71% Visas Granted Without Points Test

,

When you can’t get through the front door — go through New Zealand

The Albanese Government has turned New Zealand into a back door for Australian citizenship. Under Labor’s 2023 changes, anyone who gets NZ citizenship, even if they weren’t born there, can come to Australia on a 444 visa, stay indefinitely, and become an Australia citizen after four years without ever becoming a permanent resident or passing our points test.

When I pressed the department on how many people become permanent residents without passing the points test, they took the question on notice. The response is staggering.

Only 29% of permanent visas granted in 2025-26 to 31 March 2026, were points-tested. That means 71% of people gaining permanent residency, and eventually citizenship, never sat the points test at all.

Even New Zealand’s Foreign Minister has warned his country is being used as a stepping stone. Yet when I raised these concerns, the Minister tried to spin migration numbers to mislead Australians, ignoring the truth that Morrison raised immigration after COVID, and Albanese then drove it two records high, followed by a slight dip he now claims is a “cut”. He fails to mention the latest year is another record.

Australians deserve honesty. This government created a back-door pathway that undermines our citizenship standards and disrespects migrants who did the right thing, followed the rules, and passed the points test.

The Minister needs to stop playing games with the numbers and start serving the Australian people.

One Nation will immediately deny permanent residency and citizenship to anyone who fails the points test.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are about the citizenship back door between New Zealand and Australia. Changes made by the Albanese government in July 2023 allowed New Zealand citizens who have lived here for four years to become Australian citizens without having to first become permanent residents. Is that correct?  

Mr Layton: Technically, that is correct. The 444 visa is categorised as a temporary visa. The 444 visa holders have, since that time, become eligible for citizenship.  

Senator ROBERTS: And a New Zealand citizen can come here without a visa and automatically qualify for a subclass 444 visa—that’s correct?  

Mr Layton: No, that’s not correct. The 444 visa is applied, upon arrival, to a New Zealander. So they obtain that when they arrive in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Basically that’s the same as a permanent visa? Mr Willard: It’s a temporary visa, the 444.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it effectively a permanent visa—they can stay?  

Mr Willard: They can stay indefinitely, but it’s classified as a temporary visa.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know why that’s the case, but let’s leave that. They can stay indefinitely. They arrive and get a 444 visa to stay indefinitely. Then, after four years, they can get citizenship without getting a permanent visa—straight from subclass 444 to citizenship. Is that correct? Mr Layton: Technically, that’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Then aren’t we really just relying on New Zealand having the same standards for citizenship as Australia?  

Ms Foster: This was a government policy decision. We are responsible for giving effect to it.  

Senator Watt: It’s worth recognising that many if not most of those New Zealand citizens who are gaining Australian citizenship have spent many years in Australia working and paying taxes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I recognise that. I’ll go on. Do they in New Zealand, though—you may become a citizen in New Zealand if you’ve been there five years, can hold a conversation in English and are of good character proven with a police check. Summary offences don’t take away your good character. That’s the bar these people are using to become Australian citizens. Yes, some Kiwis are here for 20 years. It’s annoying that they don’t become citizens, but there are certain loopholes. There are certain benefits of not becoming citizens. I’m talking about people who use this as an easy entry. It is why New Zealand is now the No. 1 source of Australian citizens in the two-year period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025. Isn’t it an easy back door? Someone who’s come to New Zealand can come straight here.  

Ms Foster: Again, I think you’re asking us for an opinion. We can give you facts about the system, but we can’t comment on assertions of that nature.  

Senator ROBERTS: They can do that, can’t they? I’m not asking for your opinion. They can do that. Ms Foster: Technically, someone can, as the officers have said, come to Australia on a 444 visa, and, after four years, they can apply for citizenship.  

Mr Sharp: They would have had to have met the time threshold in New Zealand to acquire New Zealand citizenship as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: But that’s at a very low threshold, a low bar. In that period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025, 48 per cent of New Zealanders who are now Australian citizens were not born in New Zealand. They came into New Zealand from overseas. That’s a backdoor entry to Australian citizenship with a much lower bar because they had to meet the threshold for New Zealand, which is lower than Australian citizenship. That’s a much lower bar than people moving here directly and following the rules in Australia to citizenship, including passing what is called our 100-point test with at least a score of 65. This New Zealand back door is way easier than getting 65 on the 100-point test. For clarity, children don’t generally need to pass citizenship tests. Can you clarify that rule by age please. What’s the age threshold?  

Mr Willard: It’s 18.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you understand the position that offering this pathway to people from foreign countries to come in through the back door in New Zealand without passing the points test is a slap in the face for those who have come here fairly, waited, worked, studied and done the right thing but can’t get citizenship because this government wrote in a backdoor way for no obvious reason? Can you understand that?  

Ms Foster: We can’t comment on opinions of that nature.  

Senator Watt: I have to say, I think it’s pretty insulting to a lot of New Zealand citizens who become Australian citizens to talk about them coming through a back door.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about people who come into New Zealand, meet the lower threshold in New Zealand and come here. That’s who I’m talking about, Senator Watt. I’m surprised you can’t work that out. If this was about working with our neighbour New Zealand, why wasn’t there a provision for the pathway to be open only to New Zealand-born people rather than a deliberately set up back door to let in people that couldn’t pass a points test? What was the reason for that?  

Mr Layton: The policy and the parameters around that are a matter for government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Watt: I’m trying to remember the reason the government made that change in our first term. My recollection is that it was partly in recognition that, because of a change that had been made by the Howard government, there was a very large number of New Zealand citizens who had lived in Australia and worked, paid taxes and contributed to the community in a range of ways but, despite having lived here for such a very long time, were unable to get Australian citizenship, because of rules the Howard government imposed. That, in our view, was not fair. I remember that being at least one of the motivations for changing the policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no problem with that. What I’m talking about is people who come to New Zealand, quickly meet the lower threshold for citizenship there and come here and automatically get citizenship.  

Senator Watt: I’m not sure that people who, as you say, move to New Zealand and then move to Australia are necessarily of ‘low standard’. That’s what you’re implying in your question.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would also suggest that the New Zealand citizenship process is not a matter for Home Affairs.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s about using that threshold for people who are new to New Zealand. How many citizenships have been awarded to people who haven’t passed the points test under any circumstances?  

Mr Layton: Sorry, the points test?  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian citizenship points test.  

Ms Sharp: The points test is one way somebody can gain a permanent residency in Australia, but not every person who gains permanent residency in Australia comes in as a points tested migrant.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many do?  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: They fall in love with someone!  

Senator ROBERTS: How many come in without passing the points test?  

Mr Willard: I would have to take that on notice. I would note that there are also employer sponsored migrants. There are many different types of permanent residents.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. According to an article: It has also prompted New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters to flag concerns his country is being used as a stepping stone by migrants wanting to come to Australia, and that the trend will further accelerate under an easing of its own migration rules which will grant residency in just 18 months for some workers. Those numbers, combined with the recent rise in New Zealanders moving to Australia, have raised doubts about Australia’s ability to meet a planned slowdown in migration— He doubts whether you’re going to slow down— as well as concerns it is robbing New Zealand of both its professional and low-skilled workforce.  

Senator Watt: For starters, migration numbers in Australia have significantly fallen over the last couple of years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Compared to when? What’s the baseline?  

Senator Watt: Compared to the surge that we saw after COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: You mean the surge in 2023-24?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please let the minister finish.  

Senator Watt: Yes. That was the surge that happened after COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your surge, where you went from 500,000 to 750,000.  

Senator Watt: No, the surge that followed COVID.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have been very orderly throughout today, and you are usually pretty good at not interjecting. I would ask that you maintain that order and allow the minister to respond, please.  

Senator Watt: Here are a couple of other facts about this situation. I think we’ve already heard that the process that now applies still requires someone who has moved to New Zealand and gained New Zealand citizenship to have that for five years—so they spend five years in New Zealand and then four years in Australia. If you want to characterise that as a back door, that’s a pretty slow back door. Second, you’ve been asking questions about the points test. Any person who wants to get Australian citizenship still needs to meet the character and identification requirements and pass the security tests as well. As I said earlier, I think it’s a bit insulting to be suggesting these people are running through a back door and are of low standard. That’s what you’re suggesting.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: There’s a bloody long garden path leading to that back door.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve worked and lived in New Zealand, turning around a business there for 12 months. They’re wonderful people. But Winston Peters is concerned that their immigration system is being used for quick entry into New Zealand to go to Australia.  

Senator Watt: That’s a question for New Zealand to address.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s also a question for Australia to address, and that’s what I’m doing on behalf of the taxpayers. Minister, I agree with you on one point: mass immigration was started by John Howard’s government. It was pretty much doubled since then in Scott Morrison’s government, and then you tripled it in the early days of 2023-24. Senator Watt: What’s NOM stand for?  

Ms Foster: Net overseas migration.  

Senator Watt: Actually, net overseas migration has fallen by 45 per cent over the last 12 or 18 months. I can get you the exact timeframe.  

Senator ROBERTS: You had two very high years, a low year and now a very high year again.  

Senator Watt: Yes, after COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re playing with numbers.  

Senator Watt: It’s another one of those ones. We’re never going to convince you.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, have you got a question?  

Senator ROBERTS: I go by the data.  

Senator Watt: During COVID, migration crashed. After COVID—  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct.  

Senator Watt: lots of people came home. Migration rose. We have now reduced NOM by about 45 per cent by—  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s misleading, Minister, because—  

Senator Watt: No; it’s actually called facts.  

Senator ROBERTS: it increased dramatically under Morrison to re-establish what he thought were the right numbers of migration. Then you almost doubled it, then you decreased it slightly, and now you’re doubling it again.  

Senator Watt: So we should have told all those Australians who wanted to come home after COVID that they weren’t allowed home?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, not at all. I’m talking about immigrant—  

CHAIR: Can I interject for a second here—  

Senator ROBERTS: Mass immigration—mass immigration.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am not hearing any questions from you. Can I take it you have finished this line of questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, you can. 

/2 Comments/by

30,000 Fake Degrees Stripped

,

These questions are directed at the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) where I wanted to get clear answers on the scale of misconduct within our vocational education and training (VET) sector, and to find out exactly what is being done to shut down rogue Registered Training Organisations (RTOs).

As of late 2025, ASQA had cancelled 16 critically non-compliant providers, issued notices of intent to cancel credentials to over 36,600 individuals, and ultimately stripped more than 30,000 people of improperly issued qualifications.

My primary focus remains on criminal accountability for blatant scams, such as RTOs selling qualifications for cash. To ensure these operators face justice, ASQA is actively sharing intelligence with the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, including the ATO, ASIC, and the ACIC, and passing critical financial details to law enforcement.

We must ensure these rogue operators cannot simply close up shop and re-enter the market under a different name.

At the same time, any student caught purchasing fake credentials must be deported.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Good evening. My question is pretty brief. I understand that, by the end of 2025, ASQA deregistered 11 critically non-compliant registered training organisations and 31,000 qualifications they had issued, affecting 25,000 people. Is this accurate? Is it the latest data?  

Ms Rice: The latest data is that, as at 31 December 2025, we have cancelled 16 critically non-compliant providers. We have issued notices of intent to cancel qualifications and/or statements of attainment to more than 36,600 individuals. Of that figure, we have cancelled the qualifications and/or statements of attainment of just over 30,000 individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thirty thousand people. How many qualifications? Roughly 37,000?  

Ms Rice: Sorry, no. It is 36,600. We’ve issued a notice of intent to individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is in addition to the 30,000 you’ve cancelled?  

Ms Rice: No, sorry. It is a subset. It is 36,600. Of that 36,600, just over 30,000 we have actually cancelled. That is as at 31 December 2025.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your enforcement team investigated 189 serious matters involving 154 providers with 74 per cent relating to serious fraud. Wouldn’t they all be committing fraud? They are handing over a certificate that they knew was improperly issued and kept the money the student paid for the tuition. Shouldn’t they all have been charged with fraud?  

Ms Rice: Those are investigations on foot. The current data in relation to that is we have, I believe, 201 serious matters currently under investigation relating to 136 providers. The difference in there is because we also have serious matters under investigation in relation to non-RTOs or individuals or joint investigations with other partner agencies or law enforcement. I guess it is pre-emptive. We certainly have concerns about fraud in relation to all of those matters, but they are all at various stages of investigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t categorise them yet?  

Ms Rice: No. That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: So I’m on the right track. I can see the cancellations in the CRICOS panel.  

Ms Rice: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where are the charges for fraud on the owners, managers and administrators of these companies? 

Ms Rice: That’s a good question, Senator. We have undertaken a number of civil and criminal prosecutions or worked certainly with the CDPP. We don’t bring those matters ourselves.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t run them yourselves?  

Ms Rice: No. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions does. We provide a brief around some of those matters. In many of these cases, we have certainly made adverse findings from a fit and proper person perspective as part of the investigations. That is certainly relevant in order to, again, work with other partner agencies on the implications of that. It is also important in terms of preventing their re-entry into the VET sector. But it remains an ongoing program of work in relation to the individuals associated with this work.  

Senator ROBERTS: Once it is completed, the names will come out?  

Ms Rice: Typically, there will be names associated with the cancellation decisions that we’ve—  

Senator ROBERTS: I mean the officers of companies—administrators, managers—will be exposed?  

Ms Rice: That’s right. We work closely with ASIC and other regulators from that perspective, including the ATO.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Some of the RTOs were running obvious scams. One sold the qualifications for cash. How many others were dealing in cash? Was any of this reported to the ATO for tax fraud?  

Ms Rice: Certainly in all of the matters we have dealt with in this space, we have shared our intelligence and information with our Fraud Fusion partners, which includes the tax office.  

Senator ROBERTS: What partners did you call them?  

Ms Rice: The Fraud Fusion Taskforce partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What is to stop these people opening up another RTO ad running the same thing but this time different, having learned how not to get caught?  

Ms Rice: Well, Senator, we are certainly very alert to the risk of individuals re-entering the market. That is where we have been particularly focused on including the reforms to the fit and proper person requirements so that we can be alert to individuals as much as entities seeking—  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you track individuals?  

Ms Rice: Yes, we do. We’ve also been uplifting our focus of assessment on market entrants. It remains a significant area of focus for us. We’re also alert to it, though, as I mentioned earlier, in relation to the change of ownership of RTOs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Did you seize any money from the fraudulent RTOs as proceeds of crime?  

Ms Rice: No, Senator. That would be for law enforcement.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what I expected. Did you report it to the police?  

Ms Rice: Again, I guess we have certainly informed our Fraud Fusion partners about—  

Senator ROBERTS: Who are they?  

Ms Rice: There’s 22, I think, Fraud Fusion partners. It certainly includes the ATO, ASIC, the ACIC, NDIA and our portfolio department in DEWR. I can certainly provide you with the—  

Senator ROBERTS: So basically, other government departments?  

Ms Rice: That’s right. I can certainly provide you on notice with the list of members and the terms of reference for the taskforce.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Why not the police? That would put these criminals behind bars.  

Ms Rice: Well, certainly in some cases, Senator, we’ve worked with state law enforcement in relation to some of those matters. If it would assist, Senator, I’m happy to come back to you on notice with some more of the specifics from that perspective.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question. Has the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 that was passed last year made it easier to deal with rogue RTOs, or is it too early to tell?  

Ms Rice: It’s a good question, Senator. I think it is part of a suite of integrity measures. Together with the other measures, it has certainly helped to ensure greater alignment between the two pieces of legislation that we deal with the most in the ESOS Act and the NVR Act. It has certainly ensured consistency between those two acts from an integrity perspective. So we’re working through the implementation of that and certainly supportive of those changes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Chair, I want to put it on the record that for the second time today I’m going to compliment someone for the answers they’ve put—prompt, clear and concise. Thank you so much.  

Ms Rice: Thank you, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s good to see someone on top.

/1 Comment/by

Redefining “Family”: Is the Meaning Being Lost?

,

During my questioning of Australian Institute of Family Studies Director Ms Neville, I asked about the agency’s funding, definitions of family, and research focus.

The AIFS operates on an annual budget of approximately $23 million, consisting of a $4.7 million departmental appropriation and around $18 million in government-commissioned revenue.

I questioned Ms Neville on whether broadening the definition of “family” to include diverse structures, single parents and kin risks making the term meaningless. I also asked whether the institute’s remit has evolved since its establishment under the Family Law Act 1975.

I raised several concerns regarding the agency’s reporting on relationship dynamics and domestic duties, referencing Australian and international statistics on work hours, commutes, and divorce rates among different coupling types.

I’m not sure if this agency has left me confident they are genuine in providing data for Australian families. What I am sure of is that One Nation believes in promoting traditional family units rather than narratives of victimhood.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Neville. The name of your agency is the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Could you please define ‘family’.  

Ms Neville: Families have been taken to include many diverse forms in contemporary Australia. It may include married, cohabiting and de facto relationships, but it might also include blended families, stepfamilies, same-sex families, families with disability and other families representing a range of different population groups.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s clear. Your income is composed partly of government allocations and partly income from commissioned research. Could you please provide your total budget, how much is allocation and how much is earned income?  

Ms Neville: AIFS receives a departmental appropriation of around $4.7 million per annum and in the order of about $18 million in commissioned revenue.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the total budget is about $23 million?  

Ms Neville: The commissioned revenue amount varies from year to year.  

Senator ROBERTS: But this year it’ll be $23 million?  

Ms Neville: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage of earned income is on behalf of a client who’s also in government or government funded?  

Ms Neville: All of our commissioned revenue is for government clients.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your agency was created in 1980 under a provision of the Family Law Act 1975, section 114B, which sets the functions of the director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies as: … to promote, by the conduct, encouragement and co—ordination of research and other appropriate means, the identification of, and development of understanding of, the factors affecting marital and family stability in Australia, with the object of promoting the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit in society … Do you believe the work you do is in keeping with the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit in society?  

Ms Neville: I would take the view that AIFS is concerned with the family as the fundamental unit in society and that we take great care to explore factors that support family wellbeing, as well as the relations between families and societal institutions. Our remit has continued to evolve since we were established under an amendment to the Family Law Act in 1980.  

Senator ROBERTS: In what way has your remit continued to evolve? Is it by legislation changes or society or—  

Ms Neville: Primarily by virtue of being commissioned by government departments to perform research and evaluation that is broadly in line with our remit.  

Senator ROBERTS: So other departments and agencies from the government have shaped what you’re doing?  

Ms Neville: Where it aligns to our purpose and our function, yes, that’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: However, you’ve redrawn the meaning of ‘family’ to include any blood relative—’kin’, I think, is your word—divorced families and care by others. Your definition of ‘family’ is, in short, anything comprising two or more people, who don’t even need to live together. Are you making the word ‘family’ meaningless?  

Ms Neville: I don’t accept that characterisation, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: I take it that you’re saying no. The explanatory memorandum to the Family Law Act provides further context in stating the reason for your agency was to provide eyes on the quite substantial changes made to the Family Law Act to assess the impact of it on families. That was a big concern because it was introduced in 1975, I believe, by the Whitlam government—Attorney-General Lionel Murphy. So this would have been soon after. The fundamental assumption in your enabling legislation is that divorce may be the enemy of family. Does the Australian Institute of Family Studies consider divorce as having a negative impact on family? Feel free to define or interpret ‘impact’ as you choose.  

Ms Neville: The then government’s decision to introduce no-fault divorce had a very significant impact in terms of responding to latent demand for divorce. There was a huge spike in the number of applications for divorce in moving from the previous state based arrangements to the establishment of the family law system at a federal level. So there was a significant change that occurred, which was the government’s decision, and AIFS was established to monitor the changes to families in the wake of that significant decision. We have continued to monitor those trends, including the diverse forms of family that we now find in Australian society.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that perceptive observation about no-fault divorce. You mentioned the words ‘significant changes’, so I’m just clarifying; I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Are you saying divorce doesn’t affect families because a single mum and a child are still a family and the single dad by himself, who was formerly in the married family, is still family, even if he doesn’t live with his with his family or children? Is that correct?  

Ms Neville: Single-parent families are a form of family, most certainly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I charted the evolving reasons the Australian Institute of Family Studies has provided for rising divorce rates. Your 1999 research report titled ‘Towards understanding the reasons for divorce’ talked about rising divorce rates linked to social changes such as greater female economic independence, shifting expectations of marriage from duty to personal fulfilment, and declining stigma around divorce. By 2012, which was just 13 years later, the explanation had moved to separation dynamics, including family violence, conflict and relationship quality. Have I missed a clear statement from you on the causes of divorce since this 2012 statement? If I have, what was it, please? Has there been a newer statement than 2012?  

Ms Neville: Senator, are you referring to AIFS research in 2012? It’s not clear to me what you’re referring to there.  

Senator ROBERTS: The evolving reasons the Australian Institute of Family Studies has provided for rising divorce rates. Have you made any changes or additions since 2012 report?  

Ms Neville: We produce facts and figures resources that draw from ABS and census data that provide roughly annual updates on patterns of divorce and separation. So, yes, we continue to monitor those trends.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Neville. That’s your core mandate. Your report titled ‘Couple relationships in Australia today’, dated March 2026, mentioned marriage rates and duties or responsibilities but not divorce. I noted it included the mandatory inclusion of overseas data showing men don’t do enough housework. Why didn’t you use Australian data, including your own HILDA data, which shows the difference is explained by fathers commuting much longer and working longer hours out of home than mothers where both are working full time? Why don’t you put balance into these anti-father digs sprinkled through your work?  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I wonder if we could maybe rephrase some of the questioning. Ms Neville is trying to answer your questions, but there’s an awful lot of emotive language in there. 

Ms Neville‘s here to answer questions about the work of the Australian Institute of Family Studies.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re not using Australian data with a clear explanation and instead are preferring overseas data. Is that putting balance into your work? 

Ms Neville: Senator, I’m not sure what data you’re referring to.  

ACTING CHAIR: Maybe you could give us a reference, Senator Roberts, to one of the reports.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t. I’m sorry. I’ve got this much stuff—  

ACTING CHAIR: It’s very difficult for the witness to respond to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on, here it is.  

ACTING CHAIR: assertions as opposed to data.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have it here. The University of Melbourne published a study in 2024 which said that mothers working full time do 1.5 hours a week of extra housework above fathers working full time. One and a half hours is less than the extra hours a man works or commutes to support his family. There’s no substance to the housework female victimhood argument that the AIFS promotes.  

ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, you’re asking the witness to respond to somebody else’s report that she may or may not have read and certainly is unlikely to have in front of her.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, if you’re comfortable responding to it, do so. If not, don’t worry about it.  

Ms Neville: I was just going to say I can’t comment on research produced by the University of Melbourne, Senator. I’m not familiar with it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

CHAIR, do you have the graphs that I sent around?  

ACTING CHAIR: Yes. You are at the point where I’m going to need to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m almost done.  

ACTING CHAIR: Alright. The graph has been circulated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s drill down on the graph. This is USA data.  

ACTING CHAIR: Again, we’re in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-first state!  

ACTING CHAIR: No, Senator Roberts, we most certainly are not.  

Senator ROBERTS: Good. This USA data, which you also use, shows the different divorce rates by type of coupling. This shows lesbian couples have a 20-year divorce rate of 59.1 per cent, as against male-female marriages, at 39.3 per cent, and gay male marriages, at 29.3 per cent. These are significant differences that must have a reason, which you would have come across during the AIFS’s 45 years of study of families. Can you explain the difference, please.  

ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, I’m going to tell you that you have provided some American data to Ms Neville, and we’re here to talk about the Australian Institute of Family Studies in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you cover this topic?  

Ms Neville: I have not seen this graph before.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, forget the graph for a minute. Do you cover this topic?  

Senator Ayres: I do think, Senator, that it’s utterly legitimate to ask the witness questions about reports that the institute has prepared and issued, evidence that they have collected or relied upon and the way that they allocate their funds, but I think it is hard to ask for an opinion from a witness about a graph that’s been prepared by somebody else and that they haven’t seen before.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I can appreciate that view, Minister. Eighty per cent of the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ income comes from earned income and commissioned studies, four times as much as our budget allocations. I was just wondering if Ms Neville can talk about the research in Australia, if you’ve done any research in Australia on this topic.  

Ms Neville: I personally haven’t undertaken research on this topic, Senator. I am happy to refer you to our facts and figures publications, which do produce trend data about changes in patterns of separation, divorce and marriage.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, section—  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am going to have to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question.  

ACTING CHAIR: Last question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, section 114C of the Family Law Act provides you with the powers of direction to undertake specific activities within these functions and set priorities for them. Have you provided the Australian Institute of Family Studies with any directions regarding the operation of their functions?  

Senator Ayres: That would be a novel power for the minister for industry to have. 

 Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I mean the minister you represent.  

Senator Ayres: I have certainly not provided any of that kind of direction. It’s very unlikely that—  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the minister provided it?  

Senator Ayres: Given some of the questions that you’ve asked about the differential role of people pulling their weight at home, I reckon you’re on your own there, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: One Nation thinks it’s time to promote families, not victimhood. 

/by

Australia’s Visa System is Snapping Under the Weight

,

During this estimates session with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), I asked questions regarding the scale of visa appeals they are reviewing – and it’s worse than expected.

Migration cases now make up 56% of the entire tribunal workload, with student visas alone accounting for 35%. The backlog is astonishing.

77,938 migration cases, 52,452 student visa cases, and 130,983 cases overall waiting for hearing. Protection visas add another 37,830, and even NDIS reviews are climbing.

The tribunal admitted its receiving around 90,000 applications a year, but is only funded to finalise 60,000, meaning the backlog grows by 30,000 every year.

When asked when this backlog is expected to be cleared, the answer was blunt and honest. On present numbers, they have no reasonable expectation.

The tribunal is drowning. A system meant for genuine review is being overloaded, under-funded and pushed beyond capacity, while taxpayers foot the bill for backlog that grows every single day.

Much of the fault lies with Australian universities, who aggressively market their degrees by promising students a fast track to permanent residency. This is often done through third-party brokers employed by the universities.

How long will the Government let the Tribunal drown before doing its job and and fixing this mess?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I may have heard, on the tail end of what Senator Cash was saying, you going through some categories, so, if I do, forgive me for repeating them. Which is the largest category of applications for review currently before the tribunal? I think you said it’s student visas.  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. It’s in the migration case load. I hope you’re going to be wearing a maroon tie tomorrow!  

Senator ROBERTS: State of Origin.  

Senator CASH: I’ll even agree with that, as a Western Australian!  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m supporting coal today!  
 
Mr Hawkins: The highest case load is migration and the student visas within that.  
 
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the proportion of migration and then the proportion of that that’s students?  
 
Mr Hawkins: If I can say, migration is 56 per cent of our total case load. Within that, students represent 35 per cent of our total case load.  
 
Senator ROBERTS: How many of these applications are waiting for hearing?  
 
Mr Hawkins: Waiting for hearing, which is cases on hand—in migration we have 77,938 on hand. We have 52,452 student visas on hand. Across the total tribunal we have 130,983.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wow. No wonder you’re ‘aware’. What are the other major categories for review before the tribunal?  

Mr Hawkins: Our biggest case loads are working, skilled and investment visas. We have 13,983 on hand. For protection, we have 37,830, which is 29 per cent of our on-hand case load. For NDIS we have 7,136, which represents five per cent of our case load.  

Senator ROBERTS: Although that’s only five per cent, I heard you say that you’re worried about that because of the potential for growth.  

Mr Hawkins: Only from the sense of the media talk of what reforms are going to happen. As there’s nothing legislated, I can’t comment any further. As I said to Senator Cash, I’m alert but not alarmed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I get, on notice, a breakdown of all the categories and their numbers?  

Mr Hawkins: Of each list that we have?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Hawkins: I can do that for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You’ve given me the total. This question could be difficult: When do you envisage this backlog will be reduced to an acceptable managed workload? What is a well-managed workload?  

Mr Hawkins: I guess a manageable case load is what we are funded to achieve. If it’s 100 per cent case load that we want to achieve, we need to have 100 per cent funding. As I explained to Senator Cash before, an issue we have with our funding is that we do actually have a cap in it, which is based on our ability to accommodate members to be able to do that work. At the moment our cap is 345 FTE of members, which is equivalent to about 60,000 finalisations, but we’re receiving about 90,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are 90,000 coming in, so you’re going backwards 30,000.  

Senator CASH: Every year?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the reason for that?  

Mr Hawkins: Because we have a cap on our ability to accommodate members at the moment. As I also explained to Senator Cash, some of the initiatives that the Senate has been able to give us, such as being able to do student visas as a decision on the paper, will give us some flexibility as to how we accommodate our members. We might be able to have a number of members being able to do those types of cases from home because there’s no hearing involved. We have an initiative that every member in the tribunal will do 10 per cent of their case load as a student visa. So we’re trying to make inroads in that way as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: When do you expect the backlog to be cleared?  

Mr Hawkins: On present numbers, I don’t. I cannot have a reasonable expectation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, any comments to add?  

Senator Green: Is there a question, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The tribunal are saying that they’ve got a workload that is increasing, not decreasing.  

Senator Green: I think, as Mr Hawkins alluded to in the comments he made, probably before you entered the room—apologies, Senator Roberts—it’s a demand driven funding model. We’re currently considering applications for additional members because we do acknowledge that more members definitely are required. Applications have been received for additional deputy president and senior member recruitment rounds, and the department can take you through the process for those rounds. As Mr Hawkins has alluded to, the Senate has also made some changes to the way that student visas are being considered so they can be considered on the papers, and there are regulations that are imminent to allow that to happen.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many members of the tribunal are there?  

Mr Hawkins: We will have 423 members as at 1 July, representing 347.5 FTE.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ll be able to tell us more at supplementary estimates in November?  

Mr Hawkins: I certainly will.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s early days. Is there any way of getting a handle on the cost of each review to the taxpayer?  

Mr Hawkins: It’s a very complex formula because every matter is different. For example, a social security matter might take a day; a complex tax matter could take two weeks. So it’s very difficult to determine a cost per decision. We could calculate it on an average basis across each decision, and I could share with you a unit cost which shows that this tribunal today is more efficient than it’s ever been.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you do that, please?  

Mr Hawkins: Let me just find the appropriate note. This is allowing for CPI adjustment and a weighted cost per unit. In 2025-26, year to date, our unit cost is $2,250.88.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s for a hearing?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. To give you an indication, in 2020-21 it was $3,053, and in 2015-16 it was $2,769.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s coming down?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. Where we have to be most efficient is, again, in that funding model, because we are receiving 91,000 applications a year, but we can’t just do the 60,000 that we’re funded for. At the front end we still have to deal with the 90,000 in some way. There are case management events that take place. There’s outreach with those 90,000 cases. Also, it’s very difficult to calculate unit costs because unit costs might be based on a finalisation, but in fact we’re touching matters, all matters, that come in our front door. Of those 130,000 matters that I mentioned before, there are touchpoints all through that process that we can’t account for until it’s a finalisation, so it’s a very complex calculation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I won’t ask the tribunal for an opinion but I’ll ask you: is there any work on alternative systems and processes? I’m not suggesting we should do that, but it sounds pretty overwhelming.  

Senator Green: I think we’ve taken you through some of the steps that we’re implementing to assist the tribunal with its work. Obviously, merits review is a really important part of responsible and accountable government. Applications that are made, as you know, are made when an applicant disagrees with a reviewable decision; for example, when the government denies someone a visa—or a student visa, in this example. We’re looking at all of the different ways that we can reduce the workload but also provide the tribunal with the resources that they need to be able to make these decisions.  

Mr Hawkins: You yourself, Senator, have been facilitating that through the Senate with the reforms that you’ve given us; for example, the decision on the papers. I mentioned before that the parliament has given the president powers to authorise registrars to handle matters more expeditiously. I think Senator Cash before was alluding to what more we can ask for, and perhaps there is space in the decision on the papers area for us to consider into the future, but at the moment we’re going to master the powers that we have.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we should know more by the November supplementary estimates. Is this process of using the Administrative Review Tribunal for appeals being exploited by those wishing to stay in Australia who have no right to be here?  

Mr Hawkins: That’s not a matter for me to answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Green: There are a range of cases and reasons why people make applications. I’ll take that as a comment from you, Senator, rather than a question to me. 

/by

The $5M Vaccine Grant With Zero Accountability

,

I questioned the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on why taxpayers are funding a new $5 million vaccine-adjuvant research centre when Australians still haven’t been given clear answers about the safety of existing adjuvants.

Their written response to my questions confirmed the project was funded simply because peer reviewers ranked it highly, saying that “there are only seven adjuvants used in license vaccines which limits the choice” and the NHMRC’s Centres of Research Excellence aims to “discover novel adjuvants to improve vaccine development.”

That’s not oversight – that’s the NHMRC waving through millions without addressing the real issues.

I asked directly whether concerns about aluminum-based adjuvants or neurological conditions played any role and they couldn’t give me an answer.

I also confirmed that any new vaccine technology developed with Australian taxpayer money WILL NOT be owned by Australians.

This is simply not good enough.

Taxpayers should not be funding research that lines the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies. Any intellectual property generated through these grants must belong to the taxpayers. Handing over valuable IP to entities to monetise at our expense provides zero return to the taxpayers.

This has to stop!

For a billion-dollar grant body, Australians deserve better than vague justifications and no clear outcomes.

Australians deserve accountability that matches the scale of the spending.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could I turn to the National Health and Medical Research Council, please. In 2025, the National Health and Medical Research Council funded the Vaccine Adjuvant Discovery and Development Centre of Research Excellence—CRE—led by Professor Katherine Andrews at Griffith University, with $5 million as part of a $72 million CRE package. This grant focuses on discovering new adjuvants to enhance vaccine efficacy, safety and related purposes. First question: Why do we need new adjuvants? What’s wrong with the existing adjuvants?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We assess grants through a peer review process. Through that process, we utilise experts from around Australia to assess all of the grants that come to us—whether it’s for a centre of research excellence, an investigator grant or an ideas grant. The way that CRE would’ve been assessed would’ve been through that peer review process. Through that peer review process, they would’ve been elevated to the top of that scheme and would’ve been funded on the basis of their peers indicating that this was high-quality research that was likely to have a significant impact on health in Australia. We would take that on board; therefore, if they were ranked accordingly, we would fund them.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the reasons why their peers elevated it to No. 1?  

Prof. Wesselingh: I would have to go back and look at all of the assessments by those peers. Obviously, I don’t have that directly in front of me at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you do that on notice, please? We’d like to know why that research was approved, why we need new adjuvants, and what’s wrong with the existing adjuvants? 

Prof. Wesselingh: I’m very happy to look back at the peer review. But what I can guarantee you is that they would have been regarded as excellent research likely to produce significant impact.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what they are.  

Prof. Wesselingh: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Adjuvants and vaccines are there to enhance the body’s immune response to the antigen. Common adjuvants include aluminium hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate and potassium aluminium sulphate. These have been widely linked to neurological conditions spontaneously occurring after vaccination. Is this program an admission that there might be a level of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism? I guess you wouldn’t know, because you don’t know the—  

Prof. Wesselingh: So you’re asking us if the fact that we funded the CRE is an admission? We, again, funded the CRE on the basis of the scores that the CRE obtained. Those scores would indicate the quality of the science and the likelihood of obtaining high-quality evidence to improve the health of Australians.  

Senator ROBERTS: Right, and you’re going to find the reason anyway, so perhaps you could check if there is any aspect of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism as part of the reasons for developing a new adjuvant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We can certainly look at the arguments that the CRE made and the peer review of that CRE.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If research is successful and you find an effective adjuvant that is not neurotoxic, who will own the intellectual property the taxpayers just funded?  

Prof. Wesselingh: The way our granting system works is that the intellectual property developed by—the people who get the grants from us, which are normally medical research institutes or universities or members of those organisations, own the intellectual property. So the intellectual property would be assigned according to a university’s intellectual property rules or a medical research institute’s rules. I’m not sure, with that CRE, where they were.  

Senator ROBERTS: A $5 million synergy grant was awarded in 2024 to a multi-institutional team, including Monash University, to optimise vaccines for respiratory viruses, like influenza and RSV. This includes evaluating safety profiles to improve protection while minimising risks. If that develops new technology which achieves that objective, who will own that IP?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, the IP would be organised according to the rules developed by the organisations as part of that synergy grant. Synergy grants tend to have a number of organisations from around Australia, so I imagine there are multiple universities and MRIs involved in that synergy grant, and they will have developed an IP policy and the IP will be owned according to that policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: But not by the Australian government?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Not by NHMRC or by the government.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re very concerned about the level of spending in this government. Professor Bette Liu from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance received a $2.79 million investigator grant in 2024 to study adult vaccination programs. This explicitly includes assessing vaccine safety, identifying risks in high-risk groups and informing safer program designs. What was the outcome of that grant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, if I knew the outcomes of all of the grants that I fund—we fund a billion dollars worth of grants every year—I think I’d be pretty good. I can’t tell you the outcome of that grant, but we can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you still think you’re pretty good?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Do I think I’m personally pretty good or the NHMRC is very good?  

Senator ROBERTS: Both! Okay, thank you very much. 

/by

Australians Deserve a Regulator Beyond Reproach

,

I welcomed the ACCC’s decision to oppose the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group – and pushed hard on a bigger issue: the revolving door between regulators and major law firms.

I raised recent examples of senior ACCC figures moving straight into firms with competition clients, stressing that, even with separation deeds, the perception and potential for insider advantage remain.

Australians deserve a regulator beyond reproach, and senior officials shouldn’t be able to jump straight into the industries they once oversaw.

It’s time to restore integrity and end the cosy pipeline.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a pleasure.  

Senator ROBERTS: It was intriguing hearing some of your comments in answer to Senator Sharma—taking on Apple and mentioning Apple Pay and some of your other comments. I just use cash, because governments have been trying to get rid of cash, so we have to protect it. Anyway, it was very brave, so thank you for your refreshing comments. I’m going to start with a compliment, actually. In October, we discussed the growing concentration in the ownership of insurance companies. You mentioned you were reviewing the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group. I note that, on 11 December, the ACCC announced the takeover had been opposed on the basis of a reduction in competition. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to say on that. I hope this is the start of the end of market concentration in insurance.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It was based upon a careful analysis of the market conditions in Western Australia. It is possible that transaction will be brought back to us under the mandatory merger notification regime. The parties did foreshadow that when we announced the opposition under the informal regime. So it may be reassessed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Tonight’s line of questioning is about a potential revolving door of staff between the ACCC and private legal firms. Are there restrictions on someone who is on the ACCC payroll, especially the executive, leaving and immediately taking a position in the business they may have just been regulating at ACCC.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We require the entry into a separation deed that—  

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: They enter into an agreement with the ACCC, which is a binding, enforceable agreement, to firstly preserve the confidentiality of the information that has been received and also to continue to observe obligations that applied under the employment in relation to conflict of interest. We did, in one case, specify a period of required leave before employment could be taken up in a private law firm, but we look at that question—beyond the general obligations in relation to conflict of interest and preservation of confidential information—on a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is signing that deed a requirement that the prospective employee must agree to before signing up?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. Employees are obliged to do so, and commissioners enter into a code which, during the term, obliges us to comply with all statutory obligations and legal obligations and also to enter into that separation agreement upon leaving.  

Senator ROBERTS: That relies on trust. It would be very difficult to enforce it, because you don’t know what’s happening in the new employer’s offices.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have some observation because we see who comes before us. But, yes, we do not know what is being said.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Financial Review has reported on this topic, and I’m considering legislation to stop politicians and senior bureaucrats leaving and going to work for a company they were just regulating. This practice is too commonplace. ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver—is that how you pronounce her name?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: She left in May 2025, halfway through her term, and went to work for Herbert Smith Freehills. Is that correct?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you address this move at the time, in respect of the perception—and I’m sure this was a false perception—that HSF bought off an effective commissioner with a large job offer?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: I think that is an incorrect perception, and Ms Carver did sign a separation agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner Carver was the enforcement committee chair for the 2023-24 ACCC prosecution of BINGO bins. BINGO bins were represented by Herbert Smith Freehills. Bingo lost and were fined $30 million. In the Sigma Healthcare and Chemist Warehouse merger—  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Sorry; just one moment. I should note that, to my knowledge, though it was resolved before I became chair, Ms McDonald would know Miss Carver was conflicted and did not participate in the consideration of BINGO matters when she came to the ACCC. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. In the Sigma Healthcare—Chemist Warehouse merger, Carver as deputy chair of the Mergers Review Committee participated in merger assessments in that period. The merger was approved in November 2024. Herbert Smith Freehills advised Chemist Warehouse—I’m not suggesting misconduct in any way by any party, but I am saying the capacity for corruption exists in these arrangements. I think you’re acknowledging that.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have a very clear and very strict conflict policy. Commissioners are required to disclose conflicts of all work that has been done, if they have been in private practice when they join the ACCC, that results, depending upon the extent of the seniority. If it’s a one-off transaction, it’s at one end of the spectrum; if it’s continued advising, it’s at another. If at the continued-advising level, that person will be conflicted and not have involvement in matters for that company for a number of years while at the ACCC. But, if a clear disclosure is given, the chair receives advice on it from our general counsel and our CEO, and I then take a recommendation to the commission, and we decide and record in a register the treatment of that conflict. So we take that very seriously. Frequently, for the initial period, when commissioners join, if they have been in private practice, they will be absented from a number of matters. They leave meetings, they don’t participate at all in the deliberations, they don’t receive papers, and they do not then participate in decision-making.  

Senator ROBERTS: Of course, I didn’t think of that, but there are potential conflicts entering ACCC as well as departing from ACCC.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There are. There is an objective to bring in highly skilled and experienced people. We have many highly skilled and experienced people who have worked in the public service throughout their career, and they are significant—they are the majority of contributors in the ACCC, there is no doubt—but we also bring in and are keen to attract appropriate people with skill levels, and that requires careful management.  

Senator ROBERTS: I suppose it’s small, but there may be some people who want to get into ACCC so they can get out again later and use their contacts. It’s always a possibility.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a possibility. We do seek through our legal arrangements in the separation deed to manage this, but it’s a possibility.  

Senator ROBERTS: Jennifer Barron was promoted to general counsel for merger reform in early 2025—this is my last question—with a major task on the books: preparation for merger law changes. In late April 2025, King & Wood Mallesons announced her appointment as a partner in their national competition team in Sydney, a team which does merger cases. The law says this person can’t use direct knowledge of an upcoming event at the new company, but they can use any other insider information to make themselves a valuable new employee. Is there anything being done about that?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Ms Barron also entered into an agreement undertaking ongoing obligations to preserve confidential information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: My pleasure.

/by

Did Agencies Fail to Do Their Job?

,

We know that no new laws would’ve stopped the Bondi atrocity. The real issue is why ASIO, the AFP and NSW Police didn’t act on the warnings they already had.

I asked the Official Secretary, Ms Anne Sheehan, of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion how a terrorist on an ASIO watchlist was still able to get a firearms licence, what surveillance was actually happening, and why critical intelligence wasn’t shared.

The commission confirmed these failures will be scrutinized – including whether agencies simply didn’t do their job.

Australians deserve a Royal Commission that delivers real answers and a safer future for everyone.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: The commission found that no further legislative measures would have prevented the Bondi atrocity, but what could have been done by either ASIO, AFP or New South Wales police that could have prevented this atrocity?  

Ms Sheehan: In relation to the interim report, I’d note that we commenced our second hearing block today, which is expected to run for up to three weeks. The interim report identified that there are a number of issues that needed to be further examined during this next hearing block, and that’s what we’re doing at the moment. Other than what recommendations that the commission has made that are in the interim report itself, we need to wait and see what comes out of this hearing block.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. When will we find out? Is it in the next interim report?  

Ms Sheehan: If the commissioner determines that another report is required before the final report—there’s a final report that’s due by 14 December—it’s open to the commissioner to issue other recommendations or another report along the way if she considers it appropriate to do so. It’s too early to say whether it would be needed to do that, but it’s something that can be done.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand your sensitivity about this, and I can understand that a lot of people will be anxious to find out why ASIO, the AFP and the New South Wales police didn’t take action. Will the commission consider how one of the terrorists got a clearance to purchase a firearm when the person had been on a watchlist with ASIO?  

Ms Sheehan: In this hearing block, the commission is considering term of reference C, which goes to the circumstances in the lead-up to the Bondi attack. There will be a range of issues considered in that hearing block, some of which will be in public, and some will have to be held in closed session, either to avoid prejudicing the criminal trial or because it’s dealing with classified information.  

Senator ROBERTS: This may be another sensitive question. Were ASIO or the AFP aware that a firearms licence had been issued to one of the terrorists by the New South Wales weapons licensing branch?  

Ms Sheehan: That really goes to the substance of matters that the commission might be looking at. I couldn’t answer that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the commission consider what level of surveillance was directed to the murdering terrorists when they were already on ASIO’s radar?  

Ms Sheehan: Broadly, the factors that the commission is considering during this hearing block go to the terrorism threat level, the security environment in the lead-up to the attack, and the conduct of security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies relevant to the attack. I think that goes to the issue that you’ve just raised. It will also look at the security arrangements for the Chanukah by the Sea event, and how intelligence about individuals known to authorities is utilised and shared between agencies to then inform decisions made by security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including, for example, how individuals are monitored and how decisions in respect of firearms licence applications are made. Yes, those things will be looked at.  

Senator ROBERTS: The commission will consider if any agency did not perform their duties to protect Australians. That’s clear.  

Ms Sheehan: The commission will be looking at the conduct of intelligence and law enforcement agencies in relation to those issues I’ve outlined.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the letter from the royal commission to Gab, in the United States?  

Ms Sheehan: I don’t think so, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: The commission sent the social media company Gab, in the United States, a letter. From what the owner of Gab posted on social media, it’s not possible to get a clear idea of what your intent was. Can you please explain what that letter was all about? Do you want me to read the letter?  

Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that letter, so I think I would have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your letter included a statement that failure to comply with the notice carried a criminal penalty of 12 months in prison. Is it accurate to threaten a US citizen in the United States with a criminal prosecution under Australian law?  

Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that correspondence. I think it’s best if I take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Gab have used the United States first amendment as a defence to such actions in the past, including from our eSafety Commissioner. Could you tell me, on notice, why you’d take the action when you know the US constitution precludes you from taking that action.  

Ms Sheehan: I’ll take that on notice as well—once I’ve seen the correspondence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your efficiency in asking those questions. 

/by

Australia Day Council Restores Flag

,

At the February Senate Estimates, I raised concerns that the Australian Flag was absent from The Australia Day Council’s website.

I am pleased to see that it has now been restored.

Our flag is a symbol of our shared values, our democracy and our monocultural society.

Displaying it proudly reminds us of all that we can be united under one flag.

Transcript

CHAIR: We will head straight to questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. Senator Ayres, you had better be ready for a long session.  

Senator Ayres: I’m all ears.  

Senator ROBERTS: At the last estimates, I asked you why the Australia Day Council did not have an Australian flag on their website. I’m pleased to see that you now have an Australian flag. Thank you. Well done. It’s good to see.  

Mr Ashurst: I would like to say thank you, Senator. As the interim CEO, once that was brought to my attention, as a former soldier myself, I found that was very important to rectify.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is gratifying to hear. Thank you. I note that you have removed the flash screen acknowledgement of country and instead displayed the Aboriginal flag in your header, which is a fair compromise that I hope leads to further engagement with Australia Day by the Aboriginal community.  

Mr Ashurst: Yes, Senator. It was a deliberate choice in accordance with normal government convention to display not only the Australian national flag but also the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flag. We obviously are aiming for Australia Day and the Australian of the Year awards to be inclusive as much as possible and be representative of our entire nation and the make-up of our entire nation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all. 

/by

Why Is Australia Still Approving Gain-of-Function?

In this session with the Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC), I pushed for a straight answer on whether it will conduct or drive research. The response I got? A “bit of yes and a bit of no”.

They admitted they’ll “participate” in research yet won’t actually do it. No beakers, no test tubes, just another layer of bureaucracy.

I raised the seriousness of gain-of-function research. I pointed out that the regulator hasn’t met since 2023, its website hasn’t been updated since 2024 and the body responsible for overseeing gene technology won’t even use the term “gain-of-function”, yet it’s still approving these projects.

When I asked whether the government would ban gain-of-function research, the Minister dodged yet again.

So, I made it clear – One Nation will ban gain-of-function research. It’s simply too dangerous to allow.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. I refer to an answer by Ms Wood in the December 2025 estimates regarding the potential research function of the CDC. Your answer was very carefully worded. You said: The CDC won’t be … conducting research on matters that are in the remit of other organisations. The CDC is a complement to the Commonwealth public health capability. It will not be taking over or otherwise leaning in on research conducted by any other Commonwealth entities … That’s not a no. Can I have a clear answer, please? Will the CDC be conducting research or causing research to be conducted—yes or no? 

Mr McCormack: One of the functions for the CDC in our legislation is to advise on research requirements specifically as they relate to public health matters. We will be undertaking that, and we’re therefore an active participant in research. We are not researchers ourselves in the sense of producing primary evidence, though we are an expert organisation, and we would expect a number of our staff, through the course of their work, to be participating in research undertaken cooperatively with institutions such as universities et cetera. But we’re also not a funder of research. The principal funding mechanism for medical research in Australia is, of course, the NHMRC, complemented by programs administered by the department, including the Medical Research Future Fund. It’s not a question that necessarily provides for a very simple yes-or-no answer. It’s a bit of yes and a bit of no. We’re a participant. We’re not a principal researcher. We’re a supporter of research strategy. We’re not a significant funder of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll be participating in research, but you’re not researching.  

Mr McCormack: It’s not a simple yes-or-no thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. I understand.  

Mr McCormack: We have a role in research under our legislation, but it’s not to be a prime driver of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got hold of the beakers and the test tubes.  

Mr McCormack: We do not have hold of the beakers and test tubes. No.  

Senator ROBERTS: A further part of that answer was that the Gene Technology Standing Committee oversees gain-of-function research through the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. The standing committee has not met since 2023, and their website was last updated in 2024. The website of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator does not mention gain-of-function research. The only time they have interceded on the topic was for medical research, where they defended and approved the application. I’m pursuing this line of questioning because gain-of-function research gave the world the MERS virus and the COVID virus. President Obama banned gain-of-function research funding in 2014 owing to lab mishaps with anthrax, smallpox and avian flu. Every time I ask this government about this topic, I get an evasive answer. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator just approved a public trial of gain-of-function research that produced an influenza virus replica. Australia is doing gain-of-function research, and the regulator is approving it. Minister, will this government ban gain-of-function research?  

Senator Green: I don’t have anything to add to answers that, I assume, have been given to you over many estimates and the information given by the officials tonight.  

Senator ROBERTS: You won’t. One Nation would ban—will ban—gain-of-function research.  

Senator Green: It’s great to hear about your policies, because then we know exactly what the Liberal-National policies will be in a few months.  

/by

Legalised Wage Theft

,

Once again, I am calling out Fair Work officials.

This time it is for the blatant contradiction between their own statements and the Ombudsman’s findings.

I pushed Mr Furlong to reaffirm that enterprise agreements cannot legally undercut award entitlements — then confronted him with written evidence from the Ombudsman claiming the exact opposite, that an enterprise agreement “overrides” the Black Coal Award.

I pressed further, pointing to the Penny Vickers case to show this pattern isn’t new. Unions and big businesses have used enterprise agreements to “legalise” underpayment before, and only whistleblowers exposed it.

Despite every attempt to deflect, the failure is undeniable. The Fair Work system has allowed wage theft before, it’s allowing it again, and regulators refuse to confront it.

I won’t let them hide behind the process.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Furlong, and your colleagues for being here and minister. 

Senator Watt: It’s great to see you again, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Same here, Minister Watt. 

Senator Watt: We spent a lot of time together last week. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, on 9 November 2022, I asked you a question in Senate estimates, specifically: 

Can an enterprise agreement remove the entitlements that the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards provide employees? 
 
You replied simply, ‘No.’ Clear. So you recall this? Now you are aware, I believe, that the Fair Work Ombudsman has been investigating allegations of the underpayment of coal workers where the enterprise agreements have underpaid in comparison to the black coal industry award. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: I am broadly aware that they were conducting an operation in relation to that, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking to put you on the spot for the verdict.  

Mr Furlong: Very broadly, I understand it.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are aware. You answered. The ombudsman has recently completed a number of investigations. I will quote from one of those investigations where the ombudsman has stated in writing to the coal worker who lodged the complaint: ‘As the Fair Work Ombudsman has determined that’—the named person’s—’terms and conditions are governed by the’—named labour hire enterprise agreement—’we do not consider that the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010 applied’—to the named person’s employment. ‘Consequently’—the named person’s—’wages and entitlements during the relevant period should not be derived from the award but from’—the named labour hire enterprise agreement. Would you agree that on the surface and to an everyday person the Fair Work Ombudsman’s statement that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the fair work requirements—in this case, the award—override the EA?  

Mr Furlong: I think that they’re actually perfectly consistent. An award will persist unless there is an enterprise agreement that is in place for a workplace. But an enterprise agreement, in terms of the minimum hourly rate of pay, can’t be less than what is stipulated in the underpinning modern award.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s what I was looking for. Are you aware of the SDA case involving Penny Vickers?  

Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that case.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me refresh your memory. In 2016, Penny Vickers, a shelf-filler at the giant supermarket chain Coles, exposed huge underpayments of Coles workers. The underpayments occurred because the union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, had signed an enterprise bargaining agreement with Coles that ‘legalised’ the underpayment. The independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, had authorised the agreement which gave it legal cover. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I’m aware of the circumstances broadly.  

Senator ROBERTS: The union and big business did a deal. The deal enabled Coles to pay workers less than they should have been paid when they worked on weekends. Penny Vickers took on the union and big business giants and successfully had the underpayment deal overturned in the Fair Work Commission. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: And it was not just Coles. I initially thought it had been just Coles. It was not just Coles that had been in on the union deal. Other huge retailers were also in on the deal, including Woolworths, Bunnings, Target, Kmart, Big W and others. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: No. I’m interested to know—and Mr Corcoran might be able to assist you with this—if the application that was brought to the commission was post the nominal expiry date. Mr Corcoran, can you remember the circumstances of the case?  

Mr Corcoran: Not completely, but I think it might have been within the nominal expiry date of the agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Media reports suggest that, by themselves, just three of these big businesses were underpaying workers by around $150 million a year back in 2016. Are you aware this is extreme wage theft well beyond payroll errors?  

Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that or reviewed that decision. I don’t feel like I can reasonably respond to these questions without going back and reading the decision closely.  

Senator ROBERTS: This was, of course, a huge scandal that sent shock waves through the retail sector in particular—I can remember it was in the papers once it got exposed—and forced the rewriting of retail enterprise agreements almost across the board. Yet, if it hadn’t been for the tenacity and persistence of one person, Penny Vickers, and of the media, including, I believe, Judith Sloan and Rob Gottliebsen, the underpayments would never have been exposed. Mr Furlong, I put it to you that the Fair Work Act has failed. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer- 

employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and the cost and harm of small businesses?  

Mr Furlong: As you’re aware, Senator, my role doesn’t extend to matters of policy. Those questions should be addressed to the department in the normal course of things.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I caught the tail end of your question. I’m happy to have a go at answering it if you’d like to put it to me again.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Fair Work Act has failed. It’s been needlessly complex over many, many years. It’s not understood by workers. It’s not understood by small business. It’s not understood by many employers without a lawyer. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer-employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and of small businesses?  

Senator Watt: I, of course, have a different view about the Fair Work Act, especially after the reforms that our government has undertaken. It’s very clear that, due to the reforms our government has put in place to the Fair Work Act, wages are rising, more agreements are being reached between workers and their employers and industrial action is lower than it was under the coalition. So, in a range of ways, I think that the Fair Work Act has been very successful for Australian workplaces. I know you and your colleagues from One Nation voted against those reforms. I did note, Senator Roberts, on the weekend, the interview with Senator Hanson, where she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage. Is that a general One Nation position?  

Senator ROBERTS: Workers are going backwards. The cost of living is rising faster than wages. Workers are going backwards under your government.  

Senator Watt: Actually, I don’t know if you saw this, Senator Roberts, but just today the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision in the annual wage case, which granted a pay rise for the lowest paid workers in the community of 4.75 per cent, which is ahead of inflation. Senator Hanson on the weekend said that she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage, so I presume that means One Nation doesn’t support that pay rise.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Fair Work Commission has made its decision.  

Senator Watt: But it sounds like your party didn’t support that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move back to Mr Furlong. I’ve asked this question once. Having listened to me talk about Penny Vickers and the illegal enterprise agreement that was reversed, would you agree that, on the surface and to an everyday person, the Fair Work Ombudsman statement that I talked about, with the black coal mining industry award, that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the Fair Work requires, in this case, that the award override the enterprise agreement?  

Mr Furlong: I haven’t seen the Fair Work Ombudsman correspondence that you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I read you quotes.  

Mr Furlong: But I haven’t seen it. I haven’t had the chance to review it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you undertake then, Mr Furlong, to make inquiries of the Fair Work Ombudsman as to why they have taken that view and whether the view is right or wrong and report back to me on this question on notice?  

Mr Furlong: I’ll certainly take up the opportunity to read the correspondence, but, in terms of my role at the commission, I’m required to support the president in the efficient operation of the tribunal. I have two statutory roles. I can certainly look at it and read it, but I’m not too sure what statutory power I could rely on to actually make any sort of commentary around whether or not the provisions of the act have been complied with in these circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong.  

CHAIR: Are you ready for me to rotate?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

———————————————————————————————————————————— 
 
CHAIR: I’m going to go to Senator Roberts—to give you a moment to see if that’s possible. I’ll come back to you after that. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, I’ve got a constituent who wants to ask you a question, so I’m going to ask it for them. You’ll probably have to take it on notice, because I don’t think you’ll know the answer off the top of your head, based on what you said earlier. Section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act provides:  

FWA must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions …  

The use of the term ‘must’ imposes a mandatory legal obligation on the commission. My question is: does the commission have the liberty to bypass, dilute or ignore this statutory duty?  

Mr Furlong: I’m happy to provide a detailed response on notice. We—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/2 Comments/by