Driving Real Change in NDIS Fraud Prevention

,

When I look at the NDIS and NDIA, I see a system full of contradictions—balancing fraud prevention with accessibility has been a challenge since its inception. In this Estimates session, I focused on fraud and the work of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. I raised concerns about the gap between over 7,000 tip-offs in the June 2024 quarter and only 16 prosecutions. While I understand investigations are complex, that disparity is striking. Officials explained that not every tip-off is valid; many are misunderstandings or even malicious.

Since November 2022, the taskforce has achieved over 300 compliance outcomes, including bans and revocations, and significantly increased enforcement activity. They highlight that prosecutions are a slow and unreliable metric, pointing instead to indicators such as 35 warrants executed in the first four months of this year—a twelvefold increase from previous years. Custodial sentences and asset seizures have occurred in cases involving millions of dollars and dozens of properties, including seizure orders on 33 houses and multiple vehicles. These results demonstrate that serious fraud is being tackled, even if the full impact takes time to show.

Mr Dardo stressed that success should not be measured by debts, prosecutions, or raids, but by prevention. The Crack Down on Fraud program focuses on identity verification, stronger evidence requirements, and advanced data analytics to detect risks early. These measures aim to make compliance easy and fraud difficult, safeguarding participants and ensuring sustainability. While prosecution remains a tool, the ultimate goal is to reduce fraud so effectively that legal action becomes rare. A recent survey revealed that 899 out of roughly 1,000 plan managers showed indicators of potential fraud, underscoring the need for these preventive systems.

I commend this approach because it makes sense: prevention first, enforcement when necessary. Still, some people will always try to bypass safeguards, and the scale of fraud remains daunting. Australians deserve confidence that the NDIS is fair, secure, and sustainable. We must continue improving systems while maintaining transparency and accountability. Striking the right balance—protecting participants while cracking down on fraud—is critical, and I will keep pressing for progress on both fronts.

The agency appears to be delivering every milestone of its Crack Down on Fraud program on time and under budget, with independent audits and ANAO oversight ensuring accountability. That level of scrutiny and systems uplift is encouraging, but the journey is far from over.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here today. I have some questions. It’s very much a contradictory set of questions. I have questions about fraud and questions about how to make more people eligible. The whole NDIS, NDIA, seems to be full of contradictions, from the moment it started back in 2010 or whenever it was.  Could I ask questions about the Fraud Fusion Taskforce first, please. I have some NDIS data—I’m not sure exactly where it came from, but it’s from within the NDIS—that says that for the June 2024 quarter there were over 7,000 tip-offs, but only 16 prosecutions for fraud. Why has the taskforce achieved only 16 prosecutions in a quarter despite 7,000 tip-offs? Can you explain the gap? And I’m not pretending that it’s easy. 

Mr Dardo: The tip-offs that we receive may be treated through a range of mechanisms. It might be that we look at them and we’re able to engage with a provider or a participant and deal with them through education. The tip-off may require us to implement some sort of prepayment review where we would nudge a person to give us some evidence before we make a payment, and maybe we would do a post-payment review, a historic review. It may be that we do a more serious administrative compliance intervention and it may be that we implement manual payment reviews where we stop payments until we receive evidence for each claim. In the most extreme cases, we may revert to a criminal investigation and/or prosecution. It’s really important to note that there’s a spectrum of treatments, depending on the severity of the tip-off and the efficacy of the tip-off. In some cases, we look at the tip-off and it’s actually a misunderstanding, and there’s no substance underneath it that requires an intervention. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, the tip-off itself is wrong? 

Mr Dardo: It might be wrong, or it might be a misunderstanding. In some cases, it’s malicious—somebody having a go at someone else. So, it’s really important that, while we do measure tip-offs and while we have put in enormous programming to improve the way we capture, understand and process tip-offs, the volume of tip-offs alone does not indicate the requirement for a prosecution. While I am talking about tip-offs, once upon a time tip-offs used to be captured, effectively, on a spreadsheet. We have put in a range of system improvements to make the tip-offs more able to be captured in a codified way. So, whether it’s through the call centre or through our online systems, they’re able to be captured in a way where we can code and then analyse the content of the tip-offs. The beauty of that is that, as the volumes have increased—and they are increasing; they continue to increase—we’re more able to run  analytics over the top of them and understand whether the tip-off relates to previous tip-offs or previous treatments or previous risks, then cluster them or group them with associated intelligence or associated treatments. The systems continue to improve by the week, but I don’t want you to assume that every tip-off is going to lead to a prosecution. That would never be the case.  

Ms Myers: As members of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce who work very closely with the NDIA, since November 2022, we have executed over 306 compliance outcomes, including 179 banning orders, 38 revocations of registration and 89 other regulatory outcomes. So, in addition to the prosecutions undertaken, there have been a number of regulatory actions taken. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, restrictions have been imposed and bans et cetera. 

Ms Glanville: I think the really important piece of this is that it’s a very collaborative arrangement between the NDIA and the commission as well as other enforcement agencies. The development and growth of that, I think, has been particularly positive for being able to identify—better analyse, as Mr Dardo was saying—and understand what are the best actions that can be taken to address whatever is the nefarious or other action that has occurred. I think that’s a really important part of this process as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, it is a big issue to you, the NDIS and NDIA. 

Ms Glanville: To the commission and the agency, yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s also a matter of restrictions, but I’ll go to total prosecutions and convictions for NDIS fraud. How many since the taskforce was established? 

Mr Dardo: I think, again, it’s really important that we step back. It’s a metric that has a significant lag effect. 

Senator ROBERTS: Due to the court system plus the investigation? 

Mr Dardo: Yes. You may start something and there may be interventions that are lower-level interventions or they may rapidly escalate. Before search warrants are executed—in some cases it’s very, very fast. It could be weeks or a month. In some cases it takes longer. But, even after search warrants are executed, sometimes there’s a charge on the day, sometimes there’s a court attendance notice, and sometimes it takes another six to 12 months to get to a charge and then to get in front of the courts. In some cases we’re seeing cases not getting in front of the courts for several years.  So can I just flag that the number of prosecutions is not a number that’s a great indicator of the level of activity that is occurring, and it’s certainly not a number that reflects the enormous collaborative effort that’s occurring across the agencies. Our colleagues at the commission have been phenomenal in partnering with us, as have been a number of other agencies—Services Australia and the tax office and so on. So sometimes the interventions are actually better administered by other agencies or in partnership with other agencies. If you want something that’s a more indicative number of activity at that sharp end, like the activity that you’re trying to get to, at the very tip of the iceberg—just in the first four calendar months of this year, we did 35 warrants. That’s more than were done in four whole years before the taskforce was established, and that was just in the first four months. So, if you’re looking for an indicator of sharp activity, we’re talking a 12-fold increase in activity in a taskforce. And that doesn’t even scratch the surface of the things that happen underneath investigations—the interventions that are going on.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s pretty daunting. I don’t know if it was you—I think it may have been you—who, a year or so ago, told us that you were overwhelmed and that the court system would not handle it.  

Mr Dardo: It’s really important to note—and I’ve said this a number of times on the record in this house—that debts, prosecutions and raids are the wrong metrics for a successful system. What we really are trying to build through all our big investments is how you prevent those bad things from happening. If you look at the big system investments we’re making, they’re trying to figure out how you make it easy for people to get it right and really hard for them to get it wrong. That means that all the people trying to do the right thing, which is the majority, are having a better experience. It’s more streamlined, it’s easier for them to get paid the right amount, and they’re less likely to get themselves into a misunderstanding and less likely to be abused by a non-compliant provider. That upfront prevention is, overwhelmingly, our mission. Everything we’re building in the Crack Down on Fraud program is about building prevention upfront so that you can safeguard participants and get sustainability—whether it be improving the identity systems for the people that log in, which we’ve delivered; whether it be improving the identity systems for the providers, which we’ve now delivered; whether it be improving the evidence requirements for claiming so we’re more confident people are getting it right, which we have partially delivered and continue to improve; whether it be building a data analytics system that allows all that data to be pooled together so we can identify risks and stop at prepayment where we can; or whether it be working with our partners to have those risk detections so that we can identify problematic providers and exit them from the system at the earliest opportunity. All those things that prevent bad things happening have to be the focus. You’ll never get rid of the need to raise debt or prosecute; that will always be something in the arsenal. We will need to be good at it, but it should be the last resort. You would hope whoever replaces me in two or three or four years time is sitting here, saying, ‘Actually, we only had to do five prosecutions because the systems work so well that we didn’t have to prosecute.’ 

Senator ROBERTS: What you’re saying makes perfect sense. Nonetheless, some people will deliberately bypass just about everything. 

Mr Dardo: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Deliberately.  Have there been any custodial sentences handed out? 

Mr Dardo: There have been, absolutely. Not only have there been custodial sentences; there have also been successful confiscations of assets. There are people that have gone to jail and are serving custodial time. There are people we’ve grabbed $4 million or $5 million worth of assets from. We have cases in progress right now where we’ve worked with partners, whether it be state or federal, to put seizure orders on, in one case, 33 houses and three cars. Let me emphasise: that was a provider. Custodial is in the toolset, but remember: custodial has got to be an outcome from the courts. We don’t get— 

Senator ROBERTS: Which can take months and months. 

Mr Dardo: It can take years. At the end of the day, the court makes the decision about custodial. We put our best case in the brief, the CDPP puts the best case in front of the courts, and the courts make the decision. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again on the record: what you’re saying makes perfect sense. I commend you for that. I don’t know whether you’re doing a good job or not, but it sounds like the right approach to me. 

CHAIR: How much more time do you need, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: Probably five minutes, please, Chair. 

CHAIR: Okay, no problem. 

Senator ROBERTS: My subsequent questions are not really necessary because of the comprehensiveness of your answer. 

CHAIR: Can you put them on notice then? Is that what you mean? That’s a no. 

Senator ROBERTS: Apparently, you stated that a survey showed 90 per cent of a group of plan managers exhibited signs of fraud. 

Mr Dardo: Absolutely. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many of those cases have been referred for criminal prosecution? 

Mr Dardo: That was a discussion that I’m pretty sure we had in a previous Senate estimates. It was a particular subset of plan managers, so it wasn’t every plan manager. It was the plan managers that had between zero and 100 clients. I know that sounds weird, but you can have zero clients because you had clients and you’re not claiming for them right now. There were roughly a thousand plan managers with between zero and 100 clients in that sample, and about 899, to be exact, at the time we did the analysis had indicators that we would think are associated with potentially fraudulent behaviour. Again, there are a range of interventions that we’ve applied there. In some cases we have put prepayment reviews on them, where they can’t be paid unless they provide evidence for their claims. If those prepayment reviews turn up and provide evidence that’s problematic—we look at it and we go, ‘That looks like you’re falsifying your invoices, claiming for things that are not remotely connected to the scheme or claiming for participants that are not getting a service’—then we will work with the commission to remove them from the scheme. That’s an intervention that may or may not go to a prosecution. The other intervention we’ve applied is that we’ve made requests for information for historic claiming and we’ve gone back and looked at their historic claiming. We’ve just done another sample of 47 where the majority of those have problematic claims, so either we’ve referred them to the commission for banning or we have removed their ability to claim from us. We’re working through those.  In some cases we executed search warrants with our partner agencies. In one case, we, the commission, the tax office and some other regulators targeted the plan manager. We got access through a search warrant, a tax debt was raised, and there were banning orders from the commission and other regulators to remove them from multiple schemes. That case may proceed to prosecution, and we’ll work our way through it. In that case, debts were also raised from multiple agencies.  So there’s a spectrum of treatments. We are not going to prosecute every single plan manager that we said had fraud indicators, and there may be some where we look at them and we go, ‘The fraud indicators are there, but they didn’t lead to anything.’ 

Senator ROBERTS: Final question—how will you know you’re being effective, and how will we know you’re being effective? How will we know when fraud is out of the NDIA? 

Mr Dardo: Fraud will never be completely out of the NDIA, just like it’s never out of any scheme. There will always be a level of it that just exists. You have to continue to innovate because it’s an arms race to stay ahead. 

Senator ROBERTS: But, right now, the stories are rife. 

Mr Dardo: They are. It’s about continuing that work for prevention. That has to be the overwhelming focus. 

Senator ROBERTS: How will we know if Mr Dardo has done a good job? It sounds good. I’m not being patronising. I sincerely mean that. It sounds good. What you’re saying makes perfect sense in managing the process. It is what very few managers understand. How will we know that the process has good outcomes? 

Mr Dardo: The first time I came here representing this agency, I sat in this room, and we rattled off the half a-dozen things that needed to be built out as capabilities. We talked about the vulnerabilities in the scheme and about identity, the way claiming was working and the way providers were interacting. We rattled those things off.  When we sat down and imagined the program of work that addressed those things, which government funded, that program of work clearly articulated those layers of capability that needed to be built and delivered. You build 

the foundations, and then you’ve got to keep building. But we laid that out as a program of work called the Crackdown on Fraud program—the systems uplift. That systems uplift was funded by government. In February 2024, it commenced. We delivered every single milestone in that program of work between February 2024 and now, on time and under budget. Let me rephrase that slightly—within the timeframes that we promised we would build it. We started two months later than we said we would, so a couple of things have finished a couple of months later than we said they would. But it was built within the timeframe we said we would build it.  One indicator for you that we’re doing a proper job is we are building those layers of defence on time, and, as they go into production, we can actually see that we’re stopping things from happening that used to happen or that used to be completely invisible. We are now more confident that some of those things we promised would be there are there. The journey is not finished; we’ve got a long way to go. But it’s about how we deliver on those promised uplifts so that the system is less likely to be open to abuse by those who want to abuse it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you include in that an audit of the systems, to make sure the systems are working as you say? 

Mr Dardo: I can assure you that we’ve got eyes—not just our eyes but everyone else’s eyes—on it. The ANAO comes and looks at us and makes sure that we’re actually building what we said we were going to build and building it on time. The Department of Finance gateway reviewers come and look at us and say: ‘You promised this. Did you build it? Has it been delivered on time?’ So, there is an enormous amount of independent assurers coming and looking at what we promised for the money that we got and whether we’ve built it to the standard that we said we would. In addition to that, we’ve got independent assurers that work on the program with us who write reports for government about whether we’ve delivered what we said we would on time and on budget. The scrutiny is impeccable. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Thanks, Chair. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/by

The NACC: Big Budget, Small Results

,

Since its inception in July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has spent over $140 million of taxpayer money. Yet, despite having more powers and more staff than its predecessor, the results so far are underwhelming: just one conviction, two simple investigations, and ten historical cases carried over from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. That’s a staggering cost for such limited outcomes.

I acknowledge that corruption investigations are complex and take time—but Australians deserve transparency and accountability, especially when such vast sums are being spent. The fact that the Commissioner won’t front up to answer questions only raises more concerns. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being used, and I’ll keep asking the hard questions until we get the answers.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Since being established in July 2023, the NACC has spent north of $140 million of taxpayer funds. Correct me if I’m wrong, but with more powers and more staff this time, the NACC has concluded one prosecution, 10 historical investigations from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, two NACC initiated simple investigations, with one conviction—is that correct? 

Mr Reed: At the moment— 

Senator ROBERTS: One hundred and forty million. 

Mr Reed: the commission has 38 corruption investigations underway, and 12 of those are joint investigations. We’ve got 33 preliminary investigations, which are part of the assessment process. We finalised 10 investigations, nine when it became clear that corrupt conduct would not be found and one where a corruption finding was made in a report provided to the minister, which is one of the matters that I put in my opening address. We’ve assessed 5,103 referrals. That’s 84 per cent of the 6,055 that have come in. So the NACC is a very busy organisation. The investigations of corrupt conduct are complex. They take time, and any organisation like this will take more than two years, usually, to complete investigations. What I said in my opening address was that, as the commission enters this next phase—this third year of operations—complex investigations will reach completion, and the commission’s operational achievements will gradually become more visible. That’s the reality of a new organisation picking up a significant workload, picking up a workload from a predecessor organisation and having to complete that work at the same time as dealing with the referrals that have come through. It’s not a straightforward, simple exercise, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. 

Mr Reed: These are complex matters. 

Senator ROBERTS: But $140 million in two years, plus a commissioner who won’t front and be held accountable to taxpayers, raises many questions. 

Mr Reed: The annual appropriations are on the record. They were agreed to as part of the forward estimates before the NACC commenced. We’re still recruiting people into roles. The fact that the commissioner is not here is not a lack of accountability; it’s the accountable authority that you’ve got sitting in this chair, and it’s the accountable authority who is expected to be at estimates. I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with the commissioner not being here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/1 Comment/by

Lyme Disease Denial in Australia

,

During this Estimates session, I raised questions regarding the management of Lyme Disease. Unfortunately, my concerns appeared to fall on deaf ears. I was repeatedly told the same narrative—that there is no evidence of Lyme Disease existing in Australia—and it was evident that the so-called “experts” had no interest in exploring this issue further.

There was no substantive response to my request for a comprehensive epidemiological study to be done on tick-borne diseases, nor was there any acknowledgment given of the many individuals living with poorly diagnosed and inadequately treated tick-related illnesses.

The remainder of my questions will be submitted on notice, with the hope of receiving detailed and meaningful responses.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to build on questions from earlier tonight and turn to Lyme disease. For several decades, the risk of harm from tick-borne diseases has been recorded, published, reported and presented to the department of health and the ministers’ offices and advisers at the time. Some of this has even been done through the government’s own infectious disease bulletins. Doctors are verifying Lyme disease—we’ve heard that anecdotally—in Australia. I’m going to talk later about epidemiological studies and records that the department has. In the meantime, could you please specify the dates and events when evidence of the harm of tick-borne diseases has been presented to the department and the actions that have been undertaken to protect Australians historically. You can take it on notice if you like.

Ms Quilty: We’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge that in 2016 and 2025 we had very limited Senate inquiries into Lyme disease and tick-borne diseases. The terms of reference were very vague and the recommendations were vague. I’m going to ask about the implementation. But at least the term ‘tick-borne diseases’ was recognised. We still don’t know the full extent and the nature of the entire tick-borne disease problem. Why haven’t these tick-borne disease infections been quantified with a study of the population in the form of a human epidemiological study? There are a lot of people suffering.

Senator Green: We’ve answered quite a lot of these questions before.

Senator ROBERTS: Not these exact—

Senator Green: No, but a study has been done. Anyway, I’ll let the officials answer. We’re just going back over—

Senator ROBERTS: Has an epidemiological study been done?

Senator Green: Not one of those types, but—

Ms Quilty: I’m happy to be corrected, but we’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: As far as you know, no studies have been done epidemiologically.

Ms Quilty: Not that I’m aware of.

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the Public Health Laboratory Network’s own diagnosis data being ignored with these diseases when they hold the results of thousands of test results for tickborne disease?

Mr Martin: I’m not aware of the data you refer to being withheld. Some of the tickborne diseases are notifiable, and we do collect information on those. I think one of the challenges is that there are a range of conditions which patients believe may be caused by ticks but, as I’ve mentioned in an earlier answer, there’s not necessarily evidence that the pathogen that would cause that disease is present in Australia. I think that it’s challenging to collect information where we don’t have that causal pathway—

Senator ROBERTS: Have you been given or have you collected samples?

Mr Martin: Samples of?

Senator ROBERTS: Infection.

Mr Martin: There are established diagnostic tests for different tickborne diseases.

Mr Comley: I think the evidence that was tendered earlier was that the bacteria that cause the Lyme disease have not been detected in Australia. It’s not that there aren’t people who contract it overseas and come here. There is also evidence that there are other tickborne diseases that are present in Australia, but not Lyme disease—for the bacteria that’s required to be the cause of the disease.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again: I don’t understand the exact health system, but why is the Public Health Laboratory Network’s own diagnosis data being ignored with these diseases when they hold the results for thousands of tests for tickborne disease? Why is that being an ignored? What’s been done with it? What’s going to be done with it?

Mr Comley: I think we’re struggling to describe which laboratories you are talking about. Can you provide evidence of that. We’re happy to take on notice whether there is any evidence of that effect in Australia. I think the evidence tendered earlier in this estimate session was that there wasn’t such evidence in Australia, but we’re happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m told that there is evidence held by the Public Laboratory Network’s own data.

Mr Comley: We’ll take that on notice, unless the CMO would like to comment.

Prof. Kidd: Senator, there is evidence of tickborne infectious diseases that people have contracted in Australia. There are a number of those infections which are recorded, for which people are tested: some of the Rickettsial infections, Queensland tick typhus, Flinders Island spotted fever, Australian spotted fever, Q fever—due to Coxiella burnetii. There’s data on each of these particular tickborne diseases, which will be in our laboratory systems and which are brought together. The issue about Lyme disease—we’ve talked about that before.

Senator ROBERTS: I am told that hospitals have discharge records, with some stating tickborne illness, Lyme disease, Babesia, rickets, Bartonella et cetera, yet accurate and reliable testing for all these diseases in Australia does not occur. Are you able to provide a quantification of this? This is a public health threat.

Prof. Kidd: I think we’ll need to take that on notice from the PHLN.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand. Why can’t the study of this data for all vector-borne diseases—as part of the responsibility of the Department of Health from the 2016 Senate inquiry—be done to complete an epidemiological study? Can you take that on notice?

Ms Quilty: Yes, we have.

Mr Martin: We can. I think it might take me a moment to find it, but I think the government’s response to the most recent inquiry—

Senator ROBERTS: It’s very vague.

Mr Martin: It does go into the feasibility of—it is not feasible, necessarily, to collect data on everyone who may have been bitten by a tick in Australia. We do have a system around notifiable diseases, where that is nationally collected and reported upon for particular pathogens. I can take it on notice and provide further information on some of those practicalities.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got readily available tickborne disease testing panels in Australia for livestock and domestic animals, especially for exports, I’m told. We don’t want to hurt people overseas. Veterinarians know that sometimes it’s necessary for animals that are sick with tickborne disease to be put down. The question raised is: are we doing nothing about humans? Are we going to start putting humans down? That’s pretty far-fetched, of course, but I’m saying that there are lots and lots of people who are sick and crippled a bit and nothing seems to be done.

Senator Green: I understand, but perhaps you could put a question to the officials that they can answer for you.

Senator ROBERTS: On my frustration.

Senator Green: You can express your frustration in the Senate chamber next year.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t have Lyme disease, but I know people who have, and I know people who’ve got tickborne diseases, and there’s been no epidemiological study done. This has been going on for decades.

Senator Green: I understand. There have been inquiries, responses to those inquiries and the officials have answered your questions.

Senator ROBERTS: I know you, Senator Green. You would not be proud of the studies that have been done in the 2016 Senate inquiry.

Senator Green: I’m very aware of the inquiries. I know that a lot of good senators from this place have been involved in those inquiries and have taken evidence from people who are affected, and the government’s responded to those inquiries.

Senator ROBERTS: I say again: why can’t the study of this data for all vector-borne diseases be part of the responsibility of the department of health and be done to complete an epidemiological study? You’ve taken that on notice.

Senator Green: We’ve taken that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’m early this time.

CHAIR: You are early this time. I’m very grateful for that. Senator Liddle.

/1 Comment/by

Blood on Their Hands: Victims Still Wait for Answers

,

At Estimates, I asked Professor Adriana Platona why the Australian Government and CSL took the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilia patients to receive a product that would likely infect them with Hepatitis C – as it later became known as. That question was left unanswered.

I asked why, even after safer 80-degree heat-treated products were available in the UK from 1985 for both Factor VIII and Factor IX, Australia continued to allow hepatitis-infected factor concentrates to be used—until 1990 for Factor VIII and 1993 for Factor IX. That question, along with five others, was taken on notice.

I made it clear: a Royal Commission is warranted. The government has failed to deliver justice to victims, unlike the toothless 2004 inquiry that achieved nothing.

Victims of this scandal deserve answers. They deserve to know why they were infected.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll start with the National Blood Authority and tainted blood. These questions are from constituents. In the UK, from 1985, factor concentrates began to be heat-treated at 80 degrees for 72 hours. That’s in Britain. Australia, though, chose to go with an alternative heat treatment method of 60 degrees for 72 hours, which at the time was considered to be a method to inactivate HIV, although it was noted that it was not likely that the 60-degree method of heat treatment would inactivate Non-A, Non-B hepatitis, which came to be known as hepatitis C. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories take the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilia patients to receive a product that would likely infect them with Non-A, Non-B hepatitis—hepatitis C?

Professor Platona: Thank you, Senator, for your question. Australia has one of the safest blood systems in the world, and the testing for hepatitis C and HIV was introduced in Australia much sooner than it was in the UK. So the situation between Australia and the UK is not comparable. In 2004, there was an extensive inquiry into hepatitis C and the blood supply in Australia. Many of the questions that you have raised were discussed extensively around April 2004. People have provided submissions, testimonials. There was an extensive inquiry at the time. Many of these issues were discussed extensively at the time.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor. We’ll get to those points in a minute. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—by the way, you didn’t answer my question as to why the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories took the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilic patients to receive a product that would likely infect them. So I’ll move on to the second question. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—and these questions, by the way, are from people who have had their lives damaged seriously—continue to allow patients to receive hepatitis infected factor concentrates, all the way up until 1990 for factor 8 and, unbelievably, 1993 for factor 9, when the UK were receiving the safer 80-degree treated product for both factor 8 and factor 9 concentrates since 1985? So we were five years behind and eight years behind.

Professor Platona: That is not my understanding of the fact. I would be very happy to check those facts for you and provide that on notice, with reference to the material submitted in 2004.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve got five questions on notice in the interest of speed. Minister, these questions relate to events that occurred long ago—I acknowledge that—yet they still impact and kill victims today. There are people with their lives damaged seriously. That’s precisely why we need a royal commission into what occurred. The government cannot produce the answers that the victims deserve. These people are deeply upset, deservedly so—not deservedly so, but rightly so. We need a thorough investigation where people are compelled to give evidence and answer questions under oath, unlike the 2004 Senate inquiry which has been described as a toothless inquiry by prominent lawyer Des Collins, who was heavily involved in the UK infected blood inquiry. We don’t accept the 2004 Senate inquiry. Minister, don’t you think the victims of this scandal deserve answers as to what occurred and why they were infected?

Senator Green: I don’t think that’s an appropriate question that I can answer for you other than to say that the constituents’ issues that you raise continually in this committee are valid and that the officials have provided you, I think, very reasonable and factual advice. I don’t have any information that I can give you other than what the officials have given you. You’re very entitled to come here and advocate for your constituents and their concerns, but I don’t have any other advice I can give you.

/by

A Simple Step Toward Safer Immunisation

,

FOI requests, and the information they reveal, are an important element of Senate Estimates. In the past, a reference to the FOI number would prompt a staff member to appear with the relevant information to enable discussion. At the start of my question, a staff member approached the table with their laptop open—most likely with the FOI document displayed—so that system still exists. Nonetheless, Professor Lawler avoided discussing the FOI.

Some Senators provide their questions in advance so the FOI can be ready, however this also gives the witness time to prepare an evasive answer and removes the possibility of an unguarded admission. The point of my question was simple: the TGA’s own guidelines—which the FOI meeting notes confirmed—state that single-use medicines and vaccines should not contain preservatives. That unguarded admission is exactly what I was referring to. Professor Lawler stated that preservatives relate to multi-dose vaccines, not single-dose vaccines.

This is the argument I will make moving forward. At the last Estimates, I reviewed data that clearly linked preservatives in vaccines with autism. Single-use vaccines do not contain preservatives (or should not). Why don’t we immediately return to administering vaccines in single-use doses that are certified and tested as preservative and contaminant free? Then we can monitor autism cases in real time.

Many mothers have told me their child’s autism began the day after their shots. This approach would quickly show us whether there is a link in the real world. Let’s take a simple, immediate step to address this issue, and then conduct a full review of vaccine safety and efficacy.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I reference freedom of information 26-2122, released 30 September 2025. It’s weirdly specific: the minutes of the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. I think
that’s part of the TGA. Is that correct?

Mr Comley: That sounds to me like PBAC.

Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify which committee you referenced?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes: the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. They’ll be coming to the TGA pretty soon.

Prof. Lawler: No. We have a number of advisory committees, but we don’t have an advisory committee on prescriptions. We have an advisory committee on medicines and an advisory committee on vaccines.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps if I give you the question you might be able to tell me. Held on 24 March 2015 and regarding the matter of preservatives in single-use injections, the meeting concluded:
… single-use injections should be preservative-free.
… if an ingredient is added for a reason other than use as a preservative, then the sponsor should provide scientific justification for inclusion at that concentration. Is this guideline still current?

Prof. Lawler: I must admit I don’t have that document in front of me, so I’m finding it hard to respond to that on the fly.

Senator ROBERTS: You can take it on notice.

Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to do that. The best I can take it is that we look to preservatives predominantly for multi-use vials because, obviously, there’s a period between them being used first—but I’m happy to take that on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like the answer to the question, ‘Is this guideline still current?’ is correct, but I’m not going to hold it to you. Thank you for that. The next questions, possibly also on notice, are: have you
allowed any single-use injection product to contain preservatives, and were all of those approvals compliant with your own guidelines?

Prof. Lawler: Again, given the first question, I’m happy to respond to that on notice, if that’s alright.

Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the list of any that were approved. If you have allowed single-use injections to contain preservatives, why did you make the change to allow preservatives when your expert
committee opposed the idea?

Prof. Lawler: My understanding is that the committee you’re referencing—what was the date of the—

Senator ROBERTS: It was 24 March 2015—probably before your time.

Prof. Lawler: It was well before my time. That is an older committee. I think, in the interest of providing you with a comprehensive response, we’d be happy to roll those up into one response, if that’s alright.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know if it’s still current.

Prof. Lawler: Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know this too: Which multidose vaccines contain preservatives? Have you obtained safety data to show those preservatives are safe at the levels used?

Prof. Lawler: There are a number of branches across the TGA and also, potentially, ATAGI to which those questions apply.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

Dr Pengilley: To the best of my knowledge, the only use of preservatives in multi-use vials is for pandemic vaccines, and that, at the moment, is the influenza ones; COVID, just for clarity, doesn’t contain preservatives.
We haven’t—

Senator ROBERTS: It does or doesn’t contain—

Dr Pengilley: Does not. I probably can’t go into applications we have and haven’t had, but, as far as I know, we haven’t registered a preservative-containing pandemic vaccine—say, an H5N1 vaccine.

/by

One Nation, One Law

,

Senator Watt has circulated an edited version of my exchange with the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, which omits a large part of the discussion. This is the full exchange.

I asked the new Islamophobia Envoy about a report he delivered to the Government a few months ago which, in One Nation’s view, whitewashed Islamic terrorism and Sharia Law, while advocating for the suppression of criticism under the guise of stamping out Islamophobia. We have seen how this same approach in the UK has resulted in 65 Sharia law courts and the development of a parallel society between Islamic and Christian citizens—where criticism of Christianity is permitted, but criticism of Islam is not.

The Envoy lectures on Sharia Law at the University of Technology, so he should be well aware of its provisions and its incompatibility with Australian and Western civilisation.

One Nation will oppose Sharia Law and the development of parallel societies within Australia.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript (Draft)

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Malik for appearing on notice.  Could you please tell me how many staff you have?  What is your annual budget and how much of that budget did you report titled A National Response to Islamophobia cost? 

Senator Shoebridge: Good luck with that. 

Mr Malik: So in regards to budget, I can take that on notice. I don’t have that at hand.  In regards to staff, I began recruitment for my own staff from my office once the federal election results have been made clear. Up until that point I have been using or utilising the support of the Envoy Support team.   
Home Affairs did however provide me two staff full time staff, one of them is an office manager and the other is a communication Support officer. So they have been dedicated towards me, supporting me in social media, website management, proofreading, graphic design, printing and basically ensuring that my day to day affairs are in order. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you how many staff do you expect to have? 

Mr Malik: I have recruited for five staff.  I’m hoping to close.  I’m finalising interviews for the final member of staff. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, thank you.  Your report, a national response to Islamophobia, does not mention Sharia yet.   Sharia law, should it be allowed in Australia, would replace Australian law, Australian courts, police and governance.  How can you talk about opposition to Islam without addressing the elephant in the room? 

Mr Malik: Sharia law?  I don’t believe it is an elephant in the room.  I mean, my role is to understand the reverse of that.  My role is to understand what have been the impacts of the past 25 years upon Muslim communities who are facing the brunt of discrimination, marginalisation, exclusion.  And so my job is to really understand that the question you raise is, is a good question because it highlights the misconception around Sharia law.  A statement I made in the House of Parliament at the end of July was that when people talk about Sharia law, it’s always good to ask them what do they mean by Sharia law.  So there tends to be different understandings of Sharia law.  And I further said that most Muslims would be, would be difficult for them to address one of the principles of one of the five principles of Sharia law.  So, a good question which highlights a challenge and which I hope to address in the coming months. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your report – thank you.  Your report does not include a definition of Islamophobia, but then makes more than 50 recommendations to solve the thing you haven’t defined.  How can you call for extensive legislation and a large bureaucracy to combat something you can’t or don’t define? 

Mr Malik: So the report does address that on the first page.  It’s 54 recommendations.  And there’s an argument amongst academics to how to define this term called Islamophobia.  What academics are not disagreeing about are the impacts of this prejudice or hatred or racism.  And one of the things I wanted to avoid is to avoid falling into the pits that Great Britain has fallen in and that is an annual conversation around the definition of Islamophobia masks all along the repercussions of this phenomenon of being ill advised or not being addressed.  And so what I do say however, is in the Commission of inquiry I do ask whether or not Australia requires a definition of Islamophobia in the Australian context and whether that will hinder or progress the cause. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Mr Malik’s report does not accept that people who may have a legitimate concern about Islam.  For instance, the report does not mention ISIS, al Qaeda, nor does it mention that the latest briefing provided by the provided to the Senate by the ASIO Director General Mike Burgess showed 25 of Australia’s 29 prescribed terrorist organisations are Islamic based organisations.   
It seems that he’s simply redefining a factual and logical and genuine concern about Islamic terrorism as Islamophobia.  Minister, how would measures designed to combat Islamophobia differ from measures to combat anti Semitism or the growing anti Christian hate coming from the hard left?  Surely the words and actions directed to one group or the other would not differ in their legal implications. 

Minister Watt:  Well, Senator Roberts told you …  

Mr Malik: … 

Minister Watt: I think that question was to me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, it was. 

Minister Watt: Senator Roberts, I haven’t followed the work of either special envoy terribly closely. I’ve certainly followed media reporting of the work that both special envoys have done and I think that’s really valuable work at a time when social cohesion is deeply at risk in Australia because of the activities and language of a range of extreme groups in the community.  And the last time I looked, Mr Aftab’s role was to advocate for the needs of Muslim Australians, particularly in the face of gross Islamophobia that has been going on in our country.  Just as Miss Siegel has been engaged to advocate for the needs of Jewish Australians at a time when we are seeing gross anti Semitism in our country.  And I would encourage you and other members of your party to think about that Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, all of the three: anti-Christian, anti-Semitism and anti-Islamophobia are religion-based hate.  They’re not anti-religion. 

Chair: Thank you. 

Minister Watt: I don’t really know what point you’re making … 

Senator ROBERTS: I know you don’t. 

Minister Watt: But I have to answer questions from you and your colleagues on a regular basis in the Senate chamber, which I would describe as Islamophobic.  So I would I would encourage you to think very carefully about the sorts of questions and sorts of statements that you and your colleagues make in the public domain at a time when we are seeing social cohesion under threat and when we are seeing at a time when we are seeing the rise of neo Nazis and other extremists with whom you sometimes associate.  And you should think about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: False. 

Chair: Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS: I do not associate with neo-Nazis. 

Minister Watt: ??? experience. 

Senator ROBERTS: But let me tell you.  You make comments about – let me tell you my comments are about pro Australia.  I put Australia first -pro Australia. 

Minister Watt: Well, you have your view of what Australia is … 

Senator ROBERTS: We want unity.    

Minister Watt: And it’s out of step with the majority of Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: My party’s name is One Nation because we believe in unity. 

Chair: OK, I am going to rotate the call. 

/3 Comments/by

Connecting Inland Rail to Growth

,

The Government is currently spending what will likely amount to $20 billion building and upgrading the Inland Rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane. However, Brisbane is constrained. Its ability to handle additional container traffic is very limited, and the railway connection from Toowoomba to Brisbane is almost at capacity. Widening the line is not possible.

For this reason, One Nation supports extending Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, which has the space to expand to become Australia’s main container Port. This would reduce import and export times and lower the cost per container, ultimately reducing prices for consumers.

I asked the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) where they were with this connection. The answer was – nowhere! How can we grow the economy and provide for the millions of new arrivals the Albanese Government is allowing in without a corresponding increase in our productive capacity?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The current planning for Inland Rail includes consideration of a connection to the Port of Gladstone. Where are we up to on that?  

Mr W Johnson: I think I updated you last time that there were some interested parties, in terms of the Port of Gladstone, in connectivity to Inland Rail and the alignment of Inland Rail as it is. GreenLink, in particular, is the organisation that ARTC continue to have some interaction with. They’re progressing through what design operations and/or funding could look like for that in the future. We remain engaged with GreenLink, as ARTC. Inland Rail remain focused on delivering the project to Parkes, as it is today approved, and the enabling works north of Parkes. They’re not focused around any connection, at this point, with GreenLink.  That’s  what ARTC has been working with.  

Senator ROBERTS: Regarding GreenLink, do they have the finance?  

Mr W Johnson: I’m not sure of the exact status. I’d have to take that on notice, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do they also have the intellectual property, the property feasibility study?  

Mr W Johnson: My understanding is they’re working on both concept designs as well as funding programs, and they’re well advanced in those endeavours.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you working with IPG global?  

Mr W Johnson: No. Sorry, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Port of Gladstone currently does not have a major container-handing function. An application to build one has been delayed for 11 years. What steps have you taken to ensure the Gladstone port is capable of accepting container traffic when the connection is completed? For clarity, it makes no sense to connect Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone if the port can’t handle container traffic.  

Mr W Johnson: There’s no work from ourselves in terms of the Port of Gladstone.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, just as an aside, the Port of Gladstone could be a development of major national significance, with regard to container terminals. Why is there a delay on that?  

Senator McCarthy: I can take your question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I’m deeply concerned with the delay, mainly, in the connection and the approval of Gladstone—the processing for a container-handling application. Going back to the ARTC, if the connection is not built, the Port of Brisbane becomes a primary container port. On notice, can you provide the data you have on the remaining rail spots to bring container trains to the Port of Brisbane, the capacity of the port and the expected volume of container traffic Inland Rail would generate from import and export traffic for the Port of Brisbane.  

Mr W Johnson: Sorry, I’d have to take the details of container movements on notice; I’m happy to do so. We continue some interaction and engagement with the Port of Brisbane around what connectivity would look like in the future, but there are a significant number of products that are domestic bound from both North Queensland and also southern states into Queensland. That is the purpose of the connectivity of the existing and the future inland rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, going back to the previous question, is there any way you can get onto the Gladstone Ports Corporation and ask them to resolve the application immediately?  

Senator McCarthy: I’d have to take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by

The Institute That Breaks Families

,

The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) should be renamed the Australian Institute for Breaking Apart Families. Their persistent pro-female, anti-male bias is unbecoming of a government agency.

During Estimates in October, I asked why they misreport domestic violence data to portray men as perpetrators and women as victims, when the actual data shows victimisation rates are almost equal.

I will continue monitoring this failed agency to see what other misinformation they spread.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the Australian Institute of Family Studies. In June this year, this headline rang out: ‘One in three men report using intimate partner violence’. That was plastered across the news. There was widespread coverage of research from the Ten to Men study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which found one in three men reported being violent towards their partners. Are you aware of that study?

Ms Neville: Yes, I am aware of that research.

Senator ROBERTS: The institute failed to mention in their report that almost a third—30.9 per cent—of the men surveyed were victims of similar violence, which included both physical and emotional abuse. The correct headline should have been: ‘One in three men report using intimate partner violence, and one in three men report being the victims of intimate partner violence’. Why did you misrepresent the data presented in your own study?

Ms Roberts: You are referring there to what we call bidirectional violence, which is acknowledged in the report. We did not explore deeply the question of men’s experience of violence because we were focused primarily on the experience of gender based violence, which is situated within the ethos of the National Plan to End Gender Based Violence. That was a significant factor. There were other issues, too, in terms of the scope of the report. I will now hand over to Dr Sean Martin, who is the leader of—

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, before we go to Dr Martin. The AIFS reported data excluded all the men who were victims, yet not perpetrators, of violence—a total of 355 forgotten survivors, or seven per cent of the sample. Why was this data excluded? Even if the focus of the report was on male perpetrators, surely, it provides important context for the community to know that almost as many men are victims as perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Are you peddling feminist propaganda at taxpayers’ expense? The taxpayers fund you. This is misleading.

Dr Martin: If I could address that question, I was involved in that report that you’re talking to. First of all, in terms of men’s experiences around intimate partner violence, our approach is driven by external expertise which suggested that the acute need was around data on perpetration of intimate partner violence. Of course, there are other estimates around men’s experiences of intimate partner violence, like the personal safety study, which points to one in 16 men having recently experienced intimate partner violence, and one in four women. That was very much known. The report itself, as you indicate, did include some information around men’s experiences of intimate partner violence. The reason we did that, as our director has just pointed out, is that we wanted to get a sense of this bidirectional relationship with intimate partner violence. We wanted to know how many men perpetrated or used intimate partner violence and how many men both used and experienced intimate partner violence. That was the approach that we took, because we had to limit the scope of this particular report. What we didn’t include in that report was men who solely experienced intimate partner violence. Again, that was done purely because we needed to contain the scope of the study. If we wanted to have a look at that specific issue, it would require a different analytical approach which was outside the scope of this particular report.

/by

Net Zero’s Price Tag: Why Won’t They Tell Us?

,

I have consistently asked the government and its bureaucrats for a straight answer on the total cost of reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions to meet their targets, yet no one can provide it. I’ve heard figures ranging from hundreds of billions to $1.9 trillion, but Australians deserve to know the real number. We need transparency on what these policies will cost compared to doing nothing at all.

I made it clear what I’m asking about: the costs of wind and solar generators, transmission lines for scattered renewables, shutting down coal, restrictions on livestock, bans on petrol and diesel engines, and the impact on vehicles like the V8 LandCruiser. These are sweeping changes that will reshape our economy and lifestyle. Officials agreed to take my question on notice, but the fact that they cannot answer upfront is deeply concerning.

I also raised the issue of rising electricity prices and subsidies. Net zero policies are driving up power costs, threatening industries like aluminium smelting. The government then uses taxpayer money to subsidise vulnerable consumers, adding another layer of expense. I want to know the total cost of these subsidies and interventions. Australians need the full picture before we continue further down this path.

Finally, I challenged the minister on what Australians call the “ute tax,” which is hurting vehicles like the V8 LandCruiser. He denied its existence but admitted the government introduced fuel efficiency standards, this is just a net-zero tax in disguise. He claims these standards will save consumers money, but I remain concerned about their impact on vehicle choice and affordability, especially for regional Australians. These policies are not just about efficiency—they are part of a broader net zero agenda that is increasing costs, threatening jobs, and changing our way of life without honest disclosure of the consequences.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. It seems to me that everyone in government and the bureaucracy is incapable of telling people how much reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide—  

CHAIR: I will stop you right there. We will be respecting the people sitting at the table. Would you like to rephrase your question?  

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t get an answer from the government or the bureaucracy on how much it’s going to cost in total overall for cutting Australia’s carbon dioxide production to meet your targets. Why is that? I’ve heard everything from a couple of hundred billion here or there to $1.9 trillion. What is the number?  

Mr Fredericks: Senator, I know we’ve had this discussion before. I think the generality of your question makes it very hard for us as officials to answer it in any meaningful way. We always want to try to assist you because your questions as a senator are legitimate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Mr Fredericks: If there’s a way you can in some way refine it, we can have a crack. Otherwise, if you think it would be better to put it on notice, and we can give you a response on notice, I’m happy to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Fredericks. I will accept your invitation. I’m talking about all the costs of wind, solar generators and power lines needed for the scattered wind and solar; the killing of coal; the killing of the farting cows; the banning of petrol and diesel engines; and the killing off the V8 Toyota LandCruiser. How much is it all going to cost Australia to get to where you somehow think we’re going to be in 2050 compared to just letting Australians be? What is it going to cost to do all of that versus what does it cost to do nothing?  

Mr Fredericks: Senator, I think if it’s okay with you, we’ll take that on notice. Because you’ve given some specificity, we are in a position to be able to describe, as it appears in the budget, costs associated with some of the measures you just described. We can legitimately do that. We will take that on notice and do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. So you understand what I’m asking now, even though I haven’t named every single component? There are a hell of a lot of components that I would like to know the cost of.  

Senator Ayres: I think, Senator Roberts, that Mr Fredericks has said that they will answer it as far as they can. I can say to you that in your question were a couple of assertions. Killing off the V8 Toyota LandCruiser is not an initiative of the Albanese Labor government. Killing the Australian auto industry was an initiative of the Morrison, Abbott and Turnbull governments. International auto makers now make vehicles. Australia doesn’t make cars anymore because they killed the industry. That is not something that can be costed, Senator. It’s the economic harm that is done by coalition governments to Australian manufacturing that is entirely the responsibility of Mr Hockey—I saw him featured in the newspapers yesterday; it was a pretty interesting article— Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull, Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg. All these characters thought it was an act of total genius to kill 40,000 jobs and Australia’s capacity to make cars. You can see that there is a contrast with this government. There is $2 billion, for example, in your home state of Queensland, to back the aluminium sector so that investment is sustained in Australia. The aluminium sector is going through their own process. You might not like it. They have just on the back of that announcement—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking about the aluminium sector.  

Senator Ayres: I know you like the aluminium sector. You might not like the fact that they are shifting to a lower carbon profile. They have on the back of the Albanese government’s investment in the aluminium sector. It has given them the confidence to invest themselves $2 billion in renewable energy capability in Queensland. That’s more jobs for Queensland with a government that has a local content plan for the renewables sector, which will mean more engineering, more structural steel and more jobs in Queensland.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the key issue in producing aluminium in Queensland is the prices.  

Senator Ayres: I didn’t interrupt you, Senator. I’m just trying to make the point that some of the assertions you make go to things that are not what the government is up to here. The government is up to supporting Australian manufacturing and Australian industry and rebuilding a modern electricity grid so that we are competitive for the future.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Senator Ayres: That’s what we’re up to. The fruits of that are most starkly evident in regional Queensland at the moment, where 5,000 jobs are sustained in Gladstone and Central Queensland because of that one announcement and investment in new renewable energy capability. The alternative is the plan that these jokers have for nuclear reactors that will force the aluminium sector offshore just like the auto industry was forced offshore.  

CHAIR: Minister, I will ask you to refer to our colleagues respectfully.  

Senator Ayres: What did I say? I’m sorry.  

CHAIR: You called them jokers.  

Senator DUNIAM: We don’t normally joke about things. In the vein of respect—  

Senator Ayres: My friends over here.  

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that.  

Senator Ayres: Sorry, Senator Roberts. I took a side track.  

Senator ROBERTS: Gladstone is under threat because of both this government and the previous government’s passion for net zero. That’s why it’s under threat. Electricity prices are the key ingredient to an aluminium smelter. I happened to live in the Hunter Valley when the alumina smelter at Kurri was built. I know that it has shut down and others are under threat now because of electricity prices and the conversion to net zero. I would also like to understand the subsidies, the support, and what that is going to cost. We have these net zero policies increasing the cost of electricity. We then have the government milking the taxpayer and electricity users to subsidise people who are vulnerable. I would also like to know that specifically.  

Senator Ayres: I want to make two observations about that.  

Senator ROBERTS: By the way, Minister, you introduced the ute tax. That’s what is hurting V8 LandCruisers. Did you not?  

Senator Ayres: I want to make a few observations about this. Firstly, Senator, the most disturbing thing I’ve heard this morning is your assertion that you were around in the Hunter Valley when the Kurri smelter was built. I cannot believe it. You look so youthful.  

Senator ROBERTS: I used to go to school at Kurri.  

Senator Ayres: Really there’s cognitive dissonance there. I am going to have to adjust to this idea.  

Senator ROBERTS: I went past the Kurri aluminium smelter on my way to Kurri High School every day.  

Senator Ayres: I once persuaded somebody who didn’t come from the Hunter Valley that there were two towns in the Hunter Valley—one called Kurri and the other called Kurri.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wagga?  

Senator Ayres: Indeed. That’s right. Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you or did you not introduce the ute tax that is killing V8 LandCruisers?  

Senator Ayres: Well, there’s no arrangement called the ute tax. You know it. If people want to buy LandCruisers or any other kind of vehicle, they are very welcome to. The broader point, though, is that because the questions you ask go outside the scope, apart from the assertions that I don’t agree with and the ones like your relative age that I can’t reconcile myself to, we will take those questions on notice. The department will do their best to look within the scope of their responsibilities to answer on the cost of measures. I will—  

Senator ROBERTS: It is disturbing that you are now qualifying Mr Fredericks’s answer.  

Senator Ayres: I think I’m saying exactly the same thing as Mr Fredericks; that is, we’ll take those things on notice and they will answer to the extent that they can.  

Senator ROBERTS: That they can? Senator Ayres: Yes. They can answer questions that go to the scope of the department’s activities. If you want economy-wide measures—even if you end up at PM&C or Treasury—you will find that a very substantial number of these investments is private investments. They are encouraged or facilitated by developments in the international market and developments that the Australian government is supporting. You mention government support. We unequivocally support Australian manufacturing. The biggest program factor—  

Senator ROBERTS: It is being called by your policy of net zero.  

Senator Ayres: is the biggest pro-manufacturing package in Australian history to back investment in areas such as critical minerals, iron and steel and aluminium. It is backing current jobs and prospective investment. It is the kind of thing I would have thought your political party would support. The alternative is zero in industry policy and forcing important industries such as the auto industry offshore, which is what my friends over there, in the era they want to go back to—the Morrison period.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re very pleased, Minister, to say our policy—  

Senator Ayres: The Morrison period, where they want to go back to, had 40,000 jobs gone. I think it’s a very strong contrast and one that I’m very happy to talk about over the coming weeks and months.  

Senator ROBERTS: Our policy is to end net zero and restore manufacturing. Do you admit, Minister, that a Toyota V8 LandCruiser simply cannot survive under your vehicle emissions rules and that you effectively killed it off?  

Senator Ayres: I can answer in terms of my own practical experience. I went in to work this morning. There were all sorts of vehicles on the road. Some of them were old vehicles. Some of them were new ones. Some of them had been purchased new. Some of them had been purchased second-hand. The government has, as we canvassed a bit earlier before you came in—  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, everyone can see you on TV.  

Senator Ayres: But you came in—  

Senator ROBERTS: Everyone can see you answering this question.  

Senator Ayres: The government has introduced a set of fuel efficiency standards. Before that, Australia was operating on the basis of standards that had been developed in the 1970s. We were the dumping ground for vehicles just like the Russian economy and a couple of other places around the world that hadn’t taken this step. It’s in the interests of—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m deeply concerned about Australians.  

Senator Ayres: It’s in the interests of people having to buy less fuel. It’s cheaper for people when there is a vehicle efficiency standard. It means that cars aren’t overusing petrol or diesel. It costs less to get from one place in regional Queensland to the other because you are using less fuel. That’s a good thing. It’s a good thing for consumers. It’s a pity that we don’t have an automotive manufacturing sector in Australia that would be able to take advantage of those things as well and build LandCruisers, Hiluxes and all sorts of things for the Australian market and the international market. We lost that opportunity because of previous—  

Senator ROBERTS: Power prices are rising too high.  

Senator Ayres: Because a previous government decided to force the auto industry offshore.  

CHAIR: We will move on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Thank you, Minister. 

/1 Comment/by

Transparency Starts with Honest Answers

,

In Senate Estimates, I raised the issue of transparency in government appointments. The Minister has made transparency one of the key drivers for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and I wanted to put that principle into practice. I asked the questions Australians deserve answers to—starting with the basics: what is the total remuneration package for this position? Mr Kaiser confirmed it’s approximately $930,000 per year, inclusive of superannuation, on a five-year contract.

I explored Mr Kaiser’s background. He previously served as Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet under Labor Premier Steven Miles. Before that, Mr Kaiser was State Secretary of the Queensland Labor Party and even a member of parliament for Labor. These are facts that matter because they speak to the culture of appointments in government. When the Prime Minister praises Mr Kaiser’s experience in delivering large-scale projects and managing energy infrastructure, Australians should know the full story behind that experience.

Finally, I asked why the government still hasn’t released its “jobs-for-mates” review, which was handed to them in 2023. This review was supposed to end the very culture that raises questions about appointments like this one.

I’ll keep pushing for answers because accountability matters. Australians deserve a public service that is impartial, frank, and fearless—not one that looks like a revolving door for political insiders.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this morning. Minister, firstly, congratulations to you. It’s a challenging appointment; Anthony Albanese must trust you quite a bit. Mr Kaiser, congratulations on your appointment to run the department.  

Mr Kaiser: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to focus on the third driver of the minister’s drivers to the department, which is more transparency. What’s your total remuneration package for heading the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water?  

Mr Kaiser: Approximately $930,000 per annum. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that in total, or does it include super and allowances? Is that everything in your package?

Mr Kaiser: That’s inclusive of super.  

Senator ROBERTS: So your gross salary package is $930,000.  

Mr Kaiser: Approximately. 

Senator ROBERTS: How long is your contract for?  

Mr Kaiser: Five years.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was your last job?  

Mr Kaiser: I was one of what we call directors-general. I was Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the premier was Steven Miles?  

Mr Kaiser: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Which party was he in?  

Mr Kaiser: The Labor Party.  

Senator ROBERTS: He was unceremoniously tossed out of government by the Queensland voters, and it’s the federal Labor government now appointing you.  

Mr Kaiser: I think my career CV is a matter of record. I was employed by the Queensland government until 24 October 2004, and I commenced work with the Commonwealth government as the secretary of this department on 14 July 2025.  

Senator ROBERTS: At one stage, you were state secretary for the Queensland Labor Party; is that correct?  

Mr Kaiser: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: And were you a member of the parliament for the Labor Party?  

Mr Kaiser: I was a member of the Queensland parliament for a brief period of time, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What role did you have that earnt the Prime Minister’s praise? I can see that he has been very glowing in his praise: ‘Mr Kaiser’s experience includes delivering on large scale projects, administering complex regulatory regimes and leading the Queensland government’s policies on planning and infrastructure.’ What role did you have on climate and energy plans?  

Mr Kaiser: As a Queensland public servant?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Kaiser: I headed the infrastructure department that had overall responsibility for the program management of the infrastructure that was publicly funded in Queensland and aspects of private sector infrastructure; that certainly included energy infrastructure, for example. I was the director-general of the local government department; I had a lot of interactions between local governments and energy providers and also those developing renewable energy projects. I’m trying to think of other touch points. Obviously, as the Director-General of the—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your being so forthcoming. Did that include any of the pumped hydro storage systems?  

Senator Watt: Chair, can I just get a ruling? I think these are questions that go to matters in the Queensland government, and I would have thought today is more about asking questions about what’s happening in the federal government. So can we just get some guidance on whether these questions are in order?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll deal with that. I understand the point that you’re making, minister. I think it’s relevant to the qualifications of the department’s secretary for the purposes of corporate affairs. So, unless it strays very much further into the Queensland government, I think these questions are in order for now.  

Mr Kaiser: In terms of the pumped hydro projects being worked on in Queensland at the time while I was a public servant, it was certainly Queensland government policy that pumped hydro projects be developed in Queensland and, as a public servant, I played my legitimate role in assisting the government to fulfil its policy objectives.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did that include Borumba and Pioneer-Burdekin?  

Mr Kaiser: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Kaiser, how many of the projects that you oversaw have been turned around by the latest government, the new government?  

Mr Kaiser: I can’t answer that. As a public servant, I worked diligently to fulfil the policy objectives of the government that I worked for and not a subsequent government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why hasn’t the government released its jobs-for-mates review into Public Service appointments? Senator Gallagher said back in 2023, ‘This review is all about putting an end to the jobs- for-mates culture.’ It was handed to your government in 2023, yet you still keep it secret; why haven’t you commented on it?  

Senator Watt: I don’t know about that. That’s not a matter involving this department, but the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Finance are happening over the course of the week.  

Mr Kaiser: Senator, if I may, it would seem to me that your questions go to my political background. There is no doubt and it’s a matter of record that I have political involvement in my background. I can assure senators, my ministers and the Australian people that I’ve had no involvement in politics—I’ve held no political role—for 16 years. When I was involved in politics, the public servants whom I admired the most were the ones who provided frank, fearless and impartial advice, and that’s a value I hold dear now as I exercise my responsibility as a public servant.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll have to share the call. If you have further questions, please let me know. Senator Dean Smith. 

/by