I asked Creative Australia why Aboriginal organisations are receiving such an out-of-proportion share of arts funding.
Their own annual report shows $32.1 million in First Nations investments out of a $285.8 million funding pool – over 10%, roughly three times the proportion of Aboriginal Australians.
Promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art is important and no one disputes that. But why is it treated as more important than promoting any other form of art?
Proportion matters.
If it doesn’t – isn’t that just more divisive?
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I want to start by making the observation that your grants are important to what most Australians would consider culture—symphony orchestras through to local brass bands, regional and city theatres, museums and art galleries—genuine arts. We recognise the importance and that people think they’re important. These need support. My questions go to what appears to be the strong appearance of DEI in recent years, which suggests you either have too much money or have lost contact with community expectations. My question is: looking at the last three years of grants, eight of your top 20 grants by value are to Aboriginal organisations for a total of $13 million out of $37 million. That’s more than one-third. Why are Aboriginal projects prioritised over the wider community? Our Aboriginal community is not one-third of the Australian community.
Mr Blackwell: I think that by far our biggest funding agreement is with Opera Australia, and there are 39, I think, organisations in the National Performing Arts Partnership Framework, which account for approximately $140 million of the investment that we had last year, which was $285.8 million overall. The total value of investments to First Nations, as reported in our annual report last year, was $32.1 million out of that $285.8 million.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s a bit over 10 per cent.
Mr Blackwell: It was a bit over 10 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: What about your top 20 grants—$13 million out of $37 million of the top 20 grants?
Mr Blackwell: What program are you referring to? If we look at grants, we’ve got grants in multiyear funding agreements, we’ve got project grants and suchlike. If I were to look at the top 20 multiyear grants within Creative Australia, then they will all be in the National Performing Arts Partnership Framework. There are three First Nations organisations in the National Performing Arts Partnership Framework: Bangarra, Marrugeku and Ilbijerri. I think they would rank at about $3 million to $4 million for Bangarra, and about just over a million for the other two. They are obviously, by far, a lot smaller than the top grants within that category. I’m not sure where that information is coming from.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you check, then, that eight of your top 20 grants by value are to Aboriginal organisations.
Mr Blackwell: I don’t think that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you check?
Mr Blackwell: I can check, sure. I don’t know those figures.
Senator ROBERTS: Just take it on notice. I haven’t got any more figures other than the global figures. Eight of your top 20 grants by value—
Mr Blackwell: Can I ask about the source of the information? That will actually help me answer your question.
Senator ROBERTS: My staff are very diligent. I’m assuming it came from your figures.
Mr Blackwell: Our figures would have been through, say, our annual report. If they came from our annual report, they are the figures that I’ve given you, which would be $32 million on a total investment of $285 million.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s more than 10 per cent?
Mr Blackwell: That would be just more than 10 per cent, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: About 11 or maybe even 12 per cent?
Mr Blackwell: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about three times the proportion of Aboriginals in our Australian community.
Mr Blackwell: We have—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s out of proportion. That is what I’m getting at. It doesn’t matter whose figures we use; these figures which would have come from you—
Senator Green: The parliament passed a law in 2023 that established the current Creative Australia as we know it—
Senator ROBERTS: 2023?
Senator Green: 2023. And one of the functions of Creative Australia is to—well, there are lots of functions in the act. There’s the promotion of art. Safe workplaces is one of them. And the promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art is one of the functions of Creative Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Out of proportion to other—
Senator Green: No, it’s not about proportion. The law doesn’t say that it should be proportional; it says that it is their job to promote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art.
Senator ROBERTS: More so than others.
Senator Green: That’s what the parliament agreed to.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/1KehxB5k4QE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 14:22:352026-08-26 14:22:39Is Aboriginal Arts Funding Out of Proportion?
In February I questioned the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) on the surge in early-onset breast cancer, with diagnoses in women in their 20s, 30s and 40s rising sharply over two decades.
When I asked whether they’d cross-referenced these cases with lifestyle factors, or with COVID vaccination status, they admitted they haven’t done that work.
To me, that’s a glaring failure.
COVID injections were the biggest health intervention in our history, yet no one is checking for possible links to adverse outcomes. Australians deserve transparency, not avoidance.
If there’s no connection, proper research would reassure thousands of worried people. Instead, all we get is deflection.
I will continue to push for answers.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The Cancer data in Australia 2025 report emphasises that cancers, including breast cancer, are being diagnosed more frequently in people in their 30s and 40s, with the share of all breast cancer diagnoses rising about 50 per cent over the last 20 years, which is stunning. Breast cancer is now the most commonly diagnosed cancer for women aged 20 to 39 and 40 to 59, which is surprising as well. Have you undertaken any analysis to cross-reference breast cancer in this younger cohort with lifestyle factors—drinking, prescription medications and so on?
Dr Bolevich: We do indeed produce the report you’re talking about and have a unit within the institute that specialises in cancer data—its collection, national consistency around it and various types of analysis. We often make the data available to researchers. For the specific question you’re asking, I will defer to my colleague.
Ms Gates: As you said, we produce that information about cancer. We sometimes look at lifestyle factors. Specifically, it depends on what information we have around the connection between having a lifestyle factor, such as risk factors around smoking or other risk factors—I haven’t got to hand anything directly that we’ve done in relation to breast cancer.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice, to give us a range of what you provide in terms of lifestyle factors like drinking, prescription medications and so on?
Dr Bolevich: We can take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like to see what you’ve got available; thank you. The American Cancer Society call this ‘early onset breast cancer’. Specifically, have you cross-referenced breast cancer in this younger cohort with COVID vaccination status?
Dr Bolevich: No, we haven’t done that kind of work.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Dr Bolevich: I think we have provided updates to this committee on previous occasions about the work we’ve done to create some data infrastructure that will enable various types of research to occur. That infrastructure is now largely in place, and we would expect that over time people will undertake various types of analyses using that data and other data that’s available to them. But the institute itself has not undertaken that specific type of research.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re more the constructor of the database and the ability to cross-reference, but it will be up to someone else who wants to do that to do it?
Ms Hermann: Cancer Australia is undertaking a piece of work at the moment, directed by the minister, to look at the impacts of early onset cancer, including looking at lifestyle factors and other factors that may be influencing earlier rates of cancer in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: What about COVID vaccination status?
Ms Hermann: I don’t think that’s included in what they’re looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m surprised, given what’s in the public domain about that. Have you cross-referenced COVID vaccination status with any health outcome and any demographic?
Ms Gates: We have looked at vaccination status in terms of rates and that sort of thing, but, no, we haven’t looked at that in terms of any associations.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m surprised, because of the news that’s travelling around about that, including from many scientists. COVID injections were the most significant health response in Australian history, coming at a significant cost to the taxpayer and involving a significant level of coercion which, in hindsight, was not justified by the risk. The news about AstraZeneca and even the Pfizer shots, and the concerns, came out very early. There’s a widely-held belief that the vaccines caused adverse events, and nothing but denials has come from the government—and not just this government but the previous government as well. If you have nothing to hide, Minister, why are you not doing the research which would confirm or disprove the link between COVID vaccination and adverse events, which would put a lot of people at ease?
Senator Green: The department and the officials have explained to you that there is work being undertaken on a range of research projects that look into trends in health care. Whether or not that’s post COVID-19, there’s a lot of time still to go before we see what that research might be. But the systems are being set up, and I’m sure that if there are any updates they’ll give them to you first and foremost.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s most unlike you, Minister, because it sounds like a lot of fluff. Is your government afraid of confirming that COVID shots cause early onset cancer? To me, people who have got cancer have got that thought in their mind; it’s right through the community. People are worried, and if there is no connection it would be wonderful to take that off their burden. It sounds like, ‘Bugger the people; just get on with the job and keep hiding it.’ Senator Green: I think the most important thing to do is to listen to the experts.
Senator ROBERTS: And common sense and what people in the street are saying.
Senator Green: And the health experts—particularly the health experts.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/bBfq5xjEDQY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 13:43:322026-08-26 13:43:36Avoidance on Rising Breast Cancer Rates
During this session with NDIS officials, I questioned them on their progress in tackling fraud within the scheme.
Here’s an overview of how non-compliance and fraud are being tackled:
👉 29,000 tip-offs received annually, though not all represent actual fraud, with issues ranging from accidental errors to organised crime.
👉 Thousands of Australian Business Numbers are currently placed under manual payment controls and enhanced automated screening.
👉 400 active NDIS investigations are currently being handled by the NDIS Commission and taskforce partners out of 660 total taskforce cases.
👉 25 convictions have been recorded with sentences including up to 6 years in prison. Dozens of more cases are currently in the prosecution phase or awaiting final court sentencing.
Mr Dardo stressed that regulatory oversight relies on a full spectrum of interventions from automated payment blocks to criminal prosecutions to plug integrity leaks effectively.
Every step must be taken to ensure the NDIS remains financially sustainable and accessible for Australians that genuinely depend on it.
Transcript
ACTING CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody. We are on outcome 4, and we will start our questioning with Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. What is the amount forecast to be saved by the proposed cuts to the NDIS program?
Mr Comley: The number in the budget is $37.8 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that for four years?
Mr Comley: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Shouldn’t the priority be to stop wasting money and stop the criminals defrauding the service?
Senator McAllister: We had quite a long conversation about this earlier in the day. To put it briefly, our priority is to stop the criminals defrauding the NDIS. The budget contains very significant investments in the capability of the agency to disrupt fraud, including continuing funding for the Fraud Fusion Taskforce that we’ve spoken about before. The point I was making earlier is that we see some savings to government when we disrupt fraud, but, historically, we’ve seen the vast majority of the money that we identify as going to bad actors returned to people with disability. So, yes, our priority, absolutely, is intervening to stop fraud—non-compliant claiming and other integrity leakage—but whether that is a source of savings to government is a different question.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the answer to that one?
Senator McAllister: The answer is that historically, when we have disrupted providers who are defrauding the NDIS, they are taking money from disabled people. We disrupt it. The money goes back to that person who acquires the services that they need from a legitimate provider. So it’s not a source of savings to government, but it does improve the functioning of the scheme. I’ve said it on many occasions: this scheme has to operate with integrity. Over the period that we have been in government, we have made very substantial investments to lift the capacity of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to make sure that that is so. There is still more to do, and it’s why there is significant investment—further investment in the budget—that we’ve just brought through.
Senator ROBERTS: So rather than cutting services, you’re cutting fraud?
Senator McAllister: The reform package as a whole seeks to make sure that the scheme is sustainable. Minister Butler has talked about stopping runaway cost growth. He has talked about tackling fraud. He’s talking about reshaping markets so that they deliver good value services and quality services to people with disability. The whole package is about making the NDIS stronger and better so it is here for the long term. It’s not a choice between dealing with runaway cost growth or tackling fraud. We actually have to do both.
Senator ROBERTS: Who are the people whose services will be cut then, if it’s not just fraud?
Senator McAllister: I’ll ask officials to talk you through some of our expectations in terms of the approach that we are taking.
Mr Comley: Perhaps the easiest place to draw from is the public disclosure of information and the lines there where it runs through the composition of the reductions across the forward estimates. I also note in reply to your earlier comment, Senator, that that production of documents includes—as does the budget—the savings measure on both a fiscal balance and underlying cash balance basis. I gave you the underlying cash balance. The equivalent number on fiscal balance is $38.1 billion, so they’re both around $38 billion. There are 10 aspects outlined in that production of documents.
Ms Long: That’s correct.
Mr Comley: I’ll hand over to Ms Long.
Ms Long: The reforms cover a range of areas. That includes addressing fraud, compliance and integrity, but it also includes measures around eligibility and participants’ budgets. Would you like me to go across—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please.
Ms Long: As Secretary Comley said, the total impact of the reforms is $38.1 billion over the forward estimates. That can be broken down into a number of components. The first component is around strengthening guidance on what is reasonable and necessary, and that has an impact of $2.9 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that tightening up on who should get it? I’m using that word ‘tightening’ constructively.
Ms Long: It’s around what is considered reasonable and necessary and how that is applied in terms of the determination of budgets.
Mr Comley: To be clear, that measure is for people that are in the scheme, once they’re in the scheme, on what is considered the right level of support. There are other measures Ms Long will come to that go to the question of who should be in the scheme in the first place.
Ms Long: There’s another element around resetting social, community and civic participation and capacity building budgets, which has an impact of $13.2 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?
Ms Long: There are two particular budget categories. The first one is the social, community and civic participation budget. That’s a type of support that is provided. Another type of support is capacity-building daily activities. Those two types of supports, through a ministerial determination, will have budgets reduced. The social and community budgets will be reduced by 50 per cent. The capacity-building daily activity budgets will be reduced by 10 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by community activity? What is the scope of that?
Ms Long: It’s quite a broad support category. It provides supports to participants to go out and engage in the community. It might involve having a support worker take them out to engage in some form of community activity, for example.
Mr Comley: It could be as simple as going to a park, maybe having a walk around or feeding the ducks, or it could be a sporting event. It could be a whole range of things. That’s community participation.
Ms Long: Another element of the reforms is around commissioning plan management and support coordination, which would deliver an improvement of around $1.4 billion over the forward estimates. Also, there has been quite a lot of plan inflation that has been observed, so there are a series of reforms that are aimed at addressing that plan inflation. That includes tightening the criteria around unscheduled reassessment requests and ending plans rolling over and funds being rolled over alongside. The total impact of those reforms is $3.1 billion over the forward estimates. There are also a range of access changes, as Secretary Comley referred to. In particular, in introducing an objective test of substantially reduced functional capacity, that would look to tighten eligibility for the scheme in order to focus that back on significant and permanent disability but also to have a focus on substantially reduced functional capacity rather than disability type. That change would have an impact of $9.3 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s going to tighten and be more specific?
Ms Long: That’s correct. There will need to be a range of consultation and engagement on how that’s applied in terms of the threshold, the definition and how that’s done in practice, but, yes, the intent is to focus in eligibility on significantly reduced functional capacity. To date, access to the scheme has commonly been done through access lists that relate to your disability type. This would mean that we would no longer need to use those access lists and instead eligibility would be focused on a substantial reduction in functional capacity. If you’d like, I could keep going through a number of the other elements of the reform package, if that’s helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: How many more are there?
Ms Long: There are probably a couple more that I could mention if you like. Another one that might be worth highlighting is there’s a measure for mandatory registration for high-risk providers, which is around, obviously, having registration. That would deliver savings of $0.2 billion over the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: High-risk providers?
Ms Long: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you identify high risk?
Ms Long: I might need one of my colleagues to talk to the detail of how that will be applied.
Ms Alisa Chambers: High-risk supports as imagined through the budget is an extension of mandatory registration that we’re moving through at the moment with supported independent living and platform providers, in the new category of advanced registration. Those high-risk supports relate to daily activities—things like catheter care or really intimate personal care—and closed settings, like respite settings, where we see really significant risk to people with disability, particularly people with significant support needs.
Ms Long: Overall, as a result of the reforms, it’s projected that average growth in the NDIS will be 1.7 per cent over the forward estimates and five per cent over the medium term. Five per cent per annum growth for the NDIS is broadly in line with Medicare and aged-care growth rates. It also means that the scheme will remain steady at around 1.6 per cent of GDP over the medium term on the current projections that we have.
Senator ROBERTS: I had a question about how those people whose services will be cut will be identified. It’s basically through tightening up the eligibility criteria, which is something that we’ve been talking about for a while. That’s good to see, Minister.
ACTING CHAIR: You’ve got about another two minutes, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got questions for quality and safeguards. We’ve identified several fraudsters who need to be investigated and moneys chased down. Is this where most effort should be used to seek restitution?
Mr Comley: I think the Quality and Safeguards Commission is dealing more with participant safety. The NDIA and Mr Dardo‘s area are more in the area of fraud and misuse of funds. Mr Dardo might want to comment.
Mr Dardo: Overwhelmingly, our focus is on preventing the money going out in the first place so we can prevent the money leaving the system when it shouldn’t be. The beauty of that is you’re not trying to chase a debt. You’re not trying to chase the money after it’s gone. That’s our overwhelming focus, and we’ve done a really, really good job in identifying problematic providers and stopping the funds leaving before they should. When the money has gone, there are different ways that we might recover it. Raising a debt might be one way. Asking the courts for reparation, like an order to repay, might be another. Another way that we’ve done it is we’ve worked with state or federal policing authorities to seize assets or freeze assets. In one recent case, we froze $5 million in assets and had them confiscated by the Commonwealth. In another case, we’ve frozen $40 million in assets. In a recent case, we’ve frozen another $4½ million to $5 million. It’s really important that we send the message that, even if the money has gone and somebody thinks they’ve gotten away with it, we will actually pursue the assets. There is another avenue that we’ve been using, which is to get the tax office to go after them from a tax perspective and raise taxes and attack the problem from that direction. Overwhelmingly, designing a system to stop the money going out in the first place is our mission, but we do have avenues to try to recover money when it gets to the serious end of fraud.
Ms Wade: Secretary Comley mentioned that the commission’s focus with respect to fraud is firmly on the behaviour of providers in the market. In addressing that, in addition to penalty frameworks for providers, we have the registration scheme, and we’ve strengthened our approach to the registration scheme to ensure that it detects fraud in more sophisticated ways through recent reforms. As those registration groups grow, which we just spoke about, that strengthened response for fraud detection continues to be enhanced as well.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s multipronged.
Ms Wade: Yes, absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask my last question for this bracket. I’ve still got more when we come back. How many cases of fraud are being reported? You said that, if you took them all to court, they’d be clogged.
Mr Dardo: The way we look at it is that it’s about stopping the integrity leakage whether it’s accidental, it’s sharp, it’s malicious or it’s organised crime. We’ve got to stop it all because any one of those vulnerabilities that are open allows money to leak out of the scheme. We get a significant number of tip-offs every year. We get 29,000 tip-offs every year. They are not all fraud. We’ve got to be really careful in assuming. They’re not all fraud. As you go up the spectrum, there are several thousand ABNs that we’ve already got some controls on through manual payment reviews, and we have been building more systems in the last few weeks that are now turning on. We will put a couple thousand more ABNs into those reviews in the next few weeks. Then you go up the spectrum a bit more, where we’ve got Fraud Fusion Taskforce investigations. There are about 660 investigations, but 400 of those related to the NDIS are either with the commission or with us—or both. Then you get to the ones that are in the prosecution phase. There are a few dozen in the prosecution phase, so they’re in front of the courts or we’ve got briefs of evidence with the CDPP to prepare them for the courts. That’s the spectrum. And it’s really important to note that there is no regulatory system in the world that thinks that every single non-compliant thing is going to end up as a prosecution. That is not the way the world works.
Senator ROBERTS: How many convictions have there been?
Mr Dardo: There have been 25 convictions since the Fraud Fusion Taskforce started, and those sentences have resulted, in some cases, in custodial sentences up to six years. There are more cases where there has been a guilty outcome—either pled guilty or found guilty—but they’re awaiting sentencing. We don’t control the dates of the court, so some of those have been sitting there awaiting sentencing for six months or a year. There are cases that are currently scheduled for sentencing in July. They may happen in July; they may happen in December—we don’t know. But there are more cases sitting there right now where they’ve been found guilty awaiting sentencing.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/HFyqGlbiGm0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 11:40:172026-08-26 11:40:21Protecting Every NDIS Dollar
I questioned ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb on how the regulator is standing up for everyday Australians against corporate giants.
I congratulated the ACCC on their major court win against Coles for misleading price discounts. While 14 products were selected by the judge as a sample set, the deceptive conduct ruling applies across more than 200 cases.
A decision on similar allegations against Woolworths is currently reserved in the courts.
Supermarkets are backed by massive global institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, with endless legal resources. The ACCC assured me they are not daunted and point to recent actions against Amazon and Microsoft.
The ACCC highlighted the urgent need for new Unfair Trading Practices laws to crack down on sneaky business tactics that current laws miss, such as subscription traps you can’t cancel and manipulative mobile interfaces.
I thanked Ms Cass-Gottlieb for her concise, upfront, and comprehensive answers.
We need strong, clear enforcement to protect Aussie families and small businesses from predatory corporate conduct.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. I’ll start with the ACCC and the court case against Coles for misleading conduct. Congratulations.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: That was a great result, and one which Coles richly deserved. I note you only listed 14 products in your prosecution when you identified over 200 cases of offering misleading discounts. What was the logic behind that choice?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We took action in relation to the 250. That choice of the 14 was by the judge in order to focus the proceedings on a sample set of products. But the conclusions the judge has reached—which is that 13 of that sample set are misleading and deceptive—and criteria will be applied across the full 250. It was a manner for the judge to more efficiently conduct the proceedings.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. A similar case for Woolies is still before the courts. Is there a timeframe on that case?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The judgement is reserved, and we will await the judge’s decision.
Senator ROBERTS: These supermarkets have corporations on their share register with trillions in funds invested: BlackRock, Vanguard, First State, State Street et cetera. They’re able to muster huge legal resources for Coles and Woolies. Are you appropriately resourced to conduct these cases for maximum benefit? I mean, you had a victory.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Firstly, we prioritise the matters that are most significant in terms of consumer harm—cost of living and aspects of that nature—and cost of doing business. We are well aware in the case of this sector that we need to look not only at consumers but at suppliers, including Australian farmers. So we do prioritise. In addition, in the last budget we received a $67 million uplift specifically to assist with enforcement in both competition matters and consumer protection matters, recognising the importance of setting clear standards and having clear guidance across the business community on the way in which the law applies.
Senator ROBERTS: So there are many factors involved in which cases you take on. Ms
Cass-Gottlieb: There are. We have to take account of a range of factors in order to determine where we can give most benefit to the public through our strong enforcement program.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re not daunted by the deep pockets of BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street? They own controlling interests in many Australian brands.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: No, we are not daunted. You will have seen other litigation that we commenced in the past year, including on allegations relating to Microsoft’s conduct with the rollout of integration of Copilot in the Microsoft 365 program, and only a week ago we commenced action against Amazon in relation to its online marketplace sales of products that we allege are unsafe. We are confident and dedicated to take action where it’s most important for the public benefit, and that includes against very major domestic and global companies.
Senator ROBERTS: These fines being awarded go into consolidated revenue. You don’t get to keep the money in your budget. Is that correct?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you get to deduct your costs in the prosecution before handing over the proceeds?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Not—
Senator ROBERTS: Would that incentivise you to—
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: If we win, we will recover our costs from the other side. But, if we don’t, we will also pay their costs.
Senator ROBERTS: Your February 2026 opening statement contained this passage: The ACCC continues to observe concerning business conduct that, while not necessarily breaching current consumer laws, nevertheless causes significant harm to consumers and small businesses … Can you expand on that comment, please.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: This was particularly reflecting the importance of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill that has passed the lower house and is before a committee in the Senate currently. The importance of that bill is that there is some conduct for which at this time we consider there is not sufficient coverage under the Australian Consumer Law to protect consumers or to protect small businesses. It includes conduct that is not expressly misleading and deceptive or expressly unconscionable as that has been interpreted. It is important to introduce the amendment that this bill will bring, which is to create a general principle prohibition upon unfair trading practices. The sorts of ones we have considered, which are the ones we were thinking about there, are, say, when an interface on a mobile phone is nudging you to make a purchase or confusing you with a significant amount of information which means you can’t focus on what really matters to you or a subscription that you find practically impossible to cancel. These sorts of examples need amendment to be covered by our law. This bill which the government has introduced is very important, and we welcome it and are looking forward to its passage so that we can then conduct investigations and move through a compliance and enforcement program with it.
Senator ROBERTS: That completes my questioning for the ACCC. I want to comment and put on the record that I appreciate Ms Cass-Gottlieb’s succinctness and comprehensiveness. It’s very clear; it’s wonderful.
During Senate Estimates, I questioned the Minister and Department about the long-overdue review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Comcare).
The report, delivered back in September 2025 with 124 recommendations, made one thing crystal clear: the 36-year-old Act is so outdated that there is “no option but to redraft the current legislation.”
Yet, months later, the Minister’s repeated answer to crucial questions on implementation, return-to-work duties, and preventing psychological harm caused by claims management was simply: “The government is considering the report.”
We are still months away from even seeing an exposure draft. Bureaucracy cannot drag its feet when injured workers are paying the price.
Safety shouldn’t be a compliance box. It’s a moral and strategic imperative.
I also spoke with Comcare about workplace health and safety. Cutting corners doesn’t create a competitive edge. It leads to tragedy, ruined lives, massive penalties, and destroyed businesses.
I shared a definition of safety I developed 30 years ago: “Safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage, and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss.”
True safety requires accountability at every level, especially from the top. A safe, highly engaged workforce isn’t just the right thing to do morally, it builds a stronger, more productive nation.
I’ll keep pushing to ensure our workplace laws are reformed quickly and effectively.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I thank the witnesses for appearing. Minister, a comprehensive review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has a date of September 2025. The review says: ‘Change is urgent. It is now time to deliver long overdue reform.’ On what date did you receive the final SRC Act review, and on what date were you first briefed?
Senator Walsh: The review was released publicly in December 2025. Is that enough information for you at this point?
Senator ROBERTS: When did you first receive the final copy?
Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Mr Duggan: I can help there. The final report was delivered to government on 25 September 2025.
Senator ROBERTS: What day were you first briefed, Minister?
Senator Walsh: I am the minister representing Minister Rishworth, so the secretary may be able to assist.
Mr Duggan: I’ll need to take the precise date on notice, but I imagine it would have been within a very short period of 25 September.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could put it on notice, please.
Mr Duggan: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the minister decided to accept the review in full or in part?
Senator Walsh: The government released the report in December, and the government is considering the recommendations and findings of the report.
Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to the question, ‘Do you have an implementation plan?’ would be no, not yet?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.
Senator ROBERTS: What about a recommendation-by-recommendation response table? Have you got one of those?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you approved further consultation?
Senator Walsh: There is work going on around the report. The secretary spoke to that earlier and can speak to that again.
Mr Duggan: We undertook some target consultations in March through April of this year. The intent is to consult further in the second half of this year to inform the response to what was a very comprehensive report with 124 recommendations. It’s a complicated area so, as you can imagine, we want to make sure that we do that work thoroughly before we provide advice to government on its response.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Secretary. Do you have opening and closing dates for consultation?
Mr Duggan: Do you mean for the consultation that has occurred, or the consultation that is to occur?
Senator ROBERTS: The consultation that will occur.
Mr Duggan: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will it include an exposure draft bill or clauses? If not, what exactly is being consulted?
Mr Duggan: We are a couple of steps away from being at the point of an exposure draft of legislation. So at this stage we are consulting for the purposes of informing our advice to government on the policy and programmatic design. That would include advice on any changes required to legislation. Following on from that, the process would be legislative drafting instructions and an exposure draft, et cetera. We’re several steps away, so I can’t give you a definitive answer to that question.
Senator ROBERTS: So the consultation is to develop the legislation changes, if any?
Mr Duggan: If any, that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The review explicitly says the extent of changes means, ‘no option but to redraft the current legislation.’
Mr Duggan: Yes, I am aware of that. So as we work through the 124 recommendations and our advice to government, were we to reach the same conclusion, then a legislative package would accompany our advice.
Senator ROBERTS: What time frames are you looking at—I know it’s early days—for redrafting and introduction of the legislation?
Mr Duggan: I gave evidence earlier that we are working through this. Again, there is a lot to work through, but we are working through it through the second half of this year with the intent of being in a position to provide comprehensive advice to government before the end of the year. Questions of the timing of introduction of any legislation, and the timing of any announcements around the way the scheme would work in the future, are questions for government and not something that the government has made a statement on at this point.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the single biggest issue holding things up?
Mr Duggan: I don’t think there is a single biggest issue. I referred to 124 recommendations in a very complicated area, the need to work through that rigorously and to consult broadly to make sure that we get right our advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you accept the review’s principle that the scheme must cause no harm, and that harm caused by interacting with the scheme should be prevented or reduced?
Senator Walsh: The work of the Comcare scheme is about assisting people. There should be no harm in relation to the scheme. In relation to all of this work, we commissioned the review. The review covers a whole range of issues around governance and usability and entitlements. We want the scheme to be focused on the people who need assistance through it, and that was the focus of the review. I repeat that the government is considering the recommendations. The secretary has laid out a time line for the department to consult around the recommendations. The act is almost 40 years old—
Senator ROBERTS: and complex.
Senator Walsh: and there hasn’t been substantial reform of it, so this review is comprehensive. There are, as the secretary has said, 124 recommendations. The department is working to consult on those recommendations and provide advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will you implement the review’s position that step-downs—lighter duties— should not apply where the employer has refused or been unable to provide suitable duties?
Senator Walsh: In relation to any recommendations of the review, the government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you legislate enforceable employer return-to-work duties, including the duty to provide suitable work, with consequences for noncompliance?
Senator Walsh: All answers around the review and review recommendations are that the government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: The review notes that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes. Do you accept that poor claims management can cause or worsen psychological harm?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I knew these things 40 years ago. There’s no gotcha in this one; all right? I just want to reassure our constituents, because we’ve had constituents come to us with problems. Surely you can acknowledge that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes.
Senator Walsh: As I said, in establishing the review, the government wanted to make sure that the scheme is centred on the people that it is there to assist and that it is fit for purpose to be focused on the people that it’s there to assist. You said you’ve been focused on this issue for a number of years. The act is 36 years old. It hasn’t been reformed. There are a lot of recommendations. The secretary has outlined the process which the department is following to assess the recommendations. We’ll provide advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: I know that 40 years ago we learned that selected duties or light duties—whatever you want to call them; I prefer ‘selected duties’—can be highly significant in getting people back to work, fully back to work, and getting them back to work quickly. That’s better for their mental health and their physical recovery at times. That’s why I’m interested in that. Will you implement or consider, or do you recognise, the review’s approach of trauma informed claims management, enforceable service standards and public reporting?
Senator Walsh: You’re asking me these questions, Senator, as you are entitled to do—
Senator ROBERTS: From our constituents. Senator Walsh: I welcome your questions. I’m just wondering whether some of them may relate to current practices of Comcare and whether Comcare would like to assist in some of the answers about how you approach these issues, if you’re happy with that, Senator.
Mr Radford: I’ll ask Mr Vivian-Taylor from our claims division to join us at the table, if that’s all right, Minister.
Senator Walsh: Yes.
Mr Vivian-Taylor: We do some trauma informed training for our claims managers. That’s what we do in claims management at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve finished my questions of the minister. Mr Radford, you were talking about Cleanaway with Senator Dolega. In my experience—and I use this strategically—safety has moral benefits. Safety has personal responsibilities and personal benefits. It also has economic benefits. What is the level of understanding in industry generally, and within Comcare, that safety can be used to improve a business—not just the moral, personal and safety benefits but the economic and business benefits?
Mr Radford: I agree with your proposition, Senator. I can’t speak for industry, in terms of the level of industry knowledge, but certainly at Comcare we are of the view that safer workplaces, by and large, are more productive workplaces. You have a more engaged workforce—
Senator ROBERTS: Lower turnover.
Mr Radford: Lower turnover, higher retention. We, as the regulator, focus very heavily on the human cost of unsafe workplaces, as you would expect. There is no doubt that safe, fulfilling work is a huge benefit to workers. As you mentioned earlier, it has a significant, positive impact on their mental health. It also has a very positive impact, as I mentioned earlier, on productivity. From my engagement with industry, in both this role and previous roles in this space, I know that the vast majority of employers want other employers to do the right thing, because employers that cut corners on health and safety are probably also cutting corners in other areas in terms of their regulatory responsibilities. The majority of employers want to know that someone is not getting an unfair or competitive advantage by essentially not adhering to their responsibilities under workplace health and safety laws. As I said, I can’t speak specifically for industry, but from my engagement with industry and industry leaders and industry representative groups, by and large, they want everyone to do the right thing so that it is a fair and even playing field. It obviously supports the economy.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to pick you up on something you said there—that people who take shortcuts on safety have an economic advantage. That’s what you’re implying—
Mr Radford: No, I said—
Senator ROBERTS: I believe it’s wrong.
Mr Radford: No. People can think that, if they take shortcuts, they can get a profit gain.
Senator ROBERTS: They think that, but they don’t, because they end up hurting the business.
Mr Radford: They end up hurting the business. As I said in evidence—I think prior to you joining, Senator— we certainly take the view that no profit or productivity improvement is worth the price of a human life. I think the majority of employers also think that way, but, unfortunately, there are those who think they can cut corners. The Cleanaway matter was resolved last week, on top of the very significant human cost of two people losing their lives and two people being seriously injured. Cleanaway has now been fined $1.1 million as a result of its failure in the training of the truck driver involved. That should send a very clear message that cutting corners has human consequences. It also has economic consequences for any company that thinks it can get away with it.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps, if Cleanaway had been more enlightened in its management, it wouldn’t have had the fatalities and it would have had a better bottom line.
Mr Radford: I can’t speak to their balance sheet, but in my experience no good ever comes from a serious injury or a fatality in the workplace.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s taken for granted. What I’m getting at is that just improving safety can be a strategic advantage, leading to reducing costs, increasing productivity and increasing profitability.
Mr Radford: Yes. I agree.
Senator ROBERTS: To what extent do people in the industry accept that? Is it still limited?
Mr Radford: As I said, I can’t speak for industry. Certainly, a large part of Comcare’s role is to educate industry and the economy more broadly about the benefits of safe work and the benefits of having a highly engaged, safe workforce, whether that’s physical safety or psychological safety. The more engaged your workforce is, the safer your workforce is and the higher your productivity is likely to be.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you make a comment on this. This is a definition of safety that I developed 30 or 40 years ago: safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss. Do you agree?
Mr Radford: I would agree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s about accountability all the way throughout an organisation.
Mr Radford: Through the whole supply chain, through all of the activity. I agree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Everyone’s responsible for safety, but the senior people have the ultimate responsibility.
Mr Radford: Yes. Under our legislation and the work health and safety laws right across Australia, everyone does have responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe workplace. But ultimately the responsibility at the highest level rests with those who have control of that workplace, and the workplace is controlled by the managers and the leaders of that enterprise.
Whistleblowers deserve protection not punishment when they expose major safety breaches.
I questioned ASIC in Senate Estimates about Roxanne Mysko, a brave whistleblower and former Compliance, Health and Safety Manager at transport company ECS.
Despite following whistleblower protocol to the letter when reporting serious, systemic safety failures, including zero safety audits conducted from 2007 to 2020, Ms Mysko faced severe retribution. Instead of stepping up to investigate fatigue-related risks and enforce the law, ASIC simply kicked the can back to the regulator, leaving workers and the public at risk.
I asked ASIC why they have failed to protect her and hold these corporations accountable. Instead of answering this question, they hid behind process, promising to address the matter in a private briefing.
To top it off, investors left out in the cold by the Lyon Property Group collapse are being denied access to administrative compensation schemes, with ASIC trying to pass the buck off to the Department of Finance.
I won’t let regulatory bodies off the hook for failing the people they are supposed to protect.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here. Ms Roxanne Mysko is a whistleblower who has not been protected by whistleblower legislation as she should have been. She was the compliance, health and safety manager for ECS Project Logistics, a major transport company. On 16 June 2020, she reported significant safety breaches in that company to SafeWork SA. She also reported to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and to Senator Glenn Sterle that ECS had done no safety audits from 2007 to 2020, and had no safety system as of February 2020—this was fully evidenced. ECS worked for Santos. Despite this, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator did not investigate the raised issues of fatigue and lack of safety audits. ASIC were notified in February 2022; ASIC simply referred the issue back to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, where nothing further has been done and the risks continue regarding limited attention to fatigue related deaths, systemic regulatory failures and domestic heavy vehicle safety. Ms Mysko followed whistleblower protocol to the letter and has been on the receiving end of significant retribution for her disclosures as a whistleblower. Evidence shows ECS was contracted to Santos, Ensign Energy and Easternwell. Why has ASIC shown zero statutory duty to uphold the whistleblower safety act and laws? Are you aware that these are very serious criminal offences and involve risking the lives of workers and public safety at extreme levels?
Ms Court: Thank you, Senator Roberts, and good morning. I know you have raised this issue with us previously, so thank you for your question. Since we last met, I have some more information in relation to the matters that you raised. The difficulty I have is that we’re unable to give evidence about whistleblower interactions in a public forum. So I’m in a bit of a bind.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a private briefing?
Ms Court: Of course, Senator, we’d be very happy to give you a briefing. I am aware that the issues you’ve raised date back, I think, to 2022, as you said in your question. I can certainly assure you that these issues were looked at carefully and in a considered way. But, if you’re comfortable with that, it would be preferable for us to have a briefing and let you know about this—to the extent, again, that we can by law. I’ll have to get some advice on that but, certainly, we’ll be as open as we can.
Senator ROBERTS: We prefer to get issues fixed for a constituent rather than to put on a show, so I’m happy to get a briefing.
Ms Court: Thank you Senator, that’s good of you. We will take you up on that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask some more questions, but just tell me if they’re appropriate or not. Why has ASIC not protected Ms Roxanne Mysko since the amended whistleblower act commenced on 1 January 2020?
Ms Court: Again, I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why has ASIC not prosecuted the CEOs of Santos, Ensign Energy, Easternwell and ECS for violence towards the safety manager and for whistleblower retaliation over the years?
Ms Court: And again Senator, I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Who is responsible for the statutory duty to be upheld for whistleblower protection inside ASIC? Why has ASIC failed to protect a whistleblower when, in this case, Roxanne Mysko reported the issues to Senator Glenn Sterle—who’s a good friend of mine—when he was undertaking a Senate inquiry into how dangerous the heavy vehicle transport sector is?
Ms Court: I can answer one part of that question, if that would be of assistance? We take whistleblowing complaints very seriously. There are legal rights and protections for eligible whistleblowers, and there are some statutory criteria that whistleblowers need to come within in order to get statutory protection. Those protections have been strengthened since about the middle of 2019. We have, internally, established the Office of the Whistleblower. So, in terms of your question as to what happens to a whistleblower request when it comes in, we have a specialist team that is experienced in dealing with whistleblowers and in making sure that ASIC applies the statutory obligations that we have in relation to whistleblowers properly. The issues that you have raised would have been dealt with through that Office of the Whistleblower and, as I said, we’re very happy to talk to you and give you a briefing on what we can and can’t do.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve looked at the remaining four questions on this topic, and we’ll cover them in the briefing.
Ms Court: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Investors in the Lion Property Group are currently being denied access to the administrative remedy under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme—the CDDA—by ASIC. They’ve been told that the Commonwealth is unable to process ASIC related Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme claims. I have quite extensive questions to submit on notice, but I wish to ask now why the government is unable to proceed with the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme claims in these circumstances?
Ms Court: I don’t know if you were in the room, but Senator Bragg raised a similar issue with me earlier. There are complications about the application of the CDDA to ASIC. Just in that regard, I might have to correct the answers I gave to Senator Bragg earlier—I think I said that the CDDA did apply, but it was just that ASIC didn’t administer it. I understand now that it actually may not apply. We are very familiar with, and concerned for, the various investors that have lost money in Lion Property; I understand that has been a very significant issue. But, in relation to the CDDA, it’s not clear that it does apply to ASIC. In any event, those complaints are not dealt with by ASIC—as would be appropriate, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: Who deals with them?
Ms Court: The Department of Finance would deal with them if they applied. Is that right? I’ll hand over to Mr Gregson.
Mr Gregson: That’s right. The relevant department for those inquiries is the Department of Finance.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you sure about that?
Mr Gregson: That’s my understanding—that would be the prime body.
Australians are being ripped off, while big corporations profits hit record highs. The reason? Excessive market concentration.
In sectors like banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance, four major players control over 70% of the market. In fact, 7% of Australian industries have market concentration over 80%, compared to just 1% in the US!
Take our four major banks for example. They offer identical products, use identical strategies and share the exact same major institutional shareholders like BlackRock and Vanguard.
We don’t have four distinct banks in Australia; we have one massive monopoly hiding behind four different logos.
When crony capitalism replaces genuine free enterprise, it’s Australians that pay the price.
The bureaucrats and the Government can offer all the excuses and buzzwords they want.
One Nation will never stop fighting to break up these monopolies and put money back in your pocket.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my first attendance in this session with the National Competition Council. My question is inspired by a common theme in many calls to my electorate office noting that we have an apparatus of government that’s designed to ensure free enterprise competition sets market pricing rather than crony capitalism and yet prices seem to be out of control for many people and corporate profits are at record highs. The perfectly legitimate conclusion is that something is broken, and the attention must fall on the National Competition Council. It’s your task to ensure competition, isn’t it?
Mr Bezzi: Thanks for the question. We have a range of responsibilities under the Competition and Consumer Act. They include the promotion of competition but within the context of national competition policy and within the context of specific research projects that we’re given. So, for example, we’re dealing with a research project at the moment which will help tradespeople and people in other occupations operate across state borders. That’s an important aspect of promoting labour mobility within the economy. We are also working to support states and territories that have identified a range of areas of regulatory reform which will help promote competition. I’ll see if my colleague Mr Biesaga wants to add anything to the answer.
Mr Biesaga: I’d like to add that, with the intergovernmental agreement being put into place in November 2024 along with the respective federation funding agreement, we are at the early stages of getting national competition policy and standing that back up. Over the past number of years, the NCC was mainly responsible for the National Access Regime, and we are now in a phase of gearing up to be able to be more active in backing the National Competition Policy space.
Senator ROBERTS: The internationally used measure of concentration of market power is called CR4. It simply shows how much market share the top four companies have within a specific market. A high—above 60 per cent—CR4 suggests the market could be classified as an oligopoly with limited competition. In an oligopoly, profits are high because the entrants work together to rip off their consumers, who all lose. Can we agree a CR4 is too high in any industry?
Mr Bezzi: As I mentioned, our role is to promote competition. The Treasurer has identified that, in many areas of our economy, sectors are significantly concentrated and more concentrated than would be preferred. There are a number of reforms that the parliament and the government have engaged in in recent years that have sought to address this issue. One of them is the development of the National Competition Policy. Another is—and this is something that the Treasury worked closely with the ACCC on—the reformed merger control provisions. Those provisions were explicitly targeted at giving the ACCC the capacity to tackle market concentration in sectors where it had grown too strong. I hope that response assists you.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go on to some specific examples. An example of what goes wrong in an oligopoly is in our supermarket sector right now, where the ACCC has prosecuted Coles and Woolies for false and misleading advertising, increasing retail prices—which is inflation—and increasing corporate profits. These facts were proven by the court judgement against Coles. Does this mean the National Competition Council has failed to ensure free market competition in the supermarket sector, or are you just winding up to do that?
Mr Bezzi: We share responsibility for promoting competition with the ACCC. As you pointed out, the ACCC has done an excellent job prosecuting that particular case and has a mandate to enforce the competition law. That’s a very important task in concentrated markets like supermarkets. They’ve also been given specific power to deal with mergers in the supermarket context. Ms Cass-Gottlieb is probably best addressed to discuss how those powers are being used, but our mandate at the NCC is about promoting the National Competition Policy. Over time, we’re hoping that that will assist to create a more dynamic, more competitive economy.
Senator ROBERTS: In Australia, many sectors of the economy have a CR4 concentration of market power above 70 per cent, including banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance. These are industries which directly affect the cost of living for millions of everyday Australians. How did Australia get to this position, and when are you going to target these inflation-critical industries to restore free enterprise and competition and shift market power back to consumers?
Mr Bezzi: I’m not going to speak for the ACCC, but I can say that, over many years, the merger control provisions perhaps did not give the ACCC the capacity to deal with growing [inaudible] in the way that it should have been able to. That was certainly pointed out in the debate on merger reform, and I think that parliamentarians were convinced that that was the case. I’m not sure whether Ms Cass-Gottlieb wishes to comment further, but these things happen over a long period, and they’re largely a result of historical legislative and regulatory settings that enable developments such as concentrated markets to occur.
Senator ROBERTS: What options are available to you, and what are you considering?
Mr Bezzi: It’s not the role of the National Competition Council to engage in enforcement action. That’s the role of the ACCC, our responsibility—
Senator ROBERTS: What options can you give the ACCC?
Mr Bezzi: Well, they’ve got a range of options that they can speak to, including significant enforcement powers under the Competition and Consumer Act. They’ve also got significantly enhanced merger powers. That’s something that probably should be addressed to them.
Senator ROBERTS: Just checking, I thought you implied that we haven’t been doing our job in Australia in banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance and that you’re now looking at addressing that. What options can you address it with?
Mr Bezzi: Parliament has sought to address the concentration problem through the merger reform process.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any others?
Mr Bezzi: There’re stronger enforcement powers that the ACCC has in relation to misuse of market power. As I said, enforcement isn’t really territory for the National Competition Policy. We’re also looking at supporting the process of National Competition Policy. Where there are states and territories that have come together and agreed over packages for reform, we support those reforms by recommending to the government that payments be made to states and territories to incentivise that reform process. Those payments will be made from the $900 million productivity fund that the government has established, and over time that should help to make the economy more dynamic and more competitive. There are a range of things that are being done.
CHAIR: I need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I just ask two questions?
CHAIR: If they’re very quick.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Australian industries are more concentrated than in the US, with seven per cent of Australian industries having a CR of more than 80 per cent, as against one per cent of industries in the US. Revenue of Australia’s top 100 listed companies as percentage of GDP rose from 27 per cent in 1993 to 47 per cent in 2015, almost 50 per cent. The source of that is the ACCC. This is not a new trend; it’s been going on for years. Minister, your government, your department and your National Competition Council are responsible. Seriously, the Liberals are paid by their donors to look the other way. What’s your excuse? You’re concentrating the market.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t think you’ll find a government who’s done more than we have to address competition across the economy. Seriously, go back and have a look. Yes, there’s always more work to be done, but a combination of the reforms that have already passed the parliament, the powers that we’ve given to the ACCC and their ability to enforce the laws that the parliament has played is making a real difference.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware the four major retail banks have similar strategies, similar products, similar services? Their products are the same.
Senator Gallagher: I think those issues have been well understood and well canvassed.
Senator ROBERTS: They’ve each got a controlling interest in them by BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State. We haven’t really got four major banks; we’ve got one major bank hiding behind four logos. The banks have got far too much power.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, are you finished with your question?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you want to make a comment?
Senator Gallagher: My answer is that there is a continued focus in this area. We have assistant minister Dr Leigh working with the Treasurer in this area. There was a lot of effort going into it in our first time term, and it continues in this term.
During my second session with AHPRA, I asked their representatives about their neutrality, bureaucratic overreach and entanglement with radical ideological and political advocacy groups.
When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on whether AHPRA caseworkers even possess the basic competence to distinguish between a psychoanalytic view of psychosis and a genuine psychotic disorder, or whether they’re weaponising ignorance to take unwarranted action against doctors, he could not provide an answer and took it on notice.
More importantly, I am extremely concerned about AHPRA’s institutional alignment with politicised organisations such as ACON and its Pride in Diversity program, including their active membership and participation in the Australian Workplace Equality Index.
Despite admitting that no formal assessment has ever been conducted to evaluate whether these ideological partnerships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest, Mr Untersteiner hid behind procedural bureaucracy and evasive talking points.
When asked how AHPRA can possibly claim to be an independent, unbiased regulator while paying to participate in programs designed to push progressive inclusion agendas, they dodged my questions, basically admitting they have no defence for the exorbitant legal costs hardworking Australian doctors face when forced to defend themselves against unaccountable regulators.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to skip a lot of my questions, Mr Untersteiner, and go straight to general questions. Would an AHPRA caseworker understand if a doctor were referring to a psychoanalytic view of psychosis rather than a psychotic disorder?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If they don’t understand, are they in a position to take action against such a doctor?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Given Ahpra’s affiliation with the Rainbow Tick scheme and ACON, a high-profile gender identity organisation, how can a doctor be sure that AHPRA is neutral and not biased against them?
Mr Untersteiner: I go back to an earlier point that I made, which is that we regulate one million health practitioners, and those one million health practitioners will see many millions of Australians as well. We have a paramount responsibility of public protection within the legislation. In order for us to fulfil that duty, we need to be engaging with all sorts of communities to understand their experiences in the health system and to understand their experiences with the regulator as well, and so we meet with many different organisations, including Australian Disability Network, for instance, Diversity Council Australia and many, many others. I could go on. We also work with Pride in Diversity for the exact same reason.
Senator ROBERTS: Can AHPRA confirm all formal and informal relationships it maintains with ACON and its programs, including Pride in Diversity.
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is AHPRA currently a member of Pride in Diversity or participating in the Australian Workplace Equality Index?
Mr Untersteiner: We do have a membership with Pride in Diversity.
Senator ROBERTS: At what cost, and when did you join?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What due diligence was undertaken before entering into these relationships, particularly given ACON’s explicit advocacy role on gender identity policy?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest in its regulatory functions?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m confident that they aren’t creating any kind of conflict. Again, as I mentioned, we use a range of different partnerships and memberships to ensure that we’re hearing different voices from the community. At the end of the day, our regulatory role is founded in the legislation and in the codes of conduct. Again, I’m very comfortable that we fulfil that duty without a conflict of interest.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts?
Mr Untersteiner: No formal assessment.
Senator ROBERTS: How does AHPRA reconcile its statutory obligation to act as an independent regulator with participation in programs designed to influence institutional behaviour toward progressive inclusion strategies?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I think I’ve answered that.
Senator ROBERTS: Not specifically.
Mr Untersteiner: Again, we apply legislation and codes of conduct in our investigations. To go further, ultimate decisions are made by professional boards under the legislation. Members of the professional boards are not employees of AHPRA. They are statutory appointees appointed by every state and territory health minister and the federal health minister, so they are independent of AHPRA in that sense. Again, there is an arm’s-length arrangement in decision-making. Beyond that, there is a right of appeal through to tribunals and even the higher courts. Again, there is a very robust regulatory and legislative framework that ensures that there isn’t a conflict of interest that occurs as a result of us listening to different members of the community to understand their experiences.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what it costs to go to court?
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to have to rotate the call. This is your last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA received advice, internal or external, on whether alignment with advocacy organisations risks regulatory capture or bias?
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you Mr Untersteiner.
I questioned representatives from AHPRA regarding their heavy-handed and unjustified actions against Dr Amos, an academic psychiatrist from North Queensland.
On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia slapped immediate restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, banning him from patient contact and social media commentary on gender.
This move was triggered by just four complaints (three were anonymous and none were from patients) concerning three X posts — one questioning whether trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis and another using biological pronouns during an exchange.
When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on what specific parts of those posts allegedly posed a “serious risk to public health and safety” to justify an immediate action order, he hid behind confidentiality provisions and refused to discuss individual cases. Even with support from Senator Henderson challenging their secrecy, the agency repeatedly dodged direct questions.
When I asked Dr Orchard whether a health practitioner has the right to refer to biological sex, or if doing so constitutes discrimination, they hid behind vague codes of conduct and social media guidelines instead of giving a straight answer.
AHPRA claims they only intervene when debate crosses into hate or discrimination, yet they couldn’t provide a clear set of guidelines defining what they actually consider “misinformation.”
I questioned their process of issuing severe penalties before facts are even established or investigations conducted, ultimately destroying doctors’ careers over anonymous complaints and standard public commentary.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have Ahpra please? Thank you all for being here. Dr Amos is an academic psychiatrist based in North Queensland. His academic work includes numerous published journal articles and conference presentations on gender medicine. On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia placed restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, preventing him from having direct or indirect contact with patients and banning him from posting on social media on the topic of gender. This was in response to four complaints about three X posts. Three of the complaints were anonymous. It’s important to note that there was no patient complaint. He had posted that ‘there is no reliable evidence that trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis.’
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, given that it is almost 10.30 and we’ve had all of these questions from senator Henderson—
Senator ROBERTS: No, we haven’t had these questions.
ACTING CHAIR: I think you’re going to get a similar response.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had this topic but not this question. Another complaint was that, in a post exchange, Dr Amos used biological pronouns and thereby was accused of misgendering a UK trans activist. The immediate action order used by Ahpra against Dr Amos is meant to be reserved, as I understand it, for when there is a reasonable belief that a health practitioner poses a serious risk to public health and safety. What specific elements of those posts did the board determine posed a serious risk to public health and safety under the socalled national law?
Mr Untersteiner: As the chair has highlighted, I’ve answered this question numerous times. My response will remain. I can’t comment on individual cases, because we have very clear confidentiality provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Does a health practitioner have the right to refer—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just one moment. I hope it is a point of order, Senator Henderson, and not commentary.
Senator HENDERSON: No, of course not. This is just a point of order in relation to advice that I’ve just received through the secretariat. If the information is public, there’s no basis not to answer these questions. We’ve checked the advice with the chair. So I would just challenge—
ACTING CHAIR: You haven’t checked the advice with the chair.
Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, I meant with the secretary. Apologies. I’m just saying through the chair that I don’t think it’s appropriate that you decline to answer these questions. It’s not consistent with the rules of the Senate insofar as—
Mr Untersteiner: Sorry, to confirm—
ACTING CHAIR: I think this is an interpretation issue. The information that that you have is not necessarily the stuff that is printed in whatever publication it is that has been quoted. There is a big difference in reporting from wherever you got it and the agencies actually providing you with their detailed private information that is protecting other people’s privacy. But I’m happy for Mr Untersteiner to take that on notice and provide the rationale and the breakdown. Perhaps you, Senator Henderson, could provide the information that you were reading from previously in terms of your—
Senator HENDERSON: I’ve tabled that, Chair. That’s been tabled.
ACTING CHAIR: Right. I still haven’t seen it. Nobody’s given it to me, I’m afraid.
Senator HENDERSON: Please speak to the secretary. Please don’t—
Senator Roberts interjecting—
ACTING CHAIR: I’ll just finish. I believe you’ve been asking the Clerk about a public interest immunity claim, and we can go to that point at that time. But let’s just take it on notice and come back with the rationale and the understanding, and then Senator Henderson and Senator Roberts can go through that and determine what steps they might like to take next.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate Senator Henderson interjecting, but the ultimate umpire is the TV camera—the people watching this at home, the Australians. Does a health practitioner, Mr Untersteiner, have the right to refer to a trans person’s biological sex?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m struggling a little bit with that question in regard to our role as the regulator. I don’t know—
Senator ROBERTS: Is it discrimination for a health practitioner to refer to a person’s biological sex? Is it discrimination?
Dr Orchard: I understand your question to be: is there an issue with a practitioner making public reference to someone’s gender or sex?
Senator ROBERTS: To refer to a person’s biological sex.
Dr Orchard: Generally, in respect of public comments by practitioners, you’ve heard earlier the discussion around the right of free speech and the fact that Ahpra and the boards are committed to those ideals, but there are limits to free speech and how people express themselves—
Senator ROBERTS: So a doctor talking about biological sex is going against free speech?
Dr Orchard: What I was going to say is that the codes of conduct and the social media guides that are published by boards set out quite clearly the expectations of practitioners when they are making public comments. They should make comments that are respectful and that rely on the best available information and so on—
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.
Dr Orchard: I beg your pardon?
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, it’s not appropriate to get personal with the witnesses. Please have some respect.
Senator ROBERTS: How can a doctor fulfil their ethical obligation to inform the public of potential harms of gender interventions and gender ideology without being accused of discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people?
Mr Untersteiner: I’ve answered this question several times. As a regulator, we think health practitioners have a right to have public debate about a range of different issues, which include, again, gender-affirming treatment, gender blockers and other like treatments. We would not be taking regulatory action on that basis. Again, I think I’ve got to be very careful here about selective media and about using that as the basis.
Senator ROBERTS: What specifically would Ahpra consider to be misinformation in a post? If you can’t speak to that now, take it on notice.
Mr Untersteiner: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: How do Ahpra staff acquire the capacity to know what is true or false information in this highly contested area? How do you know?
Mr Untersteiner: We rely on the existing clinical guidelines, but we also will look at the specific facts of the case, the specific facts of what was said and what context that was said in. Again, I want to be clear here that we will intervene where this goes beyond a debate about clinical pathways and treatments and moves into a place of hate or discrimination against individuals or groups. Again, I see firsthand the harm that discrimination and hate cause the community. I see vulnerable people in all walks of life in this country who fear seeking help because individuals go beyond debating appropriate clinical pathways or advice and move into very clear discrimination.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me specifically, please, a set of guidelines of what would be deemed by Ahpra to be misinformation in a post.
Mr Untersteiner: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t think I can answer that question.
ACTING CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re breaking careers on it. The Medical Board of Australia’s immediate action orders are implemented before the facts are established and before an investigation occurs. Is it reasonable to destroy a doctor’s career for three social media posts without conducting an investigation—three anonymous complaints, no patient complaints?
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’re working on a limited basis there.
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’d just say I don’t agree with your characterisation there. There’s a lot more information that won’t be public and isn’t appropriate for me to talk about. I’ve got legal obligations that I must meet—
I questioned Commissioner Kiss, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission regarding her comments warning against right-wing parties following the One Nation win in Farrer. She said that she did not recall making any such statements. 🤔
Moving on, I directed my questioning toward the “Aboriginal industry,” raising concerns that allocated funds are being consumed by middlemen, bureaucrats and activists rather than reaching impoverished Indigenous Australians.
Following interventions from the Chair, I asked about crime statistics and accountability within communities.
I then pressed the issue with the Minister representing the Government on the effectiveness of their spending and closing the gap.
As for an acceptable answer- crickets 🦗🦗🦗
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Kiss. You recently made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties. Apparently that was after the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election. Is that correct?
Ms Kiss: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: After the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election, you made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties.
Ms Kiss: I don’t recall using that language at all. Can you clarify what you’re talking about?
Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s all I’ve got here. What benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would such a statement bring?
Ms Kiss: Again, I’m not clear what you’re referring to. So, if you could, give me some clarity around where I might have used that language. I don’t recall using that language.
Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t use it?
Ms Kiss: Not that I can recall.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What are your thoughts on the Aboriginal industry—that is, what’s referred to as the Aboriginal industry, the lawyers, the politicians, the public servants, the bureaucrats, the contractors, the academics and the activists living off the money allocated to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in poverty despite receiving welfare payments the same as other Australians in need? The money is being allocated, but it’s not getting to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts on that?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that sounds an awful lot like you’re asking the commissioner for an opinion. That’s not—
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have an opinion?
Ms Kiss: I do have an opinion, but it’s not my role to share my opinion.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that that’s happening?
Ms Kiss: I can speak to the fact that we know that there is a fair amount of financial allocation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services and supports. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of welfare support, but I do have concerns about the fact that funding that’s being allocated to our communities and to our organisations and to government agencies is not actually meeting the needs of our communities. That’s evident in the Closing the Gap targets.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’re agreed. Are you aware that often more than half the grant money is eaten up by salaries and other middleman costs before getting to the people the grant was supposed to assist?
Ms Kiss: The indication of that has been presented in Productivity Commission reports and Indigenous expenditure reports, so, yes, I am aware that there is consideration of that.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m struggling to see the connection between your questions and the role of Commissioner Kiss.
Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ll see it fairly soon.
CHAIR: Okay, I’m looking forward to that. That would be helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that most assaults upon Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia are committed by Aboriginal men?
Senator COX: No, they’re not.
Ms Kiss: I’m not sure that those statistics are necessarily accurate.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Why does nobody comment that the large proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal people are in jail because they committed crimes warranting a jail sentence from a magistrate or judge? That’s called social justice.
Ms Kiss: I can’t make comment on that, Senator. That’s not a question for me.
CHAIR: Again, it’s asking the commissioner for her opinion.
Ms Kiss: Senator, I don’t make the decisions about who goes to jail and how they’re sentenced. Sorry. Senator ROBERTS: Minister, when will this government learn that throwing money around is not the solution? These people are living in misery, in poverty, and throwing more money at them and throwing it to the activists and the parasites in between is not being effective. It’s quite clear. Social justice includes people accepting responsibility for their own actions and genuine help on the ground. What is your government going to do about closing the gap, because it’s widening now?
Senator Green: Thanks for the question, Senator. I reject the language in your question. Yesterday, in front of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the National Indigenous Australians Agency appeared and gave a lot of evidence about all of the work that we are doing to improve outcomes and close the gap. Our government is committed to that. The Prime Minister gave a statement to acknowledge the Closing the gap reports. We acknowledge that not enough is being done and more needs to be done, and that’s why we’ve made significant investments in the budget. I want to thank the commissioner for the work that she does in highlighting not just to governments around the country but to everyone in the country how important it is that we do close the gap, not just for the people who are living these lives right now but for future generations of Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Kiss. Could I have Dr Cody to the table again please? I want to read a statement from the Australian newspaper. It’s wrong, what we’ve learned today. It’s wrong, so I’m not accusing you of doing this, okay? I want to ask you a follow-up question. It says: Yet it is women from across the political spectrum who are appalled by her relentless campaign to erase sex-based rights. The problem is not you, is it? The problem is the Labor Party’s 2013 law—correct?
Dr Cody: The law is as it has been passed. My role is to advocate for gender equality, for the rights of women and also for the rights of the LGBTQI+ community within a human rights context.
Senator ROBERTS: So what I’ve picked up today is that the problem is the law, the law is an ass, yet many people perceive you as an activist. Does that tell you anything about the way you fulfil your role?
Dr Cody: I’m not sure what the question is, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. This is another quote from this article: The global pushback Cody is witnessing isn’t against women’s rights—it’s for them. Do you agree or disagree?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think this is again veering into the territory of asking for opinions. If you’ve got questions relating to Commissioner Cody’s role and her responsibilities, feel free to ask.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just finish with that. The global pushback isn’t against women’s rights; it’s for women’s rights and women’s safety. Thank you very much for appearing.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/amYe8G92ff4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 07:56:292026-08-20 07:56:36Bureaucracy, Grants and Closing the Gap
