Decades of Neglect: Victims Still Waiting for Justice

,

I spoke with the CEO of the National Blood Authority, Adjunct Professor Ms Adriana Platona. She confirmed that the Australian Government owned the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories before it was privatised. She also stated that the National Blood Authority was established in 2003.

I asked her what steps had been taken to ensure the safety of concentrates containing Factor VIII. I did not receive a satisfactory answer—rather, I was given an attempted history lesson. Ms Platona went on to explain that the National Blood Authority was created as a result of the negative issues experienced by recipients of blood products during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. She said that an apology had been issued. I question whether an apology alone is enough to compensate victims who were infected with Hepatitis C and HIV?

Ms Platona stated that there have been no contaminated blood incidents since 2003. I suggested that the Commonwealth Government surely had legacy responsibilities, at which point the Deputy Secretary of the Department, Ms Penny Shakespeare, intervened. She said that these issues were primarily the responsibility of the States and Territories. I pointed out that in March 1953 the WHO recommended that dried plasma should be taken from small pools of 10–20 donors only, for safety reasons. Apparently, by the mid-1980s in Australia, plasma was mass-pooled from large numbers of donors, contrary to WHO recommendations. I asked why this had occurred – which had to be taken on notice.

I then asked whether it was considered an acceptable risk—of high probability—that haemophiliacs would contract Hepatitis Non-A, Non-B, and Hepatitis C during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Again, I did not receive a satisfactory. I asked whether adequate compensation would be paid to the victims, as has happened in the UK, but was dismissed, and then my session was cut short by the Chair.

I will continue to seek justice for the victims of this terrible blunder by the Commonwealth and their continued denial of responsibility.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got several issues here that I’d like to discuss—National Blood Authority about tainted blood, the pelvic mesh, the Lyme disease, ATAGI following on from Professor Lawler’s comments. So I’ll start with National Blood Authority, please. Is Dr John Rowell here? No. A lot of people are plagued with tainted blood, a heavy burden. At CSL’s 2024 annual general meeting, Chair Brian McNamee stated that, prior to its privatisation, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Is that correct?  

Prof. Platona: The National Blood Authority was formed in 2003 as a statutory legislative agency. I’m very happy to answer questions about the National Blood Authority’s role and work since 2003.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m wanting to know if you could confirm that before the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was sold off to the public, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.  

Prof. Platona: I believe that is correct, sir.  

Senator ROBERTS: What steps did the Australian government take to regulate the safety of the Factor VIII and IX concentrates manufactured by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the seventies, eighties and nineties?  

Prof. Platona: As I said in the first statement, the National Blood Authority was formed in 2003. I’m happy to answer questions about the work of the agency since then. You are referring to matters that precede the formation of the National Blood Authority by several decades.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me—I know it was a long time ago, but a lot of people are severely suffering now. Whose responsibility was it at the time, Ms Platona—is it Professor?—  

Prof. Platona: Yes. Ms Platona is fine.  

Senator ROBERTS: to ensure the safety of the Factor VIII and XI concentrates? This has relevance to what you’re doing now.  

Prof. Platona: Indeed. The National Blood Authority was formed, as I said, as a result of some negatively affected people in the seventies, eighties and nineties. My predecessor provided a lot of context in response to your question in November 2024 on Hansard, as to the steps that led to the formation of the National Blood Authority, the apology, the formation of what is now the national Red Cross Lifeblood organisation, the apology that Red Cross Lifeblood made in 2014, and a number of actions by state and territory governments to deal with, really, the failings of the blood transfusion in the past. I do not want you to think at all that I don’t think about the lives of the people that Haemophilia Foundation, for example, is working to support—not at all. I’m the officer that has got the Public Service Medal for making the direct antiviral medicines available. Those hepatitis C treatments are now considered to be best practice and curative. So I do want to acknowledge the hard circumstances of the people affected by the disease.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. Did you want to say any more on that?  

Prof. Platona: I’m keen to do a good job, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can you do a good job for people with tainted blood? It was the government’s responsibility.  

Prof. Platona: Since the organisation was formed in 2003, to date there has been no contaminated blood incident.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you not have any legacy responsibilities from your predecessors? The Commonwealth government is responsible.  

Ms Shakespeare: Prior to 1991, the Commonwealth’s role was largely through providing funding to state and territory governments to operate blood services. States and territories regulated the blood supply system in Australia until, as Ms Platona has explained, the National Blood Authority was established in 2003, and it now provides that national coordination. I think we also had the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. After that, there were changes to the way that blood was regulated as well. Before that, the regulation largely would have been occurring through state and territory governments.  

Senator ROBERTS: But it was overseen by the Commonwealth. Let’s go through the history, and correct me if I’m wrong, Ms Shakespeare. In March 1953, the World Health Organization released a report that recommended dried plasma should be prepared from small pools of no more than 10 to 20 donors. This was ignored, and, by the mid-1980s, factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, significantly increasing the risk of hepatitis and HIV. Why were these early recommendations ignored? You weren’t around then, but that was a federal responsibility.  

Ms Shakespeare: We can try and take on notice if there’s anything in the archives about what happened in the 1950s, but it is a little bit difficult for us to talk to you about what happened at that time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take these on notice then, please. It was in the mid 1980s. Factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, which went against the prevailing wisdom. Could you find out, Ms Shakespeare—and I thank you for your attention—if it was considered an acceptable risk that there was a high probability of haemophiliacs using factor concentrates that would be infected with hepatitis Non-A, hepatitis Non-B, hepatitis C in the seventies, eighties and nineties?  

Ms Shakespeare: Senator, what I can tell you is that the first specific test for hepatitis C became available in late 1989. Australia was one of the first countries to commence using the test, in November 1989, with implementation completed by February 1990. Similarly, we were one of the first countries to introduce HIV patient screening in May 1985. When tests have become available to make sure that the blood supply was safe and could be monitored for those particular medical issues, we’ve implemented that as early as possible.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m wondering how to help these people.  

Ms Shakespeare: I think Ms Platona has spoken about some of the assistance that has been provided, and I can go through some of the help that has been provided. There was a review of the blood arrangements in 2001 that was conducted by a former High Court judge. The recommendations from that review were provided to all Australian Health Ministers and led to the establishment of the National Blood Authority and the centralised coordinated arrangements we have to ensure a safe and adequate blood supply that we still have today. We have haemovigilance—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I interrupt?  

Ms Shakespeare: Of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: That would assume that, prior to that, the blood wasn’t considered to be safe.  

Ms Shakespeare: Decisions will have been made based on the state and territory governments’ delivery of blood products about the introduction of testing when it became available, when those tests were developed. As I said, compared to other countries, Australia was one of the first adopters and introduced those tests at a very early stage. But we didn’t just stop there. We’ve been establishing arrangements to make sure that the blood products that we provide to people today are nationally coordinated, that we’ve got consistent arrangements and that we don’t have differences between regulation and provision in different states and territories. The national haemovigilance program for Australia has been developed. That’s a set of surveillance procedures covering the entire blood transfusion chain, from donation and processing of blood to their provision and transfusion to patients. We have monitoring, reporting, investigating and analysing of adverse events related to donation processing and transfusion, and development and implementation of recommendations to prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of adverse events. So we’ve got a whole haemovigilance program that now operates that’s been developed and implemented through the National Blood Arrangements. For people that have acquired hepatitis C the direct-acting antivirals, which were listed on the PBS in 2016—at that time that was the largest single PBS listing that had ever been made. We have future-generation directantivirals that are now provided through the PBS. If I can give an example, in 2023-24, we had 9,167 scripts of a drug called glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, which is a current-generation treatment for hepatitis C at a cost to government of $161 million. In the same year, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, another medicine to treat people with hepatitis C, had 10,953 scripts at a cost to government of $131 million. So we’re providing access to those treatments. Now that covers anybody with hepatitis C. It doesn’t matter how they acquired it, but it would certainly benefit those who acquired it through the blood system before the testing was available.  

Senator ROBERTS: For some of these people with tainted blood, their lives have been really shot. Perhaps you could look at the camera—and I’m not trying to put pressure on you, or Ms Platona, or the minister, but what do we do for these people? Where do they go for compensation? Britain compensated their people with tainted blood, long, long, long ago; they admitted it and got on with the job. How do these people recover? How do these people get compensation if they can’t? I know you’ve given a list of drugs. What do we do?  

Ms Shakespeare: Those are curative, in many cases, direct-acting antivirals, which will be of significant benefit to people with hepatitis C. I should also say that the Australian government contributes to the hepatitis C litigation settlement schemes, which were set up and are managed by the state governments for people that were infected through the blood supply system before we had the National Blood Authority established. That offers financial settlements for people who contracted hepatitis C between 1985 and 1991. So there has been compensation made available and the Australian government contributes to that.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to have to share the call. We are tight on time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your interest, Ms Shakespeare.  

Ms Shakespeare: You’re welcome. 

/by

Mass Migration Has Consequences—Acknowledging Them Isn’t Hate

,

I asked Mr Sivaraman, the Race Discrimination Commissioner, whether he stood by his comment that “the bile of racism” is spilling into public forums and many political debates. He confirmed that he does. I then questioned whether simply asking about migration intake numbers is racist, and he agreed that it isn’t necessarily so, though he warned that targeting certain groups can make it problematic.

I raised the fact that there are four million non-citizens in Australia while we have record homelessness, and that years of mass migration have put pressure on housing, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. I asked if acknowledging these facts makes someone racist. Mr Sivaraman said linking migration directly to these issues is overly simplistic and can lead to scapegoating, though I clarified I never claimed migration was the sole cause—just a significant factor.

We discussed fairness for migrants themselves, who sometimes lose housing when new arrivals come, and the mismatch between the skills Australia needs and those brought in under migration programs. Mr Sivaraman agreed that failing to recognise migrants’ skills is a real problem and mentioned campaigns to address this. I pointed out that, in construction, only a tiny fraction of arrivals have the promised skills, which raises serious concerns.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Sivaraman, as Australia’s race discrimination commissioner, you say ‘the bile of racism’ is spilling out into the public forum and many political debates. Do you stand by that comment?  

Mr Sivaraman: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?  

Mr Sivaraman: In and of itself, it doesn’t have to be, no. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are currently four million people in this country, our country, who are not Australian citizens taking up beds while Australians are homeless—there is record homelessness—after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived; that’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that, if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospital, dams, transport and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist? 

 Mr Sivaraman: I think to simply connect, in a very linear way, migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve—  

Senator ROBERTS: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?  

Mr Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to, like housing and the cost of living, are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with, and it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, and I think that can be problematic.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants, when I am one? And can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?  

Mr Sivaraman: It is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems that you’ve— 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say there was only one cause. It’s the significant factor. 

 Mr Sivaraman: Even that, in itself, is a simplification. It can be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.  

Senator ROBERTS: We know for a fact that we’ve got record homelessness, and the government is bringing in record numbers of people year after year after year. They haven’t got anywhere to go, Mr Sivaraman. We even see migrants coming here, being given housing and then being turfed out when the next wave of migrants comes. Is that fair to the migrants?  

Mr Sivaraman: I’m not sure if I can take it further. Homelessness is obviously a serious and significant issue. Simply pointing to migration or migrants as the problem, or the cause of that issue is overly simplistic.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the misalignment between the skills we need in this country for people to get straight to work and bringing in people without those skills and them not being able to find work? Is that dehumanising to the migrants? Is it dehumanising to the people here?  

Mr Sivaraman: Senator, I’m glad you raised that issue. I think there is a real problem with the failure to recognise skills, experience and qualifications of migrants, which often leads to people being underutilised and dampening their productivity in the workplace. I note that Settlement Services International are running a campaign now called Activate Australia’s Skills, because we do want to fully utilise the skills of migrants that come here so that they can contribute to our workforce. That’s a really important issue.  

Senator ROBERTS: But, if they don’t have the skills—for example, in construction, the government is bringing in, supposedly, construction workers with skills in construction, but only 0.6 per cent actually have those skills and experience. How are they going to build houses for the other 99.4 per cent?  

Mr Sivaraman: I’m unaware of the statistics you’ve quoted, so I can’t speak to those statistics specifically. But in a general sense there is a lot of research and data that shows that we have failed to recognise the skills and qualifications of migrants, and that is a significant detriment to the Australian economy.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my final question before moving on to Dr Cody. I understand in your role as Race Discrimination Commissioner you are being paid $398,450 per annum—almost $400,000—plus 15.4 per cent super. Are those pay figures correct? Mr  

Sivaraman: I think that they would be, yes. I’d have to check the Remunerations Tribunal determination. 

/1 Comment/by

Is the NACC Protecting Power Over Truth?

,

I recently asked questions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) about its refusal to engage with complainants who hold critical information—information that could help expose corruption at the highest levels. One such individual is economist John Adams, who has referred serious allegations involving the Prime Minister and ASIC officials. Despite providing extensive documentation, Mr Adams has been shut out of the process. The NACC confirmed they do not consult complainants before deciding whether to investigate. This raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability.

I also asked whether the NACC has served any legal notices or conducted compulsory examinations of the Prime Minister. Their response? “I’m not in a position to answer that.” The NACC “hides” behind confidentiality provisions in the Act, refusing to confirm or deny any action. Why is the federal body so secretive? Australians deserve to know if their leaders are under investigation.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the NACC refusing to engage with complainants in either preliminary investigations or corruption investigations—complainants who have critical information which can help the NACC fulfil its mission? One person, who has given me permission to name, is John Adams, and he has referred the Prime Minister and ASIC officials. Why haven’t you talked to him? 

Mr Reed: Mr Adams has made a number of referrals to the commission. We go through a process of triage and then assessment, and the outcome of that, if it goes from tier 1 triage to tier 2 assessment, is then considered by the NACC Senior Assessment Panel to determine whether or not there’s a corruption issue that could be investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you make that decision without consulting the complainant?  

Mr Reed: What happens is that people make referrals, and we assess them. We decide whether or not we’re going to proceed with any further work. Eighty-four per cent of the matters—  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reed, I accept what you’re saying. Can you make those decisions to take it from one stage to the next without taking to the complainant?  

Mr Reed: It depends on what material the complainant has provided. Mr Adams has provided enormous amounts of material.  

Senator ROBERTS: He’s diligent.  

Mr Reed: He is just one of those individuals who is very invested in one particular matter, and the commission has spent a significant amount of time considering the material that he’s provided and has made decisions about that matter. I don’t think that Mr Adams is happy about that or will ever be happy about the outcome. So we don’t have to go and talk to individuals who made referrals.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that you don’t have to.  

Mr Reed: It’s just the reality of it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reed, has the NACC served any legal notices on the current prime minister of Australia?  

Mr Reed: We have received 6,055 referrals since our inception, and it’s just not possible that we’re going to talk to all of them, and, in many ways, there’s no requirement to. Sorry, I missed your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC served any legal notices on the current prime minister of Australia. If so, how many and when?  

Mr Reed: I’m not in a position to answer that. We don’t talk about the work that we do. We don’t talk about referrals, unless they’re on the public record. We don’t talk about investigations. We don’t talk about where notices are served.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?  

Mr Reed: It’s just the nature of the act. The act requires us to do things confidentially and largely in private. That’s the reality of the act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC compulsorily examined the Prime Minister?  

Mr Reed: We will never talk about the work we’re doing until we publish a report at the end of the work we’re doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the same apply to ministers, not just the Prime Minister?  

Mr Reed: I’m not going to enter into a debate about the work that the NACC is undertaking in any of its investigations. It’s not appropriate to talk about it here.  

Senator ROBERTS: In October 2021, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption published a media release indicating that Premier Berejiklian was under formal investigation for corruption. This publication led to the resignation of the premier. Does the NACC have the approach of informing the public if a minister of the Crown or the head of a Commonwealth government or agency is under investigation for corruption? You’ve already said no, but it has happened before in a different state, in a different jurisdiction.  

Mr Reed: I worked at the New South Wales ICAC for five years. I very much understand how it operates. It has a different legislative base, a different approach. They ultimately end up in public hearings as part of an investigative process, but most of the work they do is done privately. If I can quote some figures to you out of the most recent annual report of the ICAC, they had one public inquiry in 2023-24, which occurred over 11 days, yet, in the same time period, they undertook 36 of what we would call private hearings and what they call compulsory examinations over 30 days. The bulk of the work done by the New South Wales ICAC is done in private. Then, when they get an investigation to a particular point, they have the option to go to public hearing. There are provisions that relate to that, and they use that option on a regular basis, but it’s a different bit of legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: In May 2024, the Prime Minister of Australia and senior ASIC officials were referred to the NACC after allegedly facilitating an illegal cover-up of a company called ABC Bullion. Are you familiar with that? It occurred during an official investigation.  

Mr Reed: We don’t ever comment on matters that are referred to us or where they’ve ended up unless it’s been put on the public record previously, and most matters have not. So I’m not going to answer either positively or negatively about that particular referral.  

Senator ROBERTS: Again, the NACC has resisted in engaging the key witness, so we’ll move on to the last issue. Given that there have now been two senior judges finding that Ms Brittany Higgins lied about not receiving support from her employer Senator Reynolds, will the NACC reopen the complaint about Ms Higgins receiving a $2.4 million payment of taxpayer money based on lies, being that she would never be able to work again.  

Ms O’Meagher: In relation to Ms Higgins, she wasn’t a Commonwealth public official at the time of the conduct you refer to, so it’s not within the jurisdiction of the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thanks.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/by

COVID Vaccine Compensation: Why So Little for Lifelong Harm?

,

During this session of Estimates, I asked questions on the COVID vaccine redress scheme. By the closing date, 4962 claims had been lodged, yet only 522 have been paid—amounting to $50.9 million. A large portion of applications were rejected, withdrawn, or remain under assessment, with 722 still in progress. I pressed for details on why so many were refused, and it was confirmed that hospitalisation was a key eligibility criteria, a policy set by the Department of Health.

I questioned why compensation offers under the COVID vaccine redress scheme are so small, given the evidence of significant harm suffered by claimants that included lifelong disability. Mr Turnbull responded that this question should be directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, as the compensation policy and parameters are set by them, not by Services Australia. While Services Australia administers the scheme, they advised that payout levels and eligibility rules are dictated by the Department.

Mr Turnbull stated that he did not have the average payout figure on hand and would take that question on notice. However, he explained that payouts are calculated based on various categories of loss, including specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, and pain and suffering. Additionally, lump-sum payments are available for claims involving death.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending tonight. How many applications for redress were received by the COVID vaccine redress scheme before the closing-down date?  

Mr Turnbull: We received 4,962 claims by the closing date.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many were successful?  

Mr Turnbull: To date, 522 claims have been paid, to the value of $50.9 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many applications were refused. Was that the rest of them, or were some partially paid?  

Mr Turnbull: Of the remaining, 2,670 were not payable, 1,048 were withdrawn and there are 722 claims at different parts of the assessment process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the most common reason for being refused?  

Mr Turnbull: We assess each claim against the criteria—for example, the different vaccines that are eligible, the different conditions—  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re all covered?  

Mr Turnbull: Yes. I’d have to check what the most common reason is, but—  

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

Mr Turnbull: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the criteria to be satisfied, apparently, is that the applicant needed to be hospitalised. Is that correct?  

Mr Turnbull: I believe so, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is that?  

Mr Turnbull: We don’t set the policy. If you’re asking about the particular policy parameters of the scheme, those questions are better directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. They set the policy parameters, and they’ll have their rationale for that. Our role is to then administer the payment against the criteria that they set.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, this session is really just on the service delivery aspects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many complaints have been made about claims being rejected—appeals, I guess.  

Mr Turnbull: We would need to take that on notice. What I can tell you is that we do have a review process. For example, at the moment we have 144 claims that are undergoing a review of the decision. The agency has also finalised 161 review decisions. That gives an indication of the total number who, having received the assessment—  

Senator ROBERTS: The agency has reviewed them? They’ve already reviewed them?  

Mr Turnbull: There are 144 that are being reviewed. There are 161 where the review process has been finalised.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications are still being processed?  

Mr Turnbull: There are 722 applications still being processed. They’re at different stages of that assessment process. Of the 722, there are 221 with Services Australia at the moment for assessment, there are 344 claims where we are requesting further information from the applicant to support the claim, there are 103 claims with an expert panel—that’s either an expert medical panel or an expert legal panel—and there’s another group, which is 54 claims, where we’ve made an offer and the applicant has six months to decide whether or not to accept that offer. That’s the break-up of the 722 on hand.  

CHAIR: I’ll get you to wrap up, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What’s the average payout that has been made, and how are payouts calculated?  

Mr Turnbull: I don’t have the average payout with me. We would need to take that on notice. Payouts are calculated based on a range of categories of loss—for example, specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, pain and suffering. There are also lumpsum payments for claims involving death.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question—very simple. Why are the offers of compensation so small, taking into account proof of the significant damage that complainants have suffered, including some being crippled for life— debilitated for life?  

Mr Turnbull: I think that particular question is best directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing because it relates back to the policy. 

 Senator ROBERTS: Because they—  

Mr Turnbull: They set the parameters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you 

/by

Commissioner Doesn’t Get XX/XY

,

“I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around XX and XY ….”

— Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, during Senate Estimates.

How can you advise the court on sex-based rights if you don’t understand the science? Seriously!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to go to Dr Cody, and the intervention in Tickle v Giggle, please. Thank you for appearing, Dr Cody. Tickle v Giggle is the case of someone who was born a biological male being stopped from joining a women-only app. What are you arguing in your intervention? How much are you being paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men to be allowed into women’s spaces?  

Dr Cody: The role that we have within the case Giggle and Tickle is intervention, or amicus curiae: helping the court to understand the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the amendments from 2013, and also how the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women applies, whether or not there are special measures, and their understanding of section 5 and section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We were given leave by the court to assist them to understand those issues and also the constitutionality of the Sex Discrimination Act. In terms of the cost, we have two counsel who were briefed. Both agreed to appear on a capped fee basis, so that’s a reduced fee. One was paid $13,000, and the other one was paid $10,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I actually asked, Dr Cody, was how much are you paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men?  

Dr Cody: My salary is similar to that that you mentioned for Commissioner Sivaraman.  

Senator ROBERTS: About $400,000 a year, plus 15.4 per cent super?  

Dr Cody: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Just so I can be clear, your position is that the law means a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman can enter a female-only space?

Dr Cody: I would question whether or not Roxanne Tickle is not a man. She is a trans woman. She has gone through various processes and has transitioned, and she’s a trans woman. So she has access—or sought access and was provided access—to the Giggle for Girls app, and then was taken off the access to the Giggle for Girls app.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sort of chromosomes does she have—XX or XY?  

Dr Cody: I can’t answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t?  

Dr Cody: No, I can’t answer that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Can someone who was born with XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes—a male change to a female?  

Dr Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist. There are many variations of chromosomes. There are hormonal variations, there are chromosomal variations, there are genitalia variations—there are a lot of variations which are along a spectrum.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex—if born a man, they are a man; if they’re born with XY chromosomes, they’re a man and they stay a man?  

Dr Cody: No, I would not agree.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t agree?  If a woman took a case to court today trying to stop a person with a penis who identified as a female going into a women’s bathroom, which side would you be arguing for if you were there as a friend of the court?  

Dr Cody: No.  I would need to know more facts. I can’t make a judgement on that in particular.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your previous answer, you talked about XX and XY and how you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?  

Dr Cody: The issue around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.  

Senator ROBERTS: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Someone born female is XX.  

Dr Cody: Not always.  

Senator ROBERTS: No?  

Dr Cody: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an example of when not?  

Dr Cody: Because there are also people who have innate variations of sex characteristics, so they may be identified as male at birth, but in fact later find out that they have XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes. So it is more complex than just XX being female and XY being male.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll agree with that, but it’s a very, very tiny proportion of the population. Someone who was born a man, a boy, has XY chromosomes and cannot change to XX—is that correct?  

Dr Cody: If their chromosomes are XY, then I don’t believe their chromosomes can change. But, I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change it.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, if you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?  

Dr Cody: I’m not taking a side within a court case. Our role is as amicus—that is, to provide clarification and help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.  

Senator ROBERTS: So how can you clarify if you don’t understand?  

Dr Cody: I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around the XX and XY, unless the evidence is before the court. So my role is to assist the court with understanding the legal argument.  

Senator ROBERTS: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?  

Dr Cody: What would you like me to explain, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: What your position is.  

Dr Cody: On which issue? 

Senator ROBERTS: The Human Rights Commission’s position on biological males in female spaces. Could you please explain your position on that.  

Dr Cody: What do you mean by ‘biological males’, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: Someone born as a male, XY chromosomes. 

Dr Cody: If they are a man, and depending on which space they are wanting to enter and why that space has been created—if it’s a special measure, for example, for ensuring the quality of women—then there may be good reason to exclude men from that space.  

Senator ROBERTS: What would be some of the reasons?  

Dr Cody: For safety reasons, for example.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of safety reasons?  

Dr Cody: There is certainly a reason why men would be excluded from a domestic violence refuge for women.  

Senator ROBERTS: Female prison?  

Dr Cody: Female prisons are also made for women, and therefore men would be excluded from a women’s prison.  

/7 Comments/by

China Strengthens Foothold in Antarctica

,

During this session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, I raised with them that in 2021, the Coalition government abandoned plans to build an all-weather, all-season paved runway in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Minister Watt confirmed that there are currently no plans to build such a runway and noted that Australia continues to rely on a blue ice runway during summer – leaving our bases largely isolated from the outside world for most of the year.

I pointed out that China is expanding its presence in the region, having already established three bases within the Australian Antarctic Territory. I also raised concerns about the recent reduction in the number of planned programs; however officials denied any funding cuts, asserting that Australia is meeting its obligations in Antarctic research despite China’s growing influence.

When questioned about China’s policy of conducting dual-purpose military and civilian research at its stations, the Department responded that military research would breach the Antarctic Treaty. China does not appear to share such concerns.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll be quick. In November 2021, the then coalition government made the poor decision to abandon the proposed construction of an all-weather paved runway near the Davis research centre in Antarctica due to perceived concerns of potential disruption of bird and seal colonies. It was a very poor decision, in my opinion, that missed the opportunity for Australia to advance its claims to usage of their allocated portion of Antarctica under the existing Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959. That will be up for renegotiation in some years hence or sooner if the treaty is challenged. My understanding is that there’s no formal expiry date. My first question is: will this government, the Labor government, reconsider and confirm the building of an all-weather runway to open up the Antarctic to year-round access via an eight-hour flight and replace total reliance on sea access that may take weeks?  

Senator Watt: I’m not aware of that being considered. The officials can elaborate if they have info on that.  

Ms E Campbell: At the moment, there are no plans for an all-weather runway, but we do have a really strong and capable blue ice runway. We have four-hour flights that go to Antarctica through the summer, and that’s a critical support for our stations and access. It’s at the Wilkins runway, which is about four hours, by tractor train, from Casey Station. I’ve had the pleasure of going on that flight a couple of times. It is a wonderful asset for Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that an all-weather runway would radically reduce the operating costs and logistics of accessing Australia’s research stations. It would be the first and only all-weather runway on the continent and provide access to speedy evacuation in medical or other emergencies.  

Ms E Campbell: We certainly use the blue ice runway for access to the station.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by blue ice?  

Ms E Campbell: It’s a runway set up on the glacier just above Casey Station. We land jets on that runway in the summer months. To your point about ‘cheaper and effective’, my understanding—and it was before my time in this role—is that one of the reasons that the previous government decided not to progress with the all-weather runway was cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the context of changing geopolitical dynamics, especially when China is expanding its influence in the Southern Ocean and in Antarctica, what else is Australia doing to protect its interests from encroachment in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica?

Ms E Campbell: We’ve got a really strong program in Antarctica. We talked previously about our science voyages and the step-up in our science work in Antarctica. Elements such as inspections, which we’ve talked about, are part of our influence in Antarctica. Going to international meetings, rebuilding our stations—these are all really strong parts. We can certainly provide references to the strategy and action plan. We’ve got a million year ice core where we’re travelling 1,200 kilometres inland with a traverse tractor to drill for ice. We’ve also reestablished the ability to go across our territory and explore new areas, which is really exciting.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that scientific programs have been cut. Why is the supply of critical food and medicine no longer assured? Has the government not heard of the phrase: ‘Use it or lose it’? That’s important for my next question.  

Ms E Campbell: I don’t accept that we’ve cut funding. The government has invested more than ever. Funding has gone up.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no cut to scientific funding?  

Ms E Campbell: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. China is currently the most active national player in the Antarctic, yet Australia has the largest designated proportion of area claimed of the Antarctic continent, at 42 per cent—so over 40 per cent. It is referred to as the Australian Antarctic Territory and, in landmass, is the largest territory of Australia. China has five research bases there, and it’s soon to be six, with three of the bases it’s built within the Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia has only three bases in the territory and a fourth at Macquarie Island. Am I correct so far?  

Ms E Campbell: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chinese research stations have a dual purpose, supporting both military and civil functions. Common sense suggests that this will influence a Chinese call for a recognised claim for a part of the Australian Antarctic Territory, at our expense. Australia must do something soon to reclaim its senior role in Antarctic affairs. Will this government do what the coalition failed to do and build this vital runway to protect our claim to our territory?  

Ms E Campbell: I might correct a couple of points of fact. First of all, you said at the beginning that—and I did say it was right—China was the most active player. China is certainly very active in Antarctica, as are many other countries. I think the US would say they have been the most active player, and I think we’re close behind. There’s not evidence that there is a dual-use function of Antarctic stations, and that would be a breach of the treaty. There has been no finding—  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘dual use’?  

Ms E Campbell: You talked about dual military and scientific use. That would be a breach of the Antarctic Treaty, and there is no evidence that that has happened. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think that would bother China?  

Ms E Campbell: I think you’re asking my opinion. Under the treaty, that would not be allowed.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re leaving it to the Chinese?  

Ms E Campbell: That’s not what I said. 

Mr Sullivan: They’re your words, Senator, not Ms Campbell’s.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Chair 

/by

EA Deal Cheats Workers

,

During this Estimates session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked questions comparing award rates of pay with those in enterprise agreements (EAs). I was told that EAs use a multifactor approach on a case-by-case basis, with no strict requirements.

Mr Furlong said that a key issue in comparing EAs with the Award in the coal miner cases was that the Award did not include provisions for casual employees. I pointed out that it appeared the FWC could authorise an EA “on the papers”—that is, on written material only—when the employer and union were in agreement, even if the arrangement cheated workers due to a cosy relationship between the parties.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Mr Furlong!

Mr Furlong: You too, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have a series of questions for understanding the relationship between awards and Fair Work Commission endorsed and authorised enterprise agreements. Does the Fair Work Commission have a requirement to ensure that pay rates under enterprise agreements are, at minimum, the same as or higher than pay rates under the appropriate competitive award? I’ll be specific: if an award requires a cleaner to be paid $30 an hour as a full-time employee, could the Fair Work Commission endorse or authorise an enterprise agreement that paid the same cleaner $25 an hour as a full-time employee?  

Mr Furlong: As we’ve traversed several times before, if an application is made to the commission to approve an enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Act requires the commission to approve the agreement if it is satisfied the requirements in sections 186 and 187 of the Fair Work Act have been met. This includes a requirement that the agreement passes the better-off-overall test.  

Senator ROBERTS: Passes the which test?  

Mr Furlong: The better-off-overall test.  

Senator ROBERTS: The BOOT; yes.  

Mr Furlong: Yes. In terms of the minimum rate of pay, the agreement cannot provide less than the base rate of pay in the applicable award. In terms of penalty rates, it’s a holistic view of it. It won’t be a line-by-line analysis.  

Senator ROBERTS: So an enterprise agreement could not pay less than—if it’s a straight enterprise agreement and doesn’t roll over and everything else, it could not pay less than the award rate?

Mr Furlong: In terms of what the minimum rate of pay is, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. There are no tricks in here; I’m just trying to learn. Do you agree that when calculating a full-time employee rate and adding all entitlements, holidays, allowances etcetera that generally you would add around 19 per cent of the full-time rate?  

Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on that, Senator. It’s members of independent statutory office holders, members of the tribunal who apply the better-off-overall test in what they consider and, ultimately, approve in agreements. I can’t talk about what they—the legislative scheme provides the things that they need to consider before approving enterprise agreements, but it is a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: Taking that cleaner again, the one on 30 bucks an hour, by adding entitlements of 19 per cent to the effective pay rate, the benefit would be around $35.70. So if it’s not 19 per cent, what percentage would they use?  

Mr Furlong: I think what they would do is look at the underpinning modern award and then consider that whilst they’re considering the enterprise agreements in front of them for approval, and then they’ll make a determination based on those two documents and on the relevant case law—whether or not it satisfies the better off overall test and the other pre-approval provisions. On that basis, a member will make a determination if the agreement should be approved and whether or not the agreement should be approved with undertakings.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there wouldn’t be any requirement to pay the casual cleaner at least the award rate plus 19 per cent? There wouldn’t be any hard and fast requirement?  

Mr Furlong: There’s no hard and fast requirement that—I understand where we’re heading to—if a modern award does not contain a casual rate of pay, then it doesn’t preclude an enterprise agreement containing casual rates of pay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Say that again?  

Mr Furlong: If the underpinning modern award does not prescribe a casual rate of pay that does not preclude an enterprise agreement being approved that does contain a casual rate of pay.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you think the Fair Work Commission would assess whether or not the enterprise agreement was not paying less than the award, if it was a casual?  

Mr Furlong: In the approval decisions, the members outline their reasons for approving or dismissing applications for enterprise agreements. In relation to the Chandler Macleod agreements that I think we’re referring to here, I think it was—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m referring to a lot of them, but, anyway, keep going.  

Mr Furlong: The members, including the senior deputy president who approved a number of these agreements, outlined the reasons for the decisions to approve those instruments—those enterprise agreements—at the time. I can provide copies of those decisions on notice, if that would be of assistance.  

Senator ROBERTS: That would be of assistance. The Fair Work Commissioner or the member, as you call them, so long as she or he has valid reasons and lays them out in writing, they could approve a casual rate of pay less than the award rate of pay—a permanent employee’s rate of pay under the award, a casual rate for a casual employee could be less than that.  

Mr Furlong: I can’t talk to the decisions of members of the commission. Those decisions stand for themselves. Whilst I’m trying as hard as I can to be helpful, the decisions of members to approve enterprise agreements rest with the member who makes the decision. Obviously, their reasons for approving or, as I said, dismissing those applications are outlined in the decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, so long as the decisions are justified, that’s it?  

Mr Furlong: No. There are appeal rights. If an enterprise agreement has been approved, and there is an aggrieved party who has standing to have that decision reviewed, then they can certainly do that, and it will be reviewed by a full bench of the commission. But, ultimately, if the agreement has passed its normal expiry date— they continue to operate until they’re replaced or repealed—then a party or person who’s covered by that enterprise agreement can make an application to the commission for that industrial instrument to be terminated, at which point they will return to the terms and conditions of the underpinning award.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to an appeal later but, just for now, does an appeal require going to the court?  

Mr Furlong: In the first instance, the appeal will be made to the Fair Work Commission, and then it will be dealt with by a full bench of the Fair Work Commission that will be constituted, generally, by three members.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of Fair Work Commission endorsed or authorised enterprise agreements that pay employees: (a) below-the-base award full-time rate; or (b) below-the-base full-time rate plus entitlements or below the casual award rate?  

Mr Furlong: I’m not personally aware of instances that are occurring. We approve somewhere between 4,000 and 4½ thousand enterprise agreements a year. The process for approving enterprise agreements is the application is made. It is then reviewed by an expert team, a specialist team, who hold skills and specialist knowledge around the assessment of enterprise agreements. They complete a checklist and then give that checklist and other supporting documentation to a member. The member, with all of that information available to them, will then do a number of things. The agreement, as made, will appear on our website to invite contradictors. If there’s another party or someone who has reason to believe that the agreement shouldn’t be made, then there is an opportunity for that to occur. And that does occur regularly, particularly when they are demarcation issues associated with particular registered organisations or trade unions. A member could receive submissions or information through that process. They could seek further information from the parties, they could deal with it on the papers or they could call the matter on for a hearing if it were particularly complex.  

Senator ROBERTS: If an employer and a union came to the Fair Work Commission with a proposed enterprise agreement that paid below any of the scenarios I’ve just outlined, is it incumbent on the Fair Work Commission to undertake an independent analysis to ensure that the enterprise agreement rates are above the relevant award? Can the Fair Work Commission just endorse the enterprise agreement on the basis that the union and employer agreed to the underpayment?  

Mr Furlong: The member needs to be satisfied that each of the requirements under the Fair Work Act has been met. So, to speak plainly, they can do it on the papers if they are satisfied that the information that they have in front of them and the agreement have been supported—or endorsed, for want of a better word—by a trade union. That will, obviously, carry some weight in their determination.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand it would. Can I take you to the example of the enterprise agreement between the shop workers’ union and Coles, which was overturned in 2017 after the efforts of a lone employee, Penny Vickers. That enterprise agreement had been endorsed, or authorised, by the Fair Work Commission and paid Coles employees below requirements. In the face of the employer and union—it was arguably collusion; it was certainly agreement—it was the efforts of a lone employee, Penny Vickers, that protected employee rights against the might of the legal teams of the union and the employer. My question is: where a Fair Work Commission authorised endorsed enterprise agreement pays below award rates and both the employer and union have cooperated or colluded on the underpayments, who has the capacity to challenge this? Is it only lone employees, or can someone else—me, for example—mount a challenge to the Fair Work Commission?  

Mr Furlong: That’s a very good example of when an application is brought by someone who is covered by that enterprise agreement. They brought that application post, I think—I’ll have to take that on notice; it’s been a while since I’ve actually looked at the specifics of that case. I’ll have to take on notice who has standing to make an application to terminate an enterprise agreement. It’s certainly someone who is covered by the agreement or an employer organisation that has representational rights for that employee.  

Senator ROBERTS: I might not have representational rights if I want to intervene.  

Mr Furlong: I haven’t looked at this section of the act for quite some time, so I’m not too sure who has standing. Is there anyone else at the table on this? We might have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have two more questions, Chair.  

CHAIR: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission authorised or endorsed an enterprise agreement that paid employees less than award rates, could this arguably be a case of the Fair Work Commission engaging in maladministration or some other error of law? Are there processes within the structure of the Fair Work Commission that enable such a review of underpaying enterprise agreements to be undertaken?  

Mr Furlong: I’ll just return to my earlier evidence that, if someone believes that a decision of the commission has been made in error, there are those appeal rights, and they should exercise those rights.  

Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission overturned its original ruling, would it arguably be a case of the Fair Work Commission, in the first ruling, engaging in maladministration?  

Mr Furlong: For the independent statutory office holders exercising powers provided to them under the Fair Work Act, it doesn’t relate to the administration of public servants. I just want to return you to my evidence that the correct mechanism for dealing with this would be through an application for the agreement approval decision to be reviewed and overturned.  

Senator ROBERTS: If it were found that the Fair Work Commission didn’t consider the right factors when approving or authorising the enterprise agreement, would that be maladministration?  

Mr Furlong: Do you mind if I take that question on notice?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. This is my last question. You are aware of my interest in black-coal miners and the One Nation report that sets out, in forensic detail, how casual mine employees are underpaid in comparison to the award. I assume you’re aware that the Fair Work Ombudsman is investigating the underpayments.  

Mr Furlong: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Ombudsman were to conclude that coalminers have been and are being underpaid in comparison to the award, are there processes whereby such underpayments could be stopped and historical underpayments could be addressed by the Fair Work Commission with a view to compensating coal employees for the underpayments they suffered?  

Mr Furlong: My understanding of the evidence that was provided by the Fair Work Ombudsman earlier this evening is that the reference instrument that they’re relying on for their calculations to determine if there’s been an underpayment is the enterprise agreement, not the underpinning award.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, but, to come back to my question, if they’re being underpaid in comparison to the award—if that were the reference document—then could the Fair Work Commission address that by compensating coalminers?  

Mr Furlong: I’m not aware of the Fair Work Ombudsman actually doing the calculations against the award, because that’s not the industrial instrument that applies to the employment of these casual coalminers that you’re referring to. My understanding—and I obviously can’t speak on behalf of the ombudsman; I can only relay my understanding of their evidence from earlier this evening—is that the assessment won’t be against the mining award; it will be against the enterprise agreements that were approved at whatever point in time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by

No Excuse for Abuse: Protecting Children Must Come First

,

I raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Raelene Sharpe, the facts of a recent State case in which the sentencing judge stated that a convicted paedophile received a reduced sentence because the offender came from a culture where sexual offences against children were more tolerated.

I asked what the prosecution’s stance would be if such an offence were to come before a Commonwealth court and was informed that a Commonwealth judge would also take cultural factors into account during sentencing.

I found this deeply concerning, as I believe sexual offences against children are among the most serious crimes. In my view, an offender’s cultural background should not diminish the gravity of such offences.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?  

Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.  

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?  

Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?  

Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed? 

 Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much. 

/by

A Case Study in Avoidance

,

This exchange during Senate Estimates with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) sums up just how bad Estimates has become under the Albanese Labor Government.

The TGA is well aware that Senators only have a few minutes to ask questions, and they understand that the more they can stall, the less likely it is they’ll have to say anything that could cause problems for their Minister—regardless of the truth. Because of this, the Minister will not require the “witness” to answer the question, nor will the Committee Chair—both of whom are Labor Senators.

My first question was a genuine attempt to clarify misinformation circulating online about aluminium intake. The answer was a simple “yes.” Keep that in mind when you watch the video. Instead of confirming the obvious and allowing us to move on to another question about aluminium in vaccines, the opportunity was taken to stall for time by debating whether the question should even be asked at all. Dr. Lawler, Deputy Secretary of the Health Products Regulation Group within the Department of Health, oversees the agencies and committees the Government uses to spread responsibility, avoiding accountability. He was exactly the right person to direct these questions to.

The data I presented was straightforward: the level of aluminium in vaccines is unsafe for infants by an order of magnitude. Yet the TGA spent a great deal of time on their pre-prepared responses insisting that vaccines are safe. They refuse to accept any data showing that this level of exposure is causing health issues in infants. I then asked whether our vaccines had been subject to gold standard testing—a term used on many occasions by “witnesses” attending Estimates to defend COVID vaccines – yet suddenly, the gold standard is no longer relevant to … vaccines! Suddenly, testing a product against a double-blind placebo (saline) is now considered “unsafe,” despite this being the standard for a century?

In reality, what Big Pharma has been doing for years—and what the TGA has allowed them to do in Australia—is to compare new vaccines (or medications for that matter) against existing ones, rather than saline. If the harm detected is the same as that already being caused by the “placebo” medication, it’s deemed safe. This is not how things should be.

I will continue this line of questioning until we get a proper inquiry into the level of heavy metal contamination in infant vaccines.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again, especially Professor Lawler. Before I start, can we deal with a statement I hear on the internet all the time—that you get more aluminium in your food than you do in vaccines. Aluminium in food is ingested at 0.3 per cent. In vaccines, it’s ingested at 100 per cent. Individual results may vary. Is this a fair statement?  

Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure where you’re seeing that. I don’t have the information you’re referencing in front of me.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you whether it’s accurate.  

Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that is necessarily a question for the TGA to respond to. We can provide you with information on the process that we undertake in terms of the evaluation and authorisation of therapeutic goods, including vaccines. Is this a claim that the TGA has made?  

Senator ROBERTS: No. That’s my understanding. What is the TGA’s recommended maximum daily intake of aluminium for a child aged six months, please?  

Prof. Lawler: By mouth as a recommended daily intake?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe that the TGA sets a recommended daily ingestion of aluminium, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the daily maximum for a child of six months that can ingest aluminium in food?  

Prof. Lawler: I would suggest that those are probably questions best posed to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The US Food and Drug Administration recommends exposure of five micrograms per kilogram in infants. At six months, the average weight of an infant is seven kilograms, making the maximum daily exposure 35 micrograms. The Infanrix hexa vaccine contains 825 micrograms of aluminium per dose, which is 24 times its safe daily limit. Do you accept injecting children at 23 times the safe level? Do you accept that this unsafe aluminium exposure is a contributing factor to aluminium derived autism?  

Prof. Lawler: I will throw to Dr Dascombe in a moment. I will answer a couple of the things there in reverse order, if I may. The first is that, in answer to your second question, no. I don’t believe that there is a recognised regulator—I’m happy to be corrected—that does.  

Senator ROBERTS: Rather than relying on someone else, do you have any data or research?  

Prof. Lawler: I’m just trying to answer your question. I don’t believe that there is another regulator. I’m just using that as back-up. We have seen no credible safety signal that aluminium load either in single or scheduled immunisation delivery is a contributor to autism. The second thing I would say is that I am not sure this is the forum, nor do we have the time, to clarify the distinction between injected and ingested aluminium. They are quite different biomechanical processes. I don’t think the two are comparable. I will ask Dr Dascombe to add to that answer.  

Dr Dascombe: I echo the comments of Professor Lawler. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed any safety signals relating to any vaccine and autism. This is also supported by the weight of scientific evidence.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the TGA guidance for the injection of multiple vaccines into a six-month-old at the same time causing amplified aluminium? Each of those doses has aluminium adjuvant, a preservative, so each of them is 24 times the daily safe limit.  

Prof. Lawler: My apologies for breaking in, Senator. There are a couple of points on that. It is not the practice or the role of the TGA to make recommendations on immunisation schedules. That sits within the province of ATAGI, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. I would also highlight that we have frequently responded to questions around the aluminium load in the vaccination schedule and their consequences. Most recently, but perhaps more recently, is a Senate question on notice 24-003075. We have discussed it in this place a number of times.  

Senator ROBERTS: You see the problem. Just one vaccine can be 24 times over the safe daily limit. You are recommending injecting multiple of them at the same time. These infants could be getting over 100 times the safe limit and you just keep on injecting them right in there and then claim aluminium poisoning isn’t the reason they come down with autism in some cases the very next day. How can you justify this?  

Prof. Lawler: I will answer those questions in reverse order, if I may. I will answer the second. There is no indication that the vaccination schedule is linked to autism. Indeed, it has been highlighted not just today but previously. There’s no credible evidence that there is a linkage between vaccination and autism. As I just indicated in my previous answer, it is not the role of the TGA to recommend vaccinations. We assess them for safety, quality and efficacy. It’s the role of ATAGI to recommend the vaccination schedules.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you tell the pharma companies to reduce the aluminium preservatives down to safe levels so you can get parents to trust your vaccine again and the parents can trust your advice again?  

Prof. Lawler: There are a couple of elements in your question. We evaluate the submissions from sponsors and evaluate the process of manufacture and quality control to ensure that the balance of risk versus benefit is appropriate. That is a determination that we make not only in the authorisation but also in the post-market monitoring through our pharmacovigilance of any therapeutic good with the inclusion of vaccines. In terms of trust, we recognise that there is an active campaign to undermine the trust of regulators, the TGA particularly. We undertake to restore or bolster the trust of the public, which I have to say was during the pandemic and is still, despite some narratives, at a high level. We seek to do that through education and guidance. We do that through being very clear and transparent about what we do and by addressing dis- and misinformation when and if it occurs.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many vaccines in the Australian schedule have been subject to a gold standard trial, meaning specifically a randomised double blind placebo control study where the placebo is saline and not another vaccine?  

Prof. Lawler: I recognise that you weren’t here before lunch. We had a conversation with Senator Antic regarding the use of the term ‘gold standard’. We recognise that the use of a placebo control randomised double control trial—there are a number of different terminologies used—is of a very high standard and presents robust and dependable evidence. The challenge, of course, is whether something constitutes a gold standard in the way that you have used it. It actually very much depends on context. We use controlled or blinded trials or placebo trials when we are interested in determining the difference between a control arm and an intervention arm. This is really effective when we’re looking at incremental improvements in therapies or when we’re looking at the introduction of new therapies. The challenge we have, of course, is that when there is an established therapy that has been shown over decades using both documented and real-world evidence to be both safe and effective, it is ethically questionable—and, in some instances, ethically indefensible—to use a placebo in that non-intervention arm. I will give you two examples, if I may. We have vaccine preventable diseases, and we have a very clear demonstration of reduction in not only mortality but morbidity in those diseases. Let’s choose polio and small pox, diseases that have had a specific impact for many decades and have led to untold suffering. One of them has been eradicated by the use of vaccines and one of them has been virtually eradicated. If we were to introduce placebo controlled trials for those drugs, that would be horrendously unethical. We would be essentially and knowingly infecting children with a disease that could kill, paralyse or maim when we know that there is a way of preventing that. That’s not ethically defensible.  

Senator ROBERTS: What you are saying is that there has been no double blind placebo control study where the placebo was saline and not another vaccine?  

Prof. Lawler: No. What I am saying is that would not be an appropriate approach to be taking today with the vaccines we use.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has it been taken in the past?  

Prof. Lawler: I also would highlight that the introduction of vaccines occurred some time ago. And also—  

Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done?  

Prof. Lawler: I will let you finish.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done, then, the tests?  

Prof. Lawler: Whether these—  

Senator ROBERTS: A double blind trial?  

Prof. Lawler: Well, we’ve actually already taken on notice to provide concrete evidence on which of those vaccines has been subjected previously to blinded control trials.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?  

Prof. Lawler: Dr Anna Peatt from the national immunisation division will respond to that.  

CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.  

Dr Peatt: Senator, could you please repeat the question? I didn’t quite hear it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?  

Dr Peatt: Senator, I would have to take that question on notice. I don’t have that available with me today.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was close to 35 per cent of the multibillion-dollar COVID vaccine supply binned or trashed?  

Dr Peatt: I would have to take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you specifically to tell us whether or not it was 35 per cent.  

Dr Peatt: I don’t have that figure in front of me.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you to just say what the figures are. Can you confirm that is 35 per cent of what we bought?  

Dr Peatt: Yes, I can do. 

/3 Comments/by

Widespread Late Reporting by Aboriginal Corporations

,

During Senate Estimates, I asked the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) about the issue of late reporting by Aboriginal corporations. I was told that of the 3,312 Aboriginal corporations registered with ORIC, 2,940 were late in submitting their required reports and 1,162 reports for the 2024 financial year had not yet been lodged.

Of the reports not yet submitted, 84% were from small corporations with an income of less than $100,000. ORIC advised that out of the approximately 3,300 corporations, 60 had been listed for prosecution, with 27 already prosecuted. Penalties imposed ranged from deregistration and winding up to personal litigation against directors.

The most common reason cited for non-submission of financial reports was apathy. As part of their response to this issue, ORIC is now offering training for all relevant parties to help improve compliance.

– Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to ORIC, the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. Thank you for being here. It has been widely reported that many Indigenous corporations have not submitted reports required under statute. How many Indigenous incorporations are in breach of requirements to submit their required reports for this period?  

Ms Stroud: As at 6 October, I can confirm that, of the 3,312 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, 2,940 are required to lodge one or more annual reports—some have exemptions. Of those 2,940 corporations required to lodge one or more reports, I can confirm that 1,162, or 39½ per cent, have not yet lodged their 2024 reports, which would’ve been due in December 2024, noting that the 2025 reports are not due till the end of this year. For context, though, I would add that, of those 1,162 corporations that have failed to lodge last year’s reports, 84 per cent are small corporations. They are corporations that have a consolidated growth income revenue of under $100,000 each year and are only required to lodge a general report. Corporations that are large and, rightly so, are those that should be subject to greater public scrutiny and funding body scrutiny, represent two per cent of those corporations that have not yet lodged their reports.  

Senator ROBERTS: My rough mental arithmetic is about 250 that are not small corporations have failed to lodge a report.  

Ms Stroud: I’ll give you that number—it’s 241.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was pretty close. That’s a lot. It might only be two per cent, but it’s actually about eight per cent of the total of corporations. How many board members, on average, are on a corporation board?  

Ms Stroud: I don’t have that figure on hand. I can take that on notice. I can tell you that, across the 3,000 odd corporations, there are 17,649, in total, director positions. That doesn’t account for that some directors might sit on multiple corporations. Under the legislation, corporations can have up to 12 directors and over 12 requires an exemption to do so.  

Senator ROBERTS: Say that again about the exemption, please.  

Ms Stroud: To have fewer than three or over 12 directors on a board requires an exemption.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are overseen, helped or serviced by these boards?  

Ms Stroud: Sorry, I wouldn’t be in a position to answer that question. I can tell you that, of the just over 3,000 corporations, they are made up of just shy of 245,000 members, again, that’s not accounting for that some members might be members of multiple corporations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was that number again?  

Ms Stroud: It is 245,594, to be exact. Those 3,300 corporations, as I mentioned before, can be very small corporations with under $100,000 in assets or $100,000 in income through to large corporations. They do everything from cultural heritage protection to land and water management, schools, health services and other vital social services. I wouldn’t be in a position to even estimate the total reach of those services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and beneficiaries.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve mentioned that 2,940 are required to report, and 3,300 is the total number. So about 360 are not required to report.  

Ms Stroud: Eighty-eight per cent of corporations are required to lodge some form of annual report.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your concise and direct answers. Thank you for that. Why have these breaches occurred? I know for small corporations it’s probably lack of—well, you tell me.  

Ms Stroud: There are a number of reasons why corporations don’t lodge their annual reports. We encourage corporations, wherever possible, to reach out to us and let us know to help us understand the reason for it. It can be turnover in boards, difficulties of getting the services of auditors, disruptions in corporations or it can be just apathy and negligence of directors’ duties. Why we encourage corporations to reach out and let us know—and be on almost an update plan with us so that we can keep on top of when we can expect reports—is that we take that into consideration with our prosecution work. We have referred 60 corporations to CDPP for prosecution for failing to lodge reports. Twenty-seven corporations have been prosecuted. They are medium and large corporations, so, again, they’re corporations with over $100,000 annual revenue and those from which the public would rightfully expect a higher degree of accountability to their members and to their regulator and also to their funders. That’s why medium and large corporations are those which we refer for prosecution where they persistently fail to lodge reports for a couple of years. We now deregister corporations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What happens when they’re deregistered?  

Ms Stroud: If a corporation is deregistered, it no longer exists. There are challenges with deregistering corporations, particularly those that hold assets. There might be a corporation that holds assets but is ordinarily not conducting business and continually failing to lodge its reports. We’ve recently sought legal advice on alternative measures for those corporations, including winding up. We’ve also flagged to the public that, where a corporation continually fails to lodge its reports and has been subject to prosecution and still refuses, we will consider civil prosecution against individual directors.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the directors can be liable?  

Ms Stroud: It’s a lengthy and expensive exercise for ORIC to peruse civil litigation against directors that continually fail, hence why we flagged it in our recent regulatory posture. It’s done so because, where a corporation is prosecuted for failing to lodge its reports, it’s an offence of the corporation, and the corporation is what pays the fine if the court imposes one. Our intention now is that, where directors sit behind that, we will civilly pursue individual directors. I’ve also got with me Deputy Register Andrew Huey, who can help answer your questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any suggestion of fraud being involved or incompetence being involved, or is it just apathy? You mentioned apathy. What would be the defining characteristics?  

Ms Stroud: For the small corporations—again, that’s 84 per cent of corporations not lodging reports—I would say it is a capacity and capability issue, or challenge, and a degree of apathy around reporting. We have no evidence that there is an immediate and direct correlation between medium and large corporations failing to lodge their financial reports and evidence of fraud, noting that, when corporations do lodge their annual reports, a quality check by us has been done, directors have signed off on it and directors have done their declaration to accept responsibility for it. That is one way of identifying where there might be red flags. But, in the main, evidence of corruption, fraud, mismanagement or negligence of director duties or abuse of director duties comes through other avenues—through referrals, reports of concerns and complaints.  

Senator ROBERTS: Finally, apart from keeping track of it, what changes in oversight will you introduce to ensure the integrity of the management of these Indigenous corporations? Have you got an overall plan for raising the standards?  

Ms Stroud: We have refreshed our two-day guidance training. It’s for directors sitting. Current directors are given priority. Members and relevant staff can also attend the training, and we’ve also introduced a new one-day ‘understanding your finance’ training, which is designed for directors to understand how to read financials and have greater confidence in asking questions, knowing what to look for and holding their management staff accountable for financial reporting to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Building understanding to build confidence?  

Ms Stroud: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by