Can’t Subsidise Our Way Out

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Flat?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Censorship or Safety?

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

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

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

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

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

Ms Inman Grant: I sure can.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes.

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not a minister.

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

Senator Henderson interjecting—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

The Truth About Tokenisation

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Aged Care: Rights, Not Rules

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Ms Hefren-Webb: Hi, Senator.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: You have the authority to do that.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes.  

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Those are complaints direct to you?  

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

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

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

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

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

/2 Comments/by

Bureaucrats vs. Parents

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

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

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

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

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

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

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s our proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly.

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Green: Of course.

/by

Whistleblowers Left Unprotected

,

In Senate Estimates, I questioned ASIC over the case of Roxanne Mysko, a whistleblower who spoke up about major safety failings in the trucking industry, only to be left unprotected.

Why hasn’t ASIC used the Corporations Act to protect her?

Why was the matter referred elsewhere when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?

Will ASIC reopen case CAS-94551 and prosecute for whistleblower retaliation?

ASIC couldn’t, or wouldn’t answer, taking every question on notice. It’s clear that right now, Australian whistleblowers are standing alone. I won’t stop pushing until that changes.

If our regulators won’t act, “protections” are just words on a page. We need real accountability for those who risk everything to keep us safe.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I hope that this session is a bit longer than the previous one. Are you aware of Ms Roxanne Mysko?  

Ms Court: I will try to be. The name is vaguely familiar but—  

Senator ROBERTS: Roxanne Mysko?  

Ms Court: Is there a company that Ms Mysko is associated with that you could help me with?  

Senator ROBERTS: I think she’s a whistleblower. Yes, she’s a whistleblower to you guys.  

Ms Court: If that’s the case, I won’t be able to speak about anything to do with that. But just let me check with Mr Savundra, just to make sure, to see if we have anything that we can assist you with here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ll ask the question. You can decide. Ms Roxanne Mysko is an honest person who discovered that there were significant failings of safety in the trucking industry. She found that international corporations, including Santos and Ensign, had contracted ECS Project Logistics as freight logistics. ECS and approximately 70 contractors operated with zero safety audits, fatigue controls and licence and registration checks done from 2007 to 2020. Why did ASIC fail to enforce the Corporations Act whistleblower protections? 

Ms Court: I don’t have any information about that with me, I’m afraid.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice?  

Ms Court: Of course, I’ll take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did ASIC refer whistleblower matters to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?  

Ms Court: I’ll have to take that on notice as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIC reopen CAS-94551 and prosecute whistleblower retaliation, identified breaches and victimisation by Santos, Ensign and ECS under Part 9.4AAA?  

Ms Court: I’m not familiar with the document you’re referring to, but, again, I’m happy to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: These disclosures by Ms Mysko revealed grave safety failings in the heavy vehicle industry. These safety issues are of significant concern for all road users. Ms Mysko has suffered terribly at the hands of big corporations and those public servants who have not done their jobs. Minister, when will this government get serious about protecting genuine whistleblowers and stop them from being victimised by wrongdoers?  

Senator Ayres: I have no knowledge of the matters that you raise. I understand you’ve asked ASIC questions about how they may or may not have dealt with this, and they’ve taken it on notice. In terms of the extent to which—you could make an argument that their responsibilities touch on this matter. But I have no knowledge of this set of circumstances, and I can’t help you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible for you to comment once we get the answers from ASIC?  

Senator Ayres: If there’s anything that we can help you with, we will.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know when this government will protect whistleblowers. That’s all.  

Senator Ayres: That’s a broader policy question. I’m not sure that ASIC’s in a position to respond to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m asking you for that.  

Senator Ayres: The broad approach that the government’s taken in relation to whistleblower protections is probably a matter for the Attorney-General. I’m here representing the Treasurer, and I’m not sure that I’m in a position to provide you with much information at all about this issue, as important as it is, both broadly and in relation to the person who you’ve referred to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think that’ll give whistleblowers much confidence, but thank you for your answer.  

Senator Ayres: Then you should ask these questions in the Attorney-General’s section if you are genuinely looking for an answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/by

Are There Really 200 Would-Be Terrorists in Australia?

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned Mr Burgess, Director-General of ASIO, about the scale and nature of extremist threats in Australia. I cited figures of 200 potential terrorists and 18,000 people on threat-related watchlists.

Mr Burgess clarified that while “tens of thousands” have been investigated since 2001, not all remain active threats. He stated that the vast majority of individuals investigated since 2001 fall under religiously motivated violent extremism. However, he noted growth in other sectors, specifically – nationalist and racist violent extremists; extreme left-wing groups (anarchists and revolutionists) and broad “issue-motivated” extremists.

Mr Burgess declined to say whether the majority of persons under investigation were Islamist extremists.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of root cause analysis, you’ve reassured me already. Thank you for your statement. I have a few questions. Is it true that there are approximately 200 would-be terrorists living in Australia? Is it true that there are over 18,000 people on the threat related watch list?  

Mr Burgess: What I can say publicly is we have a number of people we have subject to investigations, including a number of people in our priority counterterrorism caseload who obviously get the priority. There are tens of thousands of people who have come to our attention and are no longer being investigated by us. That does not mean tens of thousands of people are potential terrorists, but they’re people we have investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that the majority of these are Islamic sympathisers?  

Mr Burgess: The vast majority of people we’ve investigated since 2001 have come from a religiously motivated violent extremism cohort. But of course we have seen growth in broader issue motivated violent extremists, including nationalists and racist violent extremists and people with a range of other grievances, including on the extreme left, anarchists and revolutionists, which is something recently that we’re getting involved in. The mix is spread.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIO take direct action in the future on strong suspicion of threat even if the action runs the risk of being branded racist or the result of profiling religion or whatever? It seems to be a matter of life and death.  

Mr Burgess: If it’s a matter of life and death, we and the police will be on it. We’ll be doing that together with the police. If it’s an immediate threat to life, you need the police to go through the front door, not the security service. We always investigate threats to security, and that’s what we’re investigating. We’re not racially profiling or doing anything else. We’re looking at people who hold certain ideological views that think politically motivated violence or promotion of communal violence is something that supports them or in their remit. We will act accordingly with the full force of our law. Everything we do and everything we must do has to be legal and proportionate to the threat before us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you label them at the risk of being called names?  

Mr Burgess: It depends what you mean by ‘label’. We assign ideology—  

Senator ROBERTS: Identify their background. 

Mr Burgess: Religiously motivated violent extremists, Sunni violent extremists, Neo-Nazis, nationalist and racist violent extremists—we call them what we need to to explain their ideology and motivation.  

Senator ROBERTS: One last challenge for you, and a very difficult one. Could you teach the minister about root cause analysis, please?  

Mr Burgess: That’s a matter for the minister, if he’s interested. He probably has a very busy day job. 

/by

The Deportation Failure: 102,000 People Lingering

,

I questioned officials from the Department of Home Affairs on the government’s failure to deport over 100,000 individuals who have no legal right to be here.

There are 101,976 individuals who were refused a protection visa and have yet to be deported. Some of these cases date back as far as 1994.

I highlighted a recent case where a South African man was raided and detained at dawn just 24 hours after his visa was cancelled. The government clearly has the capability to enforce our borders and laws. So why, out of over 100,000 people here illegally, did the government only involuntarily deport 5 people in a single month? That’s a 0.005% deportation rate.

When I asked for an honest explanation, Minister Watt did what he always does: he resorted to name-calling and labels to avoid the discussion.

Australians deserve an immigration system that actually enforces the law, not one that picks and chooses when to act while tens of thousands stay here illegally.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to change the topic to deportation. According to your ‘Monthly update: onshore protection (subclass 866) visa processing – October 2025’, the total number of individuals that were not granted a final protection visa that have yet to be deported at the end of the period is 101,976. How many of those 101,976 rejected refugees or unlawful noncitizens are currently seeking merits or judicial review from a court or tribunal?

Ms Foster: We could go through that data for you. I’d just note, for the rest of the committee, that we just had a series of questions and that exact data was provided to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Should I just go through the Hansard? To save time, I’ll go through the Hansard.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Your reporting has a caveat that the 100,000 number includes anyone who has been rejected for a protection visa since 1994. Do you have any data on the distribution in terms of how old some of those applications were? For example, do you have any data on how many people have not been deported after being rejected for a protection visa more than five years ago or more than 10 years ago? How many are still lingering here?

Mr Thomas: We’ll have to take that on notice to get that breakdown for you.

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got that data?

Ms Foster: It’s to get the particular breakdown that you’re asking for and so that we can see if we can do it by year—year groups.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Ms Foster. It would be appreciated if it’s done by year, because some people seem to be lingering forever. Do you have a breakdown of how many of the hundred thousand are included in the temporary visa stock data? I would assume anyone who is in the country illegally without a visa is not included in the 2.9 million, but I’d like a more specific number—on notice?

Mr Willard: On notice. I’d note that, in that temporary visa figure—that includes bridging visas. Many of these would be on bridging visas, but—

Senator ROBERTS: If you could break that down too, please—

Mr Willard: I’ll have to break it down.

Senator ROBERTS: Break that down. This is my last question, Chair. In November, a South African man whose visa was cancelled after attending a Neo-Nazi rally in Sydney was detained by immigration agents in a predawn operation, according to the media, and faces deportation. That was just one day after the visa cancellation by Minister Burke. I highlight that, as it shows that you obviously have the capability to raid houses, detain people in the dark and get them deported. But you don’t appear to be using it. Out of the more than 100,000 people here illegally, your October report says you involuntarily deported fewer than five that month. That’s a 0.005 per cent deportation rate. Why aren’t you raiding these houses and deporting people who have no legal right to be in Australia?

Senator Watt: I thought you said earlier that you don’t associate with Neo-Nazis, but you seem very concerned about the fact that the government decided to deport one.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re hiding from a discussion—an honest discussion—by labelling me?

Senator Watt: No, no. I’m happy—

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, you’re making this a habit.

Senator Watt: I’m happy—

Senator ROBERTS: If you haven’t got the data and you haven’t got the logic behind it, just say so, and we’ll get it on notice.

Senator Watt: I’m happy for the officials to answer your question.

Senator ROBERTS: Good.

Senator Watt: I’m just a bit perplexed about why, on the one hand, you say you don’t associate with Neo Nazis but you seem very concerned about a Neo-Nazi being deported.

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the fearful—

Senator Watt: You called them a Neo-Nazi. You just called them a Neo-Nazi.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s what the media called them. So does that make me a Neo-Nazi because I’m discussing—

Senator Watt: I’m not saying you’re a Neo-Nazi. I’m just questioning—

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re implying it, Senator.

Senator Watt: No, I said earlier that you didn’t seem to be very happy when I said that you associate with Neo-Nazis—

Senator ROBERTS: Because what you said was not correct.

Senator Watt: and other extremists, but here you are, asking about the deportation of a Neo-Nazi.

Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the fearful, the stupid and the gutless.

CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Senator Watt: Thank you for that free character assessment, Senator Roberts.

Senator SCARR: Chair, please return us to some order—questions being asked and answers being given.

CHAIR: Thank you for that very helpful direction, Senator Scarr. If we can proceed in an orderly question and-answer fashion, that would be of much help to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to do that.

Ms Foster: Senator Roberts, we provided some data in response to the previous questioning about the numbers of people who are removed each year. If it would be helpful, we could quickly reprise that data.

Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like, Ms Foster, is to know why one person, regardless of who he or she is, was able to be detained in the middle of the night, their house raided, but the other 102,000 were not.

Senator Watt: What makes you think that no others were treated similarly?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, in the answer to my question, perhaps you could tell me.

Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: My answer is—

CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Senator Watt: Well, you make—

Senator SCARR: Questions are being asked now by the minister of members of the committee. Again, can I ask that we return to orderly—

Senator Watt: Well, okay. There’s a simple reason for that.

Senator SCARR: Sorry, can I finish my point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: These are simple questions, Minister.

Senator SCARR: Can I finish my point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: They’re very simple.

CHAIR: Senator Scarr, yes, you can finish your point.

Senator SCARR: We’re running out of time. Can I just ask, Chair, that we return to the orderly process of questions coming from the committee members and being answered by the representatives at the table.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator Watt: May I make a point of order.

CHAIR: Can I respond.

Senator Watt: Sure.

CHAIR: It’s within the rules for the minister to respond to questions being asked by senators, but I would encourage the minister to answer the question rather than pose one.

Senator Watt: Sure. I’ll frame this not by asking a question. Senator Roberts has just suggested that the government has chosen to deport one person, who participated in a Neo-Nazi rally, and has suggested that the government does not deport—was it 102,000 other people?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why can’t you do the same—

Senator Watt: I’d be interested to know what evidence Senator Roberts has for that suggestion.

Senator ROBERTS: Your answer will be sufficient.

Senator Watt: I’m disputing your suggestion.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, then give me the data. That’s all I’m after, Minister—the data.

Senator Watt: You’re not very good at listening to data when it’s presented to you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the judgement on my questions. It’s now very, very clear what I’m requesting from you.

Senator Watt: Perhaps the officials could advise you with some facts, if you’re ready for that, about whether the government does deport other individuals rather than one neo-Nazi.

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s not my question. That’s not my question, Chair. My question is: why don’t you raid other people’s houses and get them out of the country as well?

Senator Watt: This is the point. You’re suggesting that doesn’t occur. Would you like facts?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I would—the number of people raided.

CHAIR: In a second, I will invite the officials to respond to your question, Senator Roberts, but I am going to call final question for you, before I need to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: That is my final question.

Ms Sharp: Senator, for the first three months of this financial year, 943 people were involuntarily removed from immigration detention. In many instances, they would have been detained from their home prior to being placed in immigration detention and then removed. In the previous financial year, we had 3,457 involuntary removals from immigration detention.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Sharp. Can you tell me the number of houses that were raided and people detained, on notice?

Ms Foster: In many cases, in fact, most cases, those people were in the community, and were detained by Border Force officers, and then taken into detention in order to be removed.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the number, please?

Ms Foster: We can have a look at that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I found that easy in the end, thank you.

Senator Watt: I look forward to you using those facts, Senator Roberts.

/1 Comment/by

Insurance Profits Soar While Australians Struggle

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have heard of BlackRock.  

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: I can put some on notice.  

CHAIR: That would be great.  

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

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

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

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

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

/1 Comment/by

Ongoing Investigation Into Taipan Helicopter Tragedy

,

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

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

/by