In this Estimates session, I asked CASA about an incident that raised serious safety questions where a Qantas flight made an emergency landing in Sydney after the captain suffered chest pains. I wanted to know if a full medical review had been done since the event. CASA couldn’t answer on the spot and agreed to take it on notice.
I asked whether the pilot had received a COVID-19 mRNA jab and if CASA’s medical investigation screens for conditions linked to adverse vaccine events. Again, no answers — just promises to take it on notice.
Then I pressed CASA on something I’ve raised before: their refusal to provide the number of times “myocarditis” appears in their medical record system. They admitted they could do the search however argued it would take too much time and might be misleading. I made it clear — I want the data.
Finally, I shifted to another concern: wind turbines being installed on prime agricultural land. I asked whether CASA considers the impact on aerial operations like crop dusting. CASA confirmed they provide advice on aviation safety but don’t make the final decision — that’s left to local councils.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I want to ask about the Qantas plane that made an urgent landing at Sydney airport in March after the captain suffered chest pains. Has a full medical report been done on this pilot for his CASA licence after this event?
Ms Spence: I don’t have that information in front of me, but I’m happy to take it on notice and provide you with a response.
Senator ROBERTS: No-one has that information?
Ms Spence: No, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: Did the pilot have a COVID-19 mRNA jab?
Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident, but I’m happy to provide that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Did CASA’s medical investigation specifically screen for the conditions associated with adverse events from COVID-19?
Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident. I’m happy to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move slightly. I’m assuming you’re still refusing to draw the number of times the word myocarditis appears in your medical record system and provide it to the committee, even though you’re capable of doing it.
Ms Spence: I think we gave you information in response to your questions on notice explaining the time associated with doing a search for the terms you mention and how long it would take to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are still refusing. You’ve made your position clear. You can do it. You just think it could be misleading. Now you’re saying it might be too much work. I want to ask if you’re still maintaining that you will refuse to provide that answer. I’ll ask you to take it on notice once again. The proper process is for the minister to raise a public interest immunity claim. Are you aware of that?
Ms Spence: What we can take on notice is whether there have been further references to that term in our system since the last time we gave you that answer and then we can provide you advice on how long it would take us to do any more detailed analysis about the basis on which that term was used.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you say that again, please?
Ms Spence: We can take it on notice to provide you with an update on the number of times, based on a search, that those terms have come up in our system since the last time. We can also provide you with advice on how long it would take us to do individual analysis of each time those words came up.
Senator ROBERTS: What I want is the information with no qualifications. I just want the information. If you’re not going to provide it, I want a public interest immunity claim from the minister.
Ms Spence: Taking it on notice is the process that’s normally followed when there’s—
Senator ROBERTS: If you’re not going to give me the data that I want—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve asked the question. It’s been answered and taken on notice. We have limited time, so I suggest you move on.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever been consulted in relation to wind turbines that are being put up on prime agricultural land and the effect this will have on aerial agricultural operations like crop dusting?
Ms Spence: Our views are often sought in relation to the establishment of wind turbines. We provide our views on it. We don’t have a decision-making role as to whether or not those turbines can be installed.
Senator ROBERTS: So you do give guidance?
Ms Spence: We provide advice on what the impact might be.
Senator ROBERTS: Some of these issues were raised over 10 years ago with CASA, I understand, directly. Are you being asked about these developments today?
Ms Spence: Yes. We’re still being asked. As I said, we don’t have a decision-making role, but we certainly provide advice on any aviation impacts for the decision-maker, which is usually a local area council.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t make a final decision on that?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: You just provide safety advice?
Ms Spence: That’s right. We don’t have any decision-making role in those areas.
Why are courts reducing sentences for child sex offenders based on cultural background? This deeply troubling question was one I raised during Estimates.
I cited a case where a convicted child sex offender had his sentence reduced because the judge believed his cultural upbringing made him think the crime wasn’t seriously wrong. Australians are rightly horrified. I asked whether such reasoning could ever apply to Commonwealth offences. Ms Sharp assured me that while courts consider personal circumstances, the gravity of the offence remains. Still, the fact this even happens is alarming.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?
Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?
Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?
Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.
Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed?
Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GupVMa2vhzs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 11:46:112026-01-21 11:46:14Culture is No Excuse for Crime
I raised with the ACCC a disturbing new “emergency backstop” that allows energy providers to remotely control our homes and car batteries.
The government and energy giants call it “grid stability.” Let’s call it what it is: remote control over your private property. You paid for the battery, you generated the power, yet they want to flip a switch and stop you from exporting electricity whenever it suits them.
I asked the ACCC Chair if she’s worried about this overreach. While they claim “conditions and regulations” will protect competition, we’ve heard that story before. Australians shouldn’t have to ask for permission to use the energy they produce in their own homes.
We need answers, not just “monitoring.”
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to ask this question about the 19 May media release, ‘ACCC proposes to allow collaboration between energy providers’. I have many questions here, but I’ll probably keep these over till next time. Are you aware that this public key infrastructure service—I’m talking about batteries and access to home batteries and car batteries—which consumers pay for, will enable distribution network service providers to remotely limit or prevent electricity export into the grid by consumer energy resources in times of significant excess production known as an emergency backstop mechanism? Are you worried about this remote control that will affect householders?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are aware of that purpose. It was put to us, particularly by the Australian Energy Market Operator, in terms of powers that are needed to ensure the stability of the grid. We also imposed conditions in terms of diversity of governance and other aspects to ensure that the ability to use that infrastructure would enable continued competition and continued access for the management, for example, of virtual power plants and home batteries so that it wouldn’t be restricted to only the distribution networks themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have confidence in those restrictions or regulations?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We carefully consulted on them. We put them in place because we were satisfied with them, but we will also monitor that.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1768953018998-7d001544-5d54-4ca7-8181-6e977541c192.png6371135Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 10:27:022026-01-21 10:27:08Remote Control Over Your Home
The International and Foreign Investment Group is still trying to tell us that foreign ownership of Australian housing is less than 1%. They’re sticking to a figure of 0.8% and say they have “full confidence” in it.
I asked them a simple question: Does any real estate agent or any Australian actually believe that?
The truth is, they’ve never conducted market research to see if the public trusts their data. They track the “flow” of new sales while ignoring the massive amount of housing already in foreign hands.
Australians are being priced out of the housing market, while bureaucrats ignore what’s really happening in our suburbs and rely on data that just doesn’t pass the pub test.
I will continue to question these figures until we get answers that reflect reality.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have the International and Foreign Investment Group, please. Do you still maintain the view that, in Australia, foreign ownership of housing is less than one per cent of the housing market?
Ms Di Marco: I’ll hand most of these questions to Mr Tinning and Ms Sloan, who I think have the statistics in front of them and can speak to any policies of the government. But I just want to caution at the beginning of the session that, if we start to get into questions of application of residential real estate, many of them may need to be taken on notice because that is the remit of the Australian Taxation Office. But I’ll hand over to Mr Tinning.
Senator ROBERTS: The chair will be happy with that.
CHAIR: I will be.
Mr Tinning: We don’t have figures for the total stock of housing, but we do have annual figures for purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still believe that they’re under one per cent?
Mr Tinning: We have figures for 2023-24, with the latest available figure being purchases at 0.8 per cent, so that is under one per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: You do. Do you honestly believe that any real estate agent in Australia accepts the claim that foreign ownership is less than one per cent of the housing market?
Mr Tinning: These figures are from the ATO, and we have very strong faith in their ability to accurately monitor these figures. They have very strong systems, so we are confident in those figures.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’ve been on that merry-go-round, and I used to ask you questions. You told me to go to the ATO, so I went to the ATO. Do you honestly think any Australian believes that foreign ownership is less than one per cent?
Mr Tinning: I can’t comment on the views of the Australian populace, but we are very confident in those figures.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you for your views.
Mr Tinning: My views are that those figures from the ATO are accurate.
Ms Di Marco: I’m not sure that it’s for Mr Tinning to provide views on whether he thinks those figures are accurate; however, we do have those figures from the ATO. Also, just to reiterate his earlier point, the figures that we have from the ATO are about the flow, the investment number that’s been made as a proportion over the year and not the total ownership of foreign investment.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about both, but I understand that. He made that very clear. Have you ever conducted any market research or surveys around public confidence in your figures?
Ms Di Marco: No, we haven’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Ms Di Marco: In April or May 2025, the government made a range of announcements regarding strengthening controls around foreign investment in residential real estate. But I would argue that it’s not really for us to go out there and conduct market research on these sorts of matters. The government has made a range of policy decisions, and we’re looking to implement those as quickly as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: Lastly, how many forms have been lodged since the vacancy fee returns foreign owners have come into effect?
Ms Di Marco: I think we’d have to take that on notice. The ATO would hold those details.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s understandable. Could we have them on a yearly basis, please?
After raising concerns about the use of Pyriproxyfen in the fire ant prevention program, I was told by CEO Scott Hansen (APVMA) that it should not be used as a preventative measure—even after I pointed out that this is exactly what’s happening in South-East Queensland under the Queensland Fire Ant Eradication Program. I also presented evidence of widespread breaches of the permits governing the use of these chemical poisons.
In addition, I raised concerns about confusion in the permits regarding the use of chemicals near and in waterways, particularly given that S-Methoprene is highly toxic in marine environments.
Mr Hansen made it clear that treatment responsibilities fall under state jurisdiction and that the Commonwealth does not exercise oversight over how these chemicals were used. While there is a Commonwealth–State partnership, he explained that governments rely on international safety data rather than local studies. He confirmed that permit requirements are currently under review.
Mr Hansen also advised that complaints can be submitted through the Adverse Experience Reporting Program, and noted that there are currently 28 reports under consideration relating to fire ant concerns.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. My questions are about red fire ants and about the chemical side of things. I note that the permit number PER87728, related to the permitted use of the chemical pyriproxyfen, says, ‘Do not apply as a preventative for red imported fire ant control.’ This being the case, why is it being spread widely by aerial and ground application to properties where no fire ant activity has ever been identified by people from the national fire ant eradication program, in breach of the permit?
Mr Hansen: That’s an issue I think we talked about last time. The prophylactic use of that chemical is not available under that permit and that needs to be referred to the control-of-use authority, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the effect of this chemical, pyriproxyfen, to persons who have respiratory or autoimmune diseases when applied in close proximity to them?
Mr Hansen: If applied as per the label it’s quite safe, but if applied in close proximity to them then there would obviously be concerns for them.
Senator ROBERTS: What Australian research has been done in relation to the effects that this chemical has on humans?
Mr Hansen: All of those products are either variations of existing registered products or under permit and have been assessed against the safety criteria for humans, but, again, all of those uses are as per the label requirements, in terms of our assessment for safety to people and safety to the environment.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve said that they’ve been assessed relative to Australian requirements, but that doesn’t mean that Australian research has been done, does it?
Mr Hansen: No. In some cases, we’ll use international benchmarks and international research—that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that the first Australian permit number, PER90213, related to the permitted use of the chemical S-methoprene, says: ‘Do not apply where fire ant populations are not evident or no longer evident.’ This being the case, why are people from the National Fire Ant Eradication Program insistent on applying the chemical on properties where no fire ant activity has ever been or is evident, in breach of the permit?
Mr Hansen: That sounds as though it’s in breach of the permit conditions and should be raised with the Queensland government with regard to control of use.
Senator ROBERTS: Why must baits be laid only where it is not possible for poultry to have direct access to the baits? Is it a poison to birdlife? What about our native birds?
Mr Hansen: I’m not able to answer that one.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the impact on birds?
Mr Hansen: Again, all of the assessments as to environmental impact will have been taken into account, with regard to controlling those risks, via the conditions on the permits. I don’t have that permit in front of me. There are 13 permits that we have issued, at the moment, with regard to chemicals for use in the red imported fire ants control program.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a lot of questions that might shock you if I raise them, but, in the interest of speed, I will continue. I’m confused by this permit because, on one hand, it says that treatment may be applied into waterways up to 1.5 metres from each bank, yet, in the same permit, it states that the chemical is very toxic—emphasis on ‘very toxic’—to aquatic life. How can both of these statements apply? Waterways in Samford Valley near Brisbane have already been contaminated and the aquatic life wiped out.
Mr Hansen: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems a contradiction: you can apply it close to waterways but you can’t apply it in waterways, and it’s very toxic.
Mr Hansen: It is, but there is a slight difference between ‘close to waterways’ and ‘in waterways’. But let me take that on notice and have a look at that permit for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What action have you taken to prevent a repeat of the contamination of waterways?
Mr Hansen: Again, once we set the directions on the permit, it’s the state and territory governments whose responsibility it is to control and ensure that the permits are used in accordance with those instructions. If we receive information that that’s not the case, we forward it to the control-of-use authority—in this case, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What agency in Queensland would have responsibility and do you have direct oversight of them?
Mr Hansen: Not oversight. All states and territories are partners in the national registration authority scheme, and we supply that to Queensland DAFF biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Just for your information, it’s not working in Queensland, because only yesterday the program’s staff used a drone to dump poisons directly into a waterway.
Mr Hansen: I heard that evidence being given earlier.
Senator ROBERTS: Why has there been no Australian environmental impact study done in relation to the application of both of these chemicals?
Mr Hansen: Because if we can run off the back of good international data we will do so, if it makes sense to do so. If we need to tailor it to the Australian environment, then we do do so before we make a decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Why hasn’t it been done?
Mr Hansen: In that case, it would be either that we are confident in the ability to use the international data for our assessments or we’ve been able to tweak the international data to factor in Australia’s native wildlife and environment.
Senator ROBERTS: This is not being critical of you, because you have got limited authority in Queensland, but how do you know that Queenslanders are complying with it?
Mr Hansen: That’s something for the control of use, and, unfortunately, we don’t police the control of use; that’s for the state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no accountability? I’m not saying you’re—
Mr Hansen: There is, but it’s at the state and territory government level.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. The federal government gives them money and the states use it without oversight.
Mr Hansen: I think that there is a shared oversight there. The use of chemicals under permits that we issue sits with the state and territory governments—in this case, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that in 2001, when fire ants were discovered in Brisbane, a decision was made to attempt eradication based on a study and modelling predictions made by USA’s RIFA program which predicted that the ants could spread throughout the majority of Australia? An off-label permit may be applied for to use a chemical in a way that is contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions for minor use, for emergency use or for the purposes of research. Is that true?
Mr Hansen: The last piece, on the permits, I’m confident about. The first piece I’m not sure about.
Senator ROBERTS: What evidence was provided, do you know, to support the proposed limited permits? Was it data from the failed USA RIFA program?
Mr Hansen: I think it would have been environmental data and human toxicology data from around the globe with regard to those chemicals. Given the fact that the majority of those chemicals were registered products that are now being used in an alternative way, we would have looked at the original suite of data that was provided when they were registered as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I like your answers. They are direct. The chair will be very happy, I’m sure. In 2001, according to Mr Craig Jennings, the principal policy officer at the Fire Ant Control Centre, the total area to be baited during the eradication program was to be 71,000 hectares. Within the area, he said, 1,236 properties were found with infestations. By August 2004, over one million property treatments had occurred and the area had ballooned to 850,000 hectares. If the off-label permit allows for limited use, how did the APVMA consider this expansive area as limited?
Mr Hansen: There are two pieces on that. The first piece is that whenever permits expire they come back up for consideration and we look at the scope and scale of the program and how they’re going to be used. On that front, we are currently reviewing a suite of the key permits that we have in play at the moment because there’s obviously been an indication from across the program for a rapid ramp-up of both size and scale of response and we need to make sure those permits remain appropriate to that size and scale.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you do your due diligence to make sure Queensland is compliant, or how do you get the evidence to change the permit-use factors?
Mr Hansen: We look at what the proposed use pattern is. What kind of area are they talking about it being used for? How are they looking to apply it? How frequently are they looking to apply it? We factor all of that into our health assessment and environment assessment and work out if it is still appropriate for use.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you go on site up in Queensland?
Mr Hansen: No, we don’t. We get the plans that they submit to us with regard to how they intend to use it and we run that against our assessment criteria.
Senator ROBERTS: In addition to pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene, permits for Chlorpyrifos and Fipronil were provided by the APVMA—two highly toxic chemicals. On 3 October 2024, the APVMA made a regulatory decision to remove the use of Chloypyrifos for most agriculture and pest use ‘due primarily to worker health and safety and environmental risk that the APVMA does not believe can be mitigated’. There was a 12-month phase out period for remaining products. Has this poison use now ceased?
Mr Hansen: The permit held for Chlorpyrifos expires in line with that phase-out date.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2000 a number of products for use around the home were cancelled. In 2019 all home, garden and domestic uses of Chlorpyrifos, as well as uses which could result in exposure to children, were cancelled. Why, if they knew of concerns, did the APVMA allow the use of these chemicals in treating homes, farms, parks, sporting fields and agricultural land?
Mr Hansen: Because the requirement for that treatment was people who were qualified and trained to carry out the treatments as opposed to allowing people to buy it off the shelves from their local retail stores and do it themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: The material safety data sheet for pyriproxyfen states that the chemical is for R&D use only. It has a rating of ‘H410 Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects’ and ‘P273 Avoid release to the environment’. Section 13 says: ‘Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal and do not discharge to sewer system.’ The APVMA is most certainly aware of this, and so why, for 25 years, has it permitted these chemicals to be used?
Mr Hansen: Again, we would have conducted the assessments against the controlled use under the program and determined that they met the safety criteria.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we get, on notice, access to those records, please?
Mr Hansen: We can see what we can provide, definitely.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many people work within APVMA?
Mr Hansen: 226.
Senator ROBERTS: The APVMA has certain powers to manage and monitor compliance with the AGVET legislation and undertake enforcement activities when required. Is that correct?
Mr Hansen: Enforcement of the control of use in each state and territory is the responsibility of that state or territory.
Senator ROBERTS: So what I just said is not correct?
Mr Hansen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you monitor compliance at all?
Mr Hansen: No, we don’t monitor the compliance. We work in partnership with states and territories. We make the assessments as to what’s safe and how to manage the risks of chemicals that are required. We put those controls onto a label. We then work with the states and territories, and they ensure it’s being complied with and they monitor—in part with other, broader scale monitoring programs like the National Residue Survey—to ensure that we’re seeing compliance across the board.
Senator ROBERTS: So no powers have been used by the APVMA—you don’t have any powers to ensure compliance, even within the permits granted?
Mr Hansen: We have powers to ensure compliance with regard to people who are selling, distributing and using registered products. But, in terms of the control of use of a registered product or a product under permit, that role and responsibility sits with the state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is there no public register for people to report their experiences with baiting?
Mr Hansen: There is. It’s called the Adverse Experience Reporting Program. It’s on our website. We’ve received 28 reports over the past year. They range from concerns about the impact on pets to their own health to the environment. All of those have been assessed, documented and forwarded up to the Queensland government as the controlled use agency.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you name that program again, please?
Mr Hansen: The Adverse Experience Reporting Program.
Senator ROBERTS: Who specifically is responsible at the APVMA for the authorisation of these chemicals?
Mr Hansen: Ultimately, the power in the legislation sits with me, and then I delegate it down to suitably qualified and technical people to make the assessments and make the judgements.
Senator ROBERTS: Who makes the final decision?
Mr Hansen: It’s whoever the delegate is on individual permits. It could be a range of people across the organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Name the dangers of these chemicals. What has the APVMA done to monitor their impact on the environment and wildlife and the impact on the health of the communities affected?
Mr Hansen: Again, if we had evidence and data supplied to us that suggested—if they’ve been used in accordance with the permit conditions—that there were impacts, we’d reassess those conditions. If we’re getting evidence that it’s been used not in line with the permit conditions, then we raise it with the controlled use authority, that being the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What recourse have you got if you learn that they’ve done nothing about it?
Mr Hansen: Ultimately, we have to consider whether we renew the permit, and at that point in time we consider whether the instructions and the conditions on the permit are able to be followed by those that have sought the approval for use.
Senator ROBERTS: So you might either cancel the permit or not renew it—
Mr Hansen: Or not renew it—yes.
Senator ROBERTS: depending upon whether it’s deliberate noncompliance or whether it’s impossible to comply with.
Mr Hansen: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. Over a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money has been spent so far on a program that’s failing to eradicate fire ants. It has completely failed. They’re now into the Darling Downs and into the Murray-Darling Basin. They’re up in Central Queensland. They’re in northern New South Wales. It’s been a complete failure. The eradication has completely failed. Not only that but it’s done enormous damage environmentally and to the human community. When will the government stop wasting money and destroying the environment at the same time, and hurting people and hurting animals?
CHAIR: I don’t know that that’s a question for the officer. I’ll let the minister have a crack.
Senator Chisholm: We disagree with you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: On the basis of what evidence?
Senator Chisholm: I know that there was evidence given earlier—and I wasn’t here for that; I apologise. But I know Minister McCarthy was. The reality is that the work is slowing the spread of fire ants, compared to what we’ve observed internationally. We think that work is important, and we’ll continue to work with the Queensland government on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I challenge you on what you just said. You said that the work is slowing the spreading. By definition, that means eradication has failed—completely failed.
Senator Chisholm: We think the work that we’re doing is important and we don’t want to see the fire ants spread, so we’ll continue to invest with the Queensland government on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you say that the work is important when it has failed? The eradication program has failed. It’s even failed as a containment program.
Senator Chisholm: We’ll continue to do our work with the Queensland government, because we think it is important.
Senator ROBERTS: But it’s failed. How can it be important when it’s failed?
Senator Chisholm: You might want to give up, but that’s not what we will do.
CHAIR: I’d say at this late hour, Senator Roberts, that I would say thank you very much. That conversation will go around in circles. Mr Hansen, arrivederci.
Mr Hansen: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your concise and direct answers.
The Albanese Government has appointed an Illicit Tobacco and e-Cigarette Commissioner to tackle the illegal cigarette market. I asked what impact the $188 million already spent has had, and where the additional $156 million allocated for the next two years will go. I have serious concerns about waste, and the response I received did not provide clarity. These issues will need to be revisited in future Estimates as accounts and outcomes are released.
What’s clear is that there is no baseline for the Commissioner’s operations. I would have thought that the first step should’ve been to determine the size of the market, identify the crimes being committed, and calculate how much revenue the government is losing in duty. Those fundamental questions have not been asked. The Commissioner suggested that seizures was the benchmark of success. I strongly disagree. If the illegal market is booming, then naturally, seizures will increase—this metric does not reflect real progress.
I will continue to push for hard data showing a reduction in the illicit tobacco market as a result of this role. At present, it feels like a mechanism to shift blame without holding anyone accountable. If that proves true, One Nation would abolish this position.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are about the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner. Is she in?
Ms Foster: Yes. We’ll just get the right officers up to the table for you. It will be a combination of the ITEC Commissioner and the ABF Commissioner.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll try to be brief. The budget allocated $156.7 million over two years from 2025-26, to expand programs to tackle the illicit tobacco trade. What programs are they, please?
Ms Shuhyta: I think I might defer that to the ABF Commissioner. That money was referred to—sorry. There are two amounts of money. Could you just repeat the budget year that you were referring to?
Senator ROBERTS: ‘$156.7 million over two years from 2025-26 to expand programs to tackle’—
Ms Shuhyta: Yes. I can go through the number of agencies that have that. Sorry, I was thinking about the previous budget year, which went to ABF. Just let me get that list for you. So $49.4 million went to the Australian Federal Police to expand the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce; $7 million went to support the Australian Border Force to utilise emerging technology to screen and detect more illicit tobacco at our borders; $19.9 million went to fund my office, the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s office; $1.4 million went to establish a new international collaboration for regional assessment of criminal network behaviours—that’s where we’ve engaged the UN office of drug control to conduct an Asia-Pacific/Pacific regional threat assessment; $40 million went to support states and territories to establish local-level capability; $31.6 million went to strengthen compliance and enforcement functions under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 and the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989; $4 million went to extend the national tobacco and e-cigarette public health campaign, to target motivations and behaviours of the people who use illicit tobacco; and $3.3 million went to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute contraventions under the public health act and the Therapeutic Goods Act.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s quite a wide net. You were allocated $19.9 million, as you said, of this money, to administer your office. What is that being spent on?
Ms Shuhyta: That’s being spent on the functions that my office was set up to deliver under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act. That includes activities that support intergovernmental governance functions, support national strategy development and implementation, support reporting on the size and consequence of the illicit market and support advice on new laws. It is staffing to undertake those functions.
Senator ROBERTS: How many staff do you have—full-time equivalents?
Ms Shuhyta: We are budgeted for 24 full-time equivalents at the moment. We have 12 APS staff and we are undertaking a recruitment process to fill the vacancies, and we have a number of contractors on board to assist with those functions.
Senator ROBERTS: How do the taxpayers know this cost is justified by the outcomes it generates? Have you got KPIs?
Ms Shuhyta: I have reporting obligations under the legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: What are your KPIs under the legislation?
Ms Shuhyta: I have to report on all enforcement actions and consequences undertaken in the last financial year and the size and nature of the illicit markets so we can monitor that year on, year out. It’s also on excise and customs equivalent duties evaded.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can track your effectiveness?
Ms Shuhyta: That should be able to assist us and monitor the intergovernmental activities that are responding to this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you know whether or not you are being effective?
Ms Shuhyta: It’s a good question. My role is to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and coordination to bring the efforts together across states and territories, across portfolios and across multiple points of the supply and demand chain. The value-add that the office brings is to support that force multiplication effect instead of all of the separate agencies working separately.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d make the comment that with the AFP there I would have thought they would be better equipped, knowing their expertise in criminology or countering criminology, to do that. Do you have a starting point for your own measure of success? How many illegal cigarettes entered Australia in the last 12 months?
Ms Shuhyta: I think the ABF might have that data, in terms of cigarettes that they’ve seized coming into the border.
Mr Reynolds: To give an indication of how much we interdicted on the border, we interdicted 2.5 billion sticks of cigarette during the financial year 2024-25. We also interdicted over 439 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco, and we interdicted six million vape devices and accessories during that financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: Those are pretty impressive figures. Do you have any idea from that, extrapolating, how many came into the country?
Mr Reynolds: That is an assessment that will be in a report provided by the ITEC Commissioner to the government.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible to get that number on notice?
Mr Reynolds: That is a matter for the government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, would it be possible to get that number on notice?
Senator Watt: Which number was that?
Senator ROBERTS: The AFP man can tell you. It’s the number of cigarettes that would have come into the country illegally extrapolated from the number of captured or known cigarettes.
Senator Watt: I’ll take that on notice, and we’ll do our best to answer that question.
Ms Foster: If I could just revert to your last question to Ms Shuhyta, I think there are two points to make. The AFP has an incredibly important role in this mission, but it’s quite a specific role, consistent with their mandate. Ms Shuhyta’s role is to try and make the whole work as effectively as possible together. She’s got an example of the work she’s doing with police forces across the jurisdictions which will illustrate the kind of value that the office can add.
Mr Reynolds: May I also add that the Australian Federal Police is a member of the national disruption group, and their expertise is being used as a part of that group to break the illicit tobacco business model.
CHAIR: Final question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: In January 2024, Minister Butler announced:
TheAlbanese Government cracks down on illegal tobacco imports The Albanese Government has committed $188.5 million to crackdown on the importation of illegal tobacco.
It’s been almost two years now. There must be some tangible benefit for the money. Commissioner, what reduction in the importation of illegal tobacco has resulted from this initiative so far? I know of police in Queensland—I know of good citizens in Queensland—who are now going to the illicit tobacco trade because they see that the excise is so damn high.
Mr Reynolds: I mentioned the metrics before. That’s a 38 per cent increase compared to the previous financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that what you’ve interdicted?
Mr Reynolds: That’s correct. I’ll just provide a very quick vignette from Queensland where, just recently, the Australian Border Force and the Queensland Police Service executed a series of warrants that resulted in one of the largest illicit tobacco and vape seizures in Queensland’s history. The total duty evaded for the combined seizures, of over 30.5 million cigarettes and 5.1 tonnes of tobacco, is estimated to be over $53.8 million with the estimated street value of over 4,000 vapes to be $20.05 million. It was an extremely successful joint operation between the Australian Border Force and the Queensland Police Service.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, we can only assess whether it’s successful or not by comparing it to the total quantity of cigarettes coming in—tobacco and vapes coming in illegally—and finding their way to the market. Apparently that is still huge, and it’s causing crime around Australia with tobacconists getting firebombed.
Mr Reynolds: The fact that we’re able to conduct that successful operation—that breaks that particular criminal syndicate. It’s only through breaking the criminal syndicates that we can reduce the scourge of illicit tobacco in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Some people would argue that it’s only cutting the excise back to sensible levels that would break that, because people now find it’s worth going to the criminals to get their tobacco.
During the December Senate Estimates, I asked Ms Carly Kind, the Privacy Commissioner, what action had been taken regarding the Optus privacy breach in 2022. She explained that the matter is currently before the Federal Court.
I then raised two complaints that have been ongoing for more than two years. Ms Kind advised that those questions would need to be taken on notice, as would my query about the expected timeframe for a response. She was clear and firm on one point: the Commission operates independently.
Finally, I put it to Minister Nita Green that many Australians simply cannot afford access to justice. For them, the only safeguard is government agencies doing their job properly—and that responsibility cannot be understated.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. I’ve got some simple questions on the data breach by Optus. Could you please confirm the current status of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s investigation into the major Optus data breach that occurred in 2022?
Ms Kind: I might speak to that. In August of this year, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner filed civil penalties proceedings against Optus with respect to contraventions of APP 11 that we allege contributed to that breach in 2022. That matter is now before the Federal Court.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain the prolonged administrative inaction including the handling of complaints CP22/02004 and CP23/00456 that’s been going on for two years?
Ms Kind: I’m sorry, I don’t have those complaint numbers before me to cross-reference. Unless you’re able to provide me with more information, I will have to take any question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Take it on notice. I hear that you’ve taken the case to court. Could you provide a timeline for expected resolution and publication of the findings of your investigation?
Ms Kind: With respect to those matters that you’ve just referenced?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Ms Kind: I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you provide an assurance that the OAIC’s regulatory powers will be exercised independently of civil proceedings?
Ms Kind: I’m very confident to provide that assurance with respect to all matters. We operate entirely independently and rigorously in every matter we take on.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the government commit to reviewing and strengthening data protection enforcement mechanisms, Minister? I’m very worried. Many Australians are worried; they’re marching in the streets about it—the increased digitalisation. It just needs one hack, and there can be devastating consequences for so many people. I mentioned this so many times in the Senate, outside the Senate. We’ve got huge databases linking many, many people. It just needs one hack and it’s gone.
Senator Green: Senator, I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the government has committed to privacy reform. There’s a second stage of that being undertaken now. We’re committed to uplifting privacy laws because we understand that they’re essential for Australia’s trust and confidence in the digital economy and digital services, as you raise.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m worried about data protection, though—not just privacy but data protection. What is the government doing about it? The consequences now will be devastating. The majority of hacks, I understand, are suffered by big tech platforms and government. Most of the problems are breaches of human oversight, undersight.
Senator Green: I understand what you’re saying, Senator. We passed laws in 2024 as a first tranche of privacy reforms through the Senate. We understand that the Australian Privacy Act is outdated and not fit for purpose for the digital age; that’s why we’re undertaking additional reforms. There will obviously be a process for that legislation to be brought to parliament to be considered and to go through committee processes, in which I’m sure you will participate. We’re undertaking that work at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: When do you think we will see the first signs of—
Senator Green: The department might be able to give you more advice about that work.
Senator ROBERTS: People are worried about it; they’re terrified of it.
Senator Green: That’s why we’re doing something about it.
Ms Chidgey: I can say we’re working on that second tranche of privacy reform as a priority. Timing will ultimately be a matter for government. I can also say that the privacy reforms do have a data protection aspect to them, and the Privacy Act contains within it requirements for securing personal information. I would also highlight that the government has a cybersecurity strategy that complements the privacy work.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that, as I understand, the majority of breaches are human error, it’s going to be hard to make a bulletproof performance against that. Is there any sign of increased penalties for deliberate breaches or negligent breaches?
Ms Chidgey: There were some changes made in the last term of government around penalties for breaches and enforcement, and the Privacy Commissioner might want to say more about that. We’ll obviously look at education that crosses both the digital and human error aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. Is there any provision for increased access to justice for the people? At the moment so many people cannot afford to go to court. That’s just a fact.
Ms Chidgey: I think this is where the role of the Privacy Commissioner comes in; Ms Kind might want to say more about her role. But that is the role of the Privacy Commissioner—to assist in addressing data breaches.
Ms Kind: If I might add—and share your concerns and your urgency—one of the really positive reforms that was adopted by parliament last year in the tranche 1 reforms included the ability for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to seek orders from the court for compensation for individuals with respect to privacy breaches. We already have the power to issue or order compensation for our own decisions, but we can now also seek them from the Federal Court in civil penalties proceedings. And I think that goes to the concern you have about remedying privacy complaints for individual Australians.
I’ve been pressing the federal government on its oversight of the fire ant eradication program. While Canberra funds half of this national program, responsibility for delivery lies with the Queensland government. Landowners are reporting serious issues — intimidation, property damage, and environmental harm — yet the department insists there’s “no evidence” of wrongdoing.
I asked questions about residents’ rights to refuse access when health or safety is at risk. What happens if someone has asthma and chemical exposure could trigger an attack? What about pets, livestock, or crops at risk? The department wouldn’t give me an answer. Even more alarming, I’ve received reports of chemicals being used unlawfully — S-methoprene dumped into waterways, aerial spraying of pyriproxyfen in areas with no fire ants — all in breach of permit conditions.
And then there’s Dawson Creek in Samford Valley where locals report native species have been killed. Where’s the environmental safety research proving these chemicals are safe for people and wildlife? The department claims the program is “supported by science,” and insists it won’t suspend funding—even when breaches occur. That’s taxpayer money being spent on a program that could be putting lives, health, and ecosystems at risk.
I’m not backing down. Biosecurity matters, yet it should never come at the expense of people’s rights, health, or trust.
If you’ve had problems with the fire ant program, please reach out — I’d like to hear from you.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. What oversight is the federal government exercising to ensure the states are successful in eradicating fire ants and are doing so safely?
CHAIR: I will say that we have touched on fire ants, but please feel free.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I raised this at the last Senate estimates. I’ve got quite a few questions.
CHAIR: Carry on.
Ms Sawczuk: As we mentioned a moment ago, we continue chairing the national governance—the national management group—around the program. There is a program-level meeting and also a consultative meeting. That is happening regularly, and the next national governance meeting is on 15 December. Taking on board the concerns that you raised at the last estimates hearing and correspondence that has been provided to the department but also to the program in Queensland, we have been engaging with the program to pass on the specific feedback that has been provided. They have confirmed that they are taking on board any considerations raised by landowners, but there has been no damage to property and also no unlawful behaviour in regard to accessing properties for treatment et cetera. The safety of the program is absolutely critical. It’s something that is discussed at the national management meetings in particular, and we take quite seriously any concerns that have been raised around specific treatment types, whether it’s broadscale treatment or direct nest injection. The APVMA is the authoriser of those particular treatments and can confirm that the program has been undertaking independent toxicology analysis, which has found that there is no direct correlation with any negative impacts to animals et cetera around the fire ant treatment.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’m stunned. When you say ‘take on board’, what do you mean? What action do you take specifically to hold them accountable?
Ms Sawczuk: We directly engage at all levels.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?
Ms Sawczuk: We meet with the program to talk about the specifics.
Senator ROBERTS: Where do you meet?
Ms Sawczuk: Virtually and face to face, and quite regularly. Every piece of correspondence that has been sent through is provided directly to the program, and then we have followed in meetings to understand the specific circumstances. While there are some claims, there is definitely no evidence that would warrant concerns about anything untoward about the behaviour of the program. I appreciate that there are some sensitivities for specific landowners et cetera, but all of the treatment, and all of the action by the program, has been within the Queensland biosecurity legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: There have been assaults on people, injuries to innocent people. There has been complete disregard for people’s health. There have been violations of the permits, which I’ll get onto. So I don’t accept your response at all. Last time we appeared at Senate estimates on this topic, we were deluged with people saying they would contact you. Have you been contacted by residents?
Ms Saunders: We have received correspondence since our last hearing, and, as Ms Sawszuk just outlined, all that information is provided to the program, who’s ultimately accountable for delivery, compliance, assurance and oversight of the work that occurs.
Senator ROBERTS: Who is responsible?
Ms Saunders: The relevant state department in Queensland is responsible. There are ongoing discussions with them in regard to the issues that have been raised, but, ultimately, it’s the Queensland government that is accountable for delivering the program.
Senator ROBERTS: So the state is responsible but you’re funding it to do these activities.
Ms Saunders: The nation, because it’s a national program, to which we contribute funding—correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The majority of funding.
Ms Saunders: It’s 50 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: For eradication. You don’t seem to be aware of the overreach and intimidating tactics being undertaken by the state government, particularly in South-East Queensland, forcing their way onto properties unlawfully, causing fear and distress to landowners, upsetting women and terrifying crying children, polluting the environment, negligently and wilfully killing fauna and pets. Are you aware of those?
Ms Saunders: I know you’re disappointed with the response that we give you, as a department, but I can only give you the same advice I gave you at the last hearing on these matters, and that is that we are not accountable or responsible for the issues you’ve raised, nor do we have evidence of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Since when is it okay for gates and fences, with your funding, to be broken down, with police threatening those with reasonable excuses who withhold consent—for strangers to force their way onto properties and sneakily and deceptively distract people from their properties, with a view to spreading poison, when there are no fire ants on their property, not even in the valley?
Ms Saunders: I’m not sure what else I can add to our earlier evidence on this.
Senator ROBERTS: This is exactly what happened recently at Beechmont and Laidley, when property was damaged and officers behaved like criminals in a home invasion while trespassing on private land. The violence came from the officers, not the landowners. The landowners have been professional and peaceful. Why?
Ms Saunders: These are the responsibilities of the state government. I’d really encourage those allegations and concerns being directed to them. As indicated by the deputy, the legislation which they’re operating in compliance with is entirely the responsibility of the state government.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re funding it. I attended another property some kilometres away from the two locations I mentioned that had multiple fire ant nests—I saw them six metres apart in places and two or three metres apart in places—that the program refused to attend and treat. Why is that?
Ms Saunders: I can’t comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you like the name of the property?
Ms Saunders: Certainly, we’re happy to take any information you have. We would relay it to state government for action, noting we have no authority.
Senator ROBERTS: A property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers if they have a reasonable excuse. Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when a resident has an illness, such as asthma or other respiratory ailment, confirmed by a medical certificate as likely to be made worse by exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly when being sprayed? Is that a reasonable excuse?
Ms Saunders: I’m not prepared to comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals represent a threat to domestic animals—dogs, cats and birds—if they’re exposed to the toxic chemicals, including chickens?
Ms Saunders: I’m not prepared to comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals that you’re funding represent a threat to poultry, livestock and fruit and vegetables growing on the property?
Ms Saunders: If you have a long list of allegations, we’re happy to take those allegations and raise the matters with the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I will do that with most of these questions. Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals are not being administered according to the safety requirements under the permits issued by the APVMA?
Ms Saunders: I don’t have a comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Just yesterday I was told—this is so common—that the program distributed S methoprene directly into a Samford waterway, against the safety rules for application, by way of a drone. Are you aware of that?
Ms Saunders: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Aerial application of pyriproxyfen is occurring on a wide scale on areas where no fire ants have ever been identified, when the permit number PER87728 clearly states by way of restraint: DO NOT apply as a preventative measure for Red Imported Fire Ant control. If the permit has changed, why? Are you aware of that?
Ms Saunders: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the administering authority has already admitted to disastrously polluting a significant waterway in the Samford Valley near Brisbane, Dawson Creek, killing extensive native water, reptile and insect species? I’ve seen that. Is that a reasonable excuse?
Ms Saunders: I couldn’t comment on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Did you take photos?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Can you produce them for us?
Senator ROBERTS: The locals can.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: What about you? You said you took photos.
Senator ROBERTS: No, the party I was with took photos.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Oh, I see.
Senator ROBERTS: Where is the environmental safety research that’s been done to establish the safety of humans and our native birds and small animals when poisoned insects form part of their food chain? Have you done that?
Ms Saunders: I’ll hand over to Dr Bertie Hennecke—he can probably comment further—but the program is absolutely supported by scientific evidence and safety. It’s been looked at nationally, with people who have credible experience in this field, all of whom are satisfied with the arrangements that are in place and the chemicals that are being used for the purpose intended.
Senator ROBERTS: In distributing these chemicals, they’re breaching the permits—they’re breaching the authorisation—to use the chemicals. Does that bother you? You’re funding it.
Ms Saunders: If there’s evidence of that, we’re happy to take that evidence and take up the matter with the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Will DAFF step up to pay compensation to those affected by the misapplication of the Fire Ant Eradication Program?
Ms Saunders: It wouldn’t be the responsibility of the department—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re funding it.
Ms Saunders: to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding this using taxpayer money, doing injury to the environment and to people?
Ms Saunders: It’s a national program aimed at eradicating red imported fire ants. It’s that simple. We know it’s incredibly invasive and, if it were to take hold, would have catastrophic implications for the country. That’s why we’re doing it.
Senator ROBERTS: So why are you putting lives and the health of humans and the environment at risk?
Ms Saunders: We don’t have evidence of that.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you like some?
Ms Saunders: As I’ve said several times now, I’m happy to take information you have, and we’ll take it up with the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you stop funding this program, or at least suspend funding of this program?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Sa2XuYW45mc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-31 09:56:592025-12-31 09:57:03Biosecurity Must Not Breach Our Rights
In early December 2025, the U.S. FDA announced immediate and sweeping reforms to its vaccine approval and monitoring processes. These changes include stricter clinical trials, restrictions on high-risk groups such as pregnant women, and a comprehensive overhaul of vaccine safety monitoring.
I asked the Australian TGA whether they were following these developments and if there was a need for Australia to adopt similar measures. Their response was a “no,” wrapped in many pointless words.
Health Secretary Kennedy is making great progress in dragging the medical establishment back to the center. At present, I believe pharmaceutical companies and their profits exert too much influence on our health administration, to the detriment of common sense, honesty, and duty of care.
I will continue to hold the TGA to account.
– Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: For now. The FDA announced immediate and sweeping reforms to their vaccine approval and monitoring processes, including stricter clinical trials; restrictions on high-risk groups, such as pregnant women; and an overhaul of the vaccine safety monitoring system. This is going on under a new administration. The reforms closely mirror measures which operated in Australia until COVID, when our safety assessments and monitoring were watered down with fast-track approval and emergency-use authorisation for a multitude of drugs. Will you accept that weak approval processes, high-adverse events and blanket denials that anything is wrong have undermined confidence in the entire health system in this country?
Prof. Lawler: There are a couple of things there, if I might comment. We didn’t use emergency-use authorisation. We adopted what is called a provisional pathway—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s equivalent.
Prof. Lawler: It’s not equivalent; it’s quite different. The reason that we undertook it was that, like the rest of the world, we recognised that there were risks that the community was facing, and we worked very closely with other regulators to understand what was emerging. Tonight, you previously mentioned relying on the FDA. It’s really important that, when we talk about reliance, it’s a specific term. It’s not like, if the FDA has approved it, then we automatically register it—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just using Professor Skerritt’s words.
Prof. Lawler: I wasn’t here when Professor Skerritt gave you those words; I’m just trying to explain where we’re at.
Senator ROBERTS: He said he didn’t do any testing here—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can we let Professor Lawler finish his answer, please.
Prof. Lawler: It’s not like, if the FDA hasn’t approved it, we say, ‘You shall not pass.’ What happens is that we look to the information that other regulators have when making our own decisions. I think the important thing as well to note is that we do very much rely on our approvals. We do have, as other regulators have, both pre-market and post-market evaluation and monitoring. But the point that you made about trust is a very important one. We had a presentation at our International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities earlier this year about trust. There was a very strong driver of trust in institutions, in regulations and in health professionals. The very strong downward driver of it is misinformation and disinformation. Part of the challenge that we have is that, as we hear very frequently, there are a lot of studies, for instance, of very low quality that are being taken up and used as evidence or proof of causal links that just do not exist. Part of the challenge we have is that we do strive to rebuild trust. On two occasions in the last two months, the chief medical officer and I have endeavoured to do that through public statements, and it is a constant battle.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s something we’ve found agreement on. I understand there was a paper in the Lancet a few years ago that said that 50 per cent of medical papers are not valid. Now, we’ve got increasing knowledge coming out and evidence showing that big pharma has heavily influenced the scientific papers and has corruptly done so. This is my last question. Will you monitor the changes in the United States in case the new team under Kennedy is actually right about what has gone before them and right about the changes being necessary?
Prof. Lawler: We monitor all of the developments by our international collaborative partners in regulation.
The U.S. CDC has changed its guidance on vaccines. The new guidance states that it is not possible to declare vaccines safe because there is no proof that they are. I asked the TGA whether they had changed their own position as a result. The ensuing discussion was pure semantics, as the TGA tried to avoid agreeing with the CDC.
For the record, the theory of logic states: “An outcome that has not been proven impossible may be possible.” To avoid what comes next—a simple question—the TGA had to deny basic logic. That question was: If it MAY be possible, shouldn’t you take a fresh look?
In previous Estimates hearings, I have presented the TGA with peer-reviewed, published papers showing that adjuvants (preservatives) in vaccines can cause autism. These papers actually show causation—the damage to the brain caused by adjuvants used in vaccines.
The testimony from Professor Lawler was simply wrong, and I will revisit this question in the February Estimates.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Now, I’d like to turn to vaccines and autism again. In America, the CDC have changed their guidance on vaccines and autism. The guidelines now read:
… there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended for … the first year of life do not cause autism.
The American FDA has accepted that vaccines may cause autism because there is no study to show they are safe. Yet I’ve sat here repeatedly, including earlier tonight, and been told by the TGA over and over again that they are safe. You can’t be right. Either there is proof they are safe, or there is not. Which is it?
Prof. Lawler: I discussed this at length with Senator Antic. The policy decisions and announcements of the FDA are matters for the FDA, and those questions should be directed to them. I would just highlight a couple of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct.
Prof. Lawler: That’s not what they said.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct.
Prof. Lawler: They’ve not said that vaccines cause autism.
Senator ROBERTS: They’ve said:
… there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended … do not cause autism.
Prof. Lawler: I think you went on to say at the end of your question—and please correct me if I’m wrong—that the FDA is thereby saying that vaccines cause autism.
Senator ROBERTS: No. I said the FDA, though, has accepted that vaccines may cause autism because there are no studies to show they are safe.
Prof. Lawler: Again, the three-point statement that appeared in November on the CDC’s website, which replaced its previous guidance on vaccines and autism, was of a particular wording. It seemed to me to quite clearly say that, in its view, it cannot be said that vaccines do not cause autism, because no studies have shown that they do not cause autism. As I mentioned previously in my response to the question by Senator Antic, there is a fundamental scientific challenge in stating that something exists because you haven’t been able to prove that it doesn’t. The scientific process is that an individual or a party that makes a scientific claim holds the onus to provide the evidence that supports that claim. For instance, if you’re claiming that vaccines cause autism, the obligation is on you or another person who’s claiming that to demonstrate the evidence that supports that claim. The challenge that we have in that space is that a significant amount of the initial conversation around vaccines causing autism arose from a 1997 article by then doctor Andrew Wakefield that was published in the Lancet and subsequently retracted and thoroughly debunked because there were personal, professional, ethical and methodological conflicts and flaws. Since then, there have been multiple studies over decades involving millions of children and adults who have received different types of vaccines over different years, and, in that time, there has been no demonstrated causal or associative link between vaccines and autism. So, as I say, if there is a claim there, it has never been substantiated by rigorous and dependable evidence, and all of the evidence that we have is supportive of the view that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
Senator ROBERTS: In my view—and I think this is probably correct—the approver has the onus to say that something’s safe. The approver is you, the TGA. According to FOI No. 1345-01, you had 43 sudden, unexpected deaths reported on your Adverse Event Management System following injection of the Infanrix hexa vaccine. Are none of those caused by the vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: I’ll throw to Dr Dascombe, who’s online, to respond to that. I will just say, initially, as I have said in response to your questions and the questions of others and indeed in the conversation that we had previously this evening around mesh, the role of the regulator is to ensure that the risks are managed appropriately such that there is an effective balance for the community between access to a therapeutic product and the benefit derived from the product, and the risk that’s presented. As we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, overwhelmingly, for the COVID vaccine and for other vaccines, the risk-benefit profile is positive. Dr Dascombe, I’ll ask you to respond as well.
Dr Dascombe: To go to both of your questions, Senator, Professor Lawler has comprehensively answered on two occasions now tonight questions around the updated guidance from the US CDC. There are a couple of things that I’d reaffirm there, particularly from a post-market regulation of vaccines perspective. The TGA, like our international counterparts, takes an evidence based approach to the regulation of vaccines registered in Australia. This means that our regulatory decisions are based on the weight of available scientific evidence. There are a couple of key points worth confirming. There is no scientific evidence of a causal link between autism and any vaccine or vaccine ingredient. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence to refute the claim that vaccines are linked to autism. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed a safety signal for autism in any vaccine. Those are key points to reiterate, to your first question. To your second question, around reported adverse events with the Infanrix hexa vaccine on our Adverse Event Management System, as you know, this is a system that relies on spontaneous reports from healthcare professionals, consumers, states, public health units and medicine sponsors. The existence of a report in that system and a report made to us doesn’t necessarily confirm that the vaccine has caused that death. We encourage reporting of all adverse events, even if there’s only a small chance that the vaccine is related to that death.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Prof. Lawler: Thank you for that, Dr Dascombe. I would also just reflect on your comment earlier about the onus on the approver to ensure that something is safe. That is correct. The challenge that every regulator in the world faces is that the only way to ensure that there is no risk in a product is to not approve any product for supply in the country. That’s the only way, and then the public would be quite rightly clamouring for access to goods that are enjoyed by populations around the world. So the role of the regulator here in Australia, as in other countries, is to appropriately assure itself that the evidence indicates that the risk-benefit profile is positive. As Dr Dascombe’s indicated, there’s no identified causal link between vaccines and autism.
Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t here, but I asked Professor Skerritt a question about the testing of the COVID Pfizer shots in Australia. He said, ‘Oh, no, we didn’t do any testing; we relied upon the FDA in America.’ At that time, it had been already been stated that the FDA did no testing itself and relied on Pfizer, and Pfizer cut short its trials because of the number of people who died. So we had a failed study that led to the approval of vaccines—of COVID injections—in this country, and no-one knew about it, yet it was open public knowledge in the United States. Let me continue. A Korean study published in Biomarker Research in September this year followed up 8.4 million Koreans and found as follows: within a 12-month period following their COVID jab, the vaccinated group had a 27 per cent greater chance of being diagnosed with cancer when compared to an unvaccinated group. This was a massive study. This does not prove causation, although many studies I have shared with you prove how these products cause cancer. It does prove correlation. Do you still maintain that COVID vaccines are safe?
Prof. Lawler: I do not recall, Senator, an article that you shared with me that does prove causation between these vaccines and cancer. Also, given the need to analyse the documents, I don’t have the article that you’re describing in front of me, so I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it specifically.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll check that. On 28 November 2025, Dr Vinay Prasad, director of the American FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, sent an email first reported by the New York Times. It described findings from a recent internal FDA review of paediatric deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS, between 2021 and 2024. According to the memo, an analysis of 96 reported paediatric deaths among people aged from seven to 18 concluded that at least 10 were causally linked to COVID 19 vaccines, primarily due to vaccine induced myocarditis. Prasad describe this as a ‘profound revelation’. Professor Kidd, do you acknowledge that paediatric vaccines can cause death?
Prof. Kidd: I’m going to have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t acknowledge it or you can?
Prof. Kidd: I’m going to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The FDA analysis—
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to provide some comment on that if you like, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Prof. Lawler: We did respond to questions about Dr Prasad’s announcement earlier this evening when questioned by Senator Antic. As far as I’m aware—Dr Dascombe, please feel free to correct me—we have not at this stage been provided with information regarding that. As we have indicated previously, we rely not only on our own information that comes through our own adverse event monitoring system but also on signals that come from other regulators. This is not a signal that has been replicated, to my knowledge, in other regulators. As I say, we have not had detailed information regarding Dr Prasad’s claim shared with us. In terms of the question that you posed to Professor Kidd, one of the reasons we have robust postmarket vigilance in place for medicines, devices and, in fact, all therapeutic goods that we regulate is that we recognise that individuals sometimes react to medicines. To give you an example, we have a number of other medicines—non-vaccine medicines—to which individuals can have allergic reactions. So it would be inappropriate, I think, for either Professor Kidd or me to say that people can’t react to these things. Our role as the regulator is to ensure that appropriate systems are in place to identify safety signals as they arise, to analyse them, to understand them and to respond to them in an appropriate way.
