Stop Terrorists, Not Free Speech

,

Judge for yourself: does the head of the department overseeing security and immigration seem reluctant to answer simple questions? Do her answers give you confidence?

Secretary Stephanie Foster refused to say how safe Australians currently are. Instead, she tried to deflect the question to ASIO, only belatedly mentioning that the government had allocated $102 million to assist with security for Jewish sites.

Minister Watt and the government haven’t received the message: One Nation will not vote for legislation that packages necessary legal provisions we support with “bundled” provisions that strip away basic rights such as free speech and instil needless control over the people.

The answer to terrorism is not to take away the basic freedoms of Australians; the answer is to stop terrorists from entering Australia in the first place. Based on Minister Watt’s response today and Minister Ayres’ response yesterday, it’s clear that Labor is growing concerned about the surging support for One Nation.

Rather than misleading by omission and spreading falsehoods about One Nation, wouldn’t it be more effective if the “Uniparty” — Liberal and Labor — started serving Australians?

Telling the truth can be tough. However, as One Nation does, it’s better for the long-term interest of the country to raise difficult truths and facts. Instead of dragging others down out of fear, Labor should try lifting itself up.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: These questions are for Home Affairs. What is the risk to Australians of a terrorist attack on Australian soil since the Bondi atrocity at the hands of Islamic terrorists of Middle Eastern extraction and the failed bombing attempt by homegrown white supremacists?

Ms Foster: You’re absolutely right that is a question for the Home Affairs portfolio, but the threat assessments are actually done by ASIO. Director-General Burgess will be appearing later today.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask him similar questions. Isn’t it pertinent that you should know as well?

Ms Foster: That’s a specific role assigned to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you interact with ASIO and AFP to coordinate activities?

Ms Foster: We do. In terms of actually formulating that assessment, that’s a role that belongs with them.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you whether or not you formulate the role. Thank you for explaining that ASIO does that. I thought they did that. What I’m asking is: do you know it? I can ask you questions about your department’s response based on the level of threat.

Ms Foster: I’m hesitating because an amount of the assessment work is classified in nature. I’ll need to take the question on notice before I answer about what is my state of knowledge of the classification level of the material that I have.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know whether or not your department knows what the level of risk is right now. What’s the rating?

Ms Foster: That’s the question I’m being cautious of. When agencies make assessments about threat, that can often be drawn from classified sources. It’s on the public record that the Director-General raised the threat level for terrorism to ‘probable’ on 5 August 2024. That’s the national terrorism threat level, which as he explains means a more than 50 per cent chance of that occurring.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask him this question as well, and thank you for that answer. My understanding is that the risk level rating has to be increased immediately after an attack. Has it been increased? What I’m getting to, Secretary, is: what are you doing differently now compared with before Bondi?

Ms Foster: Again, publicly, the director-general has affirmed that the national terrorism threat level remains at ‘probable’, that he did not, on the basis of information available to him, change that at the time. In terms of what we collectively have done since Bondi, you’ll see a very significant range of activities—obviously some of which you participated in in the debates on the bills which were passed a couple of weeks ago.

Senator ROBERTS: How safe are we now, living in Australia?

Ms Foster: I can only give you my previous answer, which is that it is the director-general of ASIO who makes assessments of Australia’s national terrorism threat level, and he will be appearing later today. But I’ve given you the publicly stated information to date. Mr Hansford has just reminded me that, in terms of another very significant action since Bondi, there is the allocation of a $102 million investment in security for Jewish institutions, places of worship and educational facilities.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do anything to educate everyday Australians or citizens of Australia as to what we can do to enhance our safety?

Mr Hansford: We—as in the Commonwealth—have a range of actions, including information on the national security website and a range of information that can help people to be informed about security issues in Australia. We also play a leadership role, and I co-chair the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee that has met post Bondi a number of times to talk about how we prepare, knowing what we know about Bondi from the law enforcement and policy community across Australia. We’ve had discussions around how law enforcement and policy agencies can respond to and learn from what’s happened in Bondi, cognisant of the inquiries that are underway.

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound very concrete to me. What about things like tightening up immigration standards regarding who we let into the country?

Senator Watt: We recently passed some laws to strengthen the minister’s powers to cancel visas of people promoting hate, and your party voted against those laws.

Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things that we did not like in the bill.

Senator Watt: So you voted against what you were asking for?

Senator ROBERTS: We voted against the other provisions of your bill.

Senator Watt: Which were to make it easier to ban association with Neo-Nazis. Was it that bit that you didn’t like? What was it that you didn’t like?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we could talk for hours about the specifics of that bill. This is a time for you to answer my questions; it’s not for me to answer your questions.

Senator Watt: The problem with One Nation is that you call for things to happen and then vote against them. You’ve done that now on hate speech and hate crime.

Senator ROBERTS: We do not vote against tighter immigration.

Senator Watt: You voted against same job, same pay, when you called for better labour standards.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you increase the immigration vetting standards?

Senator Watt: You voted against cheaper medicines when you wanted things done for poorer Australians. At some point, Australians are going to see through One Nation and observe that you make promises that you don’t keep when you come to Canberra. You did it again recently, by calling for hate preachers to be banned and restricted and then voting against laws that would do that. You called for migration screening and then voted against it. So I’ll leave it to Australians to see through what One Nation does rather than what One Nation says.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you think Australians are fools and not seeing what you’re doing right now? We’ve asked for tighter immigration standards. Will you answer the question: will you provide tighter immigration standards to keep terrorists out?

Senator Watt: We just did that, and you voted against it.

Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things in your bill.

Senator Watt: But we did what you were asking for, and you voted against it—

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, because of the other things.

Senator Watt: just as you always vote against the things that you say need to be done, and we’re onto you.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re happy to leave it in the hands of the Australian people.

Senator Watt: The Australian people, over time, will be onto you.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you call out ideologies that promote terrorism?

Senator Watt: We’ve done that, and we’ve just passed laws.

Senator ROBERTS: It took a long while for you to call out ideologies—

Senator Watt: We’ve done that. We’ve gone and done more than just call it out; we’ve passed laws. We’ve just passed laws. We don’t just call things out; we pass laws to restrict hate speech and hate preachers, and you vote against those laws.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, until the Bondi attack, only one party was calling out ideological Islam, and that was us. Now, all of a sudden, we’ve got more doing so.

Senator Watt: That’s not true.

Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister didn’t.

Senator Watt: There’s a long series of statements from the Prime Minister and ministers in this government. They have condemned some of the hate speech that we’ve seen in the community, whether it be from Islamic preachers or white supremacists; there is a long series of those statements. But we don’t just call things out. When we come to Canberra, we pass laws to restrict that kind of activity. So I invite you to work with the government to restrict that kind of activity, rather than just pretend that you care about these issues.

Senator ROBERTS: Secretary, do you have adequate resources to do what needs to be done?

Ms Foster: The Department of Home Affairs has a very substantial budget and staffing level, and I am able to deploy those resources to the government’s priorities.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Taxpayer Dollars and Legal Secrets

,

In the recent estimates session, I questioned officials from the Attorney-General’s Department about the Legal Services Directions – the rulebook that dictates how the government must behave when involved in legal proceedings.

The government isn’t supposed to play dirty. Under these rules, they are required to act as “model litigants”, meaning they must be honest, fair, and efficient.

The Department isn’t a “police force.” Government agencies are largely responsible for reporting their own mistakes. The Department just “supports” them in fixing those errors.

I asked officials if these rules were followed during the Brittany Higgins settlement and the ongoing cases of Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown. Their response: they stated that Comcover (the government’s insurer) is handling the cases and “complying absolutely” with the rules.

When asked why the government hasn’t “accepted” court findings that cleared Reynolds and Brown of wrongdoing, officials dodged, stating they simply “note” the judgments but see them as separate from the Higgins settlement.

When I asked about legal costs or why the government isn’t mediating with Fiona Brown, the Department passed the buck to the Department of Finance.

The big question? Is the government actually following its own rules, or is the system designed to let them off the hook?

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again today. What are the Legal Services Directions? Could you explain that, please?  

Ms Jones: The Legal Services Directions are established under statute in order to provide an overarching framework for the conduct of legal proceedings that the Commonwealth is party to. I have the experts to the right of me who can talk to that in detail.  

Mr Ng: Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts. As the secretary has indicated, the Legal Services Directions are made by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act, and they govern, in part, the conduct of much of the Commonwealth legal services.  

Senator Roberts: There are requirements for sound practice in the provision of legal services to the Australian government?  

Mr Ng: That’s correct. One of the aspects that they cover is in relation to, for example, how the Commonwealth is to conduct itself in litigation. One of the appendices to the Legal Services Directions reflects those model litigant obligations.  

Senator Roberts: Are they binding, and on whom are they binding?  

Mr Ng: The application of Legal Services Directions applies in full to non-corporate Commonwealth entities. There are aspects of the directions that apply to corporate Commonwealth entities, who are in a different category. Also, they won’t apply to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which are not covered. They’re referenced in a couple of points, but not directly covered.  

Senator Roberts: Does noncompliance have to be reported? If so, by and to whom?  

Mr Ng: There are provisions under the Legal Services Directions where noncompliance with the directions is reported to the Office of Legal Services Coordination within the department. It remains the responsibility of agencies, relevant agencies or named agencies, to assess those allegations of noncompliance, but the department maintains an overarching role in supporting those agencies to assess and deal with the complaints that they may have received.  

Senator Roberts: So it’s the department’s responsibility?  

Mr Ng: How I would characterise it is that agencies have a responsibility to notify our department of possible or actual breaches of the Legal Services Directions and to assess their compliance with that. The department has a role in that, in supporting those agencies in meeting their obligations and in addressing noncompliance. Absolutely, the department has a role, but the agencies themselves are the ones who, of course, are responsible, and are running their own cases, where some of these complaints may arise.  

Senator Roberts: Who enforces noncompliance?  

Mr Ng: The Office of Legal Services Coordination is not a regulator as such. Our role here as a department is to support agencies in the assessments they make. They submit what are called agency notification forms to the department which identify both the allegation of the breach and, where there are instances that the agency themselves has assessed as noncompliant, the corrective steps that are taken and the corrective steps they intend to take as well. The department plays a role in engaging very closely with those agencies to ensure that those steps are taken.  

Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions applied in the Brittany Higgins mediation and settlement?  

Mr Ng: The matter you refer to is a matter that was managed by Comcover; that is probably the first thing to say in that instance. Comcover, as a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, is required to comply with the Legal Services Directions, and that was managed in accordance with the Legal Services Directions.  

Senator Roberts: So they did comply. Are the Legal Services Directions being applied in Linda Reynolds’s and Fiona Brown’s cases?  

Mr Ng: Both of those cases are, again, managed by Comcover, within the Department of Finance. Comcover is obliged, as I outlined earlier, to comply with the Legal Services Directions in all aspects of the management of those cases.  

Senator Roberts: Were they complied with?  

Mr Ng: I’m sorry; I’m just trying to clarify your question, Senator. Is it whether there are allegations of noncompliance? What is it that—  

Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions being applied?  

Mr Ng: From the department’s perspective, Comcover are complying absolutely with the Legal Services Directions, noting that they’re managing those claims.  

Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against Fiona Brown were without foundation?  

Ms Jones: It’s not a matter for us to accept the findings of court judgements. We note the judgement, but those proceedings dealt with issues that were separate to the settlement that we had a role in administering.  

Senator Roberts: What are the total legal costs incurred to date by the Australian Government Solicitor in external legal assistance for the federal government in relation to Fiona Brown’s claim against the Commonwealth?  

Ms Jones: I think we’d need to take that on notice. It’s a matter for Comcover. In fact, I would request that question be put to Comcover. They are the instructing agency.  

Senator Roberts: What external legal assistance has been engaged, and from whom? What rates have been agreed, and who approved any extra rates? Ms Jones: Again, that is a matter for Comcover. They are the instructing agency. S 

Senator ROBERTS: Who does Comcover report to?  

Ms Jones: The Department of Finance. They’re a division within the Department of Finance, although set up as a separate entity.  

Senator Roberts: The bureaucracy is so big that we can’t comprehend it all. Why is the Commonwealth not mediating with Fiona Brown?  

Ms Jones: We couldn’t provide a view on that. I think that goes to the conduct of that matter, which is a matter for Comcover.  

Senator Roberts: Moving to Linda Reynolds—  

Mr Ng: As it’s an ongoing legal proceeding, of course it would not be appropriate for us to comment.  

Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against then minister Reynolds were, in the words of Justice Lee, ‘without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact’ and, in the words of Justice Tottle, ‘objectively false and misleading’ and ‘dishonest’?  

Ms Jones: I return to my previous comment. It’s not a matter for us to accept or not accept comments that are made by judges in the course of their decisions. Those proceedings addressed separate issues to the issue of the settlement of Ms Higgins’s claims.  

Senator Roberts: Have these judgements that I just referred to given you cause to review your actions in relation to then minister Reynolds over the Brittany Higgins settlement?  

Ms Jones: I think I’d just repeat my previous comment that the settlement in relation to Brittany Higgins’s claims went to related but slightly different issues than to the matters that were the subject of the two judicial observations that you’ve referred to.  

Senator Roberts: Is the current Reynolds litigation being handled as an exceptional case or as a major claim, and who made that determination?  

Ms Jones: I think—  

Ms Chidgey: It’s a matter for Comcover again. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, Senator.  

Mr Ng: Also, it’s been reported as a significant issue under the Legal Services Directions.  

Senator Roberts: Thank you. 

/by

The Illusion of Peer Review

,

My exchange with the Professional Services Review (PSR) during the December 2025 Senate Estimates only deepened my concerns regarding the integrity of their review process. It is becoming increasingly clear that their ‘peer review’ is a mere box-ticking exercise, dominated by lawyers rather than the medical peers the legislation intended.

I questioned why lawyers, rather than the doctors themselves, are drafting the reports. While the PSR claims lawyers only “put together” the doctors’ views to ensure procedural fairness, it appears to me that the heavy lifting, sometimes over 150 hours of drafting, is done by legal staff, while committee members may spend as little as seven to 10 hours reviewing the final product.

I raised the issue that there is no legal requirement for committee members to share the same subspecialty as the GP under review. A GP in a niche field like aerospace medicine could be judged by practitioners with zero experience in that specific group.

I questioned Professor Dr Dio and Ms. Weichert on the lack of basic legal protections, such as the absence of a presiding judge, the inability to cross-examine the committee on their views of “general body” standards, and the lack of a formal merits review.

Several questions were taken on notice, specifically around providing detailed log of hours spent by both staff and committee members on reports over the last three years. We need to see if the time spent by doctors actually justifies calling this a “peer-reviewed” outcome.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: At the December 2025 Senate estimates, Professor Dr Dio, you indicated that lawyers prepare their reports from the review scheme but that the committee members review the reports. In what way does the PSR monitor the performance of the committee—including if the committee has read the entire report and the material presented to it before signing it off? 

Prof. Di Dio: The committee diligently reads the draft reports and the final reports, and we have staff who liaise with the committee at various stages after draft reports and final reports have been sent to them. So should for any reason a committee member not do their duty and read in the draft report, the legal officer in charge of giving service to that committee would firstly of course remind the committee members to review the report, and if they do not, they would then come to me. But that’s a theoretical possibility, because I cannot recall that happening.  

Senator ROBERTS: The PSR committee process is supposed to be a peer review process performed by doctors. Why then don’t the doctors write their own reports? If administrative support is needed, why are lawyers drafting their reports instead of administrative or secretarial staff, which would come at a lower cost to the department?  

Prof. Di Dio: Because the reports are incredibly important. We are passionate about according natural justice and procedural fairness to all practitioners under review. It is my view that the best way to do that is to have the best qualified, quality people writing those reports. Reports of this nature would be best written by people who are very good at supporting doctors in providing their reports.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Best qualified’ to me would seem to be the doctors—and then trimmed up or modified by the lawyers.  

Ms Weichert: The lawyers are writing up what the doctors have formed a view about as part of that committee process, as part of the hearing process, the concerns they have put to a person under review and the things that have come back—the lawyers are just putting it together. They are the doctors’ concerns or the medical practitioners’ concerns. It is they who sign off on the report, who approve the report. They are the peer review committee members’ views.  

Senator ROBERTS: If it can be shown that a lawyer spends over 150 hours drafting a report, but a committee member only spends seven to 10 hours reviewing the material and reading the report, is this truly considered by the PSR to be a legitimate peer review?  

Ms Weichert: That’s not taking into account any of the time that was spent in the hearing, in questioning and the time that the committee members have turned the matter throughout the process.  

Prof. Di Dio: A hearing might take eight days; it might take 50 or 60 hours. The prehearing reading might take many, many hours. The contemplation of what happened during the committee hearing might take the committee members many, many hours to turn their mind to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Over the past three years, as an average, what percentage of the total services reviewed has the committee found the services provided by doctors to be inappropriate?  

Prof. Di Dio: I will have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: This question is about general practitioners. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners recognises 37 specific interest groups as subspecialities. If a GP is under review by the committee, is it correct that there is no legal requirement for the committee members to share the same subspecialty? For example, if a GP practices solely in aerospace medicine, there’s no legal requirement for the committee to have any experience in aerospace medicine, because they all fall within the category of general practitioners. Why is there no subspeciality matching?  

Prof. Di Dio: The subspecialty matching is that members of the committee are general practitioners. But the PSR strives to find general practitioners who have experience in those matters. I can assure you that for some practitioners who are in craft groups that are exotic, as you say, like me—I have particular special interests—we try to match those as much as we can. But, under the law, a general practitioner can review a fellow general practitioner.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it correct that the legislation allows just three committee members to decide what is unacceptable to the general body of general practitioners? In deciding what the general body of general practitioners find unacceptable, do the committee members have to have any regard to any external resources or consideration of other doctors? Do the lawyers draft that part of the report as well, about what the general body of doctors think?  

Prof. Di Dio: One of the things that we train committee members to do, to absolutely and scrupulously give fairness to the practitioners under review, is try as much as possible to ask one question at a time to avoid the risk of the practitioner missing the opportunity to respond to any and all of the questions put to them. I’d be very grateful if you could ask me the first couple, and I’ll go through them with you systematically. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is it correct that the legislation allows just three committee members to decide what is unacceptable to the general body of practitioners?  

Prof. Di Dio: Yes. Ms Weichert: It’s at least three. There are certain circumstances where there could be additional committee members appointed, but it is usually three.  

Senator ROBERTS: In deciding what the general body of general practitioners find unacceptable, do the committee members have to have any regard to any external resources or consideration of other doctors?  

Prof. Di Dio: The committee members have to have regard to all of the evidence before them so that they can—  

Senator ROBERTS: All of the evidence before them?  

Prof. Di Dio: Yes. The committee members welcome from the practitioner any materials that they wish to submit as further evidence either before, during or after the hearing.  

Senator ROBERTS: While PSR committees are intended to operate as expert peer-review bodies, concerns include the absence of a presiding judge, the lack of merits review, the inability to cross-examine the committee on what they believe to be the views of the general bodies, the downweighting of significant evidence, limited engagement with defence submissions and a lack of transparency. Why do PSR procedures deny these basic elements of procedural fairness and justice, and how does the PSR contend that the peer-review function is being properly exercised in their absence?  

Prof. Di Dio: Could you ask the six points one at a time, and I’ll gladly respond to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re intended to operate as expert peer review bodies. Concerns include the absence of a presiding judge.  

Prof. Di Dio: The process is a peer-review process. So, if somebody is trying to find out whether I’ve engaged in inappropriate practice, then the best placed people to do that are my peers, not a judge.  

Ms Weichert: And, ultimately, we are applying the scheme as it is set out in the Health Insurance Act, so that provides for a committee—  

Senator ROBERTS: That may be the problem. The lack of merits review?  

Prof. Di Dio: Under the act, there is no formal merits review; however, we try as much as we can to build fairness into this process by having multiple opportunities to respond and make submissions—multiple opportunities.  

Senator ROBERTS: The inability to cross-examine the committee on what they believe to be the views of the general bodies?  

Prof. Di Dio: The committee is there to ask questions and find out if the practitioner under review has engaged in inappropriate practice. It’s not the committee that is under review.  

Ms Weichert: But the person under review can put forward their information when they’re answering the questions and the information that they would like the committee to consider, and that will occur as part of the process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The downweighting of significant evidence?  

Prof. Di Dio: What do you mean by that?  

Senator ROBERTS: As I said, ‘the downweighting of significant evidence’—  

Prof. Di Dio: I don’t understand what you mean.  

Senator ROBERTS: with significant evidence being put cursorily or downgraded.  

Prof. Di Dio: What significant evidence? Who has reviewed something cursorily or downgraded it? I don’t understand.  

Senator ROBERTS: If there is significant evidence put before the committee, it’s downgraded in terms of the verdict.  

Prof. Di Dio: I don’t understand what you mean by that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Limited engagement with— 

Prof. Di Dio: I would gladly take that on notice if it’s clarified for me. I just don’t quite understand. I’m not in any way being disrespectful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I can’t understand how you can’t see that, because the words seem to be selfexplanatory.  

Prof. Di Dio: Are you suggesting that, during a committee process, a practitioner under review gives significant evidence and the committee then downgrades or chooses to ignore it?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Prof. Di Dio: I’m not aware of that occurring.  

Senator ROBERTS: Limited engagement with defence submissions and a lack of transparency?  

Prof. Di Dio: ‘Limited engagement with defence submissions’—again, practitioners under review can make submissions. Those submissions are welcome, and they are reviewed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Next question—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I interrupt you for one quick second. There are media in the room, and I need to give a short statement. The media have requested permission to film and take photos of proceedings, and the committee has agreed to this. I remind the media that this permission can be revoked at any time. The media must follow the direction of secretariat staff. If a witness objects to filming, the committee will consider this request. The media are also reminded that they are not able to take images of senators’ or witnesses’ documents or of the audience. Media activity may not occur during suspensions or after the adjournment of proceedings. Copies of resolution 3, concerning the broadcasting of committee proceedings, are available from the secretariat. My apologies, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. A former PSR director has been found liable in the Queensland court for misfeasance in public office for failing to perform her statutory duties. Given these matters raised, why should the PSR’s legislation, governance and current officeholders not be subject to a comprehensive independent review?  

Prof. Di Dio: We did have a comprehensive review in 2023 called the Philip review, which made findings. We have acted on all of those findings, including the appointment of associate directors to the scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: The former director was found liable for making a decision without adequately considering submitted materials. Isn’t that exactly what’s still happening?  

Ms Weichert: We do not consider that to be happening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What percentage of the department’s budget is spent on the committee review process, and how many cases per year go through a committee process?  

Prof. Di Dio: I can’t tell you the exact amount— An incident having occurred in the committee room—  

Senator RUSTON: You might want to turn your device off, Malcolm; you’ll have Bridget McKenzie after you! Prof. Di Dio: It might save us all a bit of time!  

Senator ROBERTS: Only if it’s in super-rational mode—other than that, it’s just filled with garbage. Can you take that percentage on notice?  

Senator CAROL BROWN: It hallucinates from time to time. You have to be careful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I might just turn it off.  

Prof. Di Dio: I woke up this morning, and ChatGPT told me I was going to have a stress-free day, so I think it was hallucinating! Without notice, I can’t tell you exactly what percentage of the budget is spent on committee hearings, but we can take that on notice and give you an accurate reading.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Prof. Di Dio: The second part of your question was—  

Senator ROBERTS: How many cases per year go through a committee process? Prof. Di Dio: It changes from year to year, but we get approximately 100 to 120 cases per year referred from Medicare, which in turn represents about 30 per cent of the cases that Medicare reviews. Of those cases, a ballpark figure of approximately 10 per cent get no further action under section 91, about 80 per cent get an agreement with the director or the associate director under section 92 and about 10 per cent get referred to a committee. So maybe 10 practitioners get referred to a committee in a year. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I need to put on record that we’re not debating whether or not the PSR should be there. They are process which I now understand are legislated. That’s what the problem is for us and for doctors. It is very concerning. Take this as a question on notice. Please table a log of the hours spent on each of the draft and final reports by the PSR staff combined and each of the committee members for the last three years of PSR committee matters. It’s expected that this log will table around 60 rows for each of the cases it reviewed over that period.  

Prof. Di Dio: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much for appearing. See you next time. 

/by

Ok Tedi: Australia’s Unfinished Business

,

This is my session with DFAT officials regarding the ongoing catastrophe at the Ok Tedi Mine in Papua New Guinea.

Since the tailings dam failure in 1984, an estimated 80 million tonnes of waste has flowed into the Fly River every single year. We cannot simply wash our hands of the legacy issues left behind.

I have received reports of growing civil unrest because promised aid isn’t reaching the ground. Additionally, I have heard of a rising death toll linked to heavy metal poisoning in local market gardens, and that although millions in Australian taxpayer dollars ($52.5M) was committed to the Western Province Strategy, “on-the-ground” results remain unclear.

I come from the mining industry. I know that everything we use comes from the ground, the ocean, or the sun – I support mining. I do NOT support operations that walk away from environmental disasters and leave local communities to suffer the consequences.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last set of questions, Chair. This is about Papua New Guinea. How much aid actually flowed to assist people under the Ok Tedi treaty compensation? 

Senator Wong: Sorry. Can I just take issue with what you said previously? You said that no-one had taken issue with it. The Labor Party in 2003 strongly opposed Australia’s involvement and with the benefit of hindsight that decision was clearly, I think, the correct one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has anyone held the—let’s leave it for another day.  

Senator Wong: Yes, leave that for another day. The question was about Ok Tedi?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, a disaster of significant proportions occurred in New Guinea in 1984 when an Ok Tedi Mining tailings dam failed and now releases 80 million tonnes of toxic poison into the Fly River per year. The Australian-Papua New Guinea Western Province Strategy 2022 promised millions of dollars of aid to local people affected by the poisoning of the land and the river. How much aid has actually flowed to assist the local people under the treaty?  

Dr Lee: The history of the Ok Tedi Mine clearly was a matter for the parties that were involved in that at the time. There were commercial entities that were involved in that. For Australia and the Australian government, we continue to appreciate the significant development needs in Papua New Guinea, including in the Western Province, where the Ok Tedi Mine is based and continues to operate. It continues to operate as a mine owned by the Papua New Guinea government and by the local landowners. We continue to have a program of development in Western Province. Under the Western Province partnership we’ve committed $52.5 million over 3.5 years for a range of development activities there. That’s part of ongoing development that we’ve provided to Western Province over many years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the growing civil unrest because the aid has not yet significantly been distributed? There are lots of question marks about that.  

Dr Lee: I’m not aware of specific incidents of civil unrest there.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the growing number of deaths apparently from the market gardens of those people being poisoned by heavy metals from Ok Tedi Mine? It was an Australian mine, largely owned by BHP, when the tailings dam failed.  

Dr Lee: As I say, that mine continues to operate and it’s now run by the government of Papua New Guinea and the Western Province government, so those issues should really be referred to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you confirm on notice whether or not there is unrest there? That’s what I’m advised. Could you tell me when aid will flow to those people in a meaningful way?  

Dr Lee: We can take on notice any further situation of unrest that might be occurring in Western Province.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m from the mining industry and everything comes out of the ground, either through agriculture or mines, or the ocean, but we’re not in favour of mines that walk away from legacy issues. 

/by

Restoring Trust or Reinforcing Control?

,

Australia has now established a Centre for Disease Control (CDC) with a substantial budget, however the enabling legislation failed to outline a clear set of guardrails for this organisation.

The legislation states that the CDC will serve as the “source of scientific truth” on pandemic-related matters, which is concerning.

During COVID-19, the Government required health authorities to lie consistently to promote a medical response that we are now seeing was deadly and damaging to Australians.

With the credibility of our health professionals in tatters, the government has created a new body to serve as the “one source of truth.”

I asked several questions to understand the scope of this new body and the process by which they will establish this “one truth,” yet I remain none the wiser.

As you watch this video, ask yourself: is the attitude of these senior public servants acceptable for a Senate Estimates hearing?

Transcript

CHAIR: I also need to move the call. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I need to ask some questions about the recent enabling legislation for the CDC. I note the enabling legislation for the CDC received royal assent three weeks ago, so I am surprised to see you here so
quickly.

Ms Wood: Is that a question?

Senator ROBERTS: How long had preparations for the CDC been going on?

Ms Wood: The commitment by the government to create an Australian Centre for Disease Control was made in the election before the one last held.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2022?

Mr Comley: Yes, 2022.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. How much was spent preparing for an Australian CDC prior to the legislation passing parliament?

Ms Wood: The preparation activity for the CDC is one of the activities undertaken in the interim CDC group, so there are a lot of different activities. We can probably give a funding amount for one of the divisions which is largely responsible for the establishment activities: the policy development, the drafting of the legislation and the staffing considerations associated with setting up a new agency. We could probably take that on notice but it’s not a figure I have.

Senator ROBERTS: You could take it on notice to find out how much was spent in a parallel agency or department?

Ms Wood: The interim CDC is part of the department at the moment. We can take you through the high-level budget descriptions for that group and the activities, inclusive of which is establishment activities for the statutory agency.

Senator ROBERTS: This may be a guess—was it around $250 million? Can you take it on notice?

Mr Comley: There were actually three tranches of funding that came through budget and MYEFO measures. I think that number is broadly correct.

Senator ROBERTS: $250 million is broadly correct?

Ms Wood: That’s correct.

Mr Comley: Over four years, not up to the year.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a lot of money. It’s not really enabling legislation.

Mr Comley: Let’s go back a step—

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of money spent on it.

Mr Comley: There are functions and then there’s legislation. The CDC was an election commitment by the government in 2022. Work immediately commenced on what it would look like. There was already a public
health group within the department that did the sum of this work, some of which had been built up through COVID and the pandemic response. Some of those functions continued, but some money has also been appropriated to build up new functions of the CDC, such as data integration and surveillance systems, which will prepare Australia better for a pandemic. The legislation has the effect, though, of creating an independent body. So there are probably two different things here: one is the functions of the CDC, much of which transfer from the existing department; and the second is the legislative basis on which it operates, particularly the Director-General of the CDC, independent of government when providing advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That was an excellent summary. Who’s the director? Is there an interim director?

Mr Comley: At the moment, Ms Wood is the head of the interim CDC. There has been a selection process that I’ve been undertaking for the new director-general—no decision has been made yet as to who that is—bearing in mind that the CDC commences on 1 January next year.

Senator ROBERTS: What is your intent to fund, commission, conduct or cooperate with others on virus research, including what is commonly called gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: As the secretary has indicated, there will be a commission appointed by the minister for the CDC once it’s a statutory agency. They’ll obviously have responsibility to determine the work program in detail. We can take you through the research as a concept under the legislation, if that assists.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. What about gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: The CDC won’t be—I think this was indicated earlier—conducting research on matters that are in the remit of other organisations. The CDC is a complement to the Commonwealth public health capability. It will not be taking over or otherwise leaning in on research conducted by any other Commonwealth entities, whether that’s NHMRC or the Gene Technology Standing Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: We know that the CSIRO has admitted to conducting gain-of-function research, both here and in China. Will you assume responsibility for any aspect of the CSIRO’s Australian Centre for Disease
Preparedness in Geelong?

Ms Wood: The CSIRO is obviously a different organisation. The CDC will work with it, but the CDC is not inheriting or having functions transferred to it from the CSIRO, if that’s the question.

Senator ROBERTS: That is the question.

Prof. Kidd: If I can insert, the oversight of gain-of-function research is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s been bandied around. It’s sometimes in his purview; and sometimes it’s not in his purview. So it’s in his purview?

Prof. Kidd: Responsibility for the oversight of proposed gain-of-function research is.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO has a substantial live animal experimentation agenda, although the animals aren’t alive for long. Will you sanction live animal experimentation as part of your new role?

Prof. Kidd: Do we have the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in this section, Secretary?

Mr Comley: I don’t think so, but I think the senator’s question goes to a different question, which is more about research methodology. The other thing I’d comment—and Ms Wood or the others at the table can expand
on it—is that it’s not envisaged that the CDC would undertake research itself. That’s not the primary role of the CDC. I don’t think it needs to turn its policy mind to that question of animal research.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll finish early, with the mind to get back on the treadmill with the TGA.

CHAIR: You’re getting better and better, Senator Roberts. I’m very impressed. Senator Liddle?

/5 Comments/by

Can’t Subsidise Our Way Out

,

During Estimates, I tabled a graph from the ABS, showing that electricity prices surged by 23% over two years. While the Government used temporary subsidies to mask the pain, those subsidies have now ended, leaving millions of Australians to face the brutal reality of a 16% “catch-up” spike in their bills.

During our exchange, I pointed out that while subsidies briefly brought headline inflation down to 7%, the underlying cost of power never actually fell and that once the relief stopped, the inflationary shock would be incredible.

The RBA admitted that headline inflation would rise as rebates expired, yet they continue to “look through” these costs to focus on their own definitions of underlying inflation.

I discussed with Governor Bullock on how these soaring energy costs are gutting our national productivity. While the Treasurer talks about “strong real wages,” everyday Australians know the truth when they see their grocery bills and insurance premiums.

The RBA believes inflation expectations are “anchored,” yet you can’t anchor a household budget when the lights cost 23% more to keep on.

You cannot subsidise your way out of an energy crisis. You only delay the pain.

During this session, I also asked some questions on Central Bank Digital Currency, quantitative easing, credit creation and funding the deficits., and I thank Governor Bullock for her well informed and honest answers.

– Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I have circulated a graph from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Ms Bullock, I certainly appreciate your direct and concise answers. I think you have talked quite a bit about how the RBA is looking through the energy bill subsidies and impact on headline inflation. What are you seeing in the underlying increases in the price of electricity? As I show in that graph, it has increased 23 per cent in two years. That seems like an incredible shock to the economy. How do you think about that? What is the impact of your management of inflation?  

Ms Bullock: So there are two aspects to that. What you will see from this graph that you have pointed out is that it rises in June 2023. That was the delayed energy price shock that many other countries saw following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Basically, then, it’s a new price level. The price level has risen, but you haven’t seen inflation because the level has just been the same.  

Senator ROBERTS: Flat?  

Ms Bullock: So there is a step up in the level. There has been a more recent increase, as we’ve seen the default market offers rates come out. Basically, the way we would think about it is that, in a direct sense, if you’ve got a supply shock, you’ve got a new price level. That doesn’t necessarily lead to ongoing inflation and an impact on inflationary expectations. We can afford to say that’s a level shift and we will look through it. The extent to which it has indirect impacts through cost impacts on businesses, that’s where we would watch to see that it wasn’t feeding through into consistent and persistent inflation. So far, it doesn’t seem to be driving persistent inflation, the increase in the price level for energy.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are your thoughts about when the energy bill relief stops?  

Ms Bullock: Well, the energy bill relief, obviously, is government policy. They put it in place to address the cost of living. Your graph shows why—because energy prices rose quite a lot. It has moved the inflation figures around quite a bit. As I’ve discussed in many other contexts, we’ve therefore looked at the underlying inflation to get an idea of the underlying pulse of inflation. That is what we have been focusing on in order to base our interest rate decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: We saw the government’s economic roundtable was supposedly focused on productivity. What do rising energy costs do to productivity? What is the impact, then, on the standard of living?  

Ms Bullock: I don’t know if there’s a very direct impact of rising energy costs on productivity. There’s a much more fundamental thing about productivity, and that’s dynamism in the economy and dynamism among businesses. What we have been observing for decades is that productivity growth has been declining not only here but overseas. To some extent, at least, the evidence suggests that lack of dynamism in business is part of the reason for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the underlying inflation on the electricity index is at 23 per cent. Including subsidies, it has been brought back to seven per cent. Many consumers still have about a 16 per cent increase to catch up with. What will that do to inflation numbers in the future?  

Ms Bullock: Well, headline inflation, as you’ll see from our forecasts, will rise as the energy rebates come off. But the more important thing is what is happening to the underlying pulse of inflation. We are continuing to see that decline.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand that household inflation expectations have a big impact on inflation itself. At the economic roundtable, Treasurer Chalmers said: Real wages are growing at their strongest rate in five years, inflation has a two in front of it and interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. People are still talking about high grocery bills and inflation in insurance premiums and all kinds of insurance. What does that do to people’s expectations of inflation?  

Ms Bullock: Well, all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2½ per cent. That’s what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2½ per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have a quick question before I go to a separate topic. What does having 4.5 million visa holders, non-citizens, in the country do to demand for houses and to the price of houses?  

Ms Bullock: Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing you have.  

Senator ROBERTS: It has been six months since the new board arrangements started. How is that working so far?  

Ms Bullock: I think it is working well. The monetary policy board now has more time to focus on monetary policy decisions. The governance board, I think, is adding significant value in helping me. I was the sole accountable authority for the institution. Now the governance board is the accountable authority. My own view is that the people on that board are adding significant value.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there going to be a review of these changes?  

Ms Bullock: The governance board is going to do a report, I think, by the end of the year. It is going to talk about all of the recommendations from the review, where we’re at with meeting them and what our plans are to meet those that we haven’t yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You actually have three boards—the monetary board, the governance board and the payment system board. Have there been any developments coming from the work the Reserve Bank is doing on electronic payment systems, whether that’s some form of central bank digital currency, which I think your predecessor acknowledged was done, or a unified digital currency the banks have been talking about? Is anything happening there in either the domestic market or international settlements?  

Ms Bullock: A few things. We have done some experimentation. Back in 2023—we might have talked about this before—we did a pilot of a central bank digital currency. We asked people to come with use cases and so on. The main headline out of that was that the predominant use cases were not what I would call retail CBDCs. It wasn’t about putting central bank digital currencies in the hands of you and me and using them at shops. It wasn’t about that. It was about wholesale digital currencies—how you can potentially use central bank digital currencies in markets for wholesale assets. We’ve got another experiment going on now which is looking specifically at that issue. If you tokenise assets—you put them on a chain, a ledger—how can you use not only central bank digital currencies but stable coins, tokenised bank deposits and standard payment systems to settle tokenised asset sales. That is the current experiment that is going on. We are working with a number of organisations to do that. That will give us a bit more information about the sorts of issues that might arise in moving towards tokenised asset ledgers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. During COVID, the Reserve Bank pursued a policy which had the effect of creating money through electronic journal entries and using that to buy securitised mortgages from Australian banks. How many securitised mortgages originating in the Australian property market is the Reserve Bank now holding?  

Dr Kent: We have to take this on notice. I suspect it’s close to none. We don’t accept them as part of our regular operations. Most of them we would have held would have been a result of the term funding facility, which has now rolled off and completed.  

/by

Censorship or Safety?

,

I went into this session with the eSafety Commissioner, Ms Inman Grant, with a few goals.

Firstly, I asked Ms. Grant about her recent trip to Stanford University. If Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for a trip to meet with AI and social media giants in the US, they deserve to see the receipts. The Commissioner has taken on notice to provide a full log of her meetings, speeches, and the total cost.

I then shifted to the “international alarm” surrounding her conduct. I asked the Minister if it concerned the government that Congressman Jim Jordan and the US House Judiciary Committee are so troubled by her actions that they’ve called for her to testify.

Senator Green tried her best to dodge the question sprouting bipartisan support and protecting children, however I stayed focused on how the Commissioner is being seen as a “global censor.”

I asked about her personal philosophy on censorship. The Commissioner was quick to deny the label, claiming she only acts on public complaints regarding high-threshold harm. She insists she doesn’t regulate political speech, yet in my view, she wields enormous power.

While I’ve complimented her office’s work on child safety in the past, the potential for her “world-leading” reach to impact the free speech of adults remains a serious concern of mine.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I understand you have a few more questions.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, just three. Commissioner, you visited Stanford University in September this year as part of a USA trip. Did Australian taxpayers fund that?

Ms Inman Grant: Yes, I went, and I met with eight of the AI companies and the social media companies. Then I spent a day and a half at the Trust and Safety Research Conference.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide a log of meetings and a record of your speeches, or any other documentation, to assure taxpayers that their money was spent appropriately, as well as the total cost of the trip?

Ms Inman Grant: I sure can.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You’ve already answered a question from Senator Whitten about the House Judiciary Committee chairman wanting you to testify, so I don’t need to cover that. Minister, does it concern you that your commissioner is engaging in conduct that is so extreme that the US Congress, specifically the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jim Jordan, is alarmed?

Senator Green: Minister, I think the eSafety Commissioner’s address—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not a minister.

Senator Green: Sorry, Senator—maybe one day, if the LNP has their way.

Senator Henderson interjecting—

Senator Green: You never know. They wrote your net zero policy, so you never know. We are very proud of the reforms that we are undertaking. To be fair, I’m sure the coalition was very proud of the steps that they took in terms of online safety when the eSafety Commissioner was established. For the most part, we have had bipartisan support for these types of reforms, because they keep Australians safe. The social media ban or minimum age will seek to keep our children safe. It’s incredibly important. I know you come in here quite often talking about the safety of children and wanting to keep harmful material away from them. That is the work of the eSafety Commissioner. It’s open to other governments or other people in other parliaments to have their judgment of it, but from an Australian government point of view we are very proud of the work that she does.

Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, you said earlier, in roughly these words, that you’ve never claimed to censor the net globally. Why do you think people think this?

Ms Inman Grant: We talked about Elon Musk’s tweet that said she’s the eSafety commissar trying to globally regulate the internet, and then Ben Fordham then picked it up, and it’s just had a life of its own.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve complimented your office on its work in protecting children, quite clearly. There are other concerns we have with your work because it can cause consequences for adults that we don’t like, but it’s not appropriate to discuss it here. What’s your philosophy on censorship?

Ms Inman Grant: My philosophy is I’m not a censor. I respond to complaints from the public. We received many about the Charlie Kirk assassination and about the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska on a train where she bled to death and the decapitation of the Dallas hotel owner. If you think that that’s overstepping when that’s something that’s highly damaging and was determined—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that. I was wanting to know your thoughts on censorship—that’s all— because you’ve got enormous power.

Ms Inman Grant: My thoughts on censorship? Well, what has been helpfully built into the Online Safety Act is that we’re not regulating for political speech or commentary. It’s where either online invective or imagery veers into the lane of serious harm. You provide us with thresholds. Sometimes those thresholds are tested and sometimes they’re a grey area, but I think we help thousands of people every year. We’re doing world-leading work that the rest of the governments around the world are following. I think we’re punching above our weight. We’re a very small agency given the size of our population. So I guess I don’t have a view. I don’t see myself as a censor. I don’t tell you what you can or can’t say unless it’s refused classification or it’s trying to silence someone else’s voice by targeted online abuse that reaches the threshold of adult cyberabuse.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Lastly, I think it was Mr Fleming who invited us to have a briefing. We haven’t forgotten. We’d like to do that, but we’ve been a bit busy. We will do it one day.

Mr Fleming: Maybe in the new year. The offer still stands.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

The Truth About Tokenisation

,

I’ve been keeping a very close eye on the Reserve Bank’s moves toward a digital future. During this exchange with Governor Bullock, I pressed for clarity on exactly where they are headed with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) and the “unified digital currency” the big banks have been whispering about.

I asked about developments in both domestic and international settlements. The Governor admitted that while they ran a pilot back in 2023, the focus has shifted. They aren’t looking at a “retail CBDC” right now, which would be digital cash for everyday shopping. Instead, their focus is firmly on looking at how to settle “tokenised assets.”

Tokenised financial products, also called asset tokens, are a way to turn traditional money-related things into digital versions that live on blockchain technology, the same as that used by Bitcoin and Ethereum. These could include shares, real estate, artworks and precious metals.

Normally these are hard to buy and/or sell quickly, especially in small amounts, and often involve lots of paperwork, middlemen and high minimum investments. Tokenisation changes that by creating a digital token that acts like a certificate of ownership for a piece (or all) of that real thing. The token is recorded on a blockchain, which is theoretically secure.

You would be able to buy a share of a home, business, art or precious metals within minutes, allowing small investments to grow your savings more than bank interest would do.

Note: This technology is not there yet! The RBA is scoping it out – as many institutions are.

I will continue to monitor these experiments to ensure that this doesn’t come at the cost of our financial privacy or sovereignty.

— Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: It has been six months since the new board arrangements started. How is that working so far?  

Ms Bullock: I think it is working well. The monetary policy board now has more time to focus on monetary policy decisions. The governance board, I think, is adding significant value in helping me. I was the sole accountable authority for the institution. Now the governance board is the accountable authority. My own view is that the people on that board are adding significant value.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there going to be a review of these changes?  

Ms Bullock: The governance board is going to do a report, I think, by the end of the year. It is going to talk about all of the recommendations from the review, where we’re at with meeting them and what our plans are to meet those that we haven’t yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You actually have three boards—the monetary board, the governance board and the payment system board. Have there been any developments coming from the work the Reserve Bank is doing on electronic payment systems, whether that’s some form of central bank digital currency, which I think your predecessor acknowledged was done, or a unified digital currency the banks have been talking about? Is anything happening there in either the domestic market or international settlements?  

Ms Bullock: A few things. We have done some experimentation. Back in 2023—we might have talked about this before—we did a pilot of a central bank digital currency. We asked people to come with use cases and so on. The main headline out of that was that the predominant use cases were not what I would call retail CBDCs. It wasn’t about putting central bank digital currencies in the hands of you and me and using them at shops. It wasn’t about that. It was about wholesale digital currencies—how you can potentially use central bank digital currencies in markets for wholesale assets. We’ve got another experiment going on now which is looking specifically at that issue. If you tokenise assets—you put them on a chain, a ledger—how can you use not only central bank digital currencies but stable coins, tokenised bank deposits and standard payment systems to settle tokenised asset sales. That is the current experiment that is going on. We are working with a number of organisations to do that. That will give us a bit more information about the sorts of issues that might arise in moving towards tokenised asset ledgers.  

/by

Aged Care: Rights, Not Rules

,

In this session, I question the Aged Care Safety & Quality Commissioner on why some Commonwealth-funded aged-care facilities are banning family visitors without a legal or public health mandate. Many constituents are raising this issue, and I wanted to find out what was the lawful basis for these “operational discretions.”

I was pleased to get a direct admission from Ms. Metz that there is no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a provider to unilaterally ban a visitor. In fact, the Act explicitly protects the resident’s right to have visitors.

The ACQSC confirmed that they view an unjustified visitor ban as a serious breach of residents’ rights.

I questioned why funding continues to flow to these providers while they are under investigation for unlawful bans. Ms. Hefren-Webb clarified that while they don’t control the “funding lever” (which sits with the Department), they do have the authority to pursue civil penalties and compliance notices.

It was concerning to hear from Mr. Day that the Department hasn’t issued explicit guidance to providers telling them they can’t use visitor bans as a lazy substitute for proper staff discipline or complaints management.

The Commission could not provide immediate data on visitor ban complaints or subsequent enforcement actions, and took these questions on notice.

We must ensure that our elderly are not isolated from their loved ones just because a provider finds a family member “difficult.”

– Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Ms Hefren-Webb: Hi, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think my questions are fairly straightforward, so we should be able to move through them pretty quickly. On what lawful basis does the ACQSC permit Commonwealth funded aged-care facilities to impose visitor bans where there is no public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Can you just repeat that last bit of your question? Where do we allow them to impose visitor bans where there is no—  

Senator ROBERTS: No public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I think. Is there a specific circumstance you’re referring to?  

Senator ROBERTS: No—I don’t want to bring it up now but constituents are asking us. Does the ACQSC accept that a provider may unilaterally ban a family member as a matter of operational discretion? If so, where is that power derived from in law or regulation?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I might ask Ms Metz to come forward who heads up our Sector Capability and Regulatory Strategy area. I am aware that there are cases where family members are alleged to have caused issues or disruption, and that’s been the subject of the service, maybe, seeking that they don’t attend, but I’m not aware of a ban per se. I’ll just see if Ms Metz has anything to contribute.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like to know is where their power is derived from in law and legislation. 

Mr Metz: Under the Aged Care Act, residents have a right to visitors and people who are important to them. There’s no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a visitor to be banned. In fact, it’s the opposite, that people have the right to have visitors. We often, through our complaints process, will work through some of those difficult issues that Ms Hefren-Webb mentioned, where providers have difficult situations with certain family members. We do work through those, with both the providers and the families, to resolve those issues.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints has ACQSC received, since 1 January, relating to family or visitor bans in residential aged-care facilities?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We would have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Of those complaints, how many resulted in enforcement action, compliance notices or findings of noncompliance with the aged-care quality standards?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Again, we’ll have to take that one on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. Does ACQSC consider the imposition of an unjustified visitor ban to be a serious breach of residents’ rights and if not, why not? I think you’ve already answered that.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, we would consider it to be a serious breach of rights.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is Commonwealth funding continued to providers while they are subject to unresolved complaints regarding unlawful visitor bans?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We have complaints that cover a wide range of matters. Our focus is on working with the provider and the complainant and their family and carers to resolve those matters as quickly as possible, to make necessary restoration, if needed, to undertake mediation or other activities. We have no responsibility for the funding of the facilities. That’s the department. Our enforcement activities go to things like enforceable undertaking, civil penalties et cetera. There’s no direct link between if we consider that a provider has failed to respect someone’s rights and a funding lever. We would be taking action through other means.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have the authority to do that.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department of health issued any guidance to providers clarifying that visitor bans cannot be used as a substitute for proper complaints management or staff discipline processes?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’m not aware whether or not there’s been direct guidance on that matter. We can follow that up for you though.  

Mr Day: We haven’t provided explicit guidance on that specific issue. We have provided guidance on the impact of the statements of rights that came into effect with the new act, including, as Ms Metz indicated, the right to have access to individuals that are important to an aged-care resident.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. In the context of the new Aged Care Act and rights based reforms, what steps are being taken to ensure residents are not isolated from family due to provider convenience, disputes or risk aversion?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We have a number of mechanisms by which we are assessing the extent to which providers are respecting the rights of residents. Obviously, complaints are one source of information that we can follow up on. We also receive reports—  

Senator ROBERTS: Those are complaints direct to you?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, that’s correct, as well as serious incident reports that come through to us. We also, as I mentioned before, undertake audits of all residential care facilities every three years. In that, we will be interviewing a number of residents, family members and staff to make sure that residents’ rights are being upheld and respected. We also receive anonymous complaints, tip-offs and whistleblowing. So there are a range of ways that those matters can come to our attention. If we were made aware that someone’s right to have family or friends or loved ones visit them was being impeded, we would take that extremely seriously.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where do you have offices around the country? If someone in Central Queensland made a complaint, how would you address it? Through the phone?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Initially, we do address matters over the phone. But, if the matter raises significant safety concerns for us, we will send a team, and we can do an unannounced visit of a facility. We have staff who are trained to go and assess what’s happening, find out, investigate. Our staff are based in all the capitals around Australia. In that case, if it were Central Queensland, we’d send a team probably from our Brisbane based staff. 

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I want to put on the record that I rushed my questions because of another deadline, but I want to acknowledge the three respondents. They’ve been very prompt and concise with their answers. Thank you very much.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for using your eight minutes very efficiently for us. That’s very generous of you today.  

/2 Comments/by

Bureaucrats vs. Parents

,

I have used Estimates several times to draw attention to the filth being distributed in libraries, material that targets children and is available to them regardless of age. This includes graphic sex-instruction manuals that most adults would find excessive.

We urgently need an intermediate classification for graphic written publications. We have raised this issue for many years; and while the Classification Board seems to agree, there has been no action for almost two years.

During this estimates session, I questioned the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) on the bureaucrats currently running our classification system. We have three different bodies: ACMA, the Classification Board, and the Classification Review Board, all pointing fingers at each other while inappropriate material continues to be freely available to children.

ACMA admitted in their “Stage 2 reforms” submission that we need to rationalise this mess into one single national regulator. It’s common sense: one body, one set of standards, and actual accountability.

I also asked how these obscene publications could possibly meet “community standards.” The answer? They haven’t done any “community standards” research in years. How can they claim to represent the public if they aren’t even talking to them?

The government says they are “awaiting reports,” yet our children can’t wait.

We need a system that reflects your standards, not the standards of Canberra bureaucrats.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Australian Communication and Media Authority review of Australian classification regulation written form closed submissions in May 2025. What’s happened since and when will we
get an outcome?

Ms Field: I believe that is the work of the department, not the ACMA. We have not published a paper.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, then. ACMA made a submission titled Modernising Australia’s national classification scheme: stage 2 reforms. It was dated 6 June 2024. Your submission calls for a national
classification regulator to oversee a reformed classification scheme. Is this in addition to the ACMA, the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board?

Ms O’Loughlin: What we were reflecting on in our submission is that classification is undertaken by a range of different organisations and that there may potentially be benefits of rationalising that, because you have the national Classification Board doing publications and film, you have the Classification Review Board. You also have us who have responsibility for classification and broadcasting. What we were saying is: is there a way of looking at that? Is there any rationalisation that could happen?

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was: that’s a lot of bureaucracy, to have three agencies, which most likely will have the outcome of nobody being responsible. Are you talking about rationalising it from three to
one?

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s our proposal.

Senator ROBERTS: One of the duties you suggest for the rationalised body is to conduct community standards research. Community standards are central to the existing Classification Board decision process. Do you
do community standards research at the moment?

Ms O’Loughlin: We do from time to time in the broadcasting space, but we were indicating that, if there was a combined organisation, if I can use that term, there would be a requirement to make sure there was community research done across all those different mediums—broadcasting, film, literature—to inform the decisions of that new rationalised body.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you currently doing that with broadcasting? You are saying that it needs to continue so that the new rationalised entity does not drop that community standards research?

Ms O’Loughlin: The body is actually testing what the community standards are rather than only relying on its own judgement.

Senator ROBERTS: Seeing as you do community standards research for broadcasting, can you provide on notice the most recent round of research and the cost to the taxpayers for that process?

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly. We haven’t done some for some time, but I’m happy to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could give us the date of when it was done?

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to see how some obscene sex manuals for children could be considered as meeting community standards. I’m horrified/shocked at a publication called Let’s Talk About It. The title probably
should be This is How to Do It. It’s an instruction manual, not an information manual. It’s pornography. I’ve asked many questions in many estimates sessions regarding the failure of the rating system to offer a restricted
classification for printed material, something between the existing unclassified and R18-plus such as we have for violent teenage videogames. What’s ACMA’s position on a legally enforceable, mature-age, 15-plus or similar classification for these graphic sex instruction manuals targeted at children?

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s not part of our responsibilities currently; that is a matter for the Classification Board. I would expect that may be something that will be raised in the stage 2 classification review that’s being undertaken by the department. That would be the place for that to be considered.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the government’s opinion or view?

Senator Green: I’ll answer your question by saying that the chair is correct; we did have officials here who are working on a review. They were here a bit earlier. Unfortunately, they can’t answer those questions for you
now. Obviously, stage 1 was quite successful. We’re working on stage 2 reforms now. The department has engaged a social research centre and Mendelsons to undertake a functional update of the classification guidelines. The minister awaits the final report from this functional update. Unfortunately, I can’t give you any more information without officials here at the table. As the chair indicated to you as well, the Classification Board itself and the Classification Review Board will be appearing later this evening and can answer questions about specific classifications about which you might be concerned.

Senator ROBERTS: We have to get something done about this.

Senator Green: Of course.

/by