Bluesky vs. X

,

During Senate Estimates in December, I asked the eSafety Commissioner why social media platforms like X are being targeted, while Bluesky — a known hangout for the left — seems to be getting a free pass.

The Commissioner claimed there’s no “political bias” and that Bluesky has not been exempted – they’re just focusing on where the most kids are. She called Bluesky a “young company” that’s still finding its feet. It looks like a double standard to me — conservative platforms get targeted, while ‘left-wing hangouts’ get a free pass for being ‘low risk.’

Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers based on politics. We need transparency, not a “dynamic list” that changes whenever a bureaucrat feels like it. Whether it’s the Labor Party or the Coalition, Australians are sick of the double standards and the “Big Brother” tactics.

I’ll keep speaking up to make sure your voice isn’t silenced by bureaucratic overreach. We need one rule for everyone, and total protection for our free speech.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: It wasn’t my intention.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I know that. Thank you for appearing again. I have, perhaps, an insight. Since COVID, people in Australia are very wary of government. That’s not just the Labor Party; that’s both. Commissioner, you have exempted Bluesky from your under-16 social media minimum-age restrictions, yet Bluesky is almost identical to X, as I understand it. It currently allows 13-year-olds or younger people saying they are 13 to sign up, and they have no age verification. Do you understand, Commissioner, that you have an obligation to discharge your duties without the perception of political bias? Your decision to exempt a left-wing hangout and to include a conservative hangout, X, looks like political bias.

Ms Inman Grant: Bluesky has not been exempted. They present a very low risk. They have actually identified themselves as an age-restricted social media platform. They probably have 50,000 Australian users—a very small number of young users. They’re building up their age inference tools. They’re a very young company. What we’ve decided to do—we’re talking to a range of companies that could be age restricted social media platforms, whether it’s Yubo, Yope, Lemon8 or other ones that we know we’re going to go to. But you missed the opening statement, where I said our focus—these assessments that we’re doing are voluntary. I don’t have specific declaratory powers in terms of who is in and who is out, so I can’t say anyone is exempted. It’s up to the legal teams of those companies to determine whether they’re in or out. Where we will focus our compliance is where the vast majority of young people are. For the purposes of transparency, fairness and due process, we developed the self-assessment tools. Then we did some initial assessments so that we could at least have a body of major companies that would fit the criteria set forth by parliament. We’ve got 10 that we’re starting with, but I’ve always said that this will be a dynamic list. If we see that there are significant migratory patterns with young people that are going over to Bluesk —again, we’ve had three conversations with them—we expect that they will start applying some of their age assurance tools. They’re just at the beginning of that journey.

Senator ROBERTS: So what you’re saying, Commissioner, as I interpret it, is that you’ve got objective criteria that you assess platforms against.

Ms Inman Grant: We developed a self-assessment tool, so there are consistent assessment criteria. The criteria we have to use are the criteria that was in the legislation that parliament passed. That primary test is around whether or not a particular site—if it didn’t meet an exclusion, say, the messaging exclusion, the online gaming exclusion or the education and mental health exclusion, we had to do a sole-and-significant-purpose test. If its sole or significant purpose was online social interaction, then our preliminary view—it is not a determination—was that they were an age restricted social media platform.

Mr Fleming: Senator, just to give you a pointer, it’s in section 63C of the Online Safety Act. The criteria are set out in the act, and, if someone meets those criteria, there are a set of rules that the minister made. If the rules apply to that platform, then they’re out of the scheme. That’s how it works. To reinforce the point the commissioner made, there’s no determination that platforms are in or out. We’ve just expressed our preliminary view based on our assessments against the criteria, like the platforms can do for themselves. Then we focused on where most of the kids are, and that’s where we’re going to focus our initial efforts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, your government chose to use legislation against social media platforms. However, the commissioner has then included search engines in the scope of age restrictions, using an industry code under the Online Safety Act. Couldn’t you have simply done the whole thing under existing powers and created an industry code of practice, mandatory if necessary, for age control of social media instead of this whole blunt instrument legislation—an industry code as opposed to enforcement?

Senator Green: I’ll let the eSafety Commissioner answer because there would have been advice given to government about the best way forward. This is a very important step forward that we’re taking, and legislation was required.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I asked you because I’m not allowed to ask—

Senator Green: No, you are allowed to—

Senator ROBERTS: for an opinion of an officer.

Senator Green: No, it’s not an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: If the minister wants you to, that’s fine.

Senator Green: You’re asking why legislation was required. They can answer that question.

Ms Inman Grant: The industry codes were included in the Online Safety Act of 2021 under the then coalition government. What they decided was that they would split the technology industry into eight different sectors, from search engines to social media sites to ISPs to some broader categories, including the designated internet services and relevant electronic services. What Paul Fletcher, who was my minister at the time, decided was that he wanted to continue the tradition of co-regulation that had existed for many years across telecommunications and ensure that the industry developed the codes. We would decide whether or not they met appropriate community safeguards. If they did, we’d register them. If they did not, then I would create standards, and that would be a disallowable instrument that would require additional parliamentary scrutiny. It took 4½ or five years for all this deliberation, for this to happen. In most other jurisdictions, the regulator writes the code, but, with respect to the search engine code that I think you’re referring to, I don’t know if you missed the interaction I just had with Charlotte Walker—

Senator ROBERTS: I did.

Ms Inman Grant: They were written by Google and Bing, and they pretty much codify safe search practices that are used today. So, come 27 December, if you’re searching the internet and you come across violent pornography or explicit violence, it will be blurred. This is because 40 per cent of kids tend to come across this kind of violent conflict. The search engine is the gateway, and it’s unexpected, it’s unsolicited and it’s in their face. If you’re an adult and you want to continue through, you can do that. You only have to be age verified if you decide to search the internet with a Google account on, for instance, and a lot of families may choose to have a Google account on so that they can have different age-inappropriate settings set up. But, if you’re concerned about it, you just use DuckDuckGo, Bing or whatever other one. The other thing that I think is really important about the search engine code is that, if there’s a person in distress who is seeking to take their life, rather than the search engine taking them directly to a lethal-method site, it will redirect them in the first instance to an Australian mental health support provider. We all know that suicide is a terribly damaging thing for families and communities. So, if we can give someone in distress the support that they need rather than the directions in terms of how to take their life, any family would be grateful.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure they would. X currently—

Senator Green: I’m sorry, Senator, I misunderstood your question at the beginning. I thought you were asking about the minimum age legislation, so I apologise.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s alright.

Senator Green: I understand now what you were asking, and the eSafety Commissioner has given a very good answer.

Senator ROBERTS: X currently has, in early deployment, routines which do the following: pattern matching to determine age without the use of personal identifiers, such as a digital ID; pin protected parental controls—I tend to think government should not be undermining parents—to allow parents to set guardrails for their children on content that will be granulated to individual accounts, keywords or topics; and interaction monitoring to identify what could be harassment based on the pattern of posting, the words used and the ages of the people involved to stop offending posts being seen by anyone but the poster. If industry can do this by themselves, why did we need legislation? Why wasn’t a simple code of practice used instead of this ‘big brother, big stick’ drama?

Ms Inman Grant: Is that a question? I would just say in response—

Senator ROBERTS: It looks like the platforms are developing new technology.

Ms Inman Grant: I would just say that we had a very constructive meeting with X. They walked us through a number of the tools. They did say they were going to use age assurance with Grok, which could have some interesting outcomes. But a large number of parents don’t utilise parental controls. Sometimes it’s because they’re too difficult for parents to find or to work. This was a bipartisan act that the parliament obviously started. The momentum started in South Australia and then in New South Wales. But my view, after talking to so many of the ministers, the Prime Minister and the opposition leader, who supported it, was that they wanted to do something monumental. They wanted to create a significant normative change.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what scares us.

Ms Inman Grant: One normative change that isn’t scary, I would think, is that we know that 84 per cent of eight- to 12-year-olds already have social media accounts, and, in 90 per cent of cases, parents have helped them set them up. Why? Because they wanted them to be exposed to harm early? No. It’s because they’re concerned that their kids’ friends are all on the sites and their kid will be excluded. What this change does is delay them from being exposed to all the harmful and deceptive design features. They can also sit down with their kids and say: ‘Hey, you’re not ready for this. You’re not going to be on it and your friends shouldn’t be on it either.’ So it takes the FOMO, exclusionary element out of it, and this is what we’ll be measuring.

Senator ROBERTS: So the government excludes them instead of their friends? It should be the parents, shouldn’t it?

Ms Inman Grant: They’re setting a standard like you’d set a drinking age or the age for cigarettes. They’re setting an age for social media that they think is the right age and—

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Commissioner, the search engine code included a grace period of 12 months to allow search companies to write their code to comply. As I just indicated, social media companies are close to a technological solution that will also solve their compliance. Will you allow a grace period to allow social media companies to properly write, test and deploy age-verification technology in an orderly manner—in other words, delay?

Ms Inman Grant: We’re following the letter of the law, but what we’ve said is that we are looking for systemic failures. We don’t expect accounts to immediately disappear overnight. We also have another requirement beyond the deactivating of the under-16 accounts on 10 December, which is preventing under-16s from creating accounts. We accept that that’s going to be a longer-term journey for a lot of these companies, and many that we’re talking about here already have very sophisticated age-inference tools or AI tools. Some of them will be supplementing them with third-party tools that have been tested with the age assurance technical trial. Again, they’re taking a layered approach. We will watch closely. If they have glitches, we’ll talk to them about it. What we care about is that they’re clear with us about the tools and the success of validation or the layered approach they plan to take. If it’s not working, the other requirement is continued improvement, which the technology is doing every day. So in some ways we will be providing a grace process.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems that you accept that this rushed introduction with insufficient time for social media companies to get the software right, with no time for testing and very little public education, could be a recipe for chaos.

Ms Inman Grant: I think they’ve had plenty of time and they’re all technically capable of achieving this.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, noting the time, we’re due to take a short break. Do you have a final question? Then we’ll take a break and rotate the call after that.

Senator ROBERTS: Why was the decision made to time the introduction for school holidays, which is when children will be wanting to access social media to stay in contact with their friends, sports and activities?

Ms Inman Grant: It was written into the legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: It was one of the reasons we opposed it.

Senator CANAVAN: It’s killed Christmas.

Ms Inman Grant: That’s a legitimate concern. Kids are—

Senator CANAVAN: They’ll get new gadgets that they won’t be able to use.

Ms Inman Grant: Only for gaming.

CHAIR: That’s a good note.

/by

Why No Charges After Four Lives Lost?

,

I asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about a decision that has shocked many Australians — the choice not to lay charges over the 2023 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays.

Four Defence personnel — Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock — lost their lives. Comcare’s investigation identified two serious breaches of law, yet charges weren’t pursued. Media reports suggest that decision is now under review, and Ms Sharp confirmed that she is personally conducting that review. It’s ongoing, with no timeline for completion.

I asked why charges weren’t laid when the evidence pointed to potential offences. Ms Sharp explained the prosecution test: first, is there a prima facie case? Second, are there reasonable prospects of conviction? And third, is it in the public interest? She said the evidence didn’t meet the second test — reasonable prospects of conviction. That’s what’s being reviewed now.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today. I’ve got two sets of questions; they’re both fairly brief. Firstly, I want to go to your decision not to lay any charges in relation to the 2023 Defence Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays. Four Defence Force personnel—Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock—died in the crash off the Queensland coast, as you would be aware. Comcare, the country’s workplace, health and safety investigator, delivered a brief of evidence on an investigation to you where they identified two significant breaches of law— category 1 and category 2 offences. Media reporting indicates that the decision to not lay charges may be under review. Is that accurate? If so, is your review still ongoing, or has it been finalised?  

Ms Sharp: Thank you for your question, and I’d like to thank the committee for its interest in the work of my office. Before I answer your question, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the loss of lives—the loss of Captain Danniel Lyon; Corporal Alexander Naggs; Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent; and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock, known as Phillip Laycock. I also recognise the grief of their families. Your information is correct. The decision that was made not to lay charges in relation to the briefs that were referred from Comcare is under review. That’s a review I am personally conducting, and that review is ongoing.  

Senator ROBERTS: When do you expect it to be finished?  

Ms Sharp: I can’t give you a date for that. I’ll give it the attention it deserves. It’s an important matter and needs to be done thoroughly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did you decide to not lay those charges in the first place, when the federal investigator laid a brief of evidence on your desk that very clearly identified potential offences?  

Ms Sharp: Prosecutions are taken in accordance with the Prosecution policy of the Commonwealth. This is a publicly available document. It outlines the steps that are undertaken to determine whether a prosecution can be laid. The first step is whether there’s a prima facie case: has there been an offence committed? The second step is: are there reasonable prospects of conviction? This involves a thorough analysis of the evidence contained in a particular brief of evidence. It’s only then, if there are reasonable prospects of conviction, that the third stage of the test—whether the proceeding is in the public interest—is considered. In this case, it was determined that there were not reasonable prospects of conviction, based on the evidence contained in the briefs referred by Comcare.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that what you’re reviewing?  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The families want this to go to court. You’d be aware of that, I’d say.  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The workplace investigator says this should go to court. The commission of inquiry has had extensive evidence, and you say, ‘No, we aren’t laying charges.’ Why not? What turned you against it?  

Ms Sharp: As I said, the evidence that was referred in the briefs by Comcare was considered. On the basis of that evidence, there were not reasonable prospects to convict. I understand the family’s desire for this matter to go to court. All of the things that the family have identified are relevant to the public interest. I can say that if there were reasonable prospects, the prosecution of these charges would clearly be in the public interest. But that’s the third stage of the test.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do any of your employees who worked on the referral for this Taipan helicopter crash have any current or previous association with the Department of Defence? You can take that on notice.  

Ms Sharp: Not to my knowledge, but I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you feel you have adequate resources and budget to take on this matter?  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers; it’s refreshing. 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. 

/by

The Data is Missing — and They Know It

,

During this Estimates session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water of Australia (DCCEEW), I questioned the government on two issues: secretive appointments that erode trust and climate claims without evidence.

I quoted Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, and asked the Minister a simple question: what impact has Mr Kaiser’s appointment had on morale within the department? The Minister assured me he has “absolute confidence” in Mr Kaiser and claimed there’s no evidence of a negative effect on morale. I moved on — however noted that he left out some controversial aspects of Mr Kaiser’s background.

I went on to ask Minister Watt a simple, direct question: You claim we are facing “drier and warmer” summers — where is the specific data to back that up?

Instead of providing a source, Minister Watt resorted to his usual script. He tried to laugh it off as a “conspiracy” and claimed I simply “refuse to believe” the experts.

If the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have the data, why is it so hard for Minister Watt to produce it?

I won’t be put off by snide remarks. I will keep asking the same question until the Australian people get the transparency they deserve.

We cannot base massive economic policies on feelings and forecasts that no one is willing to defend with data.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Minister, following on from my last question, I will quote from a news report. Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor at the University of New South Wales and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, said: The fact that they commissioned— that’s your government— the Briggs review, have yet to release it, and are still making appointments through this outdated, opaque, and problematic process is particularly concerning … hugely corrosive. Even if the individual is the right or the best or a good person for the job, it just smells of jobs for mates, it smells of cronyism, and it smells of a conflict of interest. These are the types of issues that undermine public trust in government. In my experience, both public servants and private sector employees are usually wonderful. What is the impact of this appointment of Mr Kaiser on morale in your department?  

Senator Watt: I have absolute confidence in Mr Kaiser’s ability to do the job, and that’s certainly being borne out—  

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I asked for your opinion of the effect of his appointment on the morale of the people in the department.  

Senator Watt: I’ve seen no evidence that it’s had a negative impact on morale.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can I ask a second question?  

Senator Watt: You are making an imputation or implication in relation to Mr Kaiser, and I’d repeat the point—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting what an independent person said.  

Senator Watt: Mr Kaiser comes to this job having been the director-general of the premier’s department in Queensland, the director-general of the state development department in Queensland and the director-general of the resources department in Queensland, on top of a lengthy private-sector career. With that kind of background, I’m not surprised that he’s doing a very good job as the secretary.  

Senator ROBERTS: You omitted some of the controversial aspects. Moving on to my second question, you said in your opening statement, Minister, that we’re facing drier and warmer summers. Can you give me the source of that data, please—the specific location? No quips about ‘hard to convince’.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I thought we’d get into climate conspiracies by about 4 pm; I didn’t think we’d get there by six minutes to 10.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re avoiding the question. Could you give me the specific location, please?  
 
Senator Watt: You and I have had many conversations in estimates hearings—  

Senator ROBERTS: And we’ll continue to have them.  

Senator Watt: about whether climate change is real or not. I have failed to persuade you that climate change is real. The Bureau of Meteorology has failed to convince you that climate change is real. CSIRO has failed to convince you that climate change is real. What you see on your TV has failed to convince you that climate change is real. I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is your forecast of drier and warmer summers cyclical; is it a change in climate? Can you give me the specific location? I will keep raising this until you give me the specific location of variables.  

Senator Watt: I have no doubt that you will keep raising it.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has provided it.  

Senator Watt: Many witnesses at estimates hearings have presented the evidence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you provide it?  

Senator Watt: You’ve just chosen not to believe them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you provide it? 

/by

Questions CASA Won’t Answer

,

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 

/by

Culture is No Excuse for Crime

,

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. 

/by

Remote Control Over Your Home

,

 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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/by

Foreign Investment Housing Stats Don’t Add Up

,

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?   

Ms Di Marco:  We’ll see what we can get for you.   

/1 Comment/by

Fire Ant Program: Chemical Sparks Concern

,

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.

/3 Comments/by

Illegal Tobacco Market Booming—Despite Millions Spent

,

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:

The Albanese 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.

/2 Comments/by

Optus Privacy Breach Still Before Court

,

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.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by