifically designed to speed up assessment and approval timeframes, covering housing, energy, and resources, while strengthening environmental protections.

Officials reported that on-time performance for resource projects like coal, gas and oil improved from 67% in 2024–25 to 92% in 2025–26 (up to 11 May). While questions on specific project age metrics were taken on notice, Minister Watt maintained that decision-making timeframes are improving.

I then brought up the budget allocation to introduce AI to the department. Officials explained that a trial of AI is being introduced to help populate referral documentation, assisting them in gathering required conservation information faster to avoid delays during the assessment process.

Poor governance in the Department is costing jobs and prosperity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we started talking about the national environmental standards under the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: I said that there hadn’t been—you asked me to come back and ask all the same questions, so that’s what we will do. 

Senator Watt: Yes—the questions you attempted to ask in corporate. 

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. 

Senator Watt: Sure. We’re ready. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you are! Your website on the new environmental standards under the EPBC does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says a circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April. When will the new standard be made available to senators? 

Senator Watt: I must admit I haven’t checked that website lately, Senator Roberts. I might get someone to do that for me. But, roughly three weeks ago, we commenced a second round of consultation. Ms Kay will give you the details. 

Ms Kay: We’ve only got two national environmental standards open for consultation on our ‘Have your say’ website. The matters of national environmental significance standard was released on 30 April, and our consultation closes on 29 May. The offsets standard was released on 8 May, and consultation for that closes on 9 June. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, as things stand, the EPBC Act is, in my opinion, a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia quoted an increase in average decision times for resource projects of 60 per cent—from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. What steps are you taking to increase your throughput—faster processing? 

Senator Watt: As I mentioned in an earlier section—I don’t think you were here, Senator Roberts—that is one of the key reasons behind the reforms that we passed the parliament last year. It was to speed up the assessment and approval timeframes for projects in Australia, whether they be housing, energy or resources. The other objective, of course, was to strengthen environmental protections. We want to fix that. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, your main steps are revising the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. We’ve done a lot of work internally to speed up the processes. You may have seen that today I announced some really dramatic improvements around housing approvals. We’ve done what we can under the existing law, but, with those reforms that we passed last year, we expect to deliver big improvements around timeframes for decisions. 

Senator ROBERTS: The budgeting—we discussed this slightly before—includes a measure for introducing AI to the department. Will that help in data collection and analysis, or will that be making actual decisions? I think Mr Kaiser said it won’t be making decisions, but perhaps you could explain. 

Senator Watt: Yes. There was a little discussion about this before, Senator Roberts, when you weren’t here, but why don’t we quickly go back over that again. 

Mr Gaddes: I might have a go at that. The EPBC Act has a range of threatened species and ecological communities and other nationally protected matters that proponents are required to gather a whole lot of information about. There’s a range in our conservation planning documents—and they’re quite complex—that proponents need to work through in creating a referral. The AI trial is designed to help people populate their referral documentation. If you have a certain action in a certain area, you put that into the AI tool. It then tells you the sorts of things that you should consider as part of your assessment. Proponents go and do that. It helps them speed up their assessment-documentation-gathering process. We get all the information up front, and they go through the system much faster. 

Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the applicant can provide details and you can tell him or her, based on what their project is, what they need to apply. 

Mr Gaddes: Well, the AI tool does it. It helps them at the front end gather all the information so that we don’t have to stop the clock and ask them to go and gather things through their assessment process. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the increased complexity of the EPBC Act a way of increasing delays for projects? 

Senator Watt: No, and I would argue that we’re reducing the complexity in this act. Not only would I argue that but a range of stakeholders from the business community have also acknowledged that the changes will improve processes as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project—we started discussing this—the whole thing cost the project, across a 3.8 year development application cycle, $25 million a year and almost $100 million total over the four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by procedural failure in your department? 

Senator Watt: I think, when you asked that question earlier, Senator Roberts, I made the point that, again, that one of the objectives of these reforms is to reduce the timeframes for decisions around projects. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a review on the EPBC Act’s effectiveness in two or three years? 

Senator Watt: In five years. It used to be every 10 years; we changed it to every five. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects? 

Senator Watt: We’ll get the relevant officials to answer. 

Mrs Svarcas: We don’t capture the value of the project. I can’t tell you how many there are over a certain value in the system. There is a field in the system, but it’s not mandatory, and it’s not verified. You wanted to know many resources projects we had in the system? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and what the average age of the projects is. 

Mrs Svarcas: We also don’t have the average age of the projects here today, but I can take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you tell whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: What I’m saying is that one of the objectives of the reforms is to improve the timeframes. Those reforms are only just starting to roll out. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t measure the timeframes, how can you determine whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: Ms Svarcas can answer that. 

Mrs Svarcas: What we do report is how long it takes us to go through the approval. For resources projects— coal, gas and oil—I can tell you that in 2024-25, 67 per cent of the project went through the EPBC system on time, within the timeframes. In 2025-26, through to 11 May, that has improved to 92 per cent. We have seen a substantial increase in the performance stats. 

Senator ROBERTS: Percentages are essentially averages, and can hide a lot. Can you tell us the actual details of the projects’ age? 

Mr Gaddes: I think that what Ms Svarcas is trying to say that we collect that information, but we don’t have it in that format before us right now. If you have some questions, we can take them on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What is your expectation for reductions in the figure of average age in the projects in 2.8 years, and will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth, Minister, and the breadwinner jobs that go with mineral projects? Mining drives the economy, mining drives exports, mining drives the standard of living. 

Senator Watt: All I can do is repeat what I’ve been saying. That’s one of the reasons that we passed those reforms. I have to point out that the One Nation party did not support those reforms. 

Senator ROBERTS: Because of the complexities that we think will make it worse. 

Senator Watt: There are many industry groups that don’t agree with you. 

Senator ROBERTS: And there are many who do agree with us. 

Senator Watt: I’ve got the press release from the Property Council and from the Housing Industry Association. I can dig out comments from mining groups. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Minerals Council? 

Senator Watt: I can come back to you with those, if you’d like. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your government aware it’s spent a lot of money—it’s still spending a lot of money— which is inflationary and hurts people as well. They need to pay for welfare, and they need to pay for the caring economy. It comes largely from the mining industry. 

Senator Watt: I think I acknowledged earlier that the mining industry is an important economic industry in this country. It’s not the only one, but it’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: Many people would be hoping those words come true. 

Senator Watt: It’s already a big exporter. It’s a major employer et cetera. One of the objectives of these reforms is to make quicker decisions around mining projects—brace yourself—solar and windfarm projects, housing development and critical minerals, as well as to strengthen environmental protections. 

Senator ROBERTS: There’s another aspect we can talk about. 

Senator Watt: I think your colleague had a go at that earlier. 

Senator ROBERTS: There will be a review in five years? 

Senator Watt: Yes, a review in five years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/0 Comments/by

Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda

Prompted by a glossy, heavily illustrated 57-page clean energy report for the Wide Bay-Burnett region that could easily have been a 10-page document, I questioned department officials regarding its substance and design.

I asked for the exact cost of this publication, whether similar reports were produced for other regions across Australia and what the cost-benefit analysis was for printing such a marketing document. I also questioned the total marketing spend of the regional development agency for the 2025-26 financial year.

Highlighting the accompanying letter’s call to advocate for a clean energy transition, I expressed my view that the brochure is nothing more than taxpayer-funded government propaganda filled with misinformation.

Minister Chisholm disagreed with my opinion and defended the government’s support for renewable energy and community engagement.

This Labor government is persisting with squandering billions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a pipe dream, trying to “trick” people into believing that an unreliable net-zero renewable energy transition is somehow going to control the weather.

They label any dissenting view as “misinformation” ignoring the fact that the worst offenders of climate alarmism and energy fear-mongering are in the Labor and Greens parties.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have the regional development agency, please?  

Ms Rauter: They are not part of the department. The regional development authorities, do you mean?  

Senator ROBERTS: Regional development agencies: outcome 3.  

Ms Rauter: We are outcome 3. How about you ask your question, and I will see whether we can answer it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This glossy brochure—  

Senator Chisholm: Is that from the RDA—Regional Development Australia?  

Senator ROBERTS: Regional Development Australia, yes.  

Ms Rauter: They are government funded authorities, but they are not part of the department. We would have to take the question on notice and direct it to the RDAs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Tell me what you can answer of these questions and put on notice what you can’t. This glossy brochure was posted out in January. I received a copy, as I am sure other senators did. It’s the Industry engagement report: industry perspectives on the path to clean energy. It is for the Wide Bay-Burnett region. Wide Bay is in Queensland. We are very keen to know. I care about the people in Wide Bay Burnett. This publication is 57 pages of full-page illustrations and white space. Distilling the actual information here, it would come to about a 10-page publication. How much did this publication cost? You can take it on notice.  

Ms Rauter: Yes, we would have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Secondly, was this publication required by an act of parliament? Why was it even produced?  

Ms Rauter: No, it is not required by an act of parliament. We do fund the Regional Development Australia organisations, which are across Australia, to work with local government, councils and others, on the regional investment framework and to make sure that that is delivered in the regions. They also support regional stakeholders, including the not-for-profit sector and local government, to seek grant opportunities. They support decarbonisation efforts that are happening in the regional areas. They build evidence for economic development. They contribute relevant data and local intelligence. We don’t require them to produce that publication, but we can certainly ask them what the process is for them going into that, and the cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are they doing this same exercise in other regions around Australia? My question is: how many more of these publications exist?  

Ms Rauter: Again, we will take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it just Wide Bay, where there has been a huge, justifiable backlash on solar and wind? You can take that question on notice.  

Ms Rauter: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain to me the cost benefit of this publication being produced as a glossy brochure instead of a simple emailed PDF?  

Ms Rauter: That would be a question for the RDA, specifically. We will pass that on.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much did the regional development agency spend on marketing in the 2025-26 financial year? I count this as marketing.  

Ms Rauter: Yes, I understand that.  

Senator ROBERTS: How does the carbon dioxide footprint manage to be factored into every Infrastructure Australia application, although the department can chop down trees for this nonsense propaganda? Where is the consistency in the management of your department, Minister?  

Senator Chisholm: I don’t really know that we’re responsible for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I quote from the letter that accompanied the glossy propaganda brochure: We are seeking your support to advocate for a regional clean energy transition strategy. Then they go on and name five points, including many points of misinformation. Isn’t this just propaganda from people in a region strongly opposed to solar and wind and its environmental destruction, community destruction and economic destruction, Minister? This confirms that the biggest source of misinformation and disinformation is the government, yet again.  

Senator Chisholm: It would be fair to say that I disagree with you on that basis, Senator Roberts. I am supportive of renewable energy projects. I come across many people in the community who are as well. I make the point that those things are best done when there is strong community engagement with the proponents. I see evidence in many places around the country that that is happening. I think that the work of the federal government and various state governments around the place is leading to better outcomes. Councils play an important role in that.  

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t bother you that it is crammed with misinformation and disinformation? 

Senator Chisholm: I haven’t actually seen the document that you’re talking about, Senator Roberts. I think it would be fair to say, being someone who has observed the way that you have operated in the chamber and in Senate committees over the years, we probably have a different point of view on some of these matters.  

Senator ROBERTS: We certainly do. Ms Rauter, thank you so much for stepping forward. It is appreciated. I am not holding you accountable for this, just the regional development agencies. Thank you.  

Ms Rauter: Not a problem, Senator.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. That’s a nice way to finish. 

/0 Comments/by

Swallowing the UN “Kool-Aid”

I wanted to get some clarity regarding UN General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65 and the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinion. Specifically, whether the ICJ’s ruling is merely advisory and non-binding and that any enforcement action would require another country to successfully prove direct economic harm, something that has never occurred regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

When department officials deferred these questions, Senator Ayres stepped in to shield them. I highlighted that the Paris Agreement is only binding because domestic legislation implements it and that Australia could legally withdraw from it just like the United States did.

I pointed out that UN resolution A/80/L.65 was only backed by 141 out of 193 member states, with major industrial countries like the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran opposing it. I challenged the entire narrative, stating that manmade climate change is nothing more than natural temperature variation and cycles – and that the government has swallowed UN “Kool-Aid.”

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’d like to clarify a United Nations resolution last week on climate change, which was General Assembly resolution A/80/L.65, titled ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change’, dated 20 May 2026. Australia strongly supported the resolution. The resolution welcomes and gives political weight to the International Court of Justice opinion from 2025, affirming states’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions, prevent significant harm, cooperate globally and address consequences including potential reparation. It emphasises following through on Paris Agreement commitments. Is that all good so far—all accurate?  

Ms Munro: We understand; yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The International Court of Justice ruling was an advisory, meaning it carried no compulsion. Is that correct?  

Ms Munro: It is an advisory opinion. Its impact on international law, though, is still to be tested through the courts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come to that. Isn’t it true that any action taken by the International Court of Justice against a nation like Australia must be brought by another country and, only then, when that country can prove they have suffered economic harm caused by the respondent country they’re seeking restitution from?  

Ms Munro: This is getting into the details of how the International Court of Justice works, which is beyond what we in this department can appropriately advise you on. The Attorney-General’s Department, the Office of International Law and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are probably best able to provide you advice on the operation of the law. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Attorney-General was yesterday. Wouldn’t it pay you to understand that as well? Could you take it on notice?  

Ms Munro: We could take it on notice, but perhaps you should finish your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true no nation has ever sued another, and is that because it is not possible to prove that greenhouse gas emissions are causing another country damage?  

Senator Ayres: I think—  

Senator ROBERTS: The minister to the rescue!  

Senator Ayres: just to assist the officials, it’s hard to see how these officials could answer questions about the legal impact of UN resolutions. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not even really a bush lawyer, but my experience of these questions is that resolutions of the General Assembly rarely have the kind of legal gravamen that you are asking about. On whatever day—the chair might be able to assist me—Senator Wong will be here with a team from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They will no doubt now be aware of your question and enthusiastically preparing a response for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: What a great idea! I’ll just finish off on the questions. The International Court of Justice has never taken action against a country over their greenhouse gas emissions using a proxy, such as access to the international settlement bank, which is controlled by the UN, because they are an advisory body only. If we turn to the Paris Agreement itself, the reason for this resolution—it’s only binding because we passed legislation to implement it, which can be repealed. The Paris Agreement itself is not binding on Australia if we withdraw from it, as the United States has done. Is that correct?  

Ms Munro: There are a number of statements in there. Australia has entered into a treaty to join the Paris Agreement. There are provisions, though, under the Paris Agreement, should any one country decide to leave the Paris Agreement.  

Senator Ayres: It would just not be in Australia’s interest to do such a thing. It would make our economy smaller, diminish our standing in the world, reduce our energy security, impoverish our people and make us less secure. You couldn’t imagine a more destructive thing to do if you cared about our national interest.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve swallowed the UN Kool-Aid, haven’t you?  

Senator Ayres: That’s the kind of language that you and your colleagues use. We operate in the real world, where there are real jobs and real industry involved that rely upon the government taking an approach that’s in the national interest of Australia, and that is the approach that the government is determined to deliver.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I conclude that UN resolution A/80/L.65 was supported by only 141 out of 193 member states and opposed by some significant industrial countries—the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran, which is no minnow—to make it look like the world still believes the manmade climate change concept is real when it’s nothing more than natural temperature variation and natural temperature cycles. Can I conclude that?  

Senator Ayres: What you can conclude is that that’s not the view of the Australian government—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Senator Ayres: and that, particularly given our country’s exposure to the risks that climate change poses—for our agriculture, for the safety and living standards of our citizens and for the region of the world in which we live with our Pacific and South-East Asian neighbours, the fastest-growing region of the world in human history, where Australia’s economy depends so much on our capacity to export that one in four of our jobs relies upon exports, and where the scale of the opportunity for Australia, in regional Australia in particular, in our mining and resources sector and our manufacturing industries is so large—you would have to have rocks in your head to walk away from sensible efforts to integrate the world’s approach on these questions. We had an experiment with that during the Morrison era. We became less secure, we became unable to engage with our trading partners, and we became weaker and less prosperous as a result. That is not the position of the Albanese government. Our position is to lean in for Australian industry with the biggest pro-manufacturing package of policy measures in our history, to fix our electricity system, which was debauched over the decade before our government took place and got smaller while the country got larger, and to reserve Australian gas for Australian industry. These measures are the measures of an adult government that’s actually in the national interest, not doing what your party and your colleagues in the Liberals and Nationals do, which is import foreign ideology and export Australian jobs. That’s not what we will be doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve made a number of bold statements. I disagree with them. Could you provide me with the scientific proof for each of the key points you made, please? That’s empirical scientific data in logical scientific points that proves cause and effect, a simple thing. You’ve made bold statements. I’d like to see the evidence. 

Senator Ayres: I’m sure the officials will be able to come up with something for you on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice, please.  

Senator Ayres: It’s a well-worn path.  

Dr Box: Well, I can—  

Senator ROBERTS: Scientific proof being empirical scientific data in logical scientific points, proving cause and effect—human carbon dioxide affecting the climate.  

Dr Box: Yes, we can answer it now or we can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Why Cancel Inland Rail?

I questioned Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) and Inland Rail officials regarding the cancellation of the Inland Rail project, specifically the lack of consultation and the government’s refusal to consider private sector alternatives.

ARTC officials admitted they were only formally notified of the cancellation right before the federal budget, having previously worked on scope changes rather than plans to shut down the project.

Inland Rail was projected to take 200,000 truck movements off the roads. I asked Minister McCarthy whether the cancellation increased safety risks and who would pay for the higher maintenance costs for local roads, not to mention the massive hit to national productivity, noting that ARTC admitted they never even modelled the productivity loss.

Despite viable private proposals, including a $14.4 billion costed freight route presented by IPG and interest from Everald Crompton’s group to build the line using private capital, Minister McCarthy could only take questions on notice rather than explain why the government cancelled the project instead of putting it out to tender.

The government’s decision to scrap this vital project without proper consultation or modelling is a blow to Australian productivity and safety – and a wasted opportunity for a privately funded nation building infrastructure project.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. When did the ARTC know the Inland Rail project was being cancelled, and were you consulted?  

Mr W Johnson: We knew at the same time as final decisions were made, obviously, within the government. As I just mentioned, the week before budget there were some discussions around what potentially might take place. Then, the day before budget, that was formalised, and we were provided information.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you knew after the decision had been made. You weren’t consulted?  

Mr W Johnson: We’ve been providing input and working with the department now for months in terms of how we actually go about the types of things that need consideration on the program and what type of scope relaxations we could undertake with all the environmental approvals, some of which we couldn’t undertake, to hold the conditions. So this hasn’t been just a point in time. There’s been a lot of evaluation. We were formally advised, as were most people, at the point of the budget conclusions.  

Senator ROBERTS: When did you first start looking at scope changes and modifications?  

Mr W Johnson: I think it’s been an ongoing process. Clearly, through the course of the back end of last year into this year, we’ve been looking at what can happen around that. Inland Rail have been running a number of scenarios with all the types of approval conditions on them about how they might go about that. Months.  

Senator ROBERTS: When was the first time you started discussing options to shut it down?  

Mr W Johnson: That wasn’t discussed. We talked about—  

Senator ROBERTS: You talked about changes to keep it alive.  

Mr W Johnson: That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you weren’t really consulted, or you didn’t work on the closing.  

Mr W Johnson: I wouldn’t put it quite like that. I think in those scenarios we also were realistic, at a cost benefit, on what type of pressures we might be under, which drove our first pieces of work.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have the ARTC or Inland Rail incurred any sunk costs in the cancellation of Inland Rail? Could you please itemise them.  

Ms McDougall: The consolidation south of Parkes and the preservation of the corridor north of Parkes—if I deal with south of Parkes first, there is no impact to the ongoing construction projects that we are continuing to deliver south of Parkes.  

Senator ROBERTS: They connect with the west and the south?  

Ms McDougall: Yes, when they reach Parkes. The preservation of the rail corridor north of Parkes—we have a project development agreement with the Commonwealth and with ARTC in which it specifies that we can obtain environmental approvals and property acquisition works. That was the ‘least regrets’ work recommended by Dr Schott. We have got significant contracts to support the least regrets preservation of the rail corridor works on foot at the moment. There are no immediate steps to cancel or break those contracts. We are working closely with the Commonwealth and with the relevant state agencies to assess the different ways that we can preserve the corridor, so we will continue working with the Commonwealth to assess the contract status of each of those contracts.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you want to preserve the corridor as an asset?  

Ms McDougall: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s have some answers to specific questions on where the assets will go. You purchased significant amounts of rail track from Whyalla. This is high-quality rail. I’m concerned it may not be reassigned to other rail works. What physical assets does the ARTC have under your control relating to Inland Rail, and how will these assets be sold, stored and reassigned, including, but not limited to, track?  

Mr W Johnson: I’ll go to Fiona in the first instance, and I’ll talk about what the endeavours will be in the future.  

Ms McDougall: We’re still assessing what preservation of the corridor means for the works north of Parkes. I can’t comment on the rail.  

Mr W Johnson: Both the steel sleeper specifications and the turnout specifications are pretty standardised ARTC standards. If there is inventory that’s been purchased ahead for use within further construction, then there might be an opportunity to see what reuse looks like. We’ll work through that in coming months with Inland Rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re still getting to grips with the assets.  

Mr W Johnson: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this Inland Rail project would have taken 200,000 truck movements off the roads. Have you just made motorists less safe and increased road maintenance spending for state and local government?  

Senator McCarthy: No, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who’s going to pay for the extra road maintenance that Inland Rail would have taken off the road?  

Senator McCarthy: We’ve not made it unsafe. That is my response to your question there.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the extra maintenance?  

Senator McCarthy: I can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are significant costs for the highways in killing Inland Rail.  

Mr W Johnson: Inland Rail was a long-term program. There are also initiatives under way nationally today within the rail freight sector, clearly through the National Transport Commission and the harmonisation agenda, which is all about the alignment, synergies and efficiencies of the railways nationally. There are our own activities that are already underway with the joint program of network investment with our shareholders, which is building the resilience of the existing network. We’ve already got existing improvement programs underway around performance. We have significantly adjusted what we’ve been doing in terms of our linkage to the ports and intermodal precincts nationally to go about rail freight increase—mode share change to rail. That endeavour maintains. And with the most recent announcement from our shareholders, the Australian government, in terms of continuing the investment and additive nature of that that go to the aims to both improve the existing network and maintain that growth trajectory we’re on, we foresee that we’ll be able to actually achieve some of this growth from road to rail still.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is a decision which will reduce productivity through congested freight routes. Have you modelled the hit Australia’s productivity and prosperity just took with this decision to cancel Inland Rail?  

Mr W Johnson: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, IPG is a significant Australian freight company. It’s provided One Nation with the costing for the construction of Inland Rail from Narromine to the Port of Gladstone, privately, along the forestry route, then from Wandoan to Banana to Gladstone. An intermodal at Dalby will take the Brisbane and Toowoomba air freight. This has been costed at $14.4 billion, using a single track with passing loops. These people know what they’re doing. If this company is interested in building the line in return for operation rights, why didn’t you put the project out to tender instead of cancelling it?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Everald Crompton is also in town representing a group of transport companies wanting to talk about building the line using private money. Minister, will you meet with proponents, or will Ms King meet with proponents of a private build? And, more generally, will you consider private equity building the line?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take the question on notice and get back to you. 

/0 Comments/by

The Cost of eSafety Overreach

I acknowledge that the Office of the eSafety performs effective work against child sexual exploitation and abuse material and adult exploitation material. However, I challenge the Commissioner’s controversial overreach, and high legal costs.

Given that the Commissioner is stepping down soon, I asked whether the government would save money and depoliticise the office by leaving the role vacant and focusing strictly on core harm-reduction. Senator Green rejected my assertions and confirmed the government will maintain the role.

I highlighted positive data from the periodic transparency report showing that platforms like Snapchat are rapidly improving their takedown response times. When I asked which media companies are dragging their chain, the Commissioner and her staff detailed their actions against X Corp, Telegram and takedowns of dangerous chat apps like OmeTV.

I questioned the oversight of Bluesky and its self-run age gates, noting its growing popularity, including use by the ABC, though the agency deemed it low risk for now.

I asked about the legal outcome against X, asking how many times X been taken to court. Their answer? Twice: the Wakeley matter as well as a case around CSAM, which was successful. I finished up asking for a complete list of all court cases involving X.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Mr Fleming, don’t take it too hard that we haven’t accepted your invitation yet for a briefing. We’re very, very keen to do so. We’ll do it when we can. We’ve had a few things in the middle.  

Mr Fleming: We’ve got a card here for you, Senator. Just for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Farrer by-election and a few other things. Minister, my first question is to you. My question is to the office of eSafety, underscore, the duality of the agency’s performance. On one hand, their work in combating child sexual abuse material and adult exploitation material, including revenge pawn and deepfakes, is effective and deserving of respect—and we’ve said that repeatedly. On the other hand, the performance of the eSafety Commissioner attracts substantial controversy for pursuing matters that are not exploitation or harmful in nature, accompanied by substantial legal costs and high-profile losses around overreach, as well as excessive overseas travel. My question is: the eSafety Commissioner has indicated she will not remain in the job when her term expires next year. Will you consider banking a saving here by not replacing the Commissioner, and, in so doing, depoliticise the office so they can get on with their core role of acting against child sexual exploitation and abuse material and other exploitation material.  

Senator Green: I strongly disagree with the assertions that you’ve made about the work that the eSafety Commissioner has done. We will not be closing down the eSafety Commissioner role or the role that the eSafety Commissioner in the future might play. It is playing an incredibly important role, as you indicate, managing an ever-changing online space. This government has chosen to have a particular focus on the harms that young people are facing online. We would not be able to implement this really important work, which is so important for parents and young people, without the extraordinary efforts of the eSafety Commissioner.  

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you that the office has been doing a great job, but you didn’t answer my question. Let’s move on.  

Senator Green: I did answer your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a no, then. One Nation will do that. Next question.  

Senator Green: Okay. A policy—  

Senator ROBERTS: The second periodic transparency report on child sexual exploitation and abuse material, published in February 2026, lists the efforts of the office to work with online media companies. Each time I read one of these reports, I see that there has been material progress on the part of big tech to get better at taking this material down, and that’s in part from your efforts and the efforts of other similar agencies worldwide. We acknowledge that. As an example, Snapchat is now responding to takedown notices in 11 minutes, which is down from 90 minutes. Well done. 

Senator Green: Thank you.  

Ms Inman Grant: I think it’s down to four minutes now.  

Senator Green: That’s even better.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Are there any media companies that are dragging the chain in respect of child sexual exploitation and abuse material that you would like to highlight in this session?  

Senator Green: Good question.  

Ms Inman Grant: We took action, as you would be aware, against X Corp. in 2023. We issued an infringement notice. They did not pay. We were in three years of litigation with them and had a successful outcome. They were fined. They ultimately admitted liability, and they have to pay costs. There are others that we’re closely looking at, such as Telegram, but we’ve also used our legal codes to tackle OmeTV, initially, which is a chat roulette site. The holding company is called Bad Kitty’s Dad, and it actually pairs paedophiles with children. They didn’t respond to our notices. So we used our app store powers, working very hard initially with Apple and then with Google, and they have actually deplatformed both developers and similar apps, at least 100 of them. We’ve also taken action against two major nudifying services—  

Senator ROBERTS: What sort of services?  

Ms Inman Grant: Nudifying, or declothing, services. We’re seeing child sexual abuse material being generated in schools and elsewhere every week. It often starts as an innocuous school picture or social media post that’s harvested. They have powerful LLMs on the other end, and you can basically—the one that we took action against last week said, ‘Just give us an image, a body type and the age of the image you want generated, and we can do it for you in seconds.’ This particular platform had 50,000 service calls per month by Australians, and the other had 100,000 per month. We’re limiting the availability of these tools that can easily help generate child sexual abuse material.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Currently, BlueSky must comply with basic online safety expectations, and they have a self-run minimum age gate. Is this correct?  

Ms Inman Grant: Yes. They’ve also self-assessed as an age restricted social media platform, so they are subject to the social media minimum age. We will continue to ensure that they are complying with the age assurance requirements, both as part of the age restricted material codes and as part of SMMA.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you check that they’re complying?  

Ms Inman Grant: We check through the legally enforceable notices we were just talking about, in terms of both data and looking at systems and processes, but we have other ways of checking as well—through reporting and through other means.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll come back to that later. I note you consider BlueSky now to be low risk because they have 50,000 calls and 40,000 local users, yet the ABC have now moved the bulk of their posting to BlueSky. How closely are you monitoring the platform, and at what point do they become a serious risk?  

Ms Inman Grant: They’re under our sights now, in the context of our codes and our standards and our social media minimum age. Of course, we sort of look at the fundamentals. I don’t think they’re more perilous than some of the other major social media companies that we’ve seen. There is no indication—unless there’s anything else, Ms Snell, you’ve seen in the course of the enforcement taskforce looking into their work. Ms Snell: Senator, no, not at this stage. We use a range of intelligence to determine which providers or services to focus on. That includes reports we might receive through our various complaint schemes, inquiries that we receive through our inquiries and also reports of complaints under our codes and standards. At this stage, we don’t have information that suggests we should have an investigation into Bluesky at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: I note this week, Commissioner, you finally won a case against X, dating back to their response to takedown notices in the early days of the Musk takeover. The award was $100,000 in costs and a $650,000 fine, which is substantially less, I understand, than the huge fines that you threatened—$650,000 a day over 38 days. That should have been $24.7 million that you asked for. Is that correct?  

Ms Inman Grant: This was using the fining powers or the infringement notice for the basic online safety expectations, which is not the $49.5 million you might be thinking of, but it’s up to the courts to determine the overall cost. This one is a big win because we won in the Federal Court and then we won in the appeals court and we finally got them to admit liability. You may have missed this, but we’re one of the only regulators in the world that’s now had a successful case against X. 

Mr Fleming: Just to follow up on that, the maximum penalty under that section that the Commissioner spoke about is $687,500. So the penalty that we were awarded, which was awarded by the court by consent, was 94.5 per cent of the maximum. I think that reflects the seriousness in which the court—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are there any other cases over a failure to take down material pending against any other social media or tech company?  

Ms Inman Grant: I think there are a few cases still pending. They’re judicial reviews mostly.  

Ms Snell: Do you mean: is there outstanding compliance with notices to remove content? Is that what you’re asking about or is it information notices?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, have you taken any other cases to court? Ms Snell: I don’t believe we have any on foot in relation to responding to notices at this point in time.  

Ms Inman Grant: We took two cases, but the other cases that are pending have been taken against us, and you would expect that we would defend those.  

Mr Fleming: I think you’ll get a sense, from the way we took this case, that compliance with notices is an important issue for us. If there’s further noncompliance, you’d expect to see a similar response.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many times have you taken X to court?  

Ms Inman Grant: Twice—the Wakeley matter as well as this successful outcome around CSAM. Again, there are other pieces of litigation where I believe they took action against some of our provisions through judicial reviews mostly.  

Mr Fleming: I think there are six cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: Six cases with X?  

Ms Inman Grant: That X took against us.  

Mr Fleming: The majority of those are ones that X have taken against us, challenging the use of our powers.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many of them have had an outcome?  

Mr Fleming: A few of those have had an outcome. Most of them have had an outcome. There’s one that’s in court tomorrow. I think that gives you a sense of the stance that some platforms take in relation to some of our powers.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, if it’s going to be a bit longer, I can come back to you after the break.  

Senator ROBERTS: It should be five minutes.  

CHAIR: I might come back then. We’ll break now for our dinner break—  

Senator ROBERTS: Before we go, can I just finish up on that question?  

CHAIR: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have on notice, please, the list of cases against you and the cases you’ve taken against someone else and the companies involved.  

Mr Fleming: Just to clarify, is that all cases or is that cases involving X?  

Senator ROBERTS: X court cases.  

Mr Fleming: Yes. We’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

CHAIR: Thank you very much. We’ll now suspend for our dinner break. 

/0 Comments/by

Screen Australia’s DEI Targets

I questioned representatives from Screen Australia regarding their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agenda. DEI requirements are not mandated by legislation or the Screen Australia Act, instead they are management-driven KPIs.

I challenged their Gender Matters and inclusion targets, which aims for at least 50% female and non-binary representation in key creative roles, arguing that exceeding 50% disadvantages more meritorious men and ignores true merit-based selection.

Taxpayers are contributing $86 million in the 2026-27 budget, yet Screen Australia’s recoupment of equity investments remains low (ranging from 12% to 32%), indicating poor commercial performance.

I pointed out that overall audience numbers have dropped significantly since 2021-22, questioning whether their focus on ideological targets is failing to deliver what audiences actually want to watch while giving taxpayers less value for money.

One Nation will dismantle government-backed DEI initiatives and equity-focused programs that divide rather than unite, ensuring all citizens are treated equally under the law based strictly on merit.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. My questions go to the DEI agenda of Screen Australia. A producer that used a polite Facebook post to raise the gender imbalance in favour of women in your approved productions and in your management was blocked. These questions are apparently not allowed. Happily, you can’t block me, so we’ll ask some questions. From your corporate plan 2023-27: Screen Australia’s funding guidelines include an Inclusive Storytelling Statement that highlights our commitment to diversity equity and inclusion. The agency has developed a series of programs to provide skills development opportunities for diverse practitioners traditionally under-represented in the Australian screen industry … Screen Australia also has a long-standing commitment to gender equity through its Gender Matters program and KPI. Can you show me where in your enabling legislation this DEI requirement was mandated, or is this a decision taken by the management, the board, the government, the minister, KPIs?  

Ms Brunsdon: The screen sector in Australia and globally has traditionally been very white and male. The population in Australia is slightly more than 50 per cent women. That’s not the case in terms of the representation in the screen sector. There are generally equal numbers of men and women in film schools who finish those studies, but they’re then not represented and their stories don’t get told, and stories from a female perspective are not always told. Stories from culturally diverse parts of the country are not always told. Our research tells us that Australian audiences value authentic representation of Australian stories, and that goes right across the community. A lot of the research we’ve done on seeing ourselves, which goes into the representation of parts of the community on screen and behind the screen, tells us that there are parts of the community that are very severely underrepresented, including people with disability, where one in five people in the community identify as having a disability but we don’t see that on screen. We do have programs, like most of the state screen agencies, to develop new stories from different parts of the community. They’re stories that travel. They’re stories that get audiences in Australia and internationally, and that’s one of the reasons that we do that. People like to see themselves, their experiences and their lives reflected in the stories they watch on screen, whether that’s on TV or whether it’s in cinema. The Gender Matters taskforce has been disbanded. The corporate plan that you mentioned has been updated, and we released a new corporate plan last year in April. Our purpose is about supporting a vibrant and viable screen industry that reflects the diversity of stories and the depth of stories from across Australia. So we’re just working with and trying to reflect the community of Australia in the stories that get supported and that get shown.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I didn’t ask you to justify your following of DEI. I just wanted to know if your enabling legislation requires DEI—if it was mandated—or if it’s a decision taken by the management, the board, the minister or the government? Who set your KPIs on this, you or the government?  

Ms Brunsdon: We set the KPIs.  

Senator ROBERTS: So who set the DEI requirement? Was it mandated?  

Ms Brunsdon: There isn’t a DEI requirement mandated, but the functions of Screen Australia under the Screen Australia Act are to support and promote the development of a highly creative, innovative and commercially sustainable Australian screen production industry and support the development, production, promotion and distribution of Australian programs and the provision of access to Australian programs to support the development of screen culture in Australia and undertake any other function conferred on it by the law of the Commonwealth. There are a number of ways that we do that. We’re also required to place an emphasis on documentaries and programs of interest or relevance to children and programs with a high level of artistic and cultural merit, promote the open market as the primary means of support for projects with commercial potential, promote the development of commercially focused screen production businesses and promote the effective, efficient and ethical use of public resources. There’s no DEI component in there. We interpret reflecting these stories to ensure that there is a diversity of stories on screen.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me, on notice, your evidence from your research that says DEI improves your capability in all those areas?  

Ms Brunsdon: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—and any peer reviewed scientific studies would be appreciated as well. It seems that you’re setting them In looking at your KPIs, the first KPI for 2016-19, at least 50 per cent of production funded projects are to have women in more than 50 per cent of key creative roles. This was achieved at 56 per cent. Is your KPI really ‘at least’ 50 per cent? Surely anything above 50 per cent means less meritorious women are being favoured over more meritorious men. Surely the merit ratio is 50 to 50—or, in your universe, are women better than men?  

Ms Brunsdon: Are women better than men? It’s a KPI that we measure over three years, so it’s not that every project has to have women in key creative roles. It’s over the breadth of the projects that we support that we are aiming for that target. And it’s a target; it’s not a rule. It’s something that moves depending on the projects that come in and depending on the creatives already attached to those projects. It’s a target that’s harder to achieve in feature films because they often come with a writer-director from their origination. A lot of TV series that come to us don’t necessarily have all their directors attached, so there’s room for things to move at those times. So it really depends on everything. The population isn’t quite fifty-fifty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Slightly more females.  

Ms Brunsdon: Slightly more females. That target is about the representation of women relevant to the population and to the community.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you done any work on why that used to be lower? There are some amazing female producers, directors, actresses—or actors, whatever you want to call them these days. In the past, surely for commercial interest, people would have wanted to jump on to make sure that women were involved. They provide a more varied and diverse approach. So why were they underrepresented?  

Ms Brunsdon: For a variety of reasons—in the same way that they’re underrepresented in many parts of the economy and many parts of the sector and, indeed, leadership positions more broadly. A lot of women take time out to have children or have other caring responsibilities. It can be more difficult to get back into the sector if you’ve taken time out for those caring responsibilities. That’s certainly one thing. There are a number of research papers that detail this. People find it more difficult to get jobs when they have children because of the hours that this industry takes when you’ve got a project in production. So there are a number of barriers there for people to do that. We’ve recently done some research looking at different methodologies for production—that might be a nine-day fortnight or shorter working hours or eight-hour days and that kind of thing—to try and encourage better working hours for everybody. It’s not just for women or people with caring responsibilities but actually for the whole workforce.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think most people would agree from their own experience—it’s not just me—that women are generally better carers. Most families make the decision that their children will be cared for by one of the partners if they can afford it, and that’s increasingly unlikely, sadly, these days, but generally that’s the woman because women are better carers.  

Ms Brunsdon: I couldn’t comment.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t fishing. The second KPI from 2019 to 2023 was ‘more than or equal to 50 per cent of key creative roles across development and production held by women’. That was achieved at 55 per cent. Again, tough luck men, because this is all about the women, right?  

Ms Brunsdon: Well, the KPI is about female representation, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Having achieved the earlier targets, rather than holding them there and looking for projects with merit, you increased the targets. For 2023 to 2026, the KPI requires the female mandate to be expanded to include non-binary, gender-diverse people for a target of more than 50 per cent of key roles of writer, producer or director across funded projects for a three-year average. Is women at 50 per cent a hard floor? Is bringing in transgenders, men living as women, taking jobs off women, or is ‘transgender’ a new protected class to add on top of the 50 per cent reserved for women?  

Ms Brunsdon: No, it’s not. The 50 per cent is for women and/or non-binary or gender-diverse people. So it’s an inclusive target of 50 per cent.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it should be 50 per cent or more?  

Ms Brunsdon: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You must be treating it as additional because the latest data shows that female and trans et cetera producers are now at 62 per cent, writers are up to 55 per cent and directors are still down at 49 per cent—almost 50. Apparently, that’s not close to being equal. Overall, it is 56 per cent across all KPIs. Are you going to stop now and start approving projects on merit again?  

Ms Brunsdon: We do approve projects on merit. That’s absolutely the very first thing. The target is about tracking the projects in terms of who the key creatives are and making sure that we’ve got that information as we’re going through the year. The results of the target also change every year depending on the projects that come to us. Because we don’t commission projects, we can only respond to the applications that we receive.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Merit’, do you say? Well, it’s not really, is it? Because there’s a line item in your account for ‘recoupment of equity investment’, REI, which is taxpayers getting a return on our money. If your investment decisions were being made on merit, your commercial returns would show that. I note your returns over the last six years on recoupment of equity investment have ranged from 12 to 32 per cent. Some variation may occur as costs are in one year and returns are in another, so we understand that. Your numbers may be more accurate. Why did the projects you fund fail commercially so frequently? Even when you’ve had a hit, the best year was only 32 per cent of your money back.  

Ms Brunsdon: It really depends on the projects, and they’re subject, obviously, to global headwinds and the contraction in the global marketplace for screen content. It depends on the box office, if they’re theatrical feature films in Australia, and it depends how well they sell internationally. Over the last couple of years, it’s become much more difficult for projects to sell, certainly into the US, which used to be a much more stable market, certainly for Australian content. It can’t be relied on because of the contraction of some of the big media players there. It’s very much subject to market conditions, and the market has changed significantly and continues to move fluidly, and that’s not something we have any control over. Some projects do incredibly well. The feature film Talk to Me, which was released a couple of years ago, has recouped many times over what its budget was.  

Senator ROBERTS: It was a very good one.  

Ms Brunsdon: A very good one. We want more like that. And there are things that perhaps are less commercially focused but still play very well with audiences. There’s a real range of projects that we support and a real range of returns, because the return on investment is not just about the commercial financial return; it’s also a cultural return and an influence return, in terms of whether it is something that’s going to influence people to change their behaviour. There are different reasons that we watch the shows that we watch, that we go to see films that we see, and our reactions to them and our behaviour is a result of that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand systems change behaviour and language changes behaviour. Could you tell me the behaviours you’re seeking on behalf of the Australian taxpayer?  

Ms Brunsdon: We’re not seeking—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re basically changing behaviours, which I understand. So what behaviours are you trying to change?  

Ms Brunsdon: We’re not trying to change behaviours. It will depend on the show. There may be documentaries that seek to give people a better understanding of a certain issue or group of people, and to have more empathy around things or just understand their community better.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is changing behaviour one of the criteria or one of the KPIs for selecting investment grants?  

Ms Brunsdon: No, it’s not.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you do that, then? How do you make sure they change behaviour?  

Ms Brunsdon: That’s not something that we can do. We don’t distribute the shows, we don’t market shows and we don’t commission shows.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. A common measure of a hit screen production is one that returns 2.5 times its production cost. Two times breaks even, including distribution, and the 0.5 on top of two is profit. By that measure, your last hit movie was the movie Talk to Me in 2022, which cost $4 million and returned a whopping $140 million. A great result, but it was unexpected for a small horror film. Nonetheless, it was a good result. It made your results for 2023-24 look good. The next previous hits we can see in your returns are: Lion way back in 2016; The Sapphires in 2012; and Red Dog in 2011, which must have been a very big hit. That was a long time ago. Is this move to DEI in more recent years creating projects that people don’t want to watch?  

Ms Brunsdon: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2024-25, your total audience was 101.8 million; let’s say 102 million. That’s up from last year, but it’s down on 2020-21, and on 2021-22, which was 140 million. So you’re way down—that’s almost one quarter down. I acknowledge that the platforms are changing from theatre to streaming, and now to TikTok. Can you provide an accurate figure for your audience each year over the last five years, broken into screen, television, streaming and social media, please.  

Ms Brunsdon: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your 2026-27 budget is $113 million, with $86 million from the taxpayers. What is your projection for grants and for recoupable investments in 2026-27?  

Mr Reid: Our budget for 2026-27 is the total expenditure for 2026-27 on page 526 of the Portfolio Budget Statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much?  

Mr Reid: It is $95.9 million in total expenses, and our recoupment budget for 2026-27 is $3.8 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much from taxpayers?  

Mr Reid: From taxpayers, we receive revenue from government of $86 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the same.  

Mr Reid: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got figures of grants of $34 million and recoupment of equity investment of $59 million.  

Mr Reid: You’d have to point to where you’re—we do do grants and equity investments. For 2026-27 we’re projecting $34 million in grants and $33.6 million in what we call the write-down in impairment of assets. That’s the equity component that we provide to recipients.  

Senator ROBERTS: The first figure, we agree on. What was the second figure?  

Mr Reid: It’s $34 million and $33.6 million in investments.  

Senator ROBERTS: If your primary objective is to fund Australian content, then the figure in your budgets for grants and REIs, inflation adjusted, would go up each year, but it doesn’t. Wages go up every year, but money going back into the industry is down from a high in 2020-21 of $99 million, which is $118 million in today’s dollars, to $86 million this year. Taxpayers are paying more and getting less out of Screen Australia. Why is that?  

Mr Reid: I’m not sure that I agree with the premise of your question, but taxpayers are paying less and we are delivering a lot for the Australian public.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you convince me that taxpayers are not paying more and getting less?  

Mr Reid: Your own figures were that, in 2021, we were paying out $90 million and now we’re paying out less. But Australian stories are being produced and watched at a very high rate.  

Senator ROBERTS: But the figures don’t reflect that—the profit figures and the returns.  

Mr Reid: As my colleague mentioned, Screen Australia does not make all of its decisions based on commercial return.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by