In my questioning of NACC Commissioner Brereton, we reviewed the commission’s performance and legislative framework since July 2023.
Commissioner Brereton confirmed that the NACC has received 7,624 referrals, of which 7,026 have gone through the assessment process. Out of these, 54 investigations have been commenced alongside 22 inherited from ACLEI; 35 have been completed and 34 remain active.
The NACC said they do not institute prosecutions directly but refers prosecutable matters to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Since commencement, 11 convictions have been secured, with four active prosecutions currently before the courts.
When I asked whether the definition and requirements for an investigation are too narrow or require widening, Brereton argued against expanding the scope. He noted that broadening the definition of “corrupt conduct” risks categorising ordinary conduct as corruption, which carries serious reputational implications.
Brereton noted a couple of minor legislative adjustments that could assist the NACC, such as the ability to appoint temporary assistant or acting deputy commissioners to manage conflict-of-interest situations and shifting terminology from “corruption issue” to “referral” to simplify the process for lay people.
As his term concludes, I addressed the public complaints regarding his perceived conflicts of interest, to which he replied that he did not take on the role to be popular.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Commissioner Brereton, for appearing. Thank you all for appearing. When were you appointed? What was the date when you were appointed to the NACC?
Mr Brereton: The appointment took effect on 1 July 2023, if that is what you intend. The instrument of appointment was sent to me, I think, on 30 May.
Senator ROBERTS: How many successful prosecutions have been commenced and completed since the NACC was established, not including inherited cases?
Mr Brereton: The NACC doesn’t commence prosecutions. We refer matters where we think there is a prosecutable case to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who decides whether or not to prosecute them. I know that, since we commenced, 11 convictions have been secured. Some of them are in matters which derive from ACLEI investigations and some in matters which were investigated purely by the NACC. I think three prosecutions have been instituted on referrals from us since 1 July 2023, but I stand to be corrected on that figure. There are currently four prosecutions before various courts in respect of matters referred by us or continued by us since inception. We have published seven investigation reports over that period, four relating to matters which had been commenced by ACLEI and which we completed, and three in matters exclusively commenced by us.
Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints have been accepted and investigated since inception?
Mr Brereton: The chief executive officer will dig out the precise figures, but we’ve received a total of something like 7,200 referrals, I think, over that period. Of them—I’m sorry; I’m corrected. It’s 7,624 referrals from 1 July 2023 to date. Of them, 7,026, or 92 per cent, have gone through the assessment process. I think 54 investigations have been commenced since 1 July 2023 in addition to 22 that we inherited from ACLEI. Of those investigations, I can tell you that we have completed 35 and there are 34 currently on foot.
Senator ROBERTS: How many active investigations are currently underway?
Mr Brereton: Thirty-four.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Why does the NACC have such a poor reputation?
Mr Brereton: I don’t accept the premise of the question.
CHAIR: It sounds a lot like you’re asking for an opinion, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Are the requirements to achieve an investigation by the NACC too stringent or narrow to assist those who make a referral?
Mr Brereton: I’m sorry; I didn’t quite get that.
Senator ROBERTS: Are the requirements to achieve an investigation by the NACC too restricted or too narrow?
Mr Brereton: We investigate corrupt conduct. ‘Corrupt conduct’ is defined in the act. What is the appropriate test for that? It’s a matter for the parliament. We apply what the law is.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t think the NACC was stifled in any way or needs to be widened in its requirements?
Mr Brereton: No, I don’t think it is stifled, and I think there are real problems in widening it because, first, the concept of what ‘corrupt conduct’ is broadly reflects that in the state and territory legislation. It’s not a perfect consistency but an approximate consistency around the country. Second, to say that something is corrupt is a serious statement to make about a person and their conduct. To broaden the definition of what a corruption commission investigates would risk bringing into the rubric of ‘corrupt conduct’ conduct that most people would not regard as corrupt. So I would not advocate a widening of scope.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you need any legislative changes made to the NACC?
Mr Brereton: There are some that I might be able to think of if I went away and thought about it, and we have identified a few. The ability to appoint an assistant commissioner or an acting deputy commissioner would be a useful addition, mainly to deal with conflict-type situations.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘conflict-type’?
Mr Brereton: When there is a necessity to find someone unaffected by conflict to conduct an investigation, the ability to bring an additional person in would be a useful one to have. Personally, I think the focus of the legislation on the term ‘corruption issue’ rather than on a referral makes the process a bit complex and difficult for some to understand, and—
Senator ROBERTS: The focus on—what did you say? I missed it.
Mr Brereton: The term ‘corruption issue’ is used through the legislation as the subject matter of a decision whether to investigate or not. I think it would be better if it referred to a referral rather than a corruption issue in that context, because what we are really doing is assessing a referral and deciding whether to investigate that referral or not.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re worried about it being assumed to be corrupt rather than—
Mr Brereton: No, no. It’s really a technical concern that just introduces some legal complexities. I’m not concerned about corruption being assumed. I think it is a refinement that could be made to the act to make things a bit easier, particularly for laypeople to work their way through. I’m sure there are some others that I could think of, but they’re the ones that spring to mind.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you be doing a debrief with anyone—an exit interview, so to speak?
Mr Brereton: I will be there for the next six weeks, and I will pass on whatever I can during those six weeks. And, yes, I certainly intend, at some convenient stage, to provide suggestions about the legislation to the appropriate officials.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t intend to touch on your conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest and the accusations that have followed you. That’s been done by others. You were controversial.
Mr Brereton: It appears that, in some quarters, I have created controversy. I said, when I came to the job, that you don’t do it to be popular, and I didn’t do it to be popular.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, Commissioner Brereton, the people—and there are quite a few—who are complaining about your behaviour or your conflicts or perceived conflicts I wouldn’t see as natural enemies of you.
Mr Brereton: Well, you may not know who my natural enemies are.
Are the chemicals used in the fire ant eradication program truly “not toxic”? I raised this question with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) during the last senate estimates.
Pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene are targeted insect growth regulators. Said to be safe for soil microbes and non-accumulative in the food chain, they are toxic to insects (including bees and native ants), fish, and aquatic invertebrates.
Regarding frogs and water bodies, it was acknowledged that specific protection statements apply near water.
Following reports from constituents in southeast Queensland regarding devastated beehives and contaminated watercourses, the APVMA admitted to receiving several adverse experience reports, which are typically referred to the QLD government for investigation.
The APVMA has agreed to provide redacted public reports and redacted adverse experience files along with QLD government responses.
We must ensure that proper oversight and the environmental safety of our local communities and ecosystems are front and centre when using chemicals.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got some questions on pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene. A member of the Queensland based Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program told me recently that the chemicals used in the program, being pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene, are not toxic. What are your findings?
Mr Hansen: They’re certainly toxic if you’re an insect, because they’re targeted insect growth regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I thought.
Mr Hansen: They’re identified as having low toxicity for terrestrial vertebrates and non-target terrestrial plants and have no adverse impacts on soil microorganisms. If you’re a soil microorganism, you’re pretty well safe and that statement would hold true. If you’re an insect, then they’re an insect growth regulator and they’re pretty toxic.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Fire ants are insects.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Are your findings based on independent research in Australian conditions?
Mr Hansen: That’s publicly available research from around the globe about these chemicals in terms of the assessment of their toxicity and the hazards that they provide. They’re globally recognised definitions in terms of their categories.
Senator ROBERTS: All insects including bees and Australian native ants?
Mr Hansen: It’s targeted to insects, but it’s not targeted, so ants and other susceptible insects that are stopped from maturing into breeding adults are all captured under that.
Senator ROBERTS: And bees; bees are insects?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What about frogs? Are they affected? Have any studies been done? Mr Hansen: It’s toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. That’s why we’ve got some protection statements on use of these products where they’re registered for use in terms of aquatic environments and water bodies.
Senator ROBERTS: Frogs are aquatic?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What about other animals within the food chain, including bird life and chickens?
Mr Hansen: It’s not a secondary impact; it’s not as though it accumulates through that food chain.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘secondary impact’?
Mr Hansen: An impacted ant being consumed by a bird is not going to be impacted by the ant having been treated.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the chemical itself, because it’s sometimes put with—
Mr Hansen: That comes down to this balance between the hazard and then the exposure. For bees, whilst it is hazardous, the impacts are generally not considered to be significant because of the lack of significant exposure pathways, particularly where it’s a granular formulation being used. It is this balance between both the inherent hazard and the exposure that creates the risk.
Senator ROBERTS: What about chickens eating the meal that’s got chemicals in it?
Mr Hansen: Again, it is really a targeted insect growth regulator. It has low toxicity to terrestrial vertebrates, but I’m not sure how much meal you’d want to feed a chook.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a question mark?
Mr Hansen: We don’t have it on the label that it’s able to be used that way. The safest thing on this one is if you’re following the label instructions or the permit instructions it should be safe to everything except for the target species that it’s aimed at.
Senator ROBERTS: Constituents have told me that the use of either of the chemicals has been fatal to these examples in their experience, the ones I’ve just asked you about, including the devastation of many beehives and the contamination of watercourses. They’re probably accurate?
Mr Hansen: We’ve certainly had a number of adverse experience reports lodged with us with regard to the use of the products. In all those cases, we’ve referred them to the control of use authority up in Queensland to investigate. Is it the use of the product or is it how it was used that has created the risk? That’s something that the Queensland government’s been looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Are we able to get on notice a list of reports that you have from the public that don’t reveal their identity, especially from southeast Queensland?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Does APVMA have a monitoring role in assuring that pesticides that you approve are used appropriately and safely for the environment?
Mr Hansen: We do so far as when we receive adverse experience reports or we see reports we ask the question: is this something to do with an unanticipated behaviour of the chemical? For example, florfenicol might be picked up in non-target species a long way away. We have a role in stepping in and asking, ‘How is this working? Why did this happen? What can we do to mitigate the risk?’, in which case we suspend the permit. For the vast majority, however, it is the control of use. That falls to the states and territories, which have the responsibility for controlling and ensuring people comply with the label or the permit instructions.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you respond to those complaints? Do you either deal with them or investigate yourself?
Mr Hansen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: The first category?
Mr Hansen: Yes. In the first category where it gets brought up to us, typically we put the onus back on the applicant to say, ‘This is the concern that we have. Can you provide us with information that satisfies us that your product, used the way it’s supposed to be used as per the label or the permit, isn’t having an adverse impact?’ They come back to us with information or data that either satisfies us or not. If they can’t satisfy us—again using florfenicol as the example—that they can mitigate that risk, then we no longer are satisfied that permit meets the statutory criteria in the legislation and we suspend or cancel the permit.
Senator ROBERTS: In the other category, you just sent instructions to the state saying, ‘What are you doing?’
Mr Hansen: We’ll send them the report and say, ‘We’ve received an adverse experience report. This is the report. Can you look into the potential use pattern and work out whether this is a control-of-use issue, that is, it’s been used inappropriately or it’s been used incorrectly, or whether it’s been used appropriately and we’re getting an adverse outcome that we wouldn’t anticipate and wouldn’t expect.’
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a copy, again with names redacted, of the reports you’ve sent to Queensland and the responses that Queensland has given to you?
Mr Hansen: I don’t see any problem with that.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to commend the witness for direct, succinct and reasonable answers.
I questioned the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission on the severe problems within the aged Home Care Package system, highlighting the specific case of the Smith family (with their permission).
The Smiths had $3,000 taken from their package and paid to a contractor for incomplete tree trimming. The Commission dismissed their complaint without explanation, leaving them out of pocket, which severely impacted their health and forced them to cancel necessary medical appointments.
Despite assurances from the minister’s staff that the issue would be resolved and funds reimbursed within five months, no contact was made with the family. Minister Chisholm and departmental officials agreed to follow up and contact my office regarding this breakdown.
I raised concerns that upcoming co-payment policies, with service costs potentially exceeding $100 an hour, would make essential care unaffordable for aged pensioners.
Departmental representatives responded that co-contributions will be a small percentage for pensioners (5% to 17.5% depending on the service category), and that the government is cracking down on unreasonable pricing while funding major care shifts.
The problem appears to be finally resolving but only after repeated interventions from my officers. This is not how it should work for the thousands of recipients being ripped off.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Mr Comley. My questions are for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission on problems with the aged Home Care Package, please. Late last year in Senate estimates, before this committee, I raised the case of the Smith family. Under their package, they’re entitled to some assistance in minor property maintenance. They needed some minor trimming of half a tree and a few branches of another on their property, which was not completed, yet they found that $3,000 had been taken out of their package and given to the contractor without discussion between the Smiths and the service administrator of the package. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission closed off their complaint and refused to even discuss it with the Smiths, with no explanation given. Isn’t this elder abuse by a government agency that is supposed to help older Australians, not abuse them? What’s the cover up, and why was $3,000 paid for next to nothing?
ACTING CHAIR: I’m not sure about the appropriateness of responding to individual complaints or issues. I think characterising them is one thing, but referring to individual cases is quite different.
Senator ROBERTS: We have permission from the Smiths.
ACTING CHAIR: We don’t have that, and the department don’t have that.
Senator ROBERTS: How typical is this?
Ms Hefren-Webb: Let me try and respond to you. Sometimes these cases are very complex. There is often miscommunication. There are different versions of events from providers versus older people. I appreciate—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you’re right.
Ms Hefren-Webb: Sorry? What did you say?
ACTING CHAIR: Let the official speak.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just backing her up. I’m sure you’re right; it would be complex.
Ms Hefren-Webb: And so we do our best to understand the circumstances—what’s happened, what’s gone wrong—and look at what we can do to restore people to make up for what’s happened to them and find an equitable solution. We do our best efforts. Obviously, I won’t speak about the individual case, because I don’t have permission from those people to speak. But cases like this, where people are quoted different amounts for different pieces of work and then may misapprehend what was going to be done, what’s happened with their package et cetera, are not unusual cases. And we do try and reach a sensible resolution. All our complaints are subject to review and appeal, so if people aren’t happy with where we’ve resolved a matter, they do have an opportunity to first ask for an internal review and to then seek external review if they’re still not comfortable.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. And I’m not pretending some of these cases are simple, but it’s badly affected the health of the two innocent senior citizens, who deserve an answer and for money to be put back into their package. A staff member of the minister contacted my office and assured us that the issue would be resolved and that money would be reimbursed quickly. The result, though, was that nothing happened, not even contact with the family. Five months have passed since the promise was made. Because of the depleted funds, the Smiths had to cancel some medical appointments that they could no longer afford.
ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, the department is not going to be able to respond to this individual case in this setting.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, if I’m told by the minister’s staff that they’ve contacted the Smiths and they haven’t—
Ms Hefren-Webb: I’m not aware of what the minister’s staff may have said, but I’m happy to go away and provide you with what advice I can about what engagement there has been in this particular case.
Senator Chisholm: Just to add to that, we don’t want to be dismissive of the issue, and I’m happy to follow up with the minister’s office to see what’s gone on there. But I think we’re just uncomfortable responding to a couple’s circumstance in this forum. But I assure you that we’ll do what we can to follow up appropriately and ensure that we can do what we can, where possible, to resolve it. But that’s knowing that some of these cases can be difficult.
Senator ROBERTS: That’d be great, Minister. Thank you. Could you contact my office?
Senator Chisholm: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The concept of co-payments is to be instituted into the aged-care packages. That will mean the cancellation of many services needed by package holders, because they’ll become unaffordable. The proposal is that many services will need to be paid for at more than $100 an hour—often more than twice the market labour rate. An aged pensioner cannot afford that. What are you doing about this situation?
Ms Hefren-Webb: The department might wish to speak about the policy on contributions. But we are undertaking extensive work around unreasonable pricing. We’ve been in contact with a number of providers where we have concerns that their pricing is unreasonable and we’ve asked them to provide us with an explanation for how they’ve reached their prices. In some cases, they’ve agreed to adjust their price and have even provided refunds. So, certainly, we’re dealing with those cases on an individual basis, but the question of contributions is a policy question, so I don’t know—
Ms Stewart: I’m happy to start. Thank you, Ms Hefren-Webb. In terms of the policy on co-contribution, that was a recommendation that was made by a taskforce to set co-contribution rates at a level where people who could afford to contribute would contribute to their aged care. We work very closely with Ms Hefren-Webb, and under the new legislation providers are required to be transparent in their prices, as well as reasonable. Older people can go and compare prices, and when they feel that they are not reasonable they can come to us. The last thing I’ll say before handing to my other colleagues is that the government has recently made an announcement for about $1 billion of funding to enable a change in the policy settings so that government will now pay for a category of service, which includes showering and assistance with dressing and continence. That’s been a significant announcement. I’ll hand over to Ms Trainor to talk in more detail.
Ms Trainor: The other observation there is that there is a difference between the service price—so when you talked about the $100 per hour—and the co-contribution, which is the proportion of that service price that the participant rather than the government pays. So, when you talk about a pensioner, for a full-rate pensioner, those rates are five per cent of services that are in the independence service list category, and then 17.5 per cent of everyday living, which are our cleaning- and gardening-type services. So whilst you may have a service price of $100 an hour what a person pays out of pocket is a very small share of that actual amount.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that. Thank you for your patience. I look forward to you calling our office.
I questioned Ms Owen – the Inspector-General of Taxation – about the alarming Supreme Court of Queensland judgment in The King v Clarke, a 2017 case where the ATO pursued a fraudulent criminal prosecution regarding an R & D application.
I pointed out how the court ultimately threw the matter out and found that ATO officers had deliberately altered expense statements, provided misleading affidavits to secure search warrants, lied to the Queensland Bar, withheld emails, and ignored legitimate R&D spending.
I emphasised the sheer imbalance of power in this persecution: an innocent defendant forced to self-represent for over four years against a massive legal team comprising up to 12 people, including multiple barristers, the ATO and the Attorney-General, alongside numerous ATO staff.
I highlighted the fact that the court explicitly ruled the ATO undermined the defendant’s right to silence, engaged in systemic oppression, and brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
When I asked Ms Owen if we could reasonably conclude there is something deeply wrong within the ATO given these lengths of persecution, she admitted that the language in the judgment concerns her greatly and touched on the core integrity of the tax system.
However, she declined to comment further, noting that an appeal is currently underway.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the judgement of the Supreme Court of Queensland in the case The King v Clarke?
Ms Owen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: This is a case dating back to 2017, which is well before your time, admittedly, in which the ATO alleged fraud in a research and development application, and the ATO referred the matter for criminal prosecution. The Queensland court found there was no criminal case to answer on the initial allegation, but the ATO persisted. On the recent court decision, the final matter was again thrown out and the court found that the ATO officers concerned deliberately altered expenses statements. The ATO officer concerned was involved in the preparation of false statements, provided misleading information in affidavits to obtain search warrants, lied in a briefing note to the Queensland Bar, failed to disclose emails and ignored the fact that R&D funds were spent on legitimate expenses. The court also found the ATO undermined the fundamental right of the defendant to remain silent, the conduct of the ATO amounted to oppression of the defendant and the conduct of the ATO has brought the administration of justice into disrepute and has the tendency of undermining the integrity of the court. The defendant self-represented for more than four years. I understand that on some days the CDPP, the ATO and the Attorney-General had some 12 people on the combined legal team, including three to four barristers plus numerous ATO staff in attendance. Would you agree, Ms Owen, that, on the basis of this case alone and the court decision, senators could readily form the view that there is something seriously wrong, maybe even sick, within the ATO for it to go to such lengths in persecuting an innocent person?
Ms Owen: The quote that you’ve just read out from the ruling of that judgement—that language concerns me greatly. The way the conduct of tax officers was described in that judgement is exactly what we need to look at in terms of the integrity of the tax system. I am awaiting the appeal on that case before I consider—
Senator ROBERTS: The ATO’s going to appeal, is it?
Ms Owen: I think the Attorney-General’s office, the CDPP, has appealed. So, at the moment, I can’t comment further on that case while that appeal is outstanding.
I questioned officials to clarify the implications of UN General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65, which Australia supported on 20 May 2026, regarding the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2025 advisory opinion on state climate obligations.
I noted that the ICJ’s opinion is purely advisory and non-binding. Department official Mr McCarthy confirmed the court cannot take direct action against a nation on its own accord; any dispute must be brought by another state. I raised whether any nation has ever successfully sued another over greenhouse gas emissions due to the impossibility of proving direct economic harm, a point Mr McCarthy took on notice.
I expressed the point that international agreements like the Paris Agreement are not self-executing. Mr McCarthy confirmed that treaty commitments do not automatically take effect in Australia without parliament passing legislation, in other words meaning we retain the sovereign ability to repeal those laws or withdraw, just as the US has.
I questioned whether the resolution, which gained support from 141 of 193 UN member states, is simply a political attempt to maintain the narrative on man-made climate change, which I contend is driven by natural cycles and inherent natural variation.
Of course, Foreign Minister Penny Wong dismissed this, noting that 141 states represent an overwhelming majority and that my views on climate change are not shared by most of the world.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, good morning and thank you for appearing.
Senator Wong: I have to be here, Senator Roberts, but thank you for thanking me.
CHAIR: It’s a Senate order.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like clarity on the United Nations resolution from last week on climate change, which was General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65, titled ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change’ and adopted 20 May 2026. Australia strongly supported the resolution. The resolution welcomes and gives political weight to the International Court of Justice opinion from 2025 affirming states’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system from greenhouse gases, prevent significant harm, cooperate globally and address consequences, including potential reparation. It emphasises following through on the Paris Agreement commitments. Is that correct so far? Thank you. The International Court of Justice ruling was an advisory, meaning it carried no compulsion. Is that correct? I can see your head nodding. That’s fine. Direct answers are appreciated. Isn’t it true that any action taken by the International Court of Justice against a nation like Australia must be brought by another country and only when that country can prove they have suffered economic harm caused by the respondent country they are seeking restitution from? Is that correct?
Mr McCarthy: The International Court of Justice is a judicial body. As such, it doesn’t take action against a state. It makes judgements which—in this case, it was an advisory opinion, so it’s not binding—are statements of law. Whether there was an action to be taken would be a decision for one state against another state. It’s not a relevant prerogative of the court itself.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that no nation has ever sued another, and is it true that this is because proving greenhouse gas emissions are causing another country damage is not possible?
Mr McCarthy: Apologies, the first part of your question was that no nation has ever—
Senator ROBERTS: Sued another country on this topic, sorry.
Mr McCarthy: You’re adding the qualifier ‘on this topic’. I’d have to take that on notice. I suspect the answer is no, but I’d have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The International Court of Justice has never taken action against a country over their greenhouse gas emissions using a proxy such as access to the international settlement bank, which is controlled by the UN, because they are an advisory body only, which you’ve confirmed.
Mr McCarthy: We’re conflating, I think, two concepts here. They’re a judicial body; they’re not an advisory body. In terms of the question of the international court taking action or not taking action, it’s not in its prerogative or its remit to take action or to not take action. It makes decisions. Sometimes they’re in the resolution of disputes between individual states, and sometimes it is in—as it was in this case—an advisory opinion.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. Turning to the Paris Agreement itself, the reason for this resolution from the International Court of Justice—the Paris Agreement is only binding because we passed legislation to implement it, and that can be repealed. The agreement itself is not binding on Australia if we withdraw, as the USA has done. Is that correct?
Mr McCarthy: Treaties are not—the term is ‘self-executing’ in Australian law. When Australia signs a treaty, it is a binding commitment under international law, but that commitment is only given effect through the passage of legislation through the Australian parliament. In other words, our treaty commitments don’t self-execute. They don’t take effect within Australia without the passage of Australian laws.
Senator ROBERTS: I was correct—despite not being a diplomat or a lawyer.
Senator Wong: The parliament has to approve through the JSCOT process, which occurred with the Paris Agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying it didn’t occur.
Senator Wong: No, I wasn’t pushing.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I conclude that UN resolution A/80/L.65 was only supported by 141 out of 193 member states to make it look like the world still believes man-made climate change is real, when it’s nothing more than natural cycles and inherent natural variation?
Senator Wong: I think that’s a political statement. ‘Only’ meaning the overwhelming majority—that’s the first point I’d made. The second point I’d make is that your views about climate change are well known. They are not shared by most of the world.
This session is with Treasury’s Fiscal Group, the division tasked with delivering federal budgets, analysing fiscal policy, and ensuring efficient public spending. The group’s core duties span three main areas: budget production, managing financial arrangements and payments between the Commonwealth and States and Territories, and providing spending advice.
In this advisory role, the group guides portfolio ministers on government spending regulations and resource allocation across policy areas, including health, education, labour markets, infrastructure, and defence.
Coming from a business background, I always look for ways to streamline and reduce major costs, especially while everyday Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis. With that in mind, I asked for a complete accounting of the Albanese Labor Government’s net zero policies and measures, including departmental costs, grants, co-investments, spending to date, projections across forward estimates, and contingent or “off-the-books” liabilities (which reports suggest could reach a trillion dollars).
Mr White noted this was a massive query not fully covered by Budget Paper No. 1, so I asked Treasury to take it on notice.
I also asked for the costs since 1 July 2022 (plus forward estimates) of federal agencies or departments duplicating services where constitutional authority rests with the states, particularly in areas like health, education and the environment.
Despite concerns raised by Treasury and Minister Gallagher regarding the scope of the requests and the distinction between federal and state roles, I reiterated that reducing government waste is vital. Given the cost-of-living pressure on Australian households, the focus should be on delivering tax cuts and cutting expenditure rather than raising taxes.
In business, identifying and then cutting unnecessary duplication is a huge opportunity to reduce spending and ease the burden on taxpayers.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. I asked these questions of the previous group, the Markets Group, and they recommended that I ask you. Could I just check, please, because it seems like you’re perfect for it, that the Fiscal Group is a core division within the Australian Treasury responsible for delivering government budgets, analysing fiscal policy and ensuring efficient public spending.
Mr White: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It works to achieve sound fiscal outcomes through structural policy advice, coordinating the federal budget and managing financial transfers to states and territories—correct?
Mr White: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Key responsibilities—three of them—are budget production; Commonwealth-state relations, managing the timely and accurate payments and financial arrangements between the federal government and the states and territories; and spending advice. It advises portfolio ministers on whole-of-economy government spending regulations and resource allocation across policy areas like health, education, labour market, infrastructure and defence—correct?
Mr White: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to being in business—companies, small business and large corporations— where we look at our costs, especially our bigger costs, and try to work out ways to improve them, so that’s what I’d like to ask you about. There are two big costs. Could you tell me, please, what are the full costs across the breadth of the Albanese Labor government of net zero measures, net zero policies, including departmental costs, co-investments and grants. Also include a figure for contingent liabilities, including off-the-books matters, which I’ve seen referenced in mainstream media as potentially a trillion-dollar liability. Could you please include spending to date as well as projections across forward estimates. Are you the people?
Mr White: That’s a very large question.
Senator ROBERTS: It is a very large cost, in fact.
Mr White: We don’t have that in front of us. Budget Paper No. 1, page 121, has an appendix B that goes to this, but not in the way you’re asking the question. It has some information about net zero transformation and net zero spending measures, but they’re really new measures, not the whole of the government. Answering that question would take quite some time.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?
Mr White: We can.
Ms P Brown: I might just point you towards paragraph 1 on page 124, which provides similar information that is there for this budget but gives the figures in previous budgets, so you can look at those numbers and see the impact over time.
Mr White: Yes. If we took it on notice, we’d have to work out what we can do. It might not be an easy thing to pull together in that way, but we could look.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Take it on notice. Second, you’re involved in allocating money to the states. Could you please provide the costs since 1 July 2022 of any Commonwealth department or agency which duplicates agencies existing in the territories and the states and for which the constitutional mandate for that power vests with the states, not the Commonwealth. Could you please include data through forward estimates.
Mr White: That’s possibly an even bigger question than the first one.
Ms P Brown: I don’t know how we would do it.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a huge opportunity.
Ms P Brown: What are you specifically after? Is it whether there are similar functions being done at the Commonwealth level as at the state level?
Senator ROBERTS: The states have responsibility for certain services, and the Commonwealth is duplicating them.
Mr White: Yes, it’s an interesting question. Essentially, ever since Federation started, there have been certain things where Commonwealth and state governments have done things in similar areas, and we have a lot of that now. We have a whole budget paper, Budget Paper No. 3, federal financial relations, which has $200 billion a year we give to the states. The question of duplication versus cooperation and doing things in different areas for the same sorts of things is an interesting question. Is us giving money to the states to run hospitals duplication or not is kind of a tricky question.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think giving money to the states as part of grants and things like that is a duplication. It’s where you’re doing the same services. It seems to be rife in health, education, environment.
Senator Gallagher: We have slightly different responsibilities, though. In health, states primarily run the hospital system, but we have responsibility in primary care—GPs, Medicare, aged care, those kinds of things. In education it’s more universities, early education and care; states have public schools. So there are differences. I’m just not sure how we would provide an answer to that on notice in a way that would not take a lot of effort.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, how much is a lot of effort compared to the benefits once we work them out? Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis. The government’s increasing taxes, so why not look at cutting the need for taxes?
Senator Gallagher: We’re cutting taxes as well. There’s tax reform, which includes tax cuts. But fundamentally, we probably have a disagreement that the Commonwealth duplicates functions of the states. I think the Federation and its roles and responsibilities are pretty well understood, and the architecture of the Commonwealth Public Service reflects that, just as the states’ reflect theirs.
Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s a huge opportunity to at least have a look at it and investigate it.
Senator Gallagher: We’re always looking at ways to streamline. We genuinely are. We have no appetite to be in places that the Commonwealth shouldn’t be involved because we have enough in the areas of our responsibility. But I’ll see if there is anything useful that Treasury can provide.
During Estimates in June I questioned the government on its proposed $38 billion cuts to the NDIS.
Officials admitted the savings come from tightening eligibility, slashing participant budgets, and reducing key supports like community participation by 50% and capacity-building activities by 10%. They also confirmed a new “objective test” that will narrow who can access the scheme in the first place.
Minister McAllister clarified that disrupting fraud does not translate into government savings because recovered funds are returned to participants’ plans to secure legitimate services. She noted that while tackling fraud is a key priority, reducing total expenditure requires separate structural measures.
Department officials outlined the specific areas targeting budget reductions:
✅ Cutting social, community, and civic participation budgets by 50%, and capacity-building daily activity budgets by 10% ($13.2 billion).
✅ Replacing general disability-type lists with an objective test for “substantially reduced functional capacity” to restrict who enters the scheme ($9.3 billion).
✅ Restricting unscheduled reassessment requests and stopping plan roll-overs ($3.1 billion).
✅ Applying stricter guidelines on the level of support granted to existing participants ($2.9 billion).
✅ Commissioning changes to plan management and support coordination ($1.4 billion).
✅ Requiring registration for providers of high-risk supports such as intimate personal care or respite settings ($200 million).
The government’s target of slowing NDIS growth to roughly 5% annually relies on tightening eligibility thresholds, restricting core participant budgets, and narrowing the scope of “reasonable and necessary” supports.
Although it’s good to hear that steps are being taken to keep the NDIS sustainable, it’s vital that the priority remains stopping fraud, not cutting legitimate services.
Transcript
ACTING CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody. We are on outcome 4, and we will start our questioning with Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. What is the amount forecast to be saved by the proposed cuts to the NDIS program?
Mr Comley: The number in the budget is $37.8 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that for four years?
Mr Comley: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Shouldn’t the priority be to stop wasting money and stop the criminals defrauding the service?
Senator McAllister: We had quite a long conversation about this earlier in the day. To put it briefly, our priority is to stop the criminals defrauding the NDIS. The budget contains very significant investments in the capability of the agency to disrupt fraud, including continuing funding for the Fraud Fusion Taskforce that we’ve spoken about before. The point I was making earlier is that we see some savings to government when we disrupt fraud, but, historically, we’ve seen the vast majority of the money that we identify as going to bad actors returned to people with disability. So, yes, our priority, absolutely, is intervening to stop fraud—non-compliant claiming and other integrity leakage—but whether that is a source of savings to government is a different question.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the answer to that one?
Senator McAllister: The answer is that historically, when we have disrupted providers who are defrauding the NDIS, they are taking money from disabled people. We disrupt it. The money goes back to that person who acquires the services that they need from a legitimate provider. So it’s not a source of savings to government, but it does improve the functioning of the scheme. I’ve said it on many occasions: this scheme has to operate with integrity. Over the period that we have been in government, we have made very substantial investments to lift the capacity of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to make sure that that is so. There is still more to do, and it’s why there is significant investment—further investment in the budget—that we’ve just brought through.
Senator ROBERTS: So rather than cutting services, you’re cutting fraud?
Senator McAllister: The reform package as a whole seeks to make sure that the scheme is sustainable. Minister Butler has talked about stopping runaway cost growth. He has talked about tackling fraud. He’s talking about reshaping markets so that they deliver good value services and quality services to people with disability. The whole package is about making the NDIS stronger and better so it is here for the long term. It’s not a choice between dealing with runaway cost growth or tackling fraud. We actually have to do both.
Senator ROBERTS: Who are the people whose services will be cut then, if it’s not just fraud?
Senator McAllister: I’ll ask officials to talk you through some of our expectations in terms of the approach that we are taking.
Mr Comley: Perhaps the easiest place to draw from is the public disclosure of information and the lines there where it runs through the composition of the reductions across the forward estimates. I also note in reply to your earlier comment, Senator, that that production of documents includes—as does the budget—the savings measure on both a fiscal balance and underlying cash balance basis. I gave you the underlying cash balance. The equivalent number on fiscal balance is $38.1 billion, so they’re both around $38 billion. There are 10 aspects outlined in that production of documents.
Ms Long: That’s correct.
Mr Comley: I’ll hand over to Ms Long.
Ms Long: The reforms cover a range of areas. That includes addressing fraud, compliance and integrity, but it also includes measures around eligibility and participants’ budgets. Would you like me to go across—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please.
Ms Long: As Secretary Comley said, the total impact of the reforms is $38.1 billion over the forward estimates. That can be broken down into a number of components. The first component is around strengthening guidance on what is reasonable and necessary, and that has an impact of $2.9 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that tightening up on who should get it? I’m using that word ‘tightening’ constructively.
Ms Long: It’s around what is considered reasonable and necessary and how that is applied in terms of the determination of budgets.
Mr Comley: To be clear, that measure is for people that are in the scheme, once they’re in the scheme, on what is considered the right level of support. There are other measures Ms Long will come to that go to the question of who should be in the scheme in the first place.
Ms Long: There’s another element around resetting social, community and civic participation and capacity building budgets, which has an impact of $13.2 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?
Ms Long: There are two particular budget categories. The first one is the social, community and civic participation budget. That’s a type of support that is provided. Another type of support is capacity-building daily activities. Those two types of supports, through a ministerial determination, will have budgets reduced. The social and community budgets will be reduced by 50 per cent. The capacity-building daily activity budgets will be reduced by 10 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by community activity? What is the scope of that?
Ms Long: It’s quite a broad support category. It provides supports to participants to go out and engage in the community. It might involve having a support worker take them out to engage in some form of community activity, for example.
Mr Comley: It could be as simple as going to a park, maybe having a walk around or feeding the ducks, or it could be a sporting event. It could be a whole range of things. That’s community participation.
Ms Long: Another element of the reforms is around commissioning plan management and support coordination, which would deliver an improvement of around $1.4 billion over the forward estimates. Also, there has been quite a lot of plan inflation that has been observed, so there are a series of reforms that are aimed at addressing that plan inflation. That includes tightening the criteria around unscheduled reassessment requests and ending plans rolling over and funds being rolled over alongside. The total impact of those reforms is $3.1 billion over the forward estimates. There are also a range of access changes, as Secretary Comley referred to. In particular, in introducing an objective test of substantially reduced functional capacity, that would look to tighten eligibility for the scheme in order to focus that back on significant and permanent disability but also to have a focus on substantially reduced functional capacity rather than disability type. That change would have an impact of $9.3 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s going to tighten and be more specific?
Ms Long: That’s correct. There will need to be a range of consultation and engagement on how that’s applied in terms of the threshold, the definition and how that’s done in practice, but, yes, the intent is to focus in eligibility on significantly reduced functional capacity. To date, access to the scheme has commonly been done through access lists that relate to your disability type. This would mean that we would no longer need to use those access lists and instead eligibility would be focused on a substantial reduction in functional capacity. If you’d like, I could keep going through a number of the other elements of the reform package, if that’s helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: How many more are there?
Ms Long: There are probably a couple more that I could mention if you like. Another one that might be worth highlighting is there’s a measure for mandatory registration for high-risk providers, which is around, obviously, having registration. That would deliver savings of $0.2 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: High-risk providers?
Ms Long: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you identify high risk?
Ms Long: I might need one of my colleagues to talk to the detail of how that will be applied.
Ms Alisa Chambers: High-risk supports as imagined through the budget is an extension of mandatory registration that we’re moving through at the moment with supported independent living and platform providers, in the new category of advanced registration. Those high-risk supports relate to daily activities—things like catheter care or really intimate personal care—and closed settings, like respite settings, where we see really significant risk to people with disability, particularly people with significant support needs.
Ms Long: Overall, as a result of the reforms, it’s projected that average growth in the NDIS will be 1.7 per cent over the forward estimates and five per cent over the medium term. Five per cent per annum growth for the NDIS is broadly in line with Medicare and aged-care growth rates. It also means that the scheme will remain steady at around 1.6 per cent of GDP over the medium term on the current projections that we have.
Senator ROBERTS: I had a question about how those people whose services will be cut will be identified. It’s basically through tightening up the eligibility criteria, which is something that we’ve been talking about for a while. That’s good to see, Minister.
ACTING CHAIR: You’ve got about another two minutes, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got questions for quality and safeguards. We’ve identified several fraudsters who need to be investigated and moneys chased down. Is this where most effort should be used to seek restitution?
Mr Comley: I think the Quality and Safeguards Commission is dealing more with participant safety. The NDIA and Mr Dardo’s area are more in the area of fraud and misuse of funds. Mr Dardo might want to comment.
Mr Dardo: Overwhelmingly, our focus is on preventing the money going out in the first place so we can prevent the money leaving the system when it shouldn’t be. The beauty of that is you’re not trying to chase a debt. You’re not trying to chase the money after it’s gone. That’s our overwhelming focus, and we’ve done a really, really good job in identifying problematic providers and stopping the funds leaving before they should. When the money has gone, there are different ways that we might recover it. Raising a debt might be one way. Asking the courts for reparation, like an order to repay, might be another. Another way that we’ve done it is we’ve worked with state or federal policing authorities to seize assets or freeze assets. In one recent case, we froze $5 million in assets and had them confiscated by the Commonwealth. In another case, we’ve frozen $40 million in assets. In a recent case, we’ve frozen another $4½ million to $5 million. It’s really important that we send the message that, even if the money has gone and somebody thinks they’ve gotten away with it, we will actually pursue the assets. There is another avenue that we’ve been using, which is to get the tax office to go after them from a tax perspective and raise taxes and attack the problem from that direction. Overwhelmingly, designing a system to stop the money going out in the first place is our mission, but we do have avenues to try to recover money when it gets to the serious end of fraud.
Ms Wade: Secretary Comley mentioned that the commission’s focus with respect to fraud is firmly on the behaviour of providers in the market. In addressing that, in addition to penalty frameworks for providers, we have the registration scheme, and we’ve strengthened our approach to the registration scheme to ensure that it detects fraud in more sophisticated ways through recent reforms. As those registration groups grow, which we just spoke about, that strengthened response for fraud detection continues to be enhanced as well.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s multipronged.
Ms Wade: Yes, absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask my last question for this bracket. I’ve still got more when we come back. How many cases of fraud are being reported? You said that, if you took them all to court, they’d be clogged.
Mr Dardo: The way we look at it is that it’s about stopping the integrity leakage whether it’s accidental, it’s sharp, it’s malicious or it’s organised crime. We’ve got to stop it all because any one of those vulnerabilities that are open allows money to leak out of the scheme. We get a significant number of tip-offs every year. We get 29,000 tip-offs every year. They are not all fraud. We’ve got to be really careful in assuming. They’re not all fraud. As you go up the spectrum, there are several thousand ABNs that we’ve already got some controls on through manual payment reviews, and we have been building more systems in the last few weeks that are now turning on. We will put a couple thousand more ABNs into those reviews in the next few weeks. Then you go up the spectrum a bit more, where we’ve got Fraud Fusion Taskforce investigations. There are about 660 investigations, but 400 of those related to the NDIS are either with the commission or with us—or both. Then you get to the ones that are in the prosecution phase. There are a few dozen in the prosecution phase, so they’re in front of the courts or we’ve got briefs of evidence with the CDPP to prepare them for the courts. That’s the spectrum. And it’s really important to note that there is no regulatory system in the world that thinks that every single non-compliant thing is going to end up as a prosecution. That is not the way the world works.
Senator ROBERTS: How many convictions have there been?
Mr Dardo: There have been 25 convictions since the Fraud Fusion Taskforce started, and those sentences have resulted, in some cases, in custodial sentences up to six years. There are more cases where there has been a guilty outcome—either pled guilty or found guilty—but they’re awaiting sentencing. We don’t control the dates of the court, so some of those have been sitting there awaiting sentencing for six months or a year. There are cases that are currently scheduled for sentencing in July. They may happen in July; they may happen in December—we don’t know. But there are more cases sitting there right now where they’ve been found guilty awaiting sentencing.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/rXXEQPYp40Q/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-03 12:49:342026-09-03 12:49:39Restoring the NDIS to Its Core Purpose
Why are taxpayers bankrolling art projects that cross the line from “expression” into outright extremism?
Creative Australia admitted to funding nearly $100,000 for events linked to an artist who has publicly praised a listed terrorist organisation and celebrated violence.
We also learned that $48,000 went to an exhibition that mocked public figures and pushed divisive political messaging, followed by another $318,000 from the department for the same project.
Everyday Australians are sick of seeing their money poured into insider art projects that promote radical politics instead of strengthening community culture.
One Nation get’s labelled as “divisive” for asking when taxpayer funding will start serving Australians, not ideology.
Labor keeps batting accusations back and forth like a game of political tennis, but we’re not here to play – we’re here to get answers for taxpayers.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: You gave $1.692 million to Diversity Arts Australia, DARTS, which is the national voice for ethnocultural and migrant racial equity in the arts, cultural and creative industries. Their primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections for women and DEI related purposes’. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy groups to influence government policy? Where’s the arts funding here? This is advocacy, research and brokering connections. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy?
Mr Blackwell: One of the functions of Creative Australia is to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia. I’m not sure about the amount of funding over what period you’re referring to, but that may well be activities that allow us to perform this function.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why are we funding this? The primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections’. Why are we funding advocacy? Basically, advocacy is funding advocacy groups to influence government policy. Where’s the art?
Senator Green: I’m not familiar with that project, so we’d have to take it on notice. I don’t know if the officials from Creative Australia have more information for you about what that project or that organisation is doing. Obviously, some organisations are funded for a particular project, so they might have some more explanation for you.
Mr Blackwell: We do, actually. Thank you, Minister. Diversity Arts Australia are a delivery partner to service the organisations under the community, arts and cultural development stream of our funding. Those organisations that we classify as delivery partners provide services to the arts sector. They strengthen the arts sector, and they allow the arts sector to leverage more value through that connection. That is the connection through to the arts sector and how we would then fulfil that function to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: You used some nice buzzwords in there—delivery, diversity, leverage. But you didn’t tell me why you’re funding advocacy. Advocacy is not art.
Mr Blackwell: No, but it’s advocacy for the arts. It’s not lobbying; it’s advocacy for the arts.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding that?
Mr Blackwell: Because that’s part of our remit.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, RP? Can you give a quick explanation of that, please?
Mr Blackwell: Sorry; could you repeat the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, and could you give a quick explanation if it is?
Mr Blackwell: I would say that we have a responsible process for issuing our grants from start to finish.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that incorporate a responsible person for each grant?
Mr Blackwell: Could you define ‘responsible person’ for me?
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you if it includes that. It doesn’t sound like it does.
Senator Green: Perhaps you need to provide the context of what you’re referring to—the agreement or the consideration of the application. You may have to give us a guide on what you’re referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps it’ll come out in the more detailed questions.
Senator Green: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You gave $197,500 to a recipient called Click Ink Inc. for the Bankstown Poetry Slam. They describe themselves: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power, and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by, and disaffected with, systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism, solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ That’s the end of the quote. Events include ‘They call me the good Muslim’, ‘I am Palestinian’ and related pro-Palestinian events. My question is simple. Why are taxpayer dollars funding propaganda? This isn’t art; it’s politics.
Mr Blackwell: I would say that it is art. I’d have to disagree with you. I would say that it is art. Poetry slams are a common and popular form of artistic expression in this country.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go through the quote again: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by and disaffected with systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism and solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ This sounds like it’s very divisive and pushing an ideology, not art. It doesn’t bother you?
Senator Green: Art can be political or non-political. You might not like that type of art, but it might be what other people choose to express. It might be a form of expression for them, or there might be an audience for that type of art. I think it’s wrong to say that art can’t be political or shouldn’t be political in some sort of way. Otherwise, we might have a lot of pictures of fields but we wouldn’t have any generation of debate or discussion through the use of art. Are you suggesting that there should be no politics in any songs, music, plays or artistic expression?
Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying it’s okay for your government to push ideological issues as politics.
Senator Green: No, that’s not what’s happening here.
Senator ROBERTS: That is what’s happening.
Senator Green: No. This is funding for artistic expression projects. I thought One Nation was the party of freedom of expression, so I’m a little confused about why you would want to stifle people’s views even if you don’t agree with them and even if you don’t agree with the art. You might not want to go to the poetry slam, but it doesn’t mean that art can’t be political in some way.
Senator ROBERTS: We are not in favour of government funding government propaganda and government ideology.
Senator Green: But you are in favour of freedom of expression, aren’t you?
Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but not funded by government necessarily.
Senator Green: Only when it suits you.
Senator ROBERTS: Not funded by government.
Senator Green: Only the freedom of expression that you—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re defending propaganda from your own government.
Senator Green: No, it’s not propaganda. The views of the artists might not support our government, but we don’t think that that is a reason why particular art shouldn’t be supported. To make my final point for your next question, the law that was passed in 2023 made it very clear that the government has no role in the funding decisions so that any type of government that might be in power can’t influence the independent funding decisions to alleviate the particular issues that you’re talking about.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’m heading—accountability. Here’s an example. The registered person for this organisation—presumably, it’s registered with you. I don’t know who it’s registered with. The registered person for this organisation is Bilal Hafda, who said on social media that ‘any Australian who fails to support Palestinians who attacked Israel is a white supremacist’. Another registered person is Sara Saleh, who celebrated the Hamas terrorist aerial attack on Israel on her social media. Is there any rule in your grant guide that precludes grants from being used for political purposes?
Mr Blackwell: In our funding agreements, we have conditions. If you give me a moment, I’ll find it. Our funding agreements have a condition that says that ‘it is a condition of your funding that you comply with all applicable state, territory and Commonwealth work, health and safety and antidiscrimination laws’.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s it?
Mr Blackwell: And we refer them to Safe Work Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission for more information on those applicable laws. So that is—
Senator ROBERTS: So celebrating terrorists is okay?
Mr Blackwell: I—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go on. Ali Al Haj Hussein, who is also known as the Poetic Ninja, has won multiple awards at the Bankstown Poetry Slam. He has praised Hezbollah—declared terrorists—as ‘men of God’, praised the 7 October murders as ‘just the beginning’, promised to ‘drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell’ and used an implicit threat of violence in a poem at the Sydney Writers Festival, where he called for the downfall of the western empire and all its debauchery, including in a general context the same 2SLGBTQQIPAA community your grants are advancing. Does this sound to you like a great day out for the family to listen to poetry? This isn’t art or free expression. It’s an incitement to violence against the Australian community. Why are you funding it?
Mr Blackwell: I can tell you, in terms of the funding, the grant was $98,000—
Senator ROBERTS: Nearly a hundred thousand dollars.
Mr Blackwell: and the project summary, which was funded, was monthly themed poetry slam events; the grand slam championship, Real Talk; high-school poetry programs; the National Youth Poetry Slam; and the development of the Brave New Word Youth Poetry Festival at the Powerhouse Museum. That’s what we funded.
Senator ROBERTS: You are funding multiple awards for someone praising a terrorist group and wanting to drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell—an implicit threat of violence.
Mr Blackwell: I’m not aware of that quotation.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, you are now. Moving on to the artist Kait James and her Red Flags exhibition, this was partly funded by Creative Australia with a grant of $48,000 on 28 November 2023. As the title suggests, this exhibition decided certain people and events were red flags to the Aboriginal community and proceeded to insult these people and events using a series of pennants and tea towels. One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, was mocked, and Captain Cook had his eyes crossed out and was called a c-u-n-t. This is kindergarten art. You talk about not being political, Minister. Why does everything you or Creative Australia fund which could be considered political aim to promote radical causes, including radical Islam, and attack conservatives and everyday Australians? Where’s the balance? This is divisive, and it’s pushing a Marxist ideology. Why are you funding only one side?
Mr Blackwell: In regard to Kait James’s Red Flags, we funded it for $48,000 under an arts project grant for the development of the artwork. We weren’t involved in putting on that exhibition. The grant has been acquitted. Within that, there is content which we would say falls into freedom of artistic expression. It may offend some people, Senator, but not necessarily all people. There may be satire in it. All of these things form part of artistic expression.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition, the same one I just raised. Was the criticism of a political rival the quid pro quo for making such a large grant, and what pot of taxpayer money did that grant come from? Where did the money come from?
Senator Green: First of all, to make it clear, the funding was provided through Creative Australia. It’s not a decision of government; it’s a decision of Creative Australia. But I take your point. The art is not to my taste, but people are entitled to express their views in different ways. I note that viewers of the exhibition were provided a warning about the fact that the art depicted themes and images related to historical and ongoing systematic racism and discrimination and included critique of the artist’s perspectives and strong language. Viewer discretion was advised, so certainly people who wanted to view that art were given fair warning. As I said, it’s not something that I necessarily would consider. I wouldn’t have done it myself, and it probably isn’t something I would go to see, but people are entitled to respect the views of individuals and to present their views in different ways.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your answer, Creative Australia gave a grant of $48,000, which Mr Blackwell confirmed.
Senator Green: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition. That would seem to me to be outside the Creative Australia funds. So where did that money come from? What pot of gold in the department did that money come from?
Senator Green: You are correct. Sorry; I thought you were talking about the grant from Creative Australia for the development of the exhibition.
Senator ROBERTS: No—the $318,000.
Senator Green: There was funding under the Office for the Arts, who were with us a bit earlier. Apologies; those officials have left. You won’t be able to ask them about the funding.
Senator ROBERTS: I can ask you, though.
Senator Green: Yes, but I’m not an official, so I will have to take it on notice if I don’t have enough information for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. When you come back with your answer on notice, could you tell us whether or not this was political quid pro quo for a political rival.
Senator Green: Definitely not. I don’t need to take that on notice. I can tell you with 100 per cent confidence that we don’t fund art because we want to attack One Nation. We can do that if we just walk up to the press gallery.
Senator ROBERTS: For ministers, it’s much cheaper to walk up to the press gallery, hey?
Senator Green: You should go up to the press gallery! They can ask you some questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to it. Minister, everyday Australians are sick of taxpayers’ money being spent on insider projects and social engineering. We had embarrassment from your government yesterday on this. When will your government listen to them?
Senator Green: We do listen to Australians. We’ve just finished consultation on the most recent cultural policy. It’ll be the first time Australia’s ever had two national cultural policies in a row. You will remember the release of the Revive cultural policy. So we do give Australians an opportunity to give us feedback on what our cultural policy should be. We’re making sure that that development of that policy takes into consideration all of those views.
Senator ROBERTS: Why do you push ideologically driven, divisive policies that split the Australian community?
Senator Green: I think that’s what you and One Nation do, Senator—respectfully—and unfortunately we’re seeing that more and more from the Liberal and National parties as they try to join you in that fight.
Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thanks, Mr Blackwell.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/aEjM4aCNFVM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 17:42:462026-08-26 17:42:55When Art Crosses the Line
During this session with Australia Post, I raised concerns from local outlet operators like Kylie in Agnes Waters, who face increasing operational pressures.
Australia Post confirmed that while they are not actively cutting over-the-counter services, telecommunications companies, government agencies, and banks are driving down physical transactions by raising manual fees, pushing digital channels, or pulling services like Western Union.
Addressing the abrupt closure of the Coleambally Post Office, Australia Post explained it resulted from a licensee walking away without notice. To maintain local parcel, mail, and expanding financial services, they partnered with the town’s pharmacy, a co-location model now operating across 82 locations nationwide.
I confirmed that ANZ officially joined Bank@Post on October 1st, bringing the total number of participating financial institutions to 81.
There is a need for physical over-the-counter banking in the bush. One Nation we will establish a People’s Bank to provide a full range of banking services to everyday Australians using the Bank@Post system. This will make Post Offices profitable again and improve banking options for all Australians.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Here’s an email from the Agnes Waters Post Office in Queensland: ‘Hi, my name is Kylie. I managed this outlet for 14 years before buying it 18 months ago. We are 1½ hours from the next nearest full-service post office. In my community, our post office is the only practical point of access for banking, bill payment, retail, parcel services and government related business. This business is under significant pressures from several areas of operation’—which I’ll now ask about. Are BPAY options being reduced inside Bank@Post?
Mr Graham: No, they’re not. What we are finding is that telecommunications companies are encouraging their customers to digitise payment as opposed to going into a branch and paying over the counter—indeed, people are now incurring penalties or higher costs. One telco in particular has increased its fee for those people paying manually over the counter, which is a deterrent to those customers, because they’re trying to encourage them to pay online.
Senator ROBERTS: Is Western Union being withdrawn? I think you said it is because—
Mr Graham: It is being withdrawn. After a thorough review in relation to the risk of that product, we have decided, with the support of the licensees, to withdraw that product. But we have done an arrangement with Western Union that the individual licensees can have an agreement directly with Western Union to continue providing those services. We’ve also highlighted to those licensees the risks in relation to that service.
Senator ROBERTS: Are government and agency services available over the counter reducing in number?
Mr Graham: They are reduced in number, through no action of Australia Post but through the actions of those agencies or those governments by making it available only through a digital channel, or increasing fees for over-the-counter transactions, or, indeed, removing the service altogether. For example, in the Northern Territory, the NT government has removed the ability to provide that service over the counter at a post office. That service is only available at a Northern Territory government office. We are continuing to work with the NT on reintroducing those services to an over-the-counter service.
Senator ROBERTS: The retail structure that once supported LPOs has been replaced with a new system, I’m told, that provides less profit for the post office. We’ve spoken about this before. They must have lost revenue. When I go into a post office, no matter where it is, there’s less merchandise available for sale. Do you accept that change has cost LPOs revenue and profit.
Mr Graham: No, I don’t. The LPOs have a licence to go and sell whatever product they think is appropriate for their post office. In our corporate post offices, yes, we have reduced the range quite a lot. We no longer sell air fryers or electric guitars or whipper snippers or flat-screen TVs. When we did sell them, we sold them at significant loss. We have focused on five key categories, based on significant surveys from our customers about what they want to buy in a post office, including greeting cards, and travel is a big one because we obviously provide passport renewal. We provide travel insurance and other things related to travel, cheap mobile phones and SIM cards, and then a small range of general merchandising. But we continue to provide the licensees with access to Australia Post products. As I said in my earlier statement, with things like photocopy paper or our greeting cards, we have dramatically increased the margins available to licensees through our collective purchasing power and are making those available as an Australia Post branded product. The product’s called JoyUp—that’s not my choice; I’m not a marketing person—but the licensees have the ability to put whatever product they feel they can sell within their Post Office. Indeed, I’ve been to many licensed post offices where there’s a broad array of products that they make money on.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s nothing to stop them putting their own arrangements in place?
Mr Graham: Provided it complies with Australian safety standards and Australian copyright standards, correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got Kylie’s letter in front of me. I was going to read some out, but in the interests of time I won’t do that. Kylie talks about uncertainty around contract terms making it hard to plan for the future. Is this something you’re familiar with?
Mr Graham: No. Again, if it’s a licensed post office, it’s a perpetual licence. As I said, we have been in consultation with the licensed post office council and both licensee associations to look at modernising the agreements we have in place around commissions. These were set up many, many years ago and, again, aren’t really fit for purpose, and both licensees agree. We continue to be in consultation as to how we can modernise those agreements and look at things like creating a larger fixed fee to provide greater sustainability and greater certainty. However, I go back to the previous comments—the nature of a post office, and how it is used today, is dramatically different from how it was 10 years ago, even five years ago. We continue to work with licensees in relation to the sustainability of these outlets, but it is challenging.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve been watching, in the last 10 years—since I’ve been in the Senate—just how dramatically your letter traffic has gone down. Your parcels are picking up, but you’ve got increased competition. So your traditional services are now a small proportion of your overall services.
Mr Graham: Correct. As I said, 60 per cent of the reason someone goes into a post office today is parcel related; next is Billpay, then Bank@Post and then things associated with passports, but all three of those are in decline.
Senator ROBERTS: And there’s a huge community impact from a post office being shut.
Mr Graham: Indeed. I’ve been to regional towns where the licensee has handed back the post office. Again, as Senator Henderson mentioned, in the case of Tathra it’s been in place for 123 years. It’s been in place for that long because it was one of the stops where Cobb & Co used to refresh the horses. That’s how we ended up with post offices in these small country towns. But, again, that community is using that post office for eight transactions a week.
Senator ROBERTS: So why did Coleambally Post Office close? I understand it was out of the blue, sudden, and now the only service is the pharmacy, running the mail service—with no attempt on your part, apparently, to reopen the location. I checked, and the population at Coleambally in 2016—that’s the latest figure I could get— was 1,330. So it’s not a tiny town, and it’s an irrigation area, which means there should be good money around.
Mr Graham: Yes, I agree. We literally had no notice, nor did the town. The licensee literally walked away— put a lock on the doors and didn’t come back—and we continued to pursue that licensee. We immediately set about ensuring that people could get access to mail and parcels, because that was the priority for the town. We worked with the local pharmacy, who stepped up to the plate and was able to provide those services under a CPA arrangement. We continue to work with that pharmacy. Indeed, we met with council again this week to look at how we can reintroduce financial services, and we are committed to doing that in Coleambally. But this is a good example of what happens when a licensee vacates with no notice. We are as blindsided as the community. We recognise that Coleambally requires these services, and we’re working with the community to make sure these services are available. We do see the association with pharmacies as a good partnership. Pharmacies, like Australia Post, are a trusted brand in the community. They have extended opening hours. Unlike Australia Post, most of them open seven days a week, generally. They, also, are under threat from changes within their and are looking at additional foot traffic to generate sales. We now have 82 post offices in conjunction with pharmacies. It’s proven to be a successful model, which is why, when Coleambally came up, we immediately defaulted to talking to the local pharmacy, with the support of the pharmacy.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re in partnership with some pharmacies in some areas?
Mr Graham: With 82 pharmacies, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you say to rural customers who say that your level of care about the plight of rural customers is a scandal? How far is it to your local post office?
Mr Graham: I live in the city. My local post office is probably 1½ kays, two kays.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you say to customers who are concerned about the plight?
Mr Graham: We agree with their concerns. That’s, again, why we’re happy to have the regulatory commitment of 2½ thousand post offices in regional, rural and remote areas. We do have some significant difficulties, particularly in the remote locations where we continue to fund a presence because it’s the right thing to do, and we’ll continue to do that. Again I call out the difficult nature of these licensees and their viability. Where a town has a need, we will make sure we satisfy that need.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to touch on banks quickly. Freedom-of-information requests revealed part of the terms for the government to approve a ANZ’s acquisition of Suncorp Bank was for the ANZ to make the best endeavours to join Bank@Post on commercial terms for a minimum of three years. Can you provide the date they joined so I can ensure that they at least stay for the three years?
Mr Graham: I’m pleased to say that, after some intensive negotiations, we convinced ANZ to join. Their original premise was that they didn’t have a lot of customers interested in the service. However, they were active from 1 October last year as a member of Bank@Post, and we have seen a significant activity with ANZ customers in relation to using those services both in metropolitan areas and regional areas. Again, this has provided an additional income stream to licensees because, obviously, ANZ was not part of Bank@Post previously.
Senator ROBERTS: How many banks now participate in Bank@Post?
Mr Graham: We have 81 financial institutions and banks participating. Obviously the big four banks are the bulk of the transactions, but there are 81 institutions, credit unions, smaller banks and other financial services in relation to which we can perform over-the-counter services.
Senator ROBERTS: I think the only question I’ve got left is: will One Nation get into government and create a people’s bank using Bank@Post for a full range of banking services before you shut down every branch in the bush?
Mr Graham: Well, first of all, we are not shutting branches in the bush. We have no intention of being a full service bank. We believe that the over-the-counter services we provide are a valuable community service, and we will continue to sustain those services. Moving from an over-the-counter service provider to a full bank is a large undertaking and not one that we are considering at Australia Post.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much for attending. Thank you for your answers and punctuality.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/70XwckPmU9Q/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 15:54:532026-08-26 15:54:57Strengthening Financial Access in the Bush
I questioned security authorities on the thoroughness of the screening processes for returning individuals and older children, ensuring ASIO and joint counter-terrorism teams are actively monitoring threats to keep our citizens safe.
I asked about the total costs of managing, monitoring and integrating these returnees. Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going, yet officials refused to disclose specific resource allocations in a public forum.
I raised concerns about how risk assessment notices are followed up with state authorities, specifically questioning NSW Police decisions regarding security during heightened-risk periods prior to recent tragedies.
I will never stop asking the tough questions to ensure our national security comes first and the government remains accountable to the Australian people. Australians deserve no less!
Transcript:
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Another group of ISIS concubines and their children arrived this week.
Senator Shoebridge: I’m going to take a point of order: that kind of language is just pointlessly, gratuitously offensive, and I’d ask Senator Roberts to review his language and rephrase his question.
CHAIR: Withdraw, please, Senator Roberts, and please refrain from that kind of—
Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw ‘concubines’. ISIS terrorist wives, brides, partners: what security screening has been done on them to ensure the safety of Australian citizens, as a group and also individually?
Mr Gilmore: As I said earlier this evening, ASIO has worked over many years to understand the threat posed by those Australians who chose to travel offshore and join ISIL. We’ve provided advice on this cohort and other cohorts previously, both overseas and in Australia, to government departments and agencies, consistent with our statutory functions and requirements, for many years.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; were you watching them on the way out, while they were over there and on the way back?
Mr Gilmore: ASIO will always be watching to identify threats. When information comes to our attention that requires action, we will act.
Senator ROBERTS: Have they been screened individually and as a group? I guess what you’re saying is yes.
Mr Gilmore: What I’ve said is that on any cohort that travels overseas—and I think I could characterise people travelling to join ISIL as a cohort that has been of interest to ASIO for many years, along with our partners, I must say, including in the JCTTs.
Senator ROBERTS: Are older children to be screened for security risk? I understand that the eldest at the moment is 18 years of age.
Mr Gilmore: That would be a question for the security authorities, AFP and others.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I’m sure you understand that there are limits to what ASIO is able to put in the public domain as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand there’s the New South Wales police, for example, or the AFP. Will ASIO have a role in ensuring national security after these and other returnees arrive and stay in Australia?
Mr Gilmore: Absolutely. ASIO’s function is to protect Australia and Australians from threats to their security. That means that we will always be looking and, where we need to, we will act.
Senator ROBERTS: What is all of the work relating to the return of the brides, wives, partners, costing? What are the future related costs?
Mr Gilmore: ASIO receives a baseline allocation from government, as with any department or agency. We have a robust prioritisation and resource allocation process. The details of how those resources are allocated is not something that I could declare in this public forum.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to declare the detailed operational plans. I’m asking what the cost would be for these women that have recently come back.
CHAIR: I think Mr Gilmore has indicated that the question you’re asking goes to the very thing that he’s just said he’s not willing to disclose in this forum.
Senator ROBERTS: Don’t you think the taxpayers have a right to know?
Mr Gilmore: I think the taxpayers would be expecting us to prioritise our resources against the highest threats and to be doing our job, which is what we’re doing.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough money to cover it?
Mr Gilmore: We have allocations from government. We have a prioritisation process. We assess risk and we do our job.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough to do your job?
Mr Gilmore: We have the resources allocated by budget. I think the director-general has been on the public record for successive years. If you want specific details that we might be able to offer this evening, we could go there, but we do.
Senator ROBERTS: When ASIO provide heightened terrorist risk alert notices to the New South Wales police service, is there any expectation or follow-up by ASIO to check if there has been a suitable response from the New South Wales police?
Mr Gilmore: You may be aware that we’re members of the joint counterterrorism teams around the country. They consist of ASIO, AFP and the state and territory police authorities in each state and territory. We share information through those forums. But it’s not just those forums; there are many other mechanisms. We work very closely with our partners in the states and territories.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you keep tabs on them formally or informally or both?
Mr Gilmore: Could you just clarify ‘keep tabs on them’?
Senator ROBERTS: Keep tabs on New South Wales police, for example—when you give them advice, you watch to make sure that they implement that advice.
Mr Gilmore: We partner very closely. I think it would be reasonable to say we have a shared understanding through that habitual relationship that we’ve built over many, many years with our police partners.
Senator ROBERTS: Is ASIO concerned to find that the New South Wales police service had actually wound back the police presence for Jewish festivals or events shortly before the Bondi atrocity, the murders, even though they had been warned of a heightened-risk assessment of terrorist activity?
Mr Gilmore: I apologise, but that would go to matters being considered by the royal commission, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on those this evening. Needless to say, resourcing decisions for police or for other agencies and departments are decisions are made by them, and they’re questions that should be directed to them.
Senator ROBERTS: In the process of your relationship—it’s a close relationship, I’m concluding—would you comment if something were less than you expected?
Mr Gilmore: We will always work closely with our partners. Nothing is achieved alone, and there are no truer words in the security and intelligence domain. We rely on close relationships with our partners to understand and respond to threats to Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: I assume it’s in both of your interests to do that?
Mr Gilmore: It is.
Senator ROBERTS: Was ASIO aware of the NSW Police Force winding back when you sent out the heightened-risk notice?
Mr Gilmore: That’s not a question that I’m able to answer this evening.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?
Mr Gilmore: I think the question really starts to go to some of the questions that the royal commission will be exploring, and it would be inappropriate to say anything that might compromise that process.
Senator ROBERTS: The last question was on the royal commission, so I don’t need to go there now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, for your accommodation again.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WX4Jf7nwZMM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 15:43:342026-09-02 08:40:21National Security Must Comes First
