The $3 Billion Senior Squeeze

,

I recently asked questions about the government’s decision to cut the private health insurance rebate for seniors. Senator Green and government officials said that the rebate will now be based solely on income rather than age, aligning support across all cohorts. The government expects to save $3 billion from this measure, which it says will be reinvested into aged care and public hospitals.

It’s estimated that 3.1 million people will be affected, experiencing an average rebate reduction (and effectively a premium increase) of $250. Additionally, it’s predicted that approximately 44,000 people may drop out of private health insurance entirely.

I expressed my concern that forcing seniors into the public system would worsen existing hospital shortages. Amazingly, I was told that the impact on the public system would be minimal (less than 1%) and spread out. It was also highlighted that $24.4 billion was being invested into the public health system, adding that workforce and bed management are ultimately the responsibilities of state and territory governments.

I accused the government of punishing seniors to fund wasteful spending and a “socialist agenda.”

Senator Green rejected this statement, framing the move as a necessary offset to fund record investments in aged care.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I want to talk about the private health insurance rebate being cut. It was announced in the recent budget that the rebate for premiums paid by seniors towards private health insurance would cease; why? Is this a socialist agenda, Minister?

Senator Green: No, it’s not. We did go through this quite lengthily this morning. I don’t plan to add too much to what the minister had to say in response to questions from Senator Ruston, other than to reiterate that, under the proposed changes, all Australians will now receive the same private healthcare support based on their income and not on their age. What we’ve set out is that, through this budget and as a consequence of this decision, we will be investing over $3 billion in delivering more aged care beds, more packages and better care for older Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to get on to some specifics after this next question. Why does the government wish to punish seniors, most of whom have chosen to opt out of the public health system and pay premiums to receive private health treatment, by now wanting to make them pay even more than they currently pay?

Senator Green: I reject that assertion in your question. We are investing a record amount of funding into improving the healthcare system, particularly for aged care and older Australians, and that’s why we’ve made this decision. Of course, as you will stand up in the Senate many times over the next couple of months and decry the spending from our government, we know that it’s important to offset decisions that we have to make. That is why we have said that this decision will benefit older Australians through the aged care system.

Senator ROBERTS: How can you deny that older Australians on private health cover will not be paying more?

Senator Green: We’ve gone through this at length this morning. If you have a question about the impact or the policy decision, I will direct that to the officials. But I can say to you that, through this budget, we are making record investments in healthcare and aged care

Senator ROBERTS: And older Australians will be paying more, which is a point that I’ll get to in a minute, and this is during a cost-of-living crisis. Currently, how many seniors, effectively, will be forced to pay more for private health cover or enter the public system? Do you have any modelling?

Mr Hawkins: As we discussed this morning, 3.1 million people will be affected by the change in the rebate. We also put on record—we talked about this at length this morning—that our modelling would suggest that potentially about 44,000 might drop out of having cover and, therefore, would then no longer engage with the PHI system.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was after. What would be the effect of the extra load being placed on the public health system? Hospitals are already short of beds now.

Mr Hawkins: As I’ve said, our modelling would indicate that it’s a less than one per cent impact on the public health system and, again, as we went through in quite a lot of detail this morning, that would be spread across the system, with not everyone needing to use the system at any one time. Also, we might find that people decide to opt out of PHI but then self-fund any care that they need.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re already critically short of beds in many hospitals due to mass immigration. Post COVID injections, cancer detection has increased dramatically. Cancer deaths have decreased, because of treatment. But the available beds have decreased. This is going to add more strain to the public health system.

Ms Street: An additional $24.4 billion has also been invested into the public health system, bringing it up to $220 billion over the five years. So, yes, there might be some ‘additional’ but, as we’ve said, it would be less than one per cent. We think that estimation is at the higher end, because we do think, potentially, people will self select into private, or they may be people who are less likely to use the services anyway, so a number of factors contribute to that number. So we think this investment and this measure will have a minimal impact on that element.

Senator ROBERTS: What would be the total value of the extra premiums raised by those who choose to stay in the private health system?

Mr Hawkins: We’ve calculated that there will be an average impact of $250 on those who will have their rebate reduced. Everyone was to have access to the rebate, but it’s the size of the rebate that is reducing, and our average calculation is about $250.

Senator ROBERTS: How much does the government plan to save by refusing to rebate premiums for older Australians, or by cutting them back?

Mr Hawkins: By cutting the rebate, we are looking at $3 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the government modelled the extra cost to the public system by absorbing older Australians, who are more likely to require major healthcare in their elder years?

Mr Hawkins: No, we do not have that specific level of modelling. But as I’ve said, we have looked at and modelled what we think the impact would be, and that’s under one per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: What about the chronic shortage of beds, doctors, nurses, specialists and allied health professionals in public hospitals?

Senator Green: That’s veering a little bit into outcome 1, Public hospitals. But I’ve got Caitlin O’Brien from our public hospital team here, if you want to talk about the investment that the government is putting in through the NHRA agreement that we’ve put in place. Do you want to cover that?

Ms O’Brien: As Ms Street has said, an additional $219.6 billion over five years has been invested into the state- and territory-run public hospital system. Your questions in relation to workforce capacity and beds are best directed to state and territory governments who, under the National Health Reform Agreement agreed on 30 January, are very clearly listed as the stewards of their system.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you not have assessed that, though, before making the changes?

Ms Street: As we’ve indicated, we think the ‘additional’ is less than one per cent, and we think that estimation is at the higher end. So, in terms of the fiscal impact, it will depend on the services that people need and the conditions that they’re seeking treatment for.

Senator Green: The officials have made this point but, again, we’re investing almost $25 billion into the hospital system over the next five years.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Clare O’Neill said, reportedly, that the budget is deliberately hitting older people. It’s a tax grab because you’re paying for so much waste in government.

Senator Green: I don’t think that’s what Minister O’Neill would have said. I think you might be verballing her.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going on reports. It is a fact that the budget is also hitting young people. What I’m getting at is that this is a cover for the massive waste within your government spending, and now you’re going to ask older people to share in that.

Senator Green: No. We are making record investments in once-in-a-generation reforms in aged care and healthcare. That includes investing almost $25 billion into public hospitals, funding the states and territories to do the very important work that they do in making sure that the public hospital system is free.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a fact, Minister, that older people will be paying more.

Senator Green: We’ve changed the rebate so that now it’s means tested, so it’s based on income now. We can take you through how that might impact certain cohorts, but we have changed the rebate so that now it is means tested on income.

Senator RUSTON: On a point of clarification, Minister, you just said that you’ve changed the rebate so that it’s means tested on income. Are you suggesting that it’s currently not means tested on income?

Senator Green: No, that’s not what I said.

Senator RUSTON: You just did say that.

Senator Green: I’m not going to go back over the evidence that Senator Gallagher gave to you this morning. What I’m saying to Senator Roberts is that there is a means test for the rebate that is based on income.

Senator RUSTON: Now?

Senator Green: How semantic do you want to get?

Senator RUSTON: You just said that it is now going to be means tested. It has always been means tested.

ACTING CHAIR: I think, as the secretary has said, it is ‘solely’.

Mr Comley: ‘Solely means tested’. In fact, it hasn’t always been means tested.

Senator RUSTON: It was means tested prior to this change.

Mr Comley: I think it was, but it was not means tested on introduction in 2000.

Senator RUSTON: It has been means tested up until now.

/by

The Illicit Tobacco Market Must Be Wiped Out

,

During the February Estimates hearings, I pressed the government and the Illicit Tobacco Commissioner on the ineffectiveness of their strategy to combat the illicit tobacco market.

Tobacco excise revenue is projected to fall to just $1.9 billion by 2029-30, far below the $16 billion-plus previously collected. A clear sign the government does not expect its enforcement efforts to meaningfully reduce the black market.

The Commissioner’s own report lists 10 drivers of illicit tobacco yet fails to directly acknowledge that high excise and the resulting price gap are major contributors, despite everyday Australians, including police officers, confirming this reality.

Independent data from Roy Morgan shows smoking rates have increased from 16.8% to 17.1% following recent excise hikes, contradicting the government’s claim that higher taxes reduce smoking. Without knowing the true size of the black market, boasting about a 34% increase in seizures of illicit product is meaningless. We cannot measure success when you don’t know the scale of the problem.

The government continues to act without reliable data, ignores evidence that contradicts its assumptions, and refuses to confront the policy settings driving the illicit tobacco growth.

This is a failure that Australians should not be forced to tolerate. It’s costing taxpayers billions in lost revenue.

One Nation will take drastic action until the illicit market is wiped out, then return duty to a much lower, more sensible and sustainable rate.

— February | Senate Estimates

Trancript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the Commissioner for Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarettes. My question on notice No. 15 remains unanswered from last estimates. It read: How many acts of violence were committed in Australia that were directly related to illegal tobacco and vapes? I’m talking about murders, fire bombings, assaults and similar acts or threats of violence. I did get a part answer in that the question was best answered by law enforcement, which I assume would include various state and federal agencies. Your role, as you expressed it to me in last estimates is, ‘activities that support intergovernmental governance functions and support reporting on the size and consequence of the illicit market’. Doesn’t consequence include acts of violence related to the illicit industry and criminals associated with that?  

Ms Shuhyta: We had looked at how to report on those statistics. At the moment, there isn’t a consistent way that we can report on the exact number of criminal activities related to illicit tobacco across states and territories. There are different datasets and definitions. For example, an arson might be coded or recorded as an arson but not necessarily if it is illicit tobacco related. It’s very hard for me to pull together the data from across Australia on those specific activity levels. We are continuing to work with states and territories in terms of what might be realistic there. We’re working with criminal intelligence agencies and AFP to look at the best way we can report as we move forward. The metrics that I have in the report to parliament this year are based on the data available to us. As we move forward over the years, we will definitely be looking at how we can mature that data and make it more sophisticated and comprehensive.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for admitting that you don’t know the consequences. I suggest listening to some people in the street. Secondly, the loss of tobacco excise revenue is stunning. In 2019-20, excise brought in $16.3 billion. In 2024-25, tax revenue had fallen to $7.8 billion, or about half, with a projection for 2025-26 of $5.5 billion, or one-third of what it was just five years ago. Minister, when will you accept that the Laffer curve applies to tobacco excise and the higher the tax rate the less revenue is received, especially with cheap illicit tobacco competing. I’m talking to police in Queensland who go to illicit tobacco to get cheaper cigarettes.  

Senator Watt: We certainly agree that illicit tobacco is a very serious problem and the connection to organised crime. That’s why we’ve devoted so many more resources to tackling illicit tobacco. I’m sure the commissioner and others could talk to you about the operations they’ve undertaken. In fact, I don’t know if you were here when the commissioner gave his opening statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was.  

Senator Watt: He talked about the success of those operations in terms of the seizures that have been achieved.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, his people have seized plenty of material, but we don’t know the total size and it could be a tiny proportion, which is what this is. 

Senator Watt: The commissioner might be able to give you some information about that. I’m not sure. On the excise, I understand why many people would like to see us reduce the excise. The government’s view is that we shouldn’t be giving in to organised crime. We should actually take them on and we should arrest them. We should confiscate the illegal tobacco. We know that tobacco kills thousands of Australians every single year. We know that higher prices for tobacco puts people off smoking, and that’s a good thing for their health. It’s a good thing for the health budget that we all pay for.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s why they buy it cheaper, Minister.  

Senator Watt: I’m aware of that. That’s why we are so determined to break the organised crime rings that are behind illegal tobacco.  

Senator ROBERTS: But, Minister, you’re not confident because you forecast, yet again, another reduction in revenue from tax. Page 8 of the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner Report 2024-25 lists 10 factors behind the growth in the illicit market. Not one of those mentions the high level of tobacco excise. Commissioner, do you really believe the high price of legal cigarettes is not driving demand for illicit tobacco? Not even 10th out of 10?  

Ms Shuhyta: Just a correction—excise is listed on that page. In terms of a number of drivers for the illicit market, price differential is listed as one of those drivers. Within price differential, there is a number of aspects. One is that the cost of illicit tobacco is pushed down because of cheap supply costs and an overabundance in the region of illicit tobacco—  

Senator ROBERTS: And lack of excise.  

Ms Shuhyta: And then excise and tobacco company profitability actually pushes up regulated tobacco. You’ve got those two things at play. Excise isn’t the be-all and end-all driver of the illicit market. We see different excise rates around the world in different countries that don’t correlate with the size of the illicit market. In fact, in some countries with the cheapest tobacco there are sizeable illicit markets. Or within the same country that has a standard excise rate, you’ll get different market shares of illicit tobacco in different cities. For me, it’s not as simple as advising government that excise is the solution.  

Senator ROBERTS: Talking to people in the street, including policemen who use illicit tobacco, it’s certainly very significant. On page 9, Commissioner, you’re claiming success because the amount of illicit product being seized has increased by 34 per cent. Do you accept making a claim of success when you don’t know how much the black market has grown is pointless? If you don’t know the total size of the black market and no-one has any idea—I’ve asked before—you don’t know whether you’re having success or you’re failing. Looking at the criminal activities and the adoption of illicit tobacco widely, it looks like you’re failing.  

Ms Shuhyta: I’m going to try to answer the question that is in there. We do have an estimate of the size of the illicit market. This report does estimate the size of the illicit market. It’s the first time that we’ve been able to do so. I think at the last estimates I wasn’t able to give you that size because the report hadn’t been finalised and tabled, but it is there now.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I find it troubling that the budget projection for tobacco excise in forward estimates only shows revenue of $6.9 billion in 2028-29. That suggests you do not expect the commissioner to make a dent in the illegal trade. Shouldn’t that figure be closer to the $16 billion or more we used to get? Isn’t that an admission of failure or of ignorance?  

Senator Watt: We’re absolutely not giving up in the fight against illegal tobacco. Again, I’m sure—  

Senator ROBERTS: You said you are.  

Senator Watt: I don’t think you should insult the efforts of the Border Force personnel.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was a clever switch, Minister, but I’m not doing that. They’re doing a good job.  

Senator Watt: You’ve just said it’s a failure. They’re the people who are on the front line, taking on organised crime.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your failure to control illicit tobacco?  

Senator Watt: You and I are sitting in this room. We have Border Force personnel out there on the front line taking on the organised crime elements behind illegal tobacco, and we are absolutely determined to keep that up.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the report makes a statement on page 19 that reducing the tobacco excise will increase smoking rates and undo the gains made to date, which you said earlier. In July 2025, Roy Morgan showed recent excise increases on top of the normal CPI increase had caused an increase in smoking rates from 16.8 per cent to 17.1 per cent. The graph I’ve seen confirms that. Yet you are saying the opposite. The National Tobacco Strategy added large excise increases in September 2023, ’24 and ’25. Can you show any data that these massive increases have reduced smoking rates? I suggest that the opposite is true, and that’s what the data shows. 

Senator Watt: The trouble with—  

Senator ROBERTS: Criminals don’t ask for ID.  

Senator Watt: No, I’m aware of that. They’re very bad people who deserve to be locked up, which is what we’re trying to do. Your question about smoking rates is probably one you should take up in the Health estimates. That’s not the work of this department. The work of this department is going after organised crime. We’d appreciate your support in that effort.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got my support. That’s why I’m talking about this and that’s why I’ve been raising it for a couple of years now. Decades of shoddy governance show that our biggest problem is governments acting without data, going without data and contradicting the data in so many areas.  

Senator Watt: I’ll let that pass. 

/by

Funding Hate: The Shocking Truth About Labor’s Grants

,

How can Tony Burke serve as the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible for our national security, authorise hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in grants to pro-Palestinian activists?

Grant recipients going to groups who have publicly referred to Hezbollah terrorists as “men of God,” supported Intifada, and condemned Australians who stood with the Jewish community after the massacres in Israel.

When I asked how a minister can balance protecting our security on one hand while funding anti-Australian rhetoric on the other, the Labor government refused to answer, instead claiming arts grants weren’t a matter for Home Affairs and are handled at “arm’s length” by independent councils.

Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund individuals who undermine our social cohesion and praise banned terrorist organisations.

Labor can try to hide behind bureaucratic red tape, but I won’t let this drop.

Australians deserve to know exactly where their hard-earned money is going.

— May | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Separately: Minister, I find it confusing that, as Minister for the Arts, Minister Tony Burke authorised hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to known pro-Palestinian activists. These recipients of Australian tax dollars publicly support anti-Australian activities; refer to the terrorists of Hezbollah as ‘men of God’; support Intifada, which is a holy war—the slaughter of non-Muslims; and condemn those Australians who support the Jewish community after the massacre in Israel. Why would he do that?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would suggest that any grants administered under Minister Burke’s portfolio in the arts is not a matter for the Home Affairs portfolio. You would need to take it to—  

Senator ROBERTS: But, Chair, I’m interested in this because he’s also Minister for Home Affairs.  

CHAIR: But the grants you’re talking about are administered under the arts, so if you have a question relating to the grants administered there then you need to ask your questions in that hearing.  

Senator ROBERTS: We will be, but isn’t that hypocrisy? Security and funding terrorists?  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I do think that the chair is correct. There’s a whole other estimates session devoted to arts funding and grants. But I can tell you, in a general sense, that individual decisions about grants are made at arm’s length from the minister. In the arts portfolio there are groups like the Australia Council and other groups that determine who gets what grant. Those decisions are not made by this minister or have been by previous ministers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.  

CHAIR: Thank you for your assistance, Senator Roberts. 

 

/2 Comments/by

The Danger of Dancing Around Radical Islam

,

During the February Estimates hearings, I had the opportunity to question Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia. Although the session was brief, it raised an important issue.

How can we protect Australians if Islamic-motivated terrorism cannot be addressed directly?

It is difficult to resolve “misunderstandings” about mainstream Islamic teachings without acknowledging that radical interpretations have been used by violent actors, including in the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack.

While these views may fall outside mainstream doctrine, the reality is that many individuals adopt these distorted interpretations that lead to real-world harm.

Avoiding the link between extremist interpretations of Islam and terrorism ultimately makes it harder to address the problem effectively.

One Nation is prepared to have these difficult conversations if it means protecting Australians and ensuring tragedies like the Bondi attack Never. Happen. Again.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. It’s nice to have you in person rather than on the box. Following my question on notice 1477 relating to the cost of producing the National Response to Islamophobia, which has not been answered, what is the cost of the document?  

Mr Malik: I thought I had submitted those answers. I’m sorry if you haven’t received them. I did complete all that. Have you received them?  

Senator ROBERTS: No.  

Mr Malik: I apologise. I have answered your question. Maybe I will follow up with the support envoy team as to why you haven’t received those.  

Senator DUNIAM: Is it still with the minister?  

Mr Malik: I replied back to the envoy support team when I got the questions on notice. I responded straightaway. Sorry. I apologise. I can follow that up.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the December estimates, I asked you why your report did not mention Sharia law and you asked, ‘What version of Sharia law?’ Therefore, you didn’t mention any. Let me be specific. The Centre for Arbitration and Resolution of Disputes, CARD, run by the Australian National Imams Council, the peak body for imams in Australia, arbitrates disputes in marital areas and civil disputes. Is this an alternative system of law based on Islamic teaching rather than on the laws applying to every other Australian?  

Mr Malik: I don’t think there are two systems of law. Everyone here understands and fully accepts that everyone works underneath Australian law. I’m not a spokesperson for the CARD. That question perhaps is best asked of them. It tries to arrive at a mutual understanding between the two partners. I’m not the spokesperson. You could clarify with them yourselves, but I think that’s why it was established.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said it was voluntary. Apparently it’s not. By consent settlement in marital disputes can be filed with the Family Court as a binding agreement, an agreement made under Sharia law?  

Mr Malik: Again, I would have to push back on that. From my understanding—as I say again, I’m not a spokesperson for CARD; I’ve actually had no engagement with CARD as well—it seems to be operating as many of the councils in the UK, and that is where the husband and wife will come together with a religious imam to try to reconcile between the two. But, ultimately, the divorce can only take place in a secular court. Again, you would need to direct that to CARD.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian National Imams Council has called for an end to the use of words like ‘radical Islam’ and ‘extremist Islam’. The Australian National Imams Council leader, Sheikh Shadi Alsuleiman, has gone further and declared that terrorism and Islam should not be linked at all. Your report failed to mention Islamic terrorism. Will you now correct that omission you have on your statement, and discuss the link between Islamic terrorism and Islam? Feel free to include Bondi.  

Mr Malik: Yes. I’ve actually just finished writing an article. The first topic I dedicated to you. It should be out in a few weeks. I answer that question very specifically. Again, one needs to understand the history of Islam rather than going on YouTube or TikTok. The Prophet Muhammad, who’s seen as the sole authority in Islam, said two people would be denied paradise, and the first one is a religious extremist. Muslims get confused when people say questions like you put forward to us, because within mainstream normative Islam extremism is anathema. It’s really something that we have to stay away from. Those individuals who break that code or that ethical conduct are individuals on the fringes of mainstream society. For example, when Scott Morrison read his article about reforming Islam, he seemed to miss the point that the individuals are out of their systems. As one of the leaders of Muslim countries explained, mainstream Islam does not accept extremism. It’s actually anathema to Islam. But non-Muslims will say, ‘These guys are quoting from the Quran and saying that God is great. They must be Muslims and Islam.’ I acknowledge the confusion, but I think it can quickly be put to bed by just a simple conversation and a simple reading of history, to be honest with you, as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could you provide us with a copy of that article?  

Mr Malik: Yes. I’m hoping it will be published within two or three weeks.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put another question on notice. 

/1 Comment/by

Thousands of Miners Underpaid for Years

,

During the June Estimates sessions, I exposed a regulator unwilling to confront the obvious – thousands of coal miners have been underpaid for years while the Fair Work Ombudsman hides behind outdated enterprise agreements and technical excuses.

Miners provided evidence and the regulator ignored it. Awards required permanency and enterprise agreements undermined it. Australia’s largest wage-theft scandal, affecting an estimated 5,000 workers, continues because no one in authority will confront it.

This session laid bare a system that has failed miners, failed the award, and failed it’s statutory duty to uphold a fair minimum safety net.

If the system won’t protect workers, someone has to call it out.

One Nation will always call it out.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again, Ms Booth.  

Ms Booth: Thank you, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree, as a matter of principle and community expectation, that no worker in Australia should be paid less than that required under a relevant award that applies to the worker?  

Ms Booth: What I would say is that all workers in Australia should be paid their legal entitlements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong had no trouble in confirming what I just said—twice. Are you familiar, Ms Booth, with the 2016 case where the Fair Work Commission found that an enterprise agreement between the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association and Coles was invalid because the enterprise agreement paid below the award?  

Ms Booth: I’m not personally familiar with that case, but we can take questions on notice about it and its relevance to the FWO activities, if you wish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Would you agree that this ruling of the SDA sets a clear legal precedent that any enterprise agreement that pays below the award, even when the Fair Work Commission endorses such an enterprise agreement, is invalid?  

Ms Booth: Since I’m not familiar with the case, I wouldn’t comment on it. Ms Volzke might be familiar with it and might be able to give you further insight.  

Ms Volzke: I think we’ve discussed at previous Senate estimates hearings that the Fair Work Commission applies the better off overall all test, or BOOT, in determining whether or not an agreement can be approved, and, so long as it passes that test, that agreement will be approved.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will ask it again, Ms Volzke. Would you agree that this ruling sets a clear precedent that any enterprise agreement that pays below the award, doesn’t meet the BOOT, even when the Fair Work Commission endorses it, is invalid?  

Ms Volzke: At previous estimates, we’ve also spoken about the mechanisms that might be available to an aggrieved party if they wish to seek to set aside an enterprise agreement, and that would usually be one of the parties that is a party to that agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: I noticed that you didn’t agree or disagree. I’ve repeatedly raised with the Fair Work Ombudsman the situation of casually engaged coal workers subject to the black coal mining industry award being paid less than the casualised award rate when employed by labour hire companies utilising enterprise agreements. We’ve previously discussed that a quantity of cases with specific details have been referred to the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Ombudsman has investigated. Can you tell me how many individual investigations have been completed?  

Ms Booth: As you know, Senator Roberts, a number of investigations are underway. Mr Ronson is in charge of that, and we’ll ask Mr Ronson to come up and give you a report on our progress.  

Senator Watt: While Mr Ronson is coming up, Senator Roberts, you are absolutely right that you have raised these issues a number of times at estimates, and every time I have reminded you that the One Nation party voted against our same job, same pay laws, which were designed to fix this problem.  

Senator ROBERTS: Because those laws were designed to cover up the problem.  

Senator Watt: No, they weren’t.  

Senator ROBERTS: They were designed to cover up. We mentioned it at the time, in the Senate.  

Senator Watt: Can you point out to me the section of the act that covers up this?  

CHAIR: This is a debate at another time. Mr Ronson.  

Mr Ronson: What I can confirm is that, in our black coal mining investigation, we’re about two-thirds of the way through, so we’re in the home stretch. The figures I can give you are these. Since we commenced this activity, we’ve investigated 56 cases and we’ve finalised 35, and, since I last provided evidence to this committee, we have received six new cases. We finalised 18 cases since our last update. Importantly—and I think this is relevant to the particular cohort of workers you’ve been interested in—we’ve now issued preliminary finding letters to all the workers represented by the Independent Workers Union of Australia. They have all our preliminary findings, whereby they’ve been given an opportunity to review those letters and findings, and, if they have any additional or new evidence or they disagree or confirm the findings, they have an opportunity to make submissions to us, as do the other parties.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a secure mechanism?  

Mr Ronson: They’ve got an opportunity to say ‘you’ve got this right,’ or ‘you’ve got this wrong,’ or ‘we agree with you’ or ‘you’ve missed that.’ But these are at quite an advanced stage, and so we’re confident that, within the next month or two, we should have finalised nearly all investigations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total number of complaints you’ve received? The total number is still outstanding.  

Mr Ronson: There are 21 cases outstanding, but, since we began this discrete activity, it’s 56 investigations, and 35 finalised.  

Senator ROBERTS: Plus six new.  

Mr Ronson: Since I last gave evidence, there have been six new ones. But we haven’t had a new case since February.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve received feedback on a number of completed Fair Work Ombudsman investigations from coalminers that have been affected. The Fair Work Ombudsman seems to be consistent in saying, ‘As the Fair Work Ombudsman has determined that’—the named person—’terms and conditions are governed by’ the named labour higher enterprise agreement, ‘we do not consider that the black coal mining industry award 2010 applied to the person named.’  

Mr Ronson: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And, ‘Consequently,’ the Fair Work Ombudsman says, the named persons’ ‘wages and entitlements during the relevant period should not be derived from the award,’ but rather the named labour hire enterprise agreement. In light of the rulings in relation to the SDA case of 2016 and the Fair Work Commission general manager, why does the Fair Work Ombudsman now take the view that paying a worker less than the award is justifiable if the worker is being paid under a certified EA? On what legal basis does the Fair Work Ombudsman justify this?  

Ms Booth: I think we’re going to hear from Ms Volzke again, and it will traverse the same topic, and that is the legal framework within which we operate, and our job is to assess whether or not that framework has been breached. Perhaps Ms Volzke will elaborate again for you.  

Ms Volzke: I can’t talk to all of those outcomes of those investigations, but, thematically, and with a lot of those historical complaints also, we took the approach of assessing the situation where the agreement might apply, which was our view, but also, in the event that the agreement didn’t apply, we also looked at the situation of whether the underlying award might be relevant. In that case, as we’ve spoken about in previous estimates hearings, the legal consequences can be unclear as to whether or not that particular employee might have received an underpayment under the award anyway. That’s because, as you know, the black coal mining award doesn’t provide for casual employees in operational roles.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are a number of things there that I’m going to come back to. In relation to the actual comparing of paid rates, one assessment by the Fair Work Ombudsman that I’ve seen compares full-time rates under the award with casual rates under the enterprise agreement. The data provided by the Fair Work Ombudsman quotes the following rates and labels: contract rate per hour, $46.50. What’s the contract rate per hour?  

Mr Ronson: In those findings, what that would mean is the payment that employee would have received, so this would be a contract rate under a common law contract of employment. In that situation, you’ve got your common law contract of employment, but then there are also minimum entitlements in this country, informed by either an award or an enterprise agreement. But that contract rate would have been the rate that employee received.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. Then there is the award minimum rate, $21.97—these are your classifications.  

Mr Ronson: Yes, that would have been either a relevant agreement rate—  

Senator ROBERTS: This is award minimum rate.  

Mr Ronson: Or an award rate, at the time. This could be back in 2017 or 2018. Some of these cases have gone back years.  

Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise bargaining agreement 2012 minimum rate is $23.10.  

Mr Ronson: Again, that would have been the lawful minimum entitlement at that time in that particular situation for that worker.  

Senator ROBERTS: These are your figures again: named enterprise bargaining agreement 2012, casual rate, $28.88.  

Mr Ronson: That’s right. What Ms Volzke has been explaining is that the peculiarity of this whole sector is that enterprise agreements provide for casual rates because it’s been approved by the Fair Work Commission, but the black coal award doesn’t provide for casual production employees. This is the whole peculiarity of this sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: So these quoted rates omit important information and should in fact read as follows, in our opinion, based on the rates easily accessible under the award. Your award minimum rate should be the award minimum rate without entitlements. It’s the same figure, $21.97.  

Mr Ronson: I’m just presuming that, in that particular case, because there’s no casual provision in the award, we’re at a loss. We can’t confect one. There is no such thing. This is the very odd nature. So we’re reliant upon that contractual rate that they received.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the award has a rate plus entitlements, and what you’re doing is forgetting the entitlements and just taking the rate, even though the casuals should be paid a loading for all of those entitlements.  

Mr Ronson: No, I would imagine that, in those cases, there would be an enterprise agreement that would be at play.  

Ms Volzke: Because the award provides for the full-time rate, but the casual rate isn’t derived from the award. It can be the from the agreement, but also, potentially, if there is no agreement, it may well be that those particular employees are actually award and agreement-free, which would mean they would be covered by the national minimum wage.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the first time I’ve heard that one.  

Mr Ronson: It’s case by case. There are 56 cases. There will be nuances and changes on each one, but typically, for the cohort that has the historical complaints, it’s pretty much the same. It’s the same issue that you’ve been advocating for, agitating for, for some time.  

Senator ROBERTS: So let me add another one: award, notional, casualised rate. That comes to $50.01. Remember that figure. Then, where you’ve got named EBA 2012, minimum rate, we’ve added ‘without entitlements.’ What you’re doing is taking a minimum rate, stripping away the entitlements, not even counting them, and you’re saying that’s the case because—what was it, Ms Volzke?  

Ms Volzke: If there is an enterprise agreement that has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, then that displaces anything that might have otherwise applied in the underlying award, and then the employment conditions are what’s in the agreement. If there is no underlying agreement, you cannot extrapolate the full-time provisions in the award to casuals because, as Mr Ronson has already said, in those production roles, there is no classification for casual employees.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you telling me, Ms Volzke, that, if the minimum rate is the same in the award and the enterprise agreement, because there’s no casual, the casual worker misses out entirely on all the other entitlements? Isn’t that paying less than the enterprise agreement, by a long, long way?  

Ms Volzke: No. For an agreement to be approved by the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the agreement passes the BOOT, the better off overall test. That will obviously depend on the particular matter and agreement that’s before it. I am only talking at a high level. I won’t make any particular conclusions about specific case examples, but that is the general principle—and, where the agreement has been validly approved, the conditions of employment are derived therein.  

Mr Ronson: What Ms Volzke is saying is that, where the agreement is in play—and that’s mostly the cases that you’re aware of—the agreement knocks out the award; the agreement trumps, in terms of the industrial instrument that informs the rates. But what I can tell you is that—  

Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement, even if it’s inferior to the award, trumps the award.  

Mr Ronson: If it’s a lawful agreement, it trumps, yes; it displaces the award.  

Senator ROBERTS: It can’t be lawful, but we’ll come back to that.  

Mr Ronson: Okay. What I can say is that this is one of the reasons we were very careful to set out our findings very carefully and provide the parties with opportunities to see whether we’ve got anything wrong—and I can confirm that we’ve received no significant evidence that will alter the findings that we’ve made. It might not be the outcome that the employee wants, but it is the application of the law.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is, the named casual worker should have been paid a minimum of $50.01 per hour for the period. On evidence in pay slips supplied to the Fair Work Ombudsman, the named worker was paid $39.55 per hour. That’s less than your contract rate.  

Mr Ronson: Correct, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: All entitlements wiped.  

Mr Ronson: I don’t have that case in front of me, but that case would have been based upon what is the minimum entitlement that applies to this worker in this period, at this time and at this site, and that’s how we would have done the calculations and worked out whether there was a financial injury.  

Senator ROBERTS: The named labour hire EBA rates that the Fair Work Ombudsman quotes omit requirements for entitlements and in this respect are arguably misleading as to the truth. The rate actually paid is less than the award, less than your contract rate and less than the award notional casualised rate. How could the Fair Work Ombudsman get such basic information so wrong?  

Mr Ronson: What I’m trying to say is: out of all the preliminary findings we’ve issued, we’ve had no evidence received in response from parties that would impact or alter our findings. It may not be the outcome that people want, but it is the correct application of the law, in our view.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, at the start of your questions, I asked each senator to keep their questions to 15 minutes. We’ve now gone over that time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I have one question, and then I’ll hand over the call.  

CHAIR: Yes, thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: And then I’d like another block. The miner supplied the Fair Work Ombudsman with all his pay slips. What period did the Fair Work Ombudsman consider in assessing the worker’s complaint—one year or the whole period of underpayment?  

Mr Ronson: The whole period.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll come back.

Trancript

Senator ROBERTS: I will return to my questioning. Ms Booth, I refer to the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision in relation to the miner, appendix C in this case, clause 9, which says, ‘No time or wage records were available during the relevant period.’ From whom?  

Ms Booth: That would be a detail in relation to a particular investigation that I wouldn’t have visibility of. Mr Ronson, do you?  

Mr Ronson: I’m going to presume, but correct me if I’m wrong, that the case that you’ve got in front of you probably relates to the 14 cases represented by the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia. 10 of those cases remain ongoing, so preliminary findings have been issued. From what you have just put, it looks like that’s an attachment to the preliminary findings, which gives an opportunity for the worker and the employer to respond if there’s any contradiction. Your question was about time and wage records not being available. That would be from either party. I’m not sure what particular period or history this is, but it may be that there were no timely wage records available.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the miner supplied his pay-slips and the Fair Work Ombudsman had the miner’s total hours and pay and could calculate the overall hourly rate. So it’s not from the miner. 

Mr Ronson: Okay. If there’s a concern, this is the opportunity to put this evidence to us if there’s something that we’ve missed. This is why we put the preliminary findings out, just in case there’s a question mark over what our findings are. We try to do our investigations to the best of our ability, to be as thorough as we can using the powers we have, but, if we’ve missed something and the parties have evidence, please provide it to us. This is exactly why this process has been undertaken.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ms Booth, were you previously a Fair Work Commission member?  

Ms Booth: Yes, I was, from 2012 to 2020.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did any of the enterprise agreement applications you approved as a member include an enterprise agreement covering casual coal miners?  

Ms Booth: Of course, I would be relying on memory. I don’t recall any. Indeed, throughout my time at the Fair Work Commission I spent a lot of time being the national practice leader of what’s called the Collaborative Approaches Program now, which took me out into the field, and I was relieved of the obligation to approve enterprise agreements quite early on in my time in the commission. I couldn’t tell you which year that was but, for a large part of my time in the commission, I was relieved, very kindly by the President, of that obligation. I don’t recall any black coal cases, but the Fair Work Commission website still has every single decision that I have ever made under my name, and it can be examined to see whether or not any of those enterprise agreements fell within my purview.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you ever check the BOOT?  

Ms Booth: When I did approve enterprise agreements, yes. Indeed, in the early part of my time in the Fair Work Commission, a member was required to do that personally. Then, as I went on towards 2020, the administrative support was provided and a BOOT report was provided to each member from the administrative staff to aid our examination of an enterprise agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to go to section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act, which provides, The Fair Work Commission must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions.’ The use of the term ‘must’ imposes, does it not, a mandatory legal obligation on the commission?  

Ms Booth: I’ll say two things about that. One might be asking Ms Volzke to comment on the provisions of the act. I’ve not got it in front of me. I will be careful not to provide evidence to the committee other than from my current role as the Fair Work Ombudsman. I was happy to answer your questions about the Fair Work Commission, but of course I no longer speak for the Fair Work Commission. What I would say about the modern award objective is that every member, myself included, would have given consideration to all the factors listed in section 134.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before you hand over to Ms Volzke, does the commission—because you’re investigating a commission decision, ultimately—have the liberty to bypass, dilute or ignore this statutory duty—’must … provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’.  

Ms Booth: The modern awards objective applies in certain circumstances, not every dispute and not every case, but, where it applies, it is my understanding that at the time I was a Fair Work Commission member I was obliged to weigh all the factors that were in the modern awards objective in any decision that I was making. I would refrain from saying anything more about what I did in those times, because my memory will be faulty and the Fair Work Commission is no longer my area of work.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t referring to your time in the Fair Work Commission. I’m referring to the Fair Work Commission decisions in this case.  

Ms Booth: I think I’ve given you my answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the Black Coal Mining Industry Award says that production workers must be permanent workers, permanent employees. How do you get over that condition in an enterprise agreement?  

Ms Volzke: I haven’t got the terms of the award in front of me, but it doesn’t provide for casual employment in those production roles. You will remember as well that, in Closing Loopholes, the same job, same pay audit provisions came in that ensured that labour hire workers—  

Senator ROBERTS: This happened well before that.  

Ms Volzke: Absolutely, but what I’m saying is that anomaly, in the way that you’ve described it, going forward has been closed. We’re talking about, in some circumstances, agreements that were approved many years ago. As the regulator, we must apply the law as it stands at the particular point in time, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. As we’ve spoken about previously as well, a number of these historical matters are outside our statutory time frame for being able to prosecute them, but we are doing our very best to investigate them irrespective of that. That’s what we’re undertaking to do. Mr Ronson has provided some details on that already, and we hope to have that wrapped up soon. I’m very satisfied that we’re doing the best that we can in the circumstances to apply the law to these particular cohorts of employees.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not. Whether it’s been legal, or negligence or deliberate, this is Australia’s largest wage theft scam, and it’s continuing—Australia’s largest wage theft. It’s widespread. We estimate that around 5,000 miners are still being screwed by this. Does that bother you?  

Ms Volzke: As I said, the closing loopholes legislation in 2023 closed that loophole. Going forward, that is what the law is now, but our statutory mandate is to apply the law as it applies at a particular point in time, and these are historical matters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision endorse the breach of the Fair Work Act and what amounts to the Fair Work Commission’s endorsement of Australia’s largest wage theft due to collusions between union bosses and large global multinational employers, including an offshoot in Australia of the world’s largest labour hire firm, Recruit Holdings?  

Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about previously, if an agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, then it is part of the legal framework that we must apply, and that is what we’ve done.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, as I indicated at the start of your block of questioning, as we have two senators seeking the call, we’re seeking to split the time, so that’s the conclusion of your block of questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Chair. 

/by

Restoring Biological Reality to Australian Law

,

I honour the original, genuine feminist movement – a movement of women who fought hard to establish rights that are now under attack.

I am deeply concerned by the recent Giggle v. Tickle Federal Court decision, which highlights how the rights of biological women to have safe, female-only spaces are being eroded by men pretending to be women.

I challenged the Office for Women on whether they truly stand with biological women. I find it incredible that in this day and age, we are even having this conversation.

I asked them directly if women are entitled to safe places where biological men are not welcome. The Office and the Minister repeatedly deflected my questions, claiming these issues are “medical” or matters for the Attorney-General.

They claim to stand for “all women,” yet when pressed on what that means for biological females, they offer no clear protection.

I view this trans activist movement as a destructive force intended to destabilise and divide western civilisation. Rather than encouraging people to continue down this path, we should be helping them love the bodies they were born in.

The irony is not lost on me that our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, legislated the very version of the Sex Discrimination Act that created this mess, one that puts women at risk and ignores basic biological reality.

Australians are fed up with this.

One Nation’s Promise: We will not wait. One Nation intends to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to fix the loopholes created by the Gillard government.

I will continue to pursue this issue until we return to a society that recognises truth, protects women and restores common sense to our laws.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Women rightly fought hard and long to establish women’s rights through the original, genuine and very real feminist movement. I honour them. I sincerely do. Does the Office for Women support Sall Grover in her case Tickle v Giggle? Sall is otherwise known as Giggle. This case result in the Federal Court recently clearly shows that women’s rights are under attack from men identifying as women as part of the so-called trans activists. Do you support Sall Grover?

Ms Raman: I don’t believe that’s a matter for us. I would direct you to AGD. I think you did canvass this at length last night.

Senator ROBERTS: I did. I will continue to do so. As part of a—

CHAIR: Just ensure your questions are directed to the right people, Senator Roberts. That would be really helpful.

Senator ROBERTS: I am coming to that. By the way, the trans activist movement is part of a movement wanting to destabilise and divide our country. They are modern Marxists. I can’t believe we’re living in a time where this is even a topic of conversation. Surely it would be better to help these obviously unwell people with loving the body they are already born in, not encourage them to continue down this destructive path, which puts women at risk. The Office for Women plays a critical role in driving policies to eliminate domestic, family and sexual violence. I applaud you for that. The recent decision in Tickle v Giggle has diminished the rights of biological women to have safe places.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think we’ve covered this in the sense that case is not a matter for these witnesses.

Senator ROBERTS: My question, Chair, is: does this office accept that women are entitled to have safe places where men, biological or identified, are not welcome? Do women have the right to have that?

Ms Raman: We’re focused on tangible and practical outcomes to close gender gaps. We are guided by our strategy Working for Women. Our day-to-day work is focused on what the Commonwealth can do to keep women safe, ensure families have choice in relation to care and work, as I said before, and improve women’s health and their place in decision-making. When we deal with these things, everyone is safer. All Australians are safer and have freedom and opportunities. Our daily work is about ensuring that we keep women safe. We work on the issues in our strategy to ensure that we get to gender equality.

Senator ROBERTS: What could be more tangible than a man who identifies as a women but is still a man attacking a women? Nothing could be more tangible than that. Nothing could be more safety aware than that. I want to know why Australians should be forced to accept that men can be women when they are not.

CHAIR: It’s not relevant to these witnesses.

Ms Raman: When we deal with the issues that we have in our strategy, these issues almost never come up. When we focus on the issues that are about ensuring that we remove the barriers to ensuring that we can have gender equality in this country, these issues do not come up in our day-to-day work.

Senator ROBERTS: Does the Office for Women stand with biological women, or does this office also include men identifying as women?

Ms Raman: We stand with all women.

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s biological women?

Senator WHITEAKER: What does that term even mean? It’s a ridiculous question.

CHAIR: The witness said all women, Senator Roberts. You are trying to create a divide here.

Senator ROBERTS: Safe spaces for women. I want women’s rights back.

Senator WHITEAKER: How about you leave that up to us to figure out for ourselves.

Senator ROBERTS: That is what I am doing. They’re coming to me saying, ‘For goodness sake, pursue this issue with the Office for Women.’ Senator Cash knows all about it. That’s exactly what we’re doing. I stand for women’s rights as hard fought for and won by the feminist movement decades ago. Do you believe that a man that is born with male genitals and male chromosomes can be anything other than a male?

CHAIR: This is a medical question, Senator Roberts. You are better off in the health department, which is next week.

Senator ROBERTS: If men can be women, does that mean anyone can identify something they are clearly not? For example, if I consider myself to be a six foot six inch basketball player when I’m clearly not, would it be considered delusional?

CHAIR: Again, that is a medical question, Senator Roberts. I would direct you to the health department.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to the final one. Minister, will the government change the law? The irony is that former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard, the first female prime minister in this country, created the legislation that created this mess. She accused Tony Abbott of being misogynist. One Nation will amend the Sex Discrimination Act legislated by the Gillard government that has created this mess. Why don’t you do it before the election and change it?

Senator Gallagher: It’s not a matter for the Office for Women.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking the minister.

Senator Gallagher: Well, it’s a matter for the Attorney-General. Her representative appeared last night, as did representatives from Attorney-General’s. I presume you asked the question of them. That’s where it is appropriately made.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you as a minister of the government today.

Senator Gallagher: It does not form—

Senator ROBERTS: You have two years left in your term.

Senator Gallagher: It does not fall within my ministerial responsibilities, Senator Roberts. It is a matter for the Attorney-General.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re a woman and you’re a minister and you’re part of the government.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, if you want to ask a question about changing that particular legislation, then you are in the wrong place. I believe you have already done that and asked in those areas. You may not have liked the answer—

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t ask that question yesterday.

CHAIR: Well, you still have time to put it on notice, Senator Roberts, if you would like to do that, to the relevant agency.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

/2 Comments/by

An ‘Operational Decision’ or a Media Stunt?

,

During Estimates in May, I questioned the AFP on their treatment of Ben Roberts-Smith.

While we welcome the investigation into media leaks, the AFP still refuses to explain the so-called ‘operational decision’ to arrest him on a Sydney tarmac in front of his two daughters, rather than in Brisbane.

After more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars spent investigating alleged war crimes, the AFP has not secured a single conviction. It’s hard to reconcile that extraordinary expenditure with an outcome that has delivered nothing but reputational damage and prolonged uncertainty for one of the nation’s most decorated soldiers.

The handling of this case raises serious questions about priorities, accountability, and whether such extraordinary resources have been justified by results.

This government needs to ask itself why it sends Australians to war if it then spends hundreds of millions tearing them down when they come home.

Transcript

CHAIR: I understand Senator Roberts has got a couple of follow-up questions from the statement. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your statement. It’s very clear and comprehensive. I’m very pleased to see that you’re going to investigate the source of the leak to the media, because it’s not fair that one of our most decorated warriors is being subjected to a trial by media. We can’t hold you responsible for that, so we’d like to see the results of the investigation. Thank you. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone—well, before I get onto that, midway through the second page, you say: The reason to arrest the individual in Sydney and not Brisbane was an operational decision … What do you mean by ‘operational decision’?  

Ms Barrett: It was based on operational factors. I said it was ‘an operational decision that was determined after discussing with relevant partners’.  

Senator ROBERTS: So an operational decision in terms of getting the assets in the right place to do the arrest?  

Ms Barrett: I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.  

Mr McCartney  : If you go to the front of the commissioner’s statement, she makes it fairly clear that we need to be careful with our language. This matter is before court, and we’re at risk, if we talk more about these issues—  

Senator ROBERTS: I respect that, yes.  

Mr McCartney : If we talk more about these issues and information is ventilated through this committee, we run the risk of potential impact on a fair trial. There were a range of operational matters, like the commissioner’s discussed, but, taking into account that balance and trying to be helpful to the committee, we’re going to err on the side of caution and say that these operational matters may be relevant to the court case so we’ll decline on answering that one.  

Ms Barrett: We’ve really tried to provide as much information as we can—  

Senator ROBERTS: And, as I said, it’s been comprehensive.  

Ms Barrett: in the statement, to be as helpful as we can. As I said at the outset, we understand that of course it’s of significant interest to the public, but we need to balance that with ensuring that there’s a fair trial.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got safety to consider as well. Okay, now I understand what operational decision means. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to affect the arrest?  

Ms Barrett: Are you asking me specifically or the AFP?  

Senator ROBERTS: The AFP.  

Ms Barrett: Again, I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.  

Mr McCartney : In the division of responsibilities, the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to prosecute charges and offences. Once those charges have been affected by operational agencies, such as the AFP, or as OSI did in this case—they were aware of the location being in New South Wales and Sydney. In terms of being aware of the exact location at the airport, I will take that one on notice and come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my final question, Minister. The commissioner has clarified some misrepresentations in the media, which is appreciated. Perhaps you could clarify another comment in the media that so far your predecessor government, the Morrison government, and your government have spent, supposedly, $300 million or more on prosecuting these investigations. So far you’ve got two men charged, as I understand it, and no-one convicted.  

Ms Barrett: Sorry I missed that last bit.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has been convicted yet. I don’t think anyone’s gone to court yet, have they?  

Ms Barrett: There are two matters before court.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before the court, yes, but I don’t think they’ve actually started trying them. This is a question to the minister. Is this action to justify more funding?  

Senator Watt: Is what action to justify more funding?  

Senator ROBERTS: The arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith?  

Senator Watt: That’s a very big statement to make, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to clarify this because the commissioner has done a very good job in clarifying media misrepresentation.  

Senator Watt: I’m not sure about you, Senator Roberts, but I and our government have full confidence in our police forces to make good decisions when they’re deciding who to charge and why. I’d be very concerned if you’re suggesting otherwise.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not suggesting the AFP.  

Senator Watt: We don’t interfere with the decisions of the AFP as to who they charge and for what. That is an independent decision, as it should be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, you’ve answered my question. I’ll just say again, Commissioner, thank you for your summary—excellent. Thanks, CHAIR, for your indulgence.  

CHAIR: Happy to serve, Senator Roberts. 

/2 Comments/by

Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC Display Remains Untouched

,

After everything that’s unfolded around Ben Roberts-Smith, it was refreshing to hear the War Memorial confirm his Victoria Cross display remains untouched, his plaque updated only with factual context, and that the presumption of innocence still applies.

That principle isn’t optional – it’s the foundation of justice.

Transcipt

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Anderson. Senator Roberts, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here and thank you for such an uplifting opening statement. That’s wonderful that you’re celebrating that. My questions are fairly brief. Mr Anderson, can I confirm you have left the Ben Roberts-Smith VC display in the Hall of Valour in the same condition it was before his arrest while updating his plaque to include the passage: In April 2026, Roberts-Smith was charged with five counts of the war crime of murder. The legal process is ongoing.  

Mr Anderson: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I confirm that on 10 April 2026, in a media conference at the Australian War Memorial, you made the following statement: The most important thing that all of us can do now is allow justice to take its course; to start with the presumption of innocence.  

Mr Anderson: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the presumption of innocence still the overarching principle guiding the Australian War Memorial in the continued display of Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC exhibit in the Hall of Valour?  

Mr Anderson: I think the overriding principle is one of fact. He’s in the Hall of Valour because of his actions in Tizak on 10 June 2011. Those are the circumstances that we speak to in the Hall of Valour. We’ve updated, as we always do, the panel. Since 2023, we’ve been updating the interpretive panel with the facts as they become known.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s almost as uplifting to me, hearing that you believe in fact and make decisions based on data and fact, as your opening statement. That’s wonderful. Final question—I want to thank you, Mr Anderson, for reminding Australia that Ben Roberts-Smith has a presumption of innocence and for treating his service with the respect it deserves. I have nothing further, Chair. Thank you.  

CHAIR: That is very efficient of you, Senator; thank you. 

/by

Tents vs. Space Programs

,

I seemed to have upset my colleagues when I questioned why more than half a million dollars was being spent on a grant exploring “Indigenous connections to outer space” and whether Aboriginal people “cared for other planets.”

How do such projects help Australians who are living in tents, skipping meals, or struggling to pay rent?

While people are hurting, the Labor government is spending $1 billion a year on grants like this.

Taxpayers deserve to know why.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Moving on, Dr Lara Daley at the University of Newcastle received a grant of $528,491 over three years, including salary and project costs to study: ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge in Australian space policy, using songlines and creation stories, aiming to broaden understandings of outer space by identifying and supporting Aboriginal connections between space and life on Earth to develop culturally respectful and environmentally responsible space exploration.’ How would Aboriginal environmental management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management that includes Aboriginal management of the environment? 

Prof. Shergold: My answer to this and other questions I suspect are going to be identical. I can do no more than describe the peer-review processes that are being used and hopefully make it clear why it would be entirely inappropriate for me or the board to step in on particular projects on which we would have far less expertise than the assessors to overturn decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Shergold. That doesn’t give the taxpayers much confidence. How would Aboriginal management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management full stop? Does the ARC expect Elon Musk to encounter an Indigenous population on Mars for which we should prepare? According to her bio, Dr Daley’s research is grounded in herself as, inter alia, ‘a white, non-Indigenous person on unceded Aboriginal country specialising in human and more-than-human research, including outer space as being already known, cared for and inhabited through Indigenous ontologies. Did Aboriginals inhabit other planets?  

CHAIR: The scope of estimates is very broad, but it is contained to the operations and expenditure of departments and agencies, and I—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, one more question.  

CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wonder: did Aboriginals care for other planets in the solar system? You appear to be trying to extend Aboriginal mythology to other planets in the solar system. How far out—Pluto, Saturn, to infinity and beyond, as Buzz Lightyear said in Toy Story?  

Senator FARUQI: My God. Read some books, Malcolm!  

Senator ROBERTS: Australians are living in tents, struggling to buy food. Hundreds of thousands of people are struggling. Tens of thousands are living under bridges and in cars, and this is what you spend your $1 billion a year on. Unidentified speaker: Is there a question, Chair?  

Senator FARUQI: Chair, please put us out of our misery.  

CHAIR: Malcolm Roberts, please take a moment. Senators, I appreciate all the feelings at the table, but it is important that senators are able to be heard in silence as they ask their questions, as it is important for witnesses to be heard in silence and not spoken over. I will be enforcing this on both counts. Senator Roberts, you have the call to keep asking your question. Senators, regardless of what you think of it, please allow him to do so in silence.  

Senator ROBERTS: With Australians struggling, why is this what you spend your $1 billion a year on? Taxpayers would be saying, ‘Shame on you.’  

Senator Walsh: Was that for the professor or for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: Both.  

Senator Walsh: I’ll go first, Senator Roberts, and say that you are a politician and that you are expressing your political views right now—  

Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of many constituents, yes.  

Senator Walsh: and what we did is we removed politics from the processes that the ARC uses, because we believe in peer review of research not political review of research. The ARC’s process is rigorous. It is independent. As Professor Shergold has said, it is based on a strong network of peer reviewers. That is the decision of the government. We based that decision after an independent review of the ARC Act. Our reforms came into force from 1 July 2024, and we established an independent and expert ARC board to be responsible for the approval of grants, fellowships and the like. Professor Shergold and his team are discharging their obligations under the legislation to assess grant applications through these processes—through the panel, through peer review. They are discharging their obligations appropriately, and the government undermines efforts to undermine the trust in the Australian Research Council.  

Prof. Shergold: You are quite right to be directing the question to me. It isn’t a ministerial decision. It is in very large measure a decision for me and the board of the ARC. You’re quite right. The reality is, as I said, that we had about 1,000 grants that were approved last year. It is inevitable that there will be 10 or 20 of those that will become highly controversial for the reasons you’ve suggested. I suppose my view is—and it’s not giving any view on any particular research—that the fact that becomes controversial is not a bad thing. The whole purpose of research is to look for new paradigms, to interpret in new ways, to provoke and, to be honest with you, to raise hackles on existence. It is the way in which we continue to improve what we do economically, socially and environmentally and have debates about culture within Australia. I can’t, like you, sit down and say, ‘I think that looks like a really good piece of research to me, and that one looks a bit whacky.’ I’ve got to be dependent upon the experts that I use. My task, as I’ve said, is to make sure that they are doing it with integrity. I want to make sure, to see, that there are no conflicts of interest. I want to look at the outcomes of that research, to make sure that all universities are getting agreement that Indigenous scholars—not just on Indigenous issues, incidentally, but Indigenous scholars in all areas—are getting fair access. That’s what I’m looking at when I look at the 4,000 grant applications we receive and the thousands of decisions we make. It’s making sure that, in all ways, the peer review process is working and, with the board, looking at ways in which it can be improved all the time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/by

Niche Ideology vs. Taxpayer Value

,

I seemed to upset my colleagues when I questioned why the Australian Research Council is spending close to a billion dollars a year on grants that taxpayers would struggle to see any value in.

ARC leadership repeatedly hid behind “peer review processes”, refusing to justify cost-benefit while signing off on a $889,275 grant for an Arab/Muslim Australian social movements study, and another $322,213 grant that produced a commercial sold book Coming of Age in War on Terror.

While I respect independent review processes, the real issue is being ignored.

How is this supposedly “world-class system” allowing taxpayer money to be poured into niche ideological research with no demonstrated benefit to the people footing the bill?

The problem isn’t that research exists – it’s why taxpayers are being forced to fund it.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing tonight. Good evening. I have here grant reference FT220100427 for beneficiary Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, covering the period from 2022 to 2027, with a grant amount $802,000, since increased to $889,275. The purpose of this very large grant—inter alia—is: Arab/Muslim Australian Social Movements since the 1970s: a hidden history … aims to recover previously untapped oral histories and rare archival collections of Arab/Muslim Australian activists … Who have struggled against external systems and internal conflicts to build a socially just future … include a greater understanding of the transformative activism of communities whose movement work is often relegated to the margins. This is what you’re spending taxpayer money on. What is the cost benefit of this study sufficient to justify an almost $900,000 price tag? 

Senator FARUQI: Why do you hate Muslims, Malcolm?  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t; we have some in this party.  

Prof. Shergold: Let me answer that question and I’m happy to do so because the key change to the ARC legislation, as you will be aware, is that, at this stage—in most instances, not all—it is the ARC and board which make the decision on grants and not the minister. So the minister is clearly at arm’s length. Now, what do you do if you’re on a board and you are trying to make sure that you use public funds for the best purposes available for projects that are deemed by universities to be in the national interest? If you look at the number of applications that come forward, you’ll start to understand what a challenge it is. I think last year—I’m looking for the numbers—there was something about 4,000 applications.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is this getting to the answer of my question?  

Prof. Shergold: I am going to get there, because I want you to share my pain. We’ve got 4,000 applications and about, give or take, 25 per cent are accepted. It is quite unrealistic and very bad governance to imagine I and the board members sit down and look at 4,000 applications, even as well as presented as you’ve just done with this one, and say yes or no. How do you do it? You try and make sure you have the very best world-class system, which is a peer-review process. The role of myself, the role of the board, isn’t to go through and second-guess those expert peer reviewers in the decisions they make. My role—an important one; I feel a burden of responsibility—is to make sure that the processes that are being used are best practice in peer review and are done with honesty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a cost benefit?  

Prof. Shergold: This was a proposal that came forward out of about was about 1,200, give or take, that were accepted last year.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t tell me—  

Prof. Shergold: What I can tell you is we are using the best peer-review processes that we have available. It was thought by members of college of experts and then by disciplinary experts that this would be an important and innovative and, no doubt, provocative piece of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me the cost benefit.  

Prof. Shergold: Well, I tell you what I can do. I can tell you the cost benefit as assessed of the ARC grants overall, which we had undertaken a few years ago—  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that for this grant?  

Prof. Shergold: which gave a return on all our grants of about I think $3.20 on the dollar, something like that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on. This isn’t your first grant to the doctor. There was also grant DP110101249 titled ‘Youth in the digital age: Being young and Muslim in Australia’ for $322,213 covering 2018 to 2021. Now my question is: why didn’t you use the correct name of the project, which was: ‘”Trust, Politics, and Fear: ‘Generation 9/11’ Muslim and Non-Muslim youth compared”‘?  

Prof. Shergold: Well, it wasn’t my piece of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: This grant allowed the doctor to write a book titled Coming of Age in the War on Terror, published by Allen and Unwin. Why are you funding this person to write a book which she sold commercially and for which the doctor most likely received payment? Did she?  

Prof. Shergold: I have no idea—  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what bothers me.  

Prof. Shergold: if she received payment from that. But I am delighted overall when pieces of research that we fund end up in books or articles. I think that was a good use of money.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is socialising costs and privatising profits. Why is the Australian Research Council allowed to use taxpayer money to provide a commercial benefit to their friends in academia—paid to write the book, paid to sell the book? This seems to be a great scam going on here for academia.  

Prof. Shergold: Well, in answering the question, and you were frustrated at the delay, the one thing I did show is how this is a best-practice peer-review process, and to identify that as a scam is probably stretching it somewhat.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is the ARC allowed to do this—socialise costs and privatise benefits? 

Senator Walsh: The ARC’s role in the process is through its independent and expert board to use the process of peer review that Professor Shergold spoke about to be responsible for the approval of grants and fellowships and so on. That’s the ARC’s role and they rely on independent peer review to discharge their obligations. I think you’re asking questions about academics then publishing books after they have conducted research which may be funded by the ARC or may be supported in other ways. I think that publishing opportunity is just a part of higher education; it is standard procedure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you have been funding this person continuously since 2018. Dr Randa Abdel Fattah is a radical Islamic activist who just participated in the figurative ‘burning down’ of the Adelaide Writers Festival. Is this grant nothing more than the ARC funding Islamic activism?  

Prof. Shergold: I won’t repeat the process which the minister has described well. I will say we have a college of experts carefully selected who do a first assessment. We then have detailed assessments from over 20,000 assessors from Australia and around the world that then assess each of those pieces of research. And roughly about 25 per cent of them manage to make the cut. I wish I could fund more. There are many more good projects you could, but that’s the truth. There is a process. I can’t possibly step in and start to overrule decisions of that process on the basis that I don’t like particularly the political advocacy that someone does. I’ve got to make sure on your behalf that that process is being used as well as it possibly can be to make sure that decisions are being made fairly, honestly, transparently and in the national interest.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re nice words. But I’d leave this to the taxpayers to decide. The doctor has now organised an alternative event to the Adelaide Writers Festival, which, by all reports, is designed to exclude people of a certain faith or belief. Minister, I keep on hearing about social cohesion and yet this grant has gone to a person who is attacking social cohesion to advance Islamic propaganda. Why is your grants program encouraging social conflict?  

Senator Walsh: There are a lot of incorrect premises there about the role of the ARC and the grants process and the investigation that was undertaken by Macquarie University. Essentially, Professor Shergold has already gone through that process. To go over it again, briefly, the minister wrote to the ARC and, I think, to Professor Shergold and asked the ARC to look into this particular grant to the doctor and make sure that the grant was being appropriately used. The way that works is that it’s the university that receives the grant that is then tasked with doing the investigation. Macquarie University appointed academic experts to conduct the review. The review investigated whether the grant funding was being used for its intended purpose. During that process, the funding was suspended. The process concluded and the grant was reinstated. It was reinstated, as I understand it, because there was no evidence that there was an inappropriate acquittal of public funds. So that’s the process.  

Prof. Shergold: The only thing I would add is that, of course, we will continue to review this grant, just as we review all the other grants.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister. Just moving on then—  

Senator FARUQI: Chair, may I raise a point of order?  

CHAIR: Yes.  

Senator FARUQI: Senator Roberts is making completely unfounded and false allegations about a very respected academic and researcher. I would really like you to ask him to withdraw those or stop that line of questioning.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to move on, Chair.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to wait for me to respond to the point of order before you can direct the committee to move on. I take your point, Senator Faruqi, but I don’t believe there has been a breach of the standing orders from what I can observe. But I would just remind all senators, as we continue through this session, to do so respectfully of the witnesses and topics we’re dealing with and of each other at the table. Senator Roberts, you still have the call.  

/by