When Art Crosses the Line

,

Why are taxpayers bankrolling art projects that cross the line from “expression” into outright extremism?

Creative Australia admitted to funding nearly $100,000 for events linked to an artist who has publicly praised a listed terrorist organisation and celebrated violence.

We also learned that $48,000 went to an exhibition that mocked public figures and pushed divisive political messaging, followed by another $318,000 from the department for the same project.

Everyday Australians are sick of seeing their money poured into insider art projects that promote radical politics instead of strengthening community culture.

One Nation get’s labelled as “divisive” for asking when taxpayer funding will start serving Australians, not ideology.

Labor keeps batting accusations back and forth like a game of political tennis, but we’re not here to play – we’re here to get answers for taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $1.692 million to Diversity Arts Australia, DARTS, which is the national voice for ethnocultural and migrant racial equity in the arts, cultural and creative industries. Their primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections for women and DEI related purposes’. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy groups to influence government policy? Where’s the arts funding here? This is advocacy, research and brokering connections. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy?  

Mr Blackwell: One of the functions of Creative Australia is to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia. I’m not sure about the amount of funding over what period you’re referring to, but that may well be activities that allow us to perform this function.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why are we funding this? The primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections’. Why are we funding advocacy? Basically, advocacy is funding advocacy groups to influence government policy. Where’s the art?  

Senator Green: I’m not familiar with that project, so we’d have to take it on notice. I don’t know if the officials from Creative Australia have more information for you about what that project or that organisation is doing. Obviously, some organisations are funded for a particular project, so they might have some more explanation for you.  

Mr Blackwell: We do, actually. Thank you, Minister. Diversity Arts Australia are a delivery partner to service the organisations under the community, arts and cultural development stream of our funding. Those organisations that we classify as delivery partners provide services to the arts sector. They strengthen the arts sector, and they allow the arts sector to leverage more value through that connection. That is the connection through to the arts sector and how we would then fulfil that function to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: You used some nice buzzwords in there—delivery, diversity, leverage. But you didn’t tell me why you’re funding advocacy. Advocacy is not art.  

Mr Blackwell: No, but it’s advocacy for the arts. It’s not lobbying; it’s advocacy for the arts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding that?  

Mr Blackwell: Because that’s part of our remit.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, RP? Can you give a quick explanation of that, please?  

Mr Blackwell: Sorry; could you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, and could you give a quick explanation if it is?  

Mr Blackwell: I would say that we have a responsible process for issuing our grants from start to finish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that incorporate a responsible person for each grant?  

Mr Blackwell: Could you define ‘responsible person’ for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you if it includes that. It doesn’t sound like it does.  

Senator Green: Perhaps you need to provide the context of what you’re referring to—the agreement or the consideration of the application. You may have to give us a guide on what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps it’ll come out in the more detailed questions.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $197,500 to a recipient called Click Ink Inc. for the Bankstown Poetry Slam. They describe themselves: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power, and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by, and disaffected with, systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism, solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ That’s the end of the quote. Events include ‘They call me the good Muslim’, ‘I am Palestinian’ and related pro-Palestinian events. My question is simple. Why are taxpayer dollars funding propaganda? This isn’t art; it’s politics. 

Mr Blackwell: I would say that it is art. I’d have to disagree with you. I would say that it is art. Poetry slams are a common and popular form of artistic expression in this country.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go through the quote again: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by and disaffected with systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism and solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ This sounds like it’s very divisive and pushing an ideology, not art. It doesn’t bother you?  

Senator Green: Art can be political or non-political. You might not like that type of art, but it might be what other people choose to express. It might be a form of expression for them, or there might be an audience for that type of art. I think it’s wrong to say that art can’t be political or shouldn’t be political in some sort of way. Otherwise, we might have a lot of pictures of fields but we wouldn’t have any generation of debate or discussion through the use of art. Are you suggesting that there should be no politics in any songs, music, plays or artistic expression?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying it’s okay for your government to push ideological issues as politics.  

Senator Green: No, that’s not what’s happening here.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what’s happening.  

Senator Green: No. This is funding for artistic expression projects. I thought One Nation was the party of freedom of expression, so I’m a little confused about why you would want to stifle people’s views even if you don’t agree with them and even if you don’t agree with the art. You might not want to go to the poetry slam, but it doesn’t mean that art can’t be political in some way.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are not in favour of government funding government propaganda and government ideology.  

Senator Green: But you are in favour of freedom of expression, aren’t you?  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but not funded by government necessarily.  

Senator Green: Only when it suits you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not funded by government.  

Senator Green: Only the freedom of expression that you—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re defending propaganda from your own government.  

Senator Green: No, it’s not propaganda. The views of the artists might not support our government, but we don’t think that that is a reason why particular art shouldn’t be supported. To make my final point for your next question, the law that was passed in 2023 made it very clear that the government has no role in the funding decisions so that any type of government that might be in power can’t influence the independent funding decisions to alleviate the particular issues that you’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’m heading—accountability. Here’s an example. The registered person for this organisation—presumably, it’s registered with you. I don’t know who it’s registered with. The registered person for this organisation is Bilal Hafda, who said on social media that ‘any Australian who fails to support Palestinians who attacked Israel is a white supremacist’. Another registered person is Sara Saleh, who celebrated the Hamas terrorist aerial attack on Israel on her social media. Is there any rule in your grant guide that precludes grants from being used for political purposes?  

Mr Blackwell: In our funding agreements, we have conditions. If you give me a moment, I’ll find it. Our funding agreements have a condition that says that ‘it is a condition of your funding that you comply with all applicable state, territory and Commonwealth work, health and safety and antidiscrimination laws’.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it?  

Mr Blackwell: And we refer them to Safe Work Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission for more information on those applicable laws. So that is—  

Senator ROBERTS: So celebrating terrorists is okay?  

Mr Blackwell: I—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go on. Ali Al Haj Hussein, who is also known as the Poetic Ninja, has won multiple awards at the Bankstown Poetry Slam. He has praised Hezbollah—declared terrorists—as ‘men of God’, praised the 7 October murders as ‘just the beginning’, promised to ‘drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell’ and used an implicit threat of violence in a poem at the Sydney Writers Festival, where he called for the downfall of the western empire and all its debauchery, including in a general context the same 2SLGBTQQIPAA community your grants are advancing. Does this sound to you like a great day out for the family to listen to poetry? This isn’t art or free expression. It’s an incitement to violence against the Australian community. Why are you funding it? 

Mr Blackwell: I can tell you, in terms of the funding, the grant was $98,000—  

Senator ROBERTS: Nearly a hundred thousand dollars.  

Mr Blackwell: and the project summary, which was funded, was monthly themed poetry slam events; the grand slam championship, Real Talk; high-school poetry programs; the National Youth Poetry Slam; and the development of the Brave New Word Youth Poetry Festival at the Powerhouse Museum. That’s what we funded.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are funding multiple awards for someone praising a terrorist group and wanting to drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell—an implicit threat of violence.  

Mr Blackwell: I’m not aware of that quotation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, you are now. Moving on to the artist Kait James and her Red Flags exhibition, this was partly funded by Creative Australia with a grant of $48,000 on 28 November 2023. As the title suggests, this exhibition decided certain people and events were red flags to the Aboriginal community and proceeded to insult these people and events using a series of pennants and tea towels. One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, was mocked, and Captain Cook had his eyes crossed out and was called a c-u-n-t. This is kindergarten art. You talk about not being political, Minister. Why does everything you or Creative Australia fund which could be considered political aim to promote radical causes, including radical Islam, and attack conservatives and everyday Australians? Where’s the balance? This is divisive, and it’s pushing a Marxist ideology. Why are you funding only one side?  

Mr Blackwell: In regard to Kait James’s Red Flags, we funded it for $48,000 under an arts project grant for the development of the artwork. We weren’t involved in putting on that exhibition. The grant has been acquitted. Within that, there is content which we would say falls into freedom of artistic expression. It may offend some people, Senator, but not necessarily all people. There may be satire in it. All of these things form part of artistic expression.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition, the same one I just raised. Was the criticism of a political rival the quid pro quo for making such a large grant, and what pot of taxpayer money did that grant come from? Where did the money come from?  

Senator Green: First of all, to make it clear, the funding was provided through Creative Australia. It’s not a decision of government; it’s a decision of Creative Australia. But I take your point. The art is not to my taste, but people are entitled to express their views in different ways. I note that viewers of the exhibition were provided a warning about the fact that the art depicted themes and images related to historical and ongoing systematic racism and discrimination and included critique of the artist’s perspectives and strong language. Viewer discretion was advised, so certainly people who wanted to view that art were given fair warning. As I said, it’s not something that I necessarily would consider. I wouldn’t have done it myself, and it probably isn’t something I would go to see, but people are entitled to respect the views of individuals and to present their views in different ways.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your answer, Creative Australia gave a grant of $48,000, which Mr Blackwell confirmed.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition. That would seem to me to be outside the Creative Australia funds. So where did that money come from? What pot of gold in the department did that money come from?  

Senator Green: You are correct. Sorry; I thought you were talking about the grant from Creative Australia for the development of the exhibition.  

Senator ROBERTS: No—the $318,000.  

Senator Green: There was funding under the Office for the Arts, who were with us a bit earlier. Apologies; those officials have left. You won’t be able to ask them about the funding.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can ask you, though.  

Senator Green: Yes, but I’m not an official, so I will have to take it on notice if I don’t have enough information for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. When you come back with your answer on notice, could you tell us whether or not this was political quid pro quo for a political rival.  

Senator Green: Definitely not. I don’t need to take that on notice. I can tell you with 100 per cent confidence that we don’t fund art because we want to attack One Nation. We can do that if we just walk up to the press gallery.  

Senator ROBERTS: For ministers, it’s much cheaper to walk up to the press gallery, hey?  

Senator Green: You should go up to the press gallery! They can ask you some questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to it. Minister, everyday Australians are sick of taxpayers’ money being spent on insider projects and social engineering. We had embarrassment from your government yesterday on this. When will your government listen to them?  

Senator Green: We do listen to Australians. We’ve just finished consultation on the most recent cultural policy. It’ll be the first time Australia’s ever had two national cultural policies in a row. You will remember the release of the Revive cultural policy. So we do give Australians an opportunity to give us feedback on what our cultural policy should be. We’re making sure that that development of that policy takes into consideration all of those views.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do you push ideologically driven, divisive policies that split the Australian community?  

Senator Green: I think that’s what you and One Nation do, Senator—respectfully—and unfortunately we’re seeing that more and more from the Liberal and National parties as they try to join you in that fight.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thanks, Mr Blackwell.

/1 Comment/by

Strengthening Financial Access in the Bush

,

During this session with Australia Post, I raised concerns from local outlet operators like Kylie in Agnes Waters, who face increasing operational pressures.

Australia Post confirmed that while they are not actively cutting over-the-counter services, telecommunications companies, government agencies, and banks are driving down physical transactions by raising manual fees, pushing digital channels, or pulling services like Western Union.

Addressing the abrupt closure of the Coleambally Post Office, Australia Post explained it resulted from a licensee walking away without notice. To maintain local parcel, mail, and expanding financial services, they partnered with the town’s pharmacy, a co-location model now operating across 82 locations nationwide.

I confirmed that ANZ officially joined Bank@Post on October 1st, bringing the total number of participating financial institutions to 81.

There is a need for physical over-the-counter banking in the bush. One Nation we will establish a People’s Bank to provide a full range of banking services to everyday Australians using the Bank@Post system. This will make Post Offices profitable again and improve banking options for all Australians.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Here’s an email from the Agnes Waters Post Office in Queensland: ‘Hi, my name is Kylie. I managed this outlet for 14 years before buying it 18 months ago. We are 1½ hours from the next nearest full-service post office. In my community, our post office is the only practical point of access for banking, bill payment, retail, parcel services and government related business. This business is under significant pressures from several areas of operation’—which I’ll now ask about. Are BPAY options being reduced inside Bank@Post?  

Mr Graham: No, they’re not. What we are finding is that telecommunications companies are encouraging their customers to digitise payment as opposed to going into a branch and paying over the counter—indeed, people are now incurring penalties or higher costs. One telco in particular has increased its fee for those people paying manually over the counter, which is a deterrent to those customers, because they’re trying to encourage them to pay online.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is Western Union being withdrawn? I think you said it is because—  

Mr Graham: It is being withdrawn. After a thorough review in relation to the risk of that product, we have decided, with the support of the licensees, to withdraw that product. But we have done an arrangement with Western Union that the individual licensees can have an agreement directly with Western Union to continue providing those services. We’ve also highlighted to those licensees the risks in relation to that service.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are government and agency services available over the counter reducing in number?  

Mr Graham: They are reduced in number, through no action of Australia Post but through the actions of those agencies or those governments by making it available only through a digital channel, or increasing fees for over-the-counter transactions, or, indeed, removing the service altogether. For example, in the Northern Territory, the NT government has removed the ability to provide that service over the counter at a post office. That service is only available at a Northern Territory government office. We are continuing to work with the NT on reintroducing those services to an over-the-counter service.  

Senator ROBERTS: The retail structure that once supported LPOs has been replaced with a new system, I’m told, that provides less profit for the post office. We’ve spoken about this before. They must have lost revenue. When I go into a post office, no matter where it is, there’s less merchandise available for sale. Do you accept that change has cost LPOs revenue and profit.  

Mr Graham: No, I don’t. The LPOs have a licence to go and sell whatever product they think is appropriate for their post office. In our corporate post offices, yes, we have reduced the range quite a lot. We no longer sell air fryers or electric guitars or whipper snippers or flat-screen TVs. When we did sell them, we sold them at significant loss. We have focused on five key categories, based on significant surveys from our customers about what they want to buy in a post office, including greeting cards, and travel is a big one because we obviously provide passport renewal. We provide travel insurance and other things related to travel, cheap mobile phones and SIM cards, and then a small range of general merchandising. But we continue to provide the licensees with access to Australia Post products. As I said in my earlier statement, with things like photocopy paper or our greeting cards, we have dramatically increased the margins available to licensees through our collective purchasing power and are making those available as an Australia Post branded product. The product’s called JoyUp—that’s not my choice; I’m not a marketing person—but the licensees have the ability to put whatever product they feel they can sell within their Post Office. Indeed, I’ve been to many licensed post offices where there’s a broad array of products that they make money on.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s nothing to stop them putting their own arrangements in place?  

Mr Graham: Provided it complies with Australian safety standards and Australian copyright standards, correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got Kylie’s letter in front of me. I was going to read some out, but in the interests of time I won’t do that. Kylie talks about uncertainty around contract terms making it hard to plan for the future. Is this something you’re familiar with?  

Mr Graham: No. Again, if it’s a licensed post office, it’s a perpetual licence. As I said, we have been in consultation with the licensed post office council and both licensee associations to look at modernising the agreements we have in place around commissions. These were set up many, many years ago and, again, aren’t really fit for purpose, and both licensees agree. We continue to be in consultation as to how we can modernise those agreements and look at things like creating a larger fixed fee to provide greater sustainability and greater certainty. However, I go back to the previous comments—the nature of a post office, and how it is used today, is dramatically different from how it was 10 years ago, even five years ago. We continue to work with licensees in relation to the sustainability of these outlets, but it is challenging.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve been watching, in the last 10 years—since I’ve been in the Senate—just how dramatically your letter traffic has gone down. Your parcels are picking up, but you’ve got increased competition. So your traditional services are now a small proportion of your overall services.  

Mr Graham: Correct. As I said, 60 per cent of the reason someone goes into a post office today is parcel related; next is Billpay, then Bank@Post and then things associated with passports, but all three of those are in decline.  

Senator ROBERTS: And there’s a huge community impact from a post office being shut.  

Mr Graham: Indeed. I’ve been to regional towns where the licensee has handed back the post office. Again, as Senator Henderson mentioned, in the case of Tathra it’s been in place for 123 years. It’s been in place for that long because it was one of the stops where Cobb & Co used to refresh the horses. That’s how we ended up with post offices in these small country towns. But, again, that community is using that post office for eight transactions a week.  

Senator ROBERTS: So why did Coleambally Post Office close? I understand it was out of the blue, sudden, and now the only service is the pharmacy, running the mail service—with no attempt on your part, apparently, to reopen the location. I checked, and the population at Coleambally in 2016—that’s the latest figure I could get— was 1,330. So it’s not a tiny town, and it’s an irrigation area, which means there should be good money around.  

Mr Graham: Yes, I agree. We literally had no notice, nor did the town. The licensee literally walked away— put a lock on the doors and didn’t come back—and we continued to pursue that licensee. We immediately set about ensuring that people could get access to mail and parcels, because that was the priority for the town. We worked with the local pharmacy, who stepped up to the plate and was able to provide those services under a CPA arrangement. We continue to work with that pharmacy. Indeed, we met with council again this week to look at how we can reintroduce financial services, and we are committed to doing that in Coleambally. But this is a good example of what happens when a licensee vacates with no notice. We are as blindsided as the community. We recognise that Coleambally requires these services, and we’re working with the community to make sure these services are available. We do see the association with pharmacies as a good partnership. Pharmacies, like Australia Post, are a trusted brand in the community. They have extended opening hours. Unlike Australia Post, most of them open seven days a week, generally. They, also, are under threat from changes within their and are looking at additional foot traffic to generate sales. We now have 82 post offices in conjunction with pharmacies. It’s proven to be a successful model, which is why, when Coleambally came up, we immediately defaulted to talking to the local pharmacy, with the support of the pharmacy.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re in partnership with some pharmacies in some areas?  

Mr Graham: With 82 pharmacies, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say to rural customers who say that your level of care about the plight of rural customers is a scandal? How far is it to your local post office?  

Mr Graham: I live in the city. My local post office is probably 1½ kays, two kays.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say to customers who are concerned about the plight?  

Mr Graham: We agree with their concerns. That’s, again, why we’re happy to have the regulatory commitment of 2½ thousand post offices in regional, rural and remote areas. We do have some significant difficulties, particularly in the remote locations where we continue to fund a presence because it’s the right thing to do, and we’ll continue to do that. Again I call out the difficult nature of these licensees and their viability. Where a town has a need, we will make sure we satisfy that need.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to touch on banks quickly. Freedom-of-information requests revealed part of the terms for the government to approve a ANZ’s acquisition of Suncorp Bank was for the ANZ to make the best endeavours to join Bank@Post on commercial terms for a minimum of three years. Can you provide the date they joined so I can ensure that they at least stay for the three years?  

Mr Graham: I’m pleased to say that, after some intensive negotiations, we convinced ANZ to join. Their original premise was that they didn’t have a lot of customers interested in the service. However, they were active from 1 October last year as a member of Bank@Post, and we have seen a significant activity with ANZ customers in relation to using those services both in metropolitan areas and regional areas. Again, this has provided an additional income stream to licensees because, obviously, ANZ was not part of Bank@Post previously.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many banks now participate in Bank@Post?  

Mr Graham: We have 81 financial institutions and banks participating. Obviously the big four banks are the bulk of the transactions, but there are 81 institutions, credit unions, smaller banks and other financial services in relation to which we can perform over-the-counter services.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think the only question I’ve got left is: will One Nation get into government and create a people’s bank using Bank@Post for a full range of banking services before you shut down every branch in the bush?  

Mr Graham: Well, first of all, we are not shutting branches in the bush. We have no intention of being a full service bank. We believe that the over-the-counter services we provide are a valuable community service, and we will continue to sustain those services. Moving from an over-the-counter service provider to a full bank is a large undertaking and not one that we are considering at Australia Post.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much for attending. Thank you for your answers and punctuality.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/by

National Security Must Comes First

,

I questioned security authorities on the thoroughness of the screening processes for returning individuals and older children, ensuring ASIO and joint counter-terrorism teams are actively monitoring threats to keep our citizens safe.

I asked about the total costs of managing, monitoring and integrating these returnees. Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going, yet officials refused to disclose specific resource allocations in a public forum.

I raised concerns about how risk assessment notices are followed up with state authorities, specifically questioning NSW Police decisions regarding security during heightened-risk periods prior to recent tragedies.

I will never stop asking the tough questions to ensure our national security comes first and the government remains accountable to the Australian people. Australians deserve no less!

Transcript:

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Another group of ISIS concubines and their children arrived this week.  

Senator Shoebridge: I’m going to take a point of order: that kind of language is just pointlessly, gratuitously offensive, and I’d ask Senator Roberts to review his language and rephrase his question.  

CHAIR: Withdraw, please, Senator Roberts, and please refrain from that kind of— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw ‘concubines’. ISIS terrorist wives, brides, partners: what security screening has been done on them to ensure the safety of Australian citizens, as a group and also individually?  

Mr Gilmore: As I said earlier this evening, ASIO has worked over many years to understand the threat posed by those Australians who chose to travel offshore and join ISIL. We’ve provided advice on this cohort and other cohorts previously, both overseas and in Australia, to government departments and agencies, consistent with our statutory functions and requirements, for many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; were you watching them on the way out, while they were over there and on the way back?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO will always be watching to identify threats. When information comes to our attention that requires action, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they been screened individually and as a group? I guess what you’re saying is yes.  

Mr Gilmore: What I’ve said is that on any cohort that travels overseas—and I think I could characterise people travelling to join ISIL as a cohort that has been of interest to ASIO for many years, along with our partners, I must say, including in the JCTTs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are older children to be screened for security risk? I understand that the eldest at the moment is 18 years of age.  

Mr Gilmore: That would be a question for the security authorities, AFP and others.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I’m sure you understand that there are limits to what ASIO is able to put in the public domain as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand there’s the New South Wales police, for example, or the AFP. Will ASIO have a role in ensuring national security after these and other returnees arrive and stay in Australia?  

Mr Gilmore: Absolutely. ASIO’s function is to protect Australia and Australians from threats to their security. That means that we will always be looking and, where we need to, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is all of the work relating to the return of the brides, wives, partners, costing? What are the future related costs?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO receives a baseline allocation from government, as with any department or agency. We have a robust prioritisation and resource allocation process. The details of how those resources are allocated is not something that I could declare in this public forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to declare the detailed operational plans. I’m asking what the cost would be for these women that have recently come back. 

CHAIR: I think Mr Gilmore has indicated that the question you’re asking goes to the very thing that he’s just said he’s not willing to disclose in this forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t you think the taxpayers have a right to know?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the taxpayers would be expecting us to prioritise our resources against the highest threats and to be doing our job, which is what we’re doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough money to cover it?  

Mr Gilmore: We have allocations from government. We have a prioritisation process. We assess risk and we do our job.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough to do your job?  

Mr Gilmore: We have the resources allocated by budget. I think the director-general has been on the public record for successive years. If you want specific details that we might be able to offer this evening, we could go there, but we do.  

Senator ROBERTS: When ASIO provide heightened terrorist risk alert notices to the New South Wales police service, is there any expectation or follow-up by ASIO to check if there has been a suitable response from the New South Wales police?  

Mr Gilmore: You may be aware that we’re members of the joint counterterrorism teams around the country. They consist of ASIO, AFP and the state and territory police authorities in each state and territory. We share information through those forums. But it’s not just those forums; there are many other mechanisms. We work very closely with our partners in the states and territories.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you keep tabs on them formally or informally or both?  

Mr Gilmore: Could you just clarify ‘keep tabs on them’?  

Senator ROBERTS: Keep tabs on New South Wales police, for example—when you give them advice, you watch to make sure that they implement that advice.  

Mr Gilmore: We partner very closely. I think it would be reasonable to say we have a shared understanding through that habitual relationship that we’ve built over many, many years with our police partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is ASIO concerned to find that the New South Wales police service had actually wound back the police presence for Jewish festivals or events shortly before the Bondi atrocity, the murders, even though they had been warned of a heightened-risk assessment of terrorist activity?  

Mr Gilmore: I apologise, but that would go to matters being considered by the royal commission, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on those this evening. Needless to say, resourcing decisions for police or for other agencies and departments are decisions are made by them, and they’re questions that should be directed to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the process of your relationship—it’s a close relationship, I’m concluding—would you comment if something were less than you expected?  

Mr Gilmore: We will always work closely with our partners. Nothing is achieved alone, and there are no truer words in the security and intelligence domain. We rely on close relationships with our partners to understand and respond to threats to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume it’s in both of your interests to do that?  

Mr Gilmore: It is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was ASIO aware of the NSW Police Force winding back when you sent out the heightened-risk notice?  

Mr Gilmore: That’s not a question that I’m able to answer this evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the question really starts to go to some of the questions that the royal commission will be exploring, and it would be inappropriate to say anything that might compromise that process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The last question was on the royal commission, so I don’t need to go there now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, for your accommodation again. 

/by

Is Aboriginal Arts Funding Out of Proportion?

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister.  

Senator Green: You’re welcome.  

/by

Avoidance on Rising Breast Cancer Rates

,

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.  

/by

Protecting Every NDIS Dollar

,

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. 

/by

Coles Caught Out: A Win for Aussie Consumers!

,

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.  

CHAIR: She’s always very helpful.

/by

The Reality of Comcare: Outdated and Overdue

,

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.  

Mr Radford: Thank you, Senator. 

/by

ASIC Failed This Whistleblower

,

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Who’s Protecting the Consumer? Not Government.

,

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/by