Insurance Profits Soar While Australians Struggle

,

During Senate Estimates in October, I raised an issue that’s hurting Australians — insurance costs.

Health Insurance: Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from insurers, yet those same insurers are posting record profits — over $5 billion. Why are hospitals being starved while insurers rake in billions?

The ACCC Chair acknowledged the challenges but said they haven’t actively investigated this. She noted that private hospitals face rising costs and tough negotiations with a small number of insurers — a clear sign of limited competition.

Home and Car Insurance: On paper, there are 11 home insurers, many just brands under the same company. Suncorp owns AAMI and Apia; CGU and NRMA are both IAG. That means only eight real players. Car insurance is even worse — 12 brands, yet only six actual companies. When I asked the ACCC if this lack of competition worried them, they expressed their concern and said that they’re reviewing IAG’s proposed acquisition of RACWA because it could remove an important competitor.

Australians are furious about insurance premiums skyrocketing in areas that have never flooded, and never will, based on speculative climate change claims. Insurers argue that future flooding risk justifies massive hikes, even though extreme weather trends are flat. I asked if the ACCC has looked at how insurers justify these increases in a low-competition market. The answer? No.

All five publicly listed insurance companies share the same major shareholders — BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Norges Bank. These global asset managers hold significant stakes across insurers and banks. I asked if the ACCC considers the impact of these interlocked holdings. They said they’re aware of the investors yet will only act if they see evidence of coordinated conduct.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Insurance is the second most painful item on the consumer’s shopping list after groceries. There’s a lot of pain. I’ll go to the hospital aspect and then to the competition aspect. Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from the health insurers. We’ve been told this by many. Why are private hospitals being starved out of existence when the health insurers have recently recorded record profits of more than $5 billion?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There will be a number of factors there. They’re not questions, I believe, that we have actively looked at. Some relate to the level of competition among private hospitals, but they need to negotiate with a small number of private health insurers. That leads to difficulties for them in that bargaining situation. We’re also aware that the private hospital sector, from recent events, has been facing significantly increased costs at the same time as they are having to undertake complex negotiations in relation to coverage from private health insurers.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ll do is I’ll go to the lack of competition that you talked about with the insurance companies and come back to this and the hospitals. There are 11 companies in Australia offering home insurance. We’re going away from health to home. Of these, Suncorp, AAMI and Apia are the same entity and CGU and NRMA are the same entity, meaning there are only eight companies offering home insurance. Is that what you meant by limited competition in insurance?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There I was particularly talking about health insurance. But you are right that, partly as a result of prior acquisitions, a number of the groups have multiple brands, but it’s actually one insurance company behind it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Similarly, there are 12 insurance companies doing car insurance. IAG owns CGU and NRMA and has underwriting ties to RACV. Separately, Suncorp, AAMI, Apia, Bingle and GIO are all the same entity. This means there are only six companies in the car insurance market hiding behind several different logos. So it’s the same. Are you worried about the lack of competition in the retail insurance market?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are certainly very focused on this. We currently are assessing, under the informal merger assessment regime, a proposed acquisition by IAG of the RACWA, which is the Western Australian Royal Automobile Club. We have put out for public response a statement of issues concerned about the removal of the Royal Automobile Club. Our preliminary view set out in that statement of issues is that they provide a very important competitive constraint.  

Senator ROBERTS: We know that, in the home insurance market, insurance companies are putting up premiums on homes and businesses in areas that are supposedly affected by flooding despite never having flooded. In fact it will never flood. The argument is that, owing to climate change, which we’re told is coming sometime in the future, your property is now likely to flood, so premiums are going up, and they’re going up exponentially. I wonder if you use flags like these. Suncorp is making so much money out of insurance that it sold its bank in order to grow its insurance business. That tells you how profitable it is. Have you looked at the basis on which insurance companies are increasing premiums in a low-competition environment using specious claims of global warming when extreme weather events have not changed? There’s been no trend. It’s just flat.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We haven’t looked at that specific issue, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: The answer for people is not to change insurance companies—they can’t, because they’re all the same. They’ve got similar policies, similar conditions and the same shareholders. Specifically, all five publicly listed insurance companies in Australia have the same shareholders. I’m not trying to verbal you, but I think I asked you if you had heard of BlackRock, and you said no. Was it you?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have heard of BlackRock.  

Senator ROBERTS: Maybe I misunderstood. That’s why I checked; I don’t want to verbal you. The most notable common shareholders across all five entities based on top 10 holdings are BlackRock, a global asset manager which owns five to eight per cent of insurance companies. With State Street, it’s the same deal. They’re a global adviser with six to 16 per cent. That’s even more. Vanguard Group is the same type of entity, with five to six per cent. Norges Bank Investment Management has only two per cent, but they have a combined controlling interest, and these funds apparently are interlocked. Are you aware of these significant holdings that basically control our insurance companies?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: What you are describing in terms of global funds managers and global funds does not surprise me in relation to who would look to invest in insurance companies. As to your comment that they’re interlocked, a number of those will be operated and will be advised and managed independently. It’s possible what you’re referring to is that they have either financing or shareholding agreements relating to the particular investment. Those elements are not ones that we would be aware of.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have many more questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: I can put some on notice.  

CHAIR: That would be great.  

Senator ROBERTS: I just have a couple more questions. Are you aware that the banks are similar to the insurance companies—Westpac, NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth? Basically we’ve got one bank, it seems, owned by the same controlling shareholders, the same entities that I just mentioned. We have four banks that hide behind four logos, but they have similar policies, similar conditions, similar products and similar strategies. They’re effectively controlled by BlackRock, Vanguard et cetera.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: In relation to the four banks, I’m also aware that there are both individual Australian shareholders and Australian super fund investors in them as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration given to investigating BlackRock’s behaviour, for example, or State Street’s, Vanguard’s or Norges’s and their connections with each other?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Where there are situations where the ACCC sees both common shareholdings and interlocking directorships, we take that into account if we see conduct that we think indicates concerted action, but we would need to see conduct that we considered indicated concerted action between the relevant companies.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put five questions on notice.

/1 Comment/by

Ongoing Investigation Into Taipan Helicopter Tragedy

,

During Estimates in October, I asked Comcare about its investigation into the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays — a tragedy that claimed four lives. I wanted clarity on the scope and depth of their work.

Comcare confirmed the investigation is still open, with active lines of inquiry. They explained that a specialised investigation team was assigned, supported by subject matter experts for technical aspects. I asked about the range of expertise and the number of interviews conducted and agreed to provide those details on notice.

The investigation focused on obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act. Comcare gathered evidence from witnesses, documents, and technical specialists. I referred to Senate-ordered documents showing potential Category 1 and Category 2 offences and asked what those mean. Their legal officer explained that Category 1 involves reckless breaches of safety duties while Category 2 involves breaches without recklessness.

I noted Defence’s reputation for strict procedures and asked if they violated their own standards. Comcare said that wasn’t the primary focus, though they may have considered it as part of broader safety controls.

Finally, I asked if they were disappointed the prosecutor decided not to lay charges despite evidence of serious breaches. Mr Duke admitted he was personally disappointed but said Comcare accepted the decision and remains focused on achieving safety outcomes. He stressed the investigation was thorough and comprehensive, and they were satisfied they did everything within their powers to prepare the brief.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

/by

A Masterclass in Buck-Passing

,

This is my Senate Estimate session in December with the CEO of Snowy 2.0 and Minister Watt, where we witnessed a masterclass in buck-passing and dodging, when asked about the future of the Tomago aluminium smelter.

Tomago employs thousands of people both directly and indirectly. It relies on cheap coal power from the Eraring Power Station to reduce its production costs to compete with cheap Chinese aluminium.

With Eraring scheduled to close in 2028, Tomago has advised that the renewable power currently available for order is substantially more expensive, making the plant not economically viable.

The Albanese Government has held several press conferences in the Hunter region in the last few months, assuring locals that the government “has their backs” and that the power will come from firmed renewables from Snowy Hydro. Specifically, this extra power is intended to come from Snowy 2.0 upon its completion and from the new gas plant in Kurri Kurri. However, this solution will not work.

Tomago uses 8,400 GWh of power annually. Snowy Hydro will contribute 375 GWh, and the new Kurri Kurri gas plant 2,500 GWh, bringing Snowy Hydro’s total generation to 5,800 GWh. Even if all existing customers sourced their power elsewhere and Snowy sold Tomago every watt of power they had, it would still fall short of the required amount needed. Given that Eraring generates 14,000 GWh, the solution is obvious: Eraring must remain open.

When questioned on this, Snowy Hydro CEO Mr. Barnes did his best not to upset Minister Watt by deferring to the Department. The Department advised that these discussions “sensitive” and declined to provide further information.

Most alarming was the admission that Snowy 2.0 isn’t an energy provider, it’s more of an “insurance company,” designed to run only 10% of the time, with their power being used to backup the grid in case of an emergency.

If Snowy Hydro sold its entire power to keep Tomago operational, the grid will not have that emergency source of power, inevitably resulting in blackouts. This highlights the lie that Snowy Hydro can “save” Tomago.

The government claims to care about jobs in the Hunter Valley, yet when asked what the plan was to replace the baseload power being lost, they had nothing to say other than they were at the “sensitive stage of discussions.”

The net-zero transition is a disaster that is wrecking breadwinner jobs. One Nation will extend the life of Eraring until new baseload coal power can be built at Bayswater, followed by a refit of Eraring to ensure further operation.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’ve got simple questions about Snowy. First, with reference to media reports on 24 November this year regarding a role for Snowy Hydro in saving the Tomago
aluminium smelter, the report states that Snowy Hydro will provide Tomago with electricity subsidised by the taxpayer from 2028. Are those plans advancing? How much power will be supplied, and how much will the subsidy cost taxpayers?

Mr Barnes: It’s always flattering to have the role of Snowy recognised, but that’s a question for the department. We’re not acting on that right now.

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t tell me about Tomago’s advancing?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What about your role in that?

Mr Barnes: We’ve provided some limited advice to the department.

Mr Duggan: I answered this question earlier. The stage of discussions at the moment is sensitive from the point of view of commercial negotiations, so, in the interests of that, we’re not providing any more information at this stage around the process.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The next question is about reviewing Snowy Hydro’s generation capacity. I would have thought you were selling all the power you generate. How much spare capacity does Snowy Hydro have currently?

Mr Barnes: We currently have 5,500 megawatts of generation capacity.

Senator ROBERTS: That is 5.5 gigawatts.

Mr Barnes: Yes. We’re obviously building 2.86 gigawatts with Kurri Kurri and Snowy 2.0. We sell to multiple channels, whether it’s residential customers from our retail brands, large industrial customers or the
wholesale market more generally—our competitors and anyone who participates in that market. The contract duration varies, so we don’t necessarily have a 10-year home for all of our capacity, so our spare capacity does vary, but we are, of course, currently in the process of building 2.86 gigawatts, which we haven’t sold.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In fiscal year 2024, Snowy Hydro generated 3,937 gigawatt-hours in total. Even if your gas plant, the Hunter power project, is fully online by 2028, that’s only another 2,900 gigawatt-hours. Snowy Hydro 2.0 is only another 375 gigawatt hours. They won’t be available in 2028; you just said that’s going to be finished at the end of 2028. Can you give me an honest assessment of how much power you will have available for Tomago in 2028?

Mr Barnes: I won’t reference it to Tomago, but—

Senator ROBERTS: How much is available?

Mr Barnes: To describe how Snowy Hydro works: we’re a provider of what you might call last-resort capacity. Our average capacity factor, or the amount of time our plant runs relative to its capacity, is only 10 per
cent of the time. We expect, for example, Kurri Kurri to run for less than 10 per cent of the time. So we’re not really an energy provider; the energy provision is from the solar and wind that we enable. We have now contracted more solar and wind than we will produce from the Snowy 1 hydro scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: You mean receive it?

Mr Barnes: That is to receive it and be able to sell to customers packaged as a firm supply. We’re not really an energy provider; we are the provider who’s there when, currently, a coal plant fails, the wind is not blowing or the sun’s not shining. Energy provision isn’t really our game. Being there when another plant isn’t available is really our game. We enable energy to come to market.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being honest with me. Very few people will actually admit would you just admitted—that Snowy 2.0 is not an energy provider.

Mr Barnes: No, we act more like an insurance company.

Senator ROBERTS: Or a battery.

Mr Barnes: We back that insurance with physical assets.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You have the generation capacity in the Snowy scheme, but you’re limited by water, and of course we need to balance water with real environmentalism—environmental needs for water as well. Minister, as coal comes out of the grid, will the government be forced to change the rules to allow more water for hydro and less for the environment?

Senator Watt: I don’t really think that’s a question in this outcome. I’ve only just arrived here, but I presume all those sorts of issues were canvassed with the department earlier in the day. If you’ve got questions for Snowy Hydro, now is probably the time to ask those, but those are much broader policy issues that the relevant officials aren’t here for.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Barnes, your water need is one of the vulnerabilities of Snowy 2.0. The catchment area for the upper reservoir is very small. I know you’re going to recycle water, but nonetheless that surely must be a concern. I think someone identified it in the past as a concern that you will need to take water from other places, which means either farming or the environment.

Mr Barnes: Snowy Hydro is obviously subject to water regulation. We don’t make those rules, so we comply with those rules. The purpose of the Snowy scheme is to capture, store and release water to provide reliable
irrigation flows and support the electricity market. As you know, Snowy 2.0 is a recycling plan, so it doesn’t actually rely on those inflows. As I say, there are a couple of current reviews underway on the balance of environmental flows versus flows for irrigation and the electricity market, but we don’t make those. We are subject to water license compliance, which is the instrument that governs us 100 per cent each year.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that you don’t govern the water requirements and that you’re governed by regulation, but you foresee any need for increases?

Mr Barnes: Again, it is not really a question for Snowy Hydro. We will be subject to whatever regulation is put in place.

Senator ROBERTS: That would tend to indicate that maybe Snowy 2.0 is not terribly secure.

Mr Barnes: Like I say, Snowy 2.0 is a recycling plant, so it doesn’t really rely on any changes to inflows or outflows from the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the proposal to use Snowy Hydro to keep Tomago open complete nonsense?

Senator Watt: As you may be aware, I’ve been a little bit focused on some other matters over the last few days, involving EPBC reforms!

Senator DEAN SMITH: I thought that was last week!

Senator Watt: It was. I was on the job again on that today in Tasmania, as you may have seen. So I will ask Mr Barnes to say what he can about that matter. You might get better information out of him than you might out of me, but I’m not sure what he’s at liberty to discuss.

Mr Barnes: What is the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Is the proposal to use Snowy Hydro to keep Tomago open complete nonsense?

Mr Barnes: Again, it is not one for me to comment on. I think it’s a process for the department and the
government.

Senator ROBERTS: So Snowy Hydro can’t comment and the minister can’t comment?

Mr Duggan: I will repeat what I said earlier, which is that in earlier evidence we indicated that discussions with Tomago are ongoing. They’re through the industry department, not through this portfolio. We’re supporting them, but they are at a sensitive stage of discussions and therefore I wouldn’t feel at liberty to provide further information on the process, as that may upset those commercial discussions.

Senator ROBERTS: I will reiterate that Snowy Hydro 2.0 is only 375 gigawatt-hours and Snowy Hydro’s gas is almost half of Snowy Hydro’s generated power, so there seems to be not much room for error there.

Mr Duggan: This is, again, probably a question more for the industry department about those discussions with Tomago.

Senator Watt: We would love to have a chat with you about that later in the week.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The Eraring Power Station produced 14,000 gigawatt-hours in fiscal year 2023. Minister, will you take over Eraring, extend the life of Eraring and keep Tomago smelter open to save the thousands of jobs it supports at the smelter and in the Hunter?

Senator Watt: I’m not aware of any of those discussions, but, again, we’re here to answer questions about Snowy Hydro in this part of the program. I’m sure Minister Bowen will have more to say about that in coming—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very concerned about the jobs in the Hunter though.

Senator Watt: As are we. You will be aware of the work that this Labor government has done to protect those jobs, as has the New South Wales Labor government.

Senator ROBERTS: And threatening coal.

Senator Watt: Well, it is a coal-fired power station that is coming to the end of its life whether we like it or
not.

Senator ROBERTS: It was brought forward, and now it’s been shoved back again. On the night of the election win in New South Wales state election in 2023, the incoming energy minister dropped a very big hint that they wanted to prolong the life of Eraring, and now they aren’t doing that.

Senator Watt: You’re talking about decisions of the New South Wales government. I couldn’t comment on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Your Labor government. Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Air Force vs. Civil Careers

,

I questioned the Defence Department about some serious allegations regarding a “protection racket” between the Air Force and major airlines like Qantas and Virgin.

I’ve seen internal emails suggesting the Air Force has been whispering in the ears of HR departments to delay start dates for pilots who are trying to transition to civilian careers.

It’s absolutely unacceptable to place invisible barriers in front of veterans who have served their country and just want to provide for their families.

While the Air Marshal denied any wrongdoing and insisted retention rates are “healthy,” I’ve pushed for a lot more detail. They’ve taken my questions on notice, so I’m currently waiting on the answers.

We need full transparency on these backroom deals to ensure our pilots aren’t being held captive by their own employer.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll move on to Qantas’s and Virgin’s interference. There are significant allegations that the Air Force is deliberately colluding with Virgin and Qantas to try and force, or pressure, those airlines to delay starting dates for former Air Force pilots, to keep them locked in a job in the Air Force that they don’t want to be in anymore. After serving our country, pilots shouldn’t be subjected to invisible barriers that stop them from getting a job in the civilian world. In late 2017, the director of personnel for the Air Force opened a line with Qantas ‘to establish a working relationship at the HR recruitment level’ and to discuss ‘recruitment, retention and leave without pay’. I’ve got an excerpt from a freedom-of-information request. It’s an email from Mitchell Beck, squadron leader air operations 1, director of personnel for the Air Force. It was sent on 22 January 2018, and the subject is ‘RAAF Virgin meeting 18 January 2018’. In that it is confirmed: ‘We, the Air Force, discuss methods of delayed start dates for RAAF pilots, such as when the member is leaving from a critical job. Virgin may be receptive to a delayed start of six to 12 months.’ That is the Air Force seeking to coerce airlines into arbitrarily delaying someone starting a new job for up to a year because the Air Force wants to keep the pilot in a job they didn’t want to be in. How can you justify taking away service members’ ability to earn a living and feed their family in the civilian workforce for an entire year?  

Senator McAllister: Chair, I think officials will be in a position to provide some advice to the senator about the broad policy position. It is very difficult for officials to respond to the quotes that have been provided by Senator Roberts without seeing them or understanding their provenance. I wonder if committee members might consider providing copies of materials they rely on to form questions, because it is challenging for officials to respond if they don’t have them in front of them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it boils down to—  

CHAIR: Do you have a copy for the witnesses?  

Senator ROBERTS: I haven’t got it with me.  

CHAIR: I’m also mindful of time. Have you got a few more questions on this issue?  

Senator ROBERTS: Very short. Is the Air Force working with Qantas and Virgin to delay the transition out of the Air Force for their pilots?  

Air Marshal Chappell: We’re not working with airlines to delay anyone’s careers. I would have to understand the emails you’re referring to from 2018 in significantly more detail in order to give you an answer, given all of the factors that are involved in career management, initial obligations of air crew and many others. Can I take it on notice and, if possible, understand or get copies of the emails you’re referring to so I can best respond to your questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: I will undertake to get the FOI quotes. If you can take it on notice, I would like to know the formal and informal arrangements between the Air Force and Qantas or Virgin.  

Air Marshal Chappell: Thanks, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Also can you table any MOUs, emails, minutes and briefings in relation to these meetings from the past three years.  

Adm. Johnston: We’ll take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Were any names or any lists of serving or separating pilots shared with the airlines?  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the package on notice.  

Adm. Johnston: We just don’t have that information.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. You could take on notice under what privacy authority those names were given, and whether any contact influenced hiring decisions or start dates.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the questions on notice without necessarily accepting any of the assertions in your questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Fine. How many cases by year since 2017 involved Air Force contacting an airline about a pilot’s application, start date or employment status, and what were the outcomes? If you could take that on notice.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What conflict-of-interest and post-separation controls apply to personnel staff liaising with airlines? You can take that on notice. Does Defence accept that such liaison without transparent policy and consent risks a perception of covert influence over civilian hiring to manage retention? Why did you do it? It seems to be a bandaid situation.  

Adm. Johnston: We will take all of those on notice. We need to get the details of what you have in front of you to make sure we answer them reasonably.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re being hit with excessive retirements from the Australian defence forces across the board. We know that. We are wondering if this is just a bandaid solution.  

Adm. Johnston: Our separation rates are well below average, rather than elevated, at the moment.  

Air Marshal Chappell: Over the last 12 months to the end of June, the financial year, Air Force grew by 824 personnel.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am pleased to hear that at last.  

Air Marshal Chappell: The evidence a little earlier would have illuminated the broader Defence story, which is very similar. Air Force is now above 16,000 personnel. We are continuing to grow, and separation rates are continuing to fall and stabilise at very healthy levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: Please provide on notice a full briefing in relation to the nature of the relationship between the personnel division and the airlines, how this relates to separating pilots, and under what authority Air Force is seeking—if you are seeking—to interfere with the post-separation employment of pilots.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take those on notice without accepting any of your assertions.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I said. None of this should be happening. In the wake of the royal commission, I think you should be stopping any conversations with the airlines that interfere with employment of pilots who separate. I would like you to comment on that.  

Senator McAllister: That’s not really a question, Senator. I think it commences with the assertion that something is happening. Officials have, a few times now, asked you for the opportunity to consider the materials you are relying upon before providing a response.  

Senator ROBERTS: And I said I would get it.  

CHAIR: That’s been taken on notice. Thank you very much

/by

Aussie Families First, Not the Taliban

,

Another session of Senate Estimates with the Department of (DFAT) and more questions into where your hard-earned tax dollars are actually going.

At a time when Australian families are struggling just to keep the lights on and put food on the table, this Labor government has poured more into Afghanistan ( $310 million since 2021) which includes a recent $50 million. Why are we sending millions to a country controlled by the Taliban? The department claims the money goes through the UN and “established partners” to help women and girls, rather than the regime. Yet let’s be real — the Taliban are violent oppressors who have been known to steal grain and manipulate aid.

The government admitted they’ve had to cancel programs in the past because of the exact risks I raised. Now, they say they rely on “independent reporting” to ensure the money reaches the right spot.

They need to prove to me — and to you — that this money isn’t just propping up a corrupt, illegitimate regime.

The Minister expressed that 22 million people in Afghanistan are in “dire need,” however I reminded her that our own constituents are doing it tough too and we have a responsibility to Australians first. I reminded them how we got here. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan based on the “weapons of mass destruction” lie from Bush, Blair, and Howard. We sent our brave young men and women into a conflict built on a vacuum of evidence, created a massive mess, and now we’re expected to keep paying for it indefinitely?

It boggles the mind that no one in this Parliament seems willing to hold the people who made those original, disastrous decisions accountable.

I will continue to demand the data and the evidence. We cannot have a government that makes “weighty decisions” to send our money overseas without absolute transparency.

– Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The next set of questions is about Afghan support. At a time when Australian families are finding it very hard to pay vital bills and put food on the table, why has this Labor government given $50 million to Afghanistan, which is controlled by the Taliban?  

Senator Wong: I’ve seen some misinformation in the public sphere about this, and I’m very happy for others to explain the support we are providing, particularly to women and girls.  

Ms Storey: We’re aware of reports and concerns in the community around the Taliban seeking to interfere in the provision of humanitarian assistance. We are confident that our humanitarian support, which is actually $310 million since the fall of Kabul, including Ministers Wong’s and Aly’s recent announcement of $50 million on 29 January. This has a particular focus on meeting the needs of women and girls and on nutrition, healthcare and protection assistance. We work with established partners, such as UN agencies, to ensure that our support reaches those most in need. We work with longstanding partners to ensure our aid supports those most in need; so, in other words, it does not go to the Taliban. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has stated that it takes extremely seriously any allegations of malpractice and corruption and ensures these are promptly investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who would accuse the UN of corruption! The Taliban government, which is violent, oppresses women and sells the grain, we’re told, given to them by charities and makes the local men work in return for grain that was donated by governments from the West. The Taliban are not our friends; I’m sure you agree. Ask any soldier who served there what he or she thinks about this. The Taliban government is corrupt and most foreign aid is stolen, so it’s reported, and not passed on to those in need. So, you rely upon the UN and other agencies to make sure that our aid reaches the right spot?  

Ms Storey: That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: How confident are you?  

Ms Storey: I can take that on notice to provide you with more extensive detail. I need to reiterate that we do not regard the Taliban as the legitimate representatives of the people of Afghanistan. While there are some who have this view, there are also many who express strong support for the provision of humanitarian support to the people of Afghanistan because of the very dire and deteriorating humanitarian situation in the country.  

Senator Wong: Could I just add to that? Firstly, the situation in Afghanistan is dire. You’re right; the Taliban is not our friend, which is why we have been so clear about our view in relation to the Taliban and also why we have taken action—a world-first sanctions framework, the imposition of financial sanctions on senior Taliban socalled ministers for their involvement in the oppression of women and girls. We are very clear we do not recognise the Taliban. You’re right; we have had previously to alter our provision of aid and discontinue programs for the sorts of reasons you have outlined. What the department has sought to do is to recognise the Daini and also how is it through other partners that we can provide assistance to people who need it, whose need is so great. Independent reporting and regular donor engagement such as has been described are in place to confirm that our UN partners are delivering aid effectively, accountably and in line with humanitarian principles.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are they going to get it? That is my question. 

Senator Wong: I have a photo in my office, actually, of two girls walking to school, which was taken by an Afghan man whom I met at an event where we had to talk about what we had done and show what we had done, particularly for women and girls, but we had to discontinue the program for the very reasons you outline. But we’re seeking to provide some assistance with the sorts of protections that the department has outlined.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re going to provide me reassurance on notice—  

Ms Storey: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: that the money is getting to the right place?  

Ms Storey: The minister noted that independent reporting and regular donor engagement that does confirm the partners are delivering effectively. We can provide you with a little more information on that, certainly.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much has the government given to Afghanistan since 2021? Is it $310 million or more?  

Ms Storey: Yes, it’s $310 million in total. That’s committed and provided. That includes the most recent announcement of the $50 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: I ask these questions because some of our constituents are pretty upset with Australia; we’re doing things pretty tough at the moment, but people in Afghanistan are doing it even tougher.  

Ms Storey: Almost the same size as the Australian population, 22 million in Afghanistan, is assessed to be in dire humanitarian need. I know that this is a balance that we must take.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the thought comes to me that our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was based on the so-called evidence of weapons of mass destruction from England, America under Bush and John Howard in Australia. Then we were told by all three leaders and their nations that there was never any evidence. We have gone into those countries, jeopardised our own people, boys and girls, and created a mess and now we have got more of a mess. Is there any thought given to stopping the mess in the first place and making sure we only enter conflicts where there’s justification?  

Senator Wong: There’s a lot in that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: There is. It’s a simple answer, yes or no?  

Senator Wong: Historically, you might recall the position then Labor opposition had in relation to the Iraq War. I’m not sure I can do your question justice in terms of a full and comprehensive answer, but I think there are two points. One is committing Australian men and women to conflict is the most serious decision a government can make. It is a decision that should be made soberly and—  

Senator ROBERTS: With facts 

Senator Wong: on the basis of facts and a very clear assessment of our national interests. It is the most serious and weighty decision a government can make. The second point is we cannot assure stability in other countries from where we are. We can contribute to it, but ultimately peace and stability require many elements in country and in the region. It is a reminder of why, whether it is in the Middle East particularly or more broadly we keep as our objective contribution to peace and stability.  

Senator ROBERTS: It boggles my mind that, as far as I know from reports through the media, no-one in the parliament has questioned the original decision to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and held people accountable.

/by

Where Is Your Money Going?

,

You work hard for your money and you’ve got every right to know exactly where those tax dollars are going, especially when the government hands it out as overseas “aid.”

This is my Estimates session with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) on aid to the Middle East.

The department says Australia doesn’t pay the Palestinian Authority (PA) directly. Instead, they funnel the cash through United Nations’ agencies like UNRWA and UNICEF.

They confirmed that our money does reach the PA indirectly. For instance, we’re paying for UNDP programs that help them set up their local elections.

I asked questions about the “Martyrs Fund” (families of suicide terrorists). DFAT said they believe the Palestinian Authority has scrapped the laws behind those payments and moved to a “general welfare” system.

I’ve put on notice a request for a full calculation of every cent of these “indirect” payments made over the last five years. I’ll be looking at those figures closely.

We need real accountability for every single dollar given in overseas aid.

– Senate Estimates | February 2025

Transcript

Coming Soon

/1 Comment/by

Prioritising Australian Safety

,

The safety of Australians is the first priority of any government. Following the horrific Bondi atrocity and the attempted Australia Day bombing in WA, I questioned the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on what they are doing to bridge the gaps between ASIO, Home Affairs and the AFP, and what specific new steps are being taken to prevent future acts of terrorism?

The response from the Commissioner and the Deputy was that while their “architecture” is mature, there is nothing specifically new being implemented in response to these recent events. They are relying on existing “enduring relationships” and a new National Security Investigation Team to monitor “hate extremism.”

While they claim information sharing is “excellent,” we cannot afford to be complacent. “Strong and enduring” relationships are good, however they don’t replace the need for constant improvement when lives are at risk.

I will continue to monitor these “joint arrangements” to ensure they are actually delivering the protection all Australians deserve, NOT just more bureaucracy.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: We can rotate the call. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given the role of the Australian Federal Police to enforce Commonwealth laws and to protect Australians, what further steps have been taken to open up the lines of communication between ASIO and the AFP and between the AFP and Home Affairs to prevent future acts of terrorism post the Bondi atrocity and the attempted bombing in Western Australia on Australia Day this year?  

Ms Sirec: The AFP has long and enduring relationships with in particular ASIO. Our counterterrorism construct has been in for a significant amount of time and the information sharing is excellent. Equally with the various Commonwealth agencies, in particular Home Affairs, there are enduring and constant relationships and information sharing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have any additional arrangements been made?  

Ms Sirec: The relationships there are strong and enduring. When we do set up new capabilities such as the National Security Investigations apparatus, there’s a restrengthening of relationships there in particular even with the states and territories. The AFP brokers relationships of the Commonwealth with states and territories as well. It’s a very mature apparatus and architecture.  

Senator ROBERTS: But nothing specifically new?  

Mr Nutt: I’d go further to not only what the commissioner has said but also the deputy around the announcement of the National Security Investigation teams as a new initiative and also, as the commissioner said in the opening statement, around working with state security investigation or intelligence units on intelligence security investigations. One of the key aspects of that is looking for any intelligence or investigation that involves hate extremism that could transition into a joint counterterrorism arrangement, which has been in place for a very long time. Again, it’s another mechanism that supports existing arrangements nationally.  

/1 Comment/by

Your Taxes, Their Blunder: The BOM Mess

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has managed to spend $96 million of your money on a new website including live radar images that is a step backward.

I’ve been hearing from countless Australians who are not happy with the “new and improved” site. It’s harder to navigate, requires more clicks to find basic data and has stripped away the topographical detail that people actually rely on.

If a private company delivered a product this bad after spending nearly $100 million, heads would roll.

I asked the BOM: has anyone been fired, demoted, or even counselled for this failure?

The answer was a lot of nothing really. I did manage to get one win for common sense: The Bureau has committed to keeping the old radar site active until the new one is actually fit for purpose.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Let’s go back to the new weather radar. Implementation of the new weather radar has been a failure. Has anyone been fired for wasting $96 million of taxpayers’ money?

Senator Watt: We went over this at the last estimates hearing. I think you were talking about the change to the bureau’s website rather than a weather radar.

Senator Roberts: The new website.

Senator Watt: Yes. It was explained at the last hearing that the portion of money attributable to the website costs was partly about an overall systems upgrade across the bureau’s meteorology systems in general. So, with that introduction, Dr Minchin might want to—

Senator Roberts: Minister, it has tarnished the reputation of the BOM.

Senator Watt: I understand that.

Senator Roberts: It has made a lot of people unhappy with the BOM’s service, so I’m wondering if anyone’s been counselled, demoted or had a note put on their service record for this failure.

Senator Watt: I’d need to have Dr Minchin answer.

Dr Minchin: Senator, I’m not aware of anyone being fired or demoted on this basis.

Senator Roberts: Chastised?

Dr Minchin: Senator, as I think you may be aware, I joined the bureau about three weeks after the website was launched. My focus as CEO is on moving forward, and, as I said at last hearing, I accepted that the website redesign had not met all users’ needs and that we were working hard with the team on addressing the feedback that we’ve received. We’ve received significant feedback from the Australian community and we are actively working on making releases to the website to improve it to meet people’s expectations. My philosophy on this as CEO is that I have a very committed team, who are working incredibly hard to meet the Australian public’s expectations. That doesn’t mean we get it right all the time, and I’m very confident that the team is totally focused on the task of improving Australians’ access to weather information, including through upgrades to the website as it goes forward.

Senator Roberts: I accept, Dr Minchin, that sometimes it’s not appropriate to chastise until you know the source of the problem, but has anyone been questioned about it? Have you done an investigation into it? It seems to be significant funds, and you’ve got to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. What reassurance can you give us that it won’t happen again?

Dr Minchin: What I can say is I don’t believe the website is a complete failure, and I’ve been public in saying that before. I think what has happened is it’s met 80 to 90 per cent of its intended outcomes and it’s missed the boat on a few key user experiences for some parts of the community, and we are working hard on addressing those. It’s clear the radar is part of the assessment. We moved quickly to adjust the view of the radar to improve that. We’ve made adjustments to the navigation of the website and we have a number of other rollouts happening over the next few months that will improve that. I can absolutely assure you that the team within the bureau are really dedicated to their task and are totally focused on improving the situation so that all Australians can have access to the weather data that they require.

Senator Roberts: Have you required contractors to complete the fixes for free, owing to their failure, or are you throwing more money from taxpayers at the problem? Are you rewarding contractors for failing?

Dr Minchin: You’ve categorised this as a contractor failure. The contractors have done what we asked them to do. What I think is very clear is we did not get all of the user experience testing and did not capture all of the subsequent detail and feedback that we’ve received from the community. So we’re working hard on addressing that. That will inevitably require investment, but that investment was already planned for as part of the website release. We always knew that there would be fixes that would be required. What probably caught the bureau a little bit unawares was the extent of the feedback that we received, but we’re working through that very actively.

Senator Roberts: It was pretty strong. If we look at topography, the colour graduations used to be based on topography, and now the national parks are just all green. Did the people who did the map understand topography?

Dr Minchin: Sorry, Senator, are you referring to the radar map?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I’m sorry.

Dr Minchin: The background to the radar map is a compromise, always, of the features that are of interest for the community—primarily about the townships. We are adjusting that. Just as one example of an upcoming upgrade, we will be bringing that into line with our iPhone and Android app that actually shows a background of the reach of the radars as well. So it will be clear where radar coverage exists and where it does not within the country. That’s an evolving process. I should also highlight that the public can choose their view of what appears on that map through various choices in the settings of the map view.

Senator Roberts: I’m told that the old map, which did show topography colour gradations, is appearing to visitors who search something like ‘weather Brisbane’, rather the new site, but the address is the new site. Have you gone back to using the old site for certain functions?

Dr Minchin: I think what you’re referring to is that there are a number of third-party providers who provide our radar data and other information through their applications. They receive those through our FTP service. They don’t access it directly from the website. In some cases they choose to visualise that data differently to the way that the bureau chooses to do that. I think that’s actually a good thing, meeting different user needs out in the community. They’re still accessing the same information, but it is, as I said, coming through our registered user services, which are not through the website itself.

Senator Roberts: Usability of the website is poor. Users are complaining that it takes multiple clicks to see what used to be available at a glance. What timeframe can you give people for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site?

Dr Minchin: There are ongoing releases happening over the next few months. We accept, as I said, that some users have found aspects of the website difficult and have been providing feedback on that. Another good example is navigation. We’ll be rolling out the ability to navigate by postcode in one of the next releases. We’re continually bringing those updates on board so that, as we get feedback about what is useful to the community to make their experience with the website better, we’re acting on that and we’re rolling that out with regular updates.

Senator Roberts: So what timeframe can you provide for getting the new site up to the standard of the old site, so that people will know?

Dr Minchin: I don’t accept that we’re trying to reach the standard of the old site, because the old site was a problem. It was very difficult to navigate. It was inaccessible to many sectors of the community. Website updates will never finish. As new information and new products come on board, we will continue developing the website. But we are hoping to address most of the major tranches of concern in releases over the next six months.

Senator Roberts: The old radar is still available on the ‘reg’ subdomain, I’m told. Will you give an undertaking that the old site will remain available until the new site can be made to work?

Dr Minchin: We certainly will not be turning off our ‘reg’ capability until we are confident that the Australian community are comfortable with our new radar capability. Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Foreign Control on Australian Soil: A Big Fail

,

I asked Minister Wong about Labor’s failed promise to return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands.

Before the election, Anthony Albanese was happy to call foreign ownership of our ports a mistake. Now that he’s the PM, he has gone quiet.

When I pushed for a timeframe, Minister Wong couldn’t provide a date, nor a plan. All we got was more “we’re working on it.”

The PM didn’t even raise the Port during his recent trip to China! Is he too scared of retaliation from the Chinese Communist Party?

We have a foreign power (the CCP) controlling our most strategic northern port on a 99-year lease. This was a catastrophic mistake by the Coalition, yet Labor is proving they are too weak to fix it.

Australian assets must be held exclusively by Australians to ensure our national interests are protected.

It is time to put Australians ahead of Beijing’s feelings.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move to the port of Darwin. Minister, the Prime Minister said to the ABC, I think just before the election, but I’m not sure of the timing—he definitely said that the idea that any Australian port owned by foreign interests is not in the Australian national interest. Does that also apply to the lease of the port of Darwin—a catastrophic mistake made originally by the coalition?  

Ms Luchetti: The Prime Minister has said that the port of Darwin is working to get into Australian hands.  

Senator ROBERTS: He’s what?  

Senator Wong: The Prime Minister has publicly committed to return the port of Darwin to Australian hands.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it was not raised on his latest trip to China. As an electoral promise, the Prime Minister said that Labor would ensure the Australian strategic port of Darwin would return to Australian hands. When is he going to fulfil this promise, or is he too scared of the threat of Communist Party economic retaliation as threatened recently by the Chinese ambassador?  

Senator Wong: I’ll speak for the Australian government. I’ll leave others to publicise what other governments say. The Australian government’s position is that we will deliver on our commitment to return the port of Darwin to Australian hands, and we are working to deliver on that commitment.  

Senator ROBERTS: As Foreign minister, can you say why it wasn’t raised on this latest trip to China?  

Senator Wong: I might ask Ms Lawson to add if I miss anything, but, obviously, I would just make the point that the Port of Darwin is actually leased to another corporate entity.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chinese—controlled by the Communist Party. I know it wasn’t Labor to do the deal, but nonetheless we want Labor to undo the deal.  

Ms Lawson: The Prime Minister raised a range of issues in the national interest during his travel to China. We don’t go into the specifics of those conversations. He has said that the Port of Darwin will return to Australian hands, and that is what he has committed to do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a timeframe?  

Ms Lawson: I’m not able to give you a timeframe. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.  

Senator Wong: What I would say, Senator, is I think that China is well aware of our position on this.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are they doing anything with it?  

Senator Wong: I’m just saying China is well aware of our position.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/2 Comments/by

Labor’s Migration Reality

,

The Labor Government keeps telling you migration is coming down. The data tells a different story.

Right now there are about 2.9 million people here on temporary visas and another 1.8 million on permanent non‑citizen visas — a total of roughly 4.7 million non‑citizens.

That’s 4.7 million people competing for a home, clogging your roads, and filling your GP waiting rooms. Our infrastructure cannot cope with the scale of this influx.

This isn’t ‘sustainable’ — and it’s a disaster for the Australian way of life.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I’d like to discuss migrant numbers and stock data. Can I go to the number of temporary visa holders in the country first. The temporary visa holder stock data says that, at 30 September this year—which is the latest data, apparently—there were 2.9 million temporary visa holders in the country, and 2.53 million when excluding tourists and crew. Can you confirm, please, that that’s the largest number of temporary migrants in the country ever recorded in the month of September.

Mr Willard: I will just find those figures. The 2.925 figure you provided is correct. I’m not able to confirm it’s the largest number ever; I’d have to take it on notice and check every other month.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could—thank you. So we have the government saying that migration is coming down but we actually have what we understand to be the highest number of temporary migrants in the country for this season on record. The total number of migrants in the country certainly hasn’t gone down, has it?

Mr Willard: That figure has increased. Just so we’re clear, that’s temporary visa holders, so that includes people like tourists. It also includes, as I think you mentioned, crew visas, and it includes New Zealanders, who are in fact the largest cohort. The visa that New Zealanders have, through the trans-Tasman agreement, is technically a temporary visa.

Senator ROBERTS: But the 2.53 million figure excludes tourists and crew. That’s what you confirmed.

Mr Willard: Yes. I’d have to do the maths, but that looks about right.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding of what you said. So we’ve got a high number of migrants, and it hasn’t gone down. Now let’s turn to permanent visas. At the last hearing, the department confirmed there were 1.8 million people in the country on permanent visas. Do you have an update on that figure, or is that still the same?

Mr Willard: I do have that figure. I think it is about the same, but I can’t give you the precise number. I might
have to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So, adding the 2.9 million temporary to the 1.8 million permanent, there are now
4.7 million visa holders in the country who are not Australian citizens, correct?

Mr Willard: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a record for the number of visa holders in the country?

Mr Willard: Again, I’ll have to take that on notice to check the records.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it is, but I’ll wait for it to be confirmed by you. Can you give a breakdown, please, of the categories of permanent visas and their numbers, as per your latest data.

Mr Willard: Bear with me, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s okay. No need to rush. We just want it accurate.

Mr Willard: You asked for permanent visa holders?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes—categories of permanent visa holders.

Mr Willard: I’ll run through the figures here. The largest category is the resident return visa. I think last time we were at estimates we spoke about this visa. This is a visa that permanent residents can get once they’re at the initial travel period on their first permanent visa.

Senator ROBERTS: So they can return to the country.

Mr Willard: It’s called resident return, but essentially it’s a permanent resident renewing their travel rights on their visa. That’s 855,000. These figures are to 30 September 2025. There’s the partner permanent visa, which is 205,000. There’s the skilled migration visa, which is 447,000. There are parent visas, which are 38,000. Then there’s a range of other visas—child, other family, other permanent, and special eligibility, which are all smaller amounts, but there’s a range of other visas there as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you publish the number of permanent visas on issue like you do with the
temporary visa stock?

Mr Willard: We publish the Migration Program numbers every year, in terms of the Migration Program
outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that including the permanents?

Mr Willard: It includes all the visas issued in the context of the Migration Program for that particular year.

Senator ROBERTS: But not the total number of permanents?

Mr Willard: It doesn’t include the total number. We do publish a paper called ‘The Administration of the immigration and citizenship programs’, which has a lot of data. I’d have to come back to you as to whether it has that specific number in it.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me why you don’t publish the number of permanent visas on issue, like
you do with the temporary visa.

Mr Willard: Sure. I can take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by