Undercutting Aussie Farmers for US Beef

,

I asked the department about its decision to allow US beef imports and why so much of the process is hidden behind redactions.

From what I understand, in 2017, the department reviewed biosecurity risks for cattle continuously resident in the applicant country since birth. Then, in 2019, it approved imports of cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. however in 2020, the US asked for something new: permission to export cattle that had been imported from other countries into the US. To justify this, the department commissioned two addendums to the original review.

One addendum was released publicly. The other? Completely hidden.

I asked for its title and a copy. The department refused, saying that I’d have to pursue review options on the FOI. What are they hiding?

Here’s the bigger issue: Australia is extremely efficient at producing beef. The only way US beef becomes cheap enough to compete here is if they import cheaper cattle from countries like Mexico, slaughter them in the US, and then export the meat to Australia. If we only allowed beef born, raised, and slaughtered in the US, they couldn’t compete. Now, by allowing Mexican cattle through the back door, we risk undercutting Australian farmers.

The department insists price isn’t part of their biosecurity assessment and that they only look at disease risk. Yet that’s exactly the problem. We’re ignoring the commercial reality that this opens the door to cheaper imports while relying on foreign assurances for safety.

Strong biosecurity is important, however Australians deserve transparency — not redacted documents and blind trust in foreign systems.

Transcript

ACTING CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. First of all, I’d like to discuss the decision to allow US beef imports. I’m going to go to freedom of information LEX 34322 for some of this information, which you charged me $600 for and heavily redacted. Thanks for that! I’ll go through my understanding. Pull me up if there needs to be a correction, please. The work the department did in their 2017 review strictly assessed risks from cattle continuously resident in the applicant country since birth. Then a 2019 assessment following on from that review approved the export to Australia of cattle that had been born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. Then, in 2020, the US asked for cattle imported from other countries into the US to be allowed to be imported to Australia via the US. The department then commissioned two addendums to the review. Is that correct?  

Dr Smith: From what I could hear, that sounded correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we have a 2017 review, a 2019 approval for US born cattle, then a 2020 request to allow cattle not born in the US and some additional addendums made to the 2017 review to justify that request. Correct?  

Dr Smith: Yes, the original 2017 review was for a number of applicant countries, not just for the US, but that was specifically born, raised and slaughtered in the US. The addendum was to allow for cattle born and raised in Canada and cattle born and raised in Mexico imported into the US, slaughtered and then brought to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you made two addendums to the 2017 review. One was called Final report: risk of lumpy skin disease via fresh bovine skeletal muscle meat from applicant countries, but you redacted the name of the second addendum. Why are you hiding it, and what was the second addendum titled?  

Dr Smith: I understand ..that was part of an FOI process and that the decision-maker has recently provided that decision and the reasons for doing so, which you’ve received. I think you’ve also been provided your options for a review, and, if any of those need to be taken further, then you have those avenues to do so.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying not only that I can’t get the list of the second addendum but that I can’t get the whole addendum from you?  

Dr Smith: I wasn’t the decision-maker on that FOI. I can say that there was an addendum which I referred to in relation to the expanded access. We did do some additional work around the safety of LSD, lumpy skin disease, in skeletal muscle as a separate process. That was also released publicly and deemed that LSD can be safely managed in skeletal muscle imports. 

 Senator ROBERTS: What I’m asking for is a copy of the second addendum.  

Dr Smith: As I mentioned before, I wasn’t the decision-maker in that process. If there is a question around what was provided back to you from the decision-maker, who was an officer in the department, then you have the right to review that decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have the right as a senator to get a document that I request in Senate estimates.  

Ms Saunders: We’ll take that on notice. We don’t have the documents available at this point in time. We’ll have to consider whether we would seek public interest immunity in relation to those documents.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to mention that. If you disagree, you’ll have to seek PII.  

Ms Saunders: Indeed.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just wondering what you’re keeping from the Senate. The core change, as far as I can see, is that Mexico have said they will certify that Mexican cattle were born and raised in Mexico. That’s to stop, apparently, the risk of cattle being brought up from Central American or South American countries, where lumpy skin or mad cow disease is present, into Mexico and then into the United States and exported to Australia. Mexico is considered some to be a narco-terrorist state. Even if you disagree with that assessment, they clearly have a higher risk of corruption and a financial incentive to lie about these certificates. Why are we changing our entire biosecurity tolerances because of assurances Mexico has given not even to us but to another country? They’ve given those assurances to the United States not to us.  

Dr Smith: There were a couple of processes of assessment. FSANZ, the Food Safety Australia New Zealand, did their own independent assessment of Mexico as a country. They also assessed US as a country and Canada as a country. They assessed that their systems, their controls, the ways they managed the BSE risk, which is the mad cow risk, was at the lowest category—category 1—noting that Mexico’s never had a reported case of BSE and that the last case of FMD in Mexico was in 1952.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who did that assessment of the risk with Mexican imports?  

Dr Smith: That assessment that I referred to was FSANZ, the statutory authority under the department of health. That’s publicly available.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve reviewed Mexican beef. What about Central American or South American beef?  

Dr Smith: We reviewed the importation of eligible cattle from Mexican supply chains, subject to the protocols that we strengthened with the USDA, to ensure that those cattle—live cattle, not beef—that were brought into the US supply chain could be traced back to their property of origin and that they were sourced from TB-free and other disease-free herds. They’ve tested as such, noting that, as I said in evidence earlier, 1.2 million cattle legally come into the US, and have done for decades, and then they become integrated as part of the herd. We’ve not seen any outbreaks of disease or issues in human health or, particularly, beef exports from the US that have resulted in disease.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re telling me that you have got assurance that cattle from Mexico going to the United States meet your standards. What about cattle that go from South America or Central America into Mexico and then to the United States?  

Dr Smith: We’re not assessing beyond Mexico; we’re only assessing those that have been brought into the US from Mexico. But the FSANZ assessment did look at Mexico as a country in and of itself, and they believed that they had the adequate controls to manage, in this case, the BSE risk. We’ve also done a lot of work with the USDA as well to make sure that they have confidence in the system because they need to protect their domestic herd, which is incredibly important for their own domestic consumption. Noting, too, that we import a lot of genetic material from the US, which relies on the same traceability of straws of semen and embryos into Australia—which we’ve been doing for decades—and we’ve never had any cases of diseases as a result.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re relying on the United States to protect itself from South American and Central American beef?  

Dr Smith: We’re relying on the fact that we did a systems audit of the US system, which we’ve relied upon for many years for importation of a number of commodities into Australia, that it has been done safely.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re very efficient with our beef production in Australia. The only way importing US beef gets cheap enough for them to compete with our growers here, is if they’re allowed to import cheaper cattle from other countries, slaughter them in the United States and export them to Australia. It’s true, isn’t it, that if we only allowed beef born, raised and slaughtered in the US, they just wouldn’t be able to compete—yet now we’re allowing countries like Mexico through the back door to undercut Australian farmers. Is that correct? 

 Dr Smith: I wouldn’t characterise it as that. The cattle that they bring are specific for their needs. They are bringing them into the supply chain mostly as feeder cattle—so steers and spayed heifers—that then get brought into their feedlots. They are fattened up and, essentially, they are then treated as US cattle and they would enter our supply chain for market access to us, subject to the raft of conditions that we put in place. Senator ROBERTS: So you’re confident that Mexican cattle coming into the United States, slaughtered in the United States, is not a way for the Americans to undercut our prices in Australia?  

Dr Smith: Our biosecurity assessment doesn’t look at price or competitiveness per se. I note that the price of US beef is quite high at the moment, I’m aware of that, but that is not part of our considerations as part of a biosecurity assessment. We’re not able to look at price comparators or impacts on domestic industries as part of our SPS agreement under the WTO.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your direct answers. So we’re potentially exposed to cheaper Mexican cattle coming into the United States and undercutting us in Australia?  

Senator Chisholm: I don’t think that’s accurate.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know that’s not correct?  

Senator Chisholm: Because I don’t think you’ve been able to point to evidence that that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking if that is a possibility.  

Senator Chisholm: There is no evidence that—  

Senator ROBERTS: What we’re being told is that only the biosecurity risks are taken into consideration.  

Senator Chisholm: I understand that, but there is no evidence that what you’re suggesting is the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying that there is evidence. I want to know—  

Senator Chisholm: Then you shouldn’t put something like that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking the question if there is a way of doing that.  

Senator Chisholm: There is no evidence to support that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying that. I have got the evidence. I’m asking if that’s a way—I have learnt that it is not a consideration; it’s just biosecurity. That is still an open-ended—  

Senator Chisholm: And I’m saying that there is no evidence to support that.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re just going around the merry-go-round.  

Dr Smith: Senator, maybe I can help. Commercial matters, as far as what consumers will import, are a matter for commercial operators. If there is a viable commercial market that they can bring product in that meets our requirements under biosecurity, then they are able to do so.  

Senator ROBERTS: And if there’s a problem with it, if it’s undercutting Australian beef, then it’s up to our beef growers to draw that to whose attention?  

Dr Smith: Yes; but I think it’s unlikely that that’s going to be the case. 

/3 Comments/by

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse

,

During this Estimates session with the Clean Energy Regulator (CER), I questioned them on the government’s setup with the Clean Energy Council (CEC). The CEC is a private lobby group, yet they appear to act as the “gatekeeper” as to which solar panels can be sold under the renewable energy schemes.

WHY has a private industry group, which exists to advocate for its members’ commercial interests, been given the power to decide which products qualify for government incentives?

I was told the Clean Energy Council (CEC) was originally “named” in the legislation effectively as a co-regulator and have been “tested” against competitors. The Regulator admitted that they worked back-and-forth with the CEC to help their application meet the required standards.

I asked if this process was open and transparent to the public. Their response? Happy to take it on notice and of course, they used the “commercial-in-confidence” excuses.

When questioned on how they manage any bias, the Regulator pointed to “regular cadences of meetings” and “reporting.” To me, this sounds like a “soft” approach to overseeing a group that serves its own members.

The Regulator claims they now have “greater control” and that the CEC is merely a “service provider,” however the reality is that a private lobby group still appears to hold a lot of sway. They are monitoring themselves through an action plan and reporting back to the government.

I am deeply concerned about the conflict of interest here. How can a lobbying body be impartial?

Australian taxpayers should not be sold out by a system where the foxes are guarding the henhouse.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Why did the Clean Energy Regulator appoint the Clean Energy Council, a private industry lobby group, as the product listing body for solar panels and inverters under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme? 

Mr Parker: Thank you, Senator. I well understand the question. I will flip the question to Mr Williamson in a minute, lest he not get asked a question today, which would be unfortunate in his final appearance! The appointment of the CEC was done through a process under the law which involved a competitive bidding arrangement, and CEC won that process. 

Senator ROBERTS: Were government ministers involved at the time? 

Mr Parker: Ministers set the legal framework. I don’t think it was actually a decision from [inaudible]. We’ll give it to Mark. 

Mr Williamson: Senator, to help you with the context, originally in the legislation, the Clean Energy Council had been nominated as the body both to accredit installers and also to list approved components. In the original regulations, they were named, and they were effectively a co-regulator. Minister Taylor, a number of years ago, asked us to do a review with the department of the integrity of the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme. Out of that review, there was a recommendation that it be competitively tested, as Mr Parker says, for both the accrediting of installers and the listing of components. We went through a process of going to the market. The Clean Energy Council did not put in an application to continue being the accreditation body, and a new accreditation body was nominated out of that process. As Mr Parker says, for the listing of components, there were a small number of applications, and the Clean Energy Council was determined to be the best of those. The new system, though, is—we have greater control of both the accreditation body and the listing process. They were a co-regulator in the past. Now they are providing a service that we’ve nominated them to do. 

Senator ROBERTS: They provide a service to you? 

Mr Williamson: Yes. We’re the regulator now. We’re the single regulator, so that co-regulatory model that existed before went with that process. Solar Accreditation Australia, SAA, is the accreditation body, and that has nothing to do with the Clean Energy Council. The CEC is, in fact, still the listing body, but they’re doing that for us, as is SAA for the accreditation of installers. 

Senator ROBERTS: What probity checks were undertaken before granting this role to an organisation that actively advocates for its members’ commercial interest? 

Mr Williamson: There was an extensive process, and I can pass to Mr Binning, who was involved in that.  There was a very lengthy process where a lot of questions were asked of the small number of bodies that applied. Mr Binning was actually the decision-maker, and he did not make that decision until we had done a range of checks of the applications and asked a lot of questions and made a lot of requests for further information. I might throw to you, Carl, to add anything else to that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Before you elaborate, what was your role at the time? Who was your employer? 

Mr Binning: The Clean Energy Regulator. I was the delegate for the final decision. As I recall, it was a very thorough process run through our procurement. There was probity advice along the way. A preliminary decision was made. Under the act, we were required to publish that decision. A range of submissions were made in relation to the proposed decision. Those comments were than taken into account, and a final decision was made against the criteria that were established for the process. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fairly loose, but it was a long time ago. How does the Clean Energy Regulator manage the inherent conflict of interest in allowing an industry lobby group to control product eligibility for government incentives? 

Mr Binning: We do that through the ongoing governance of our arrangements. We have a regular cadence of meetings and reporting to us. In that reporting, what we’ve really sought to do over the last 18 months—there are two issues that really run intention through that product-listing process, if you like. On the one hand, we are looking for those assessments to of course be comprehensive and rigorous, and that requires that new products, as they come into the country, are compliant with the standards that have been established for those products, whether it is solar panels, inverters, batteries, solar water heaters et cetera. Most of the feedback we got from industry was associated with long wait times for the processing of applications. We’ve had less concerns, relatively speaking, with the rigour of the process and greater concerns with ensuring that the assessments are processed in a prompt and efficient manner. We’ve been working quite closely with the CEC to ensure that there is no compromising of the integrity of the process but that their ability to process applications has been improved. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is the process open to inspection from the public? 

Mr Binning: I’d have to take the detail of that on notice. I wouldn’t say there’s anything that overtly precludes that, but there would be the usual commercial in confidence and those sorts of arrangements. I’m happy to take it on notice and provide advice. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’d appreciate that, and if you could provide the specifics around that on notice. Has the Clean Energy Regulator assessed whether this arrangement complies with Commonwealth probity standards for regulatory functions? I assume there are some. 

Mr Binning: As I said, we have a procurement team at the Clean Energy Regulator. They closely observe the process, and the decisions were made consistent with the requirements that are set out in the act. If my recollection is correct—and I think it is—this process is largely governed by the requirements that are set out in the regulations and in the act. Mr Williamson can probably add to this. 

Mr Williamson: The government and the minister at the time wanted to work within amendments within regulations. 

Senator ROBERTS: That was Mr Taylor. 

Mr Williamson: Correct. To work within the regulations and amend the regulations to give effect—and not to have to go back and amend the act—limited the way in which this could be set up. It wasn’t set up strictly as a procurement but rather as a nomination that required us to go through a set of statutory steps to go out to the market on a number of occasions. Then, as Mr Binning said, with decisions both on the product listing and the accreditation of installers, we had to say that this was our proposed decision and invite further comments. It was a statutory nomination process, but we did actually follow Commonwealth procurement and probity arrangements. 

While it wasn’t strictly a procurement, we did follow such arrangements in arriving at the decision on the nomination process. It took a very long time. The reason it took a long time was to make sure that the applicants were bringing their applications up to a standard where we could make a decision and get a body for each process over the line. It wasn’t fast because those initial applications weren’t adequate to make a nomination. There was a very iterative process with those who applied to make sure that, ultimately, they had put in a satisfactory bid where Mr Binning could make a decision and say, ‘That passes muster.’ 

Senator ROBERTS: What governance framework exists to ensure that decisions made by the Clean Energy Council in its regulatory capacity are impartial and not influenced by its lobbying activities? 

Mr Binning: As I indicated, after awarding the role to the Clean Energy Council, an action plan around the service that they are providing has been established. There is a regular reporting arrangement which ensures, as I said, that they’re meeting the various performance targets that have been established. 

Senator ROBERTS: Does the Clean Energy Regulator audit or review the CEC’s product listing decisions? If so, how frequently and what were the findings? Or do you just have meetings? 

Mr Binning: I would say that we certainly closely scrutinise their performance under the requirements of the agreement that we have in place with them. In addition, we closely observe, monitor and interact with the Clean Energy Council around issues that arise or any industry intelligence that we receive. We will regularly be in contact with the CEC team to check and verify the processes that they are undertaking. 

Mr Williamson: I can add to that. We have also taken samples ourselves. Through separate arrangements with others, we’ve arranged to actually grab samples of products that have been listed and get them tested ourselves. That was both pre and post the nomination of the Clean Energy Council. 

Senator ROBERTS: That still happens. 

Mr Williamson: I believe that happens in batches every now and again. There are limits to the funds we have for this, but we have sampled it because some have claimed that companies may have had a golden sample taken and production runs may subsequently be of a lower quality. We have done that, and, as part of the listing process, the CEC also does more real world sampling. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Tracking Vaccine Dollars

,

In this session with the Department of Health, I inquired about the total cost of our childhood vaccination program. While I didn’t receive an immediate response, the question was taken on notice.

The TGA also offered to provide a cost-benefit analysis of these vaccines. Frankly, I’m not expecting an honest reply. I will wait and see.

If they fail to deliver, I’ll pursue it at the next estimates. 

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How much do these vaccines cost the taxpayers every year: rotavirus, hep B and meningococcal ACWY?  

Dr Peatt: I don’t have the individual breakdowns of those vaccines, but I can tell you that, in 2024-25, the National Immunisation Program, which includes a raft of supporting activities that—  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that childhood vaccines?  

Dr Peatt: No, this is the full complement of National Immunisation Program vaccines and also other activities like communications and data collection, for example. We spent $762.8 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any chance of getting a breakout for the children’s vaccines?  

Dr Peatt: It’ll be dependent on whether that information is commercial-in-confidence, but I’ll take that on notice and get back to you.  

Prof. Lawler: I’ve mentioned previously that the regulator is involved in balancing the risk and benefit. I would highlight that it would be difficult to talk to the cost of vaccines unless we also recognise that these vaccine-preventable diseases cause an incredible burden of mortality, morbidity and cost. In fact, in the US, RSV is the leading infectious cause of paediatric hospitalisation. So the risk benefit is as important as the cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a good point, Professor Lawler—perhaps if you could include in that the benefits.  

Dr Peatt: Certainly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France and the Netherlands do not recommend rotavirus vaccines except for high-risk cases. The varicella vaccine in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Portugal is not recommended except for high-risk cases, and hepatitis B vaccine is not recommended for routine use in Denmark, Norway, Finland, UK—Britain—France, Germany or the Netherlands. Surely the default is don’t vaccinate unless the need has been established. Can you show me any of these countries where the absence of the vaccination has led to a higher incidence of child harm—not infection but harm—than vaccinated countries?  

Dr Peatt: As my colleague Professor Lawler has outlined, it’s very difficult to compare different countries. That’s really because there are different disease impacts in each different country, which can be related to the public health measures that are in place and also the different diseases that are circulating. We also have different funding mechanisms. In Australia, we’re very fortunate to be in a country that has a program that provides vaccines for free that are recommended by our advisers. We are very fortunate in that sense. So I’d say that it’s very difficult to compare one country to another in terms of how they fund or recommend their vaccines. But I will throw to Associate Professor Katherine Gibney, who may be able to give you an idea about some of the assessment and information that they take into account when they recommend vaccines in the Australian context.  

Prof. Gibney: Certainly, ATAGI takes the epidemiology and burden of disease of each of these vaccine-preventable diseases into account as we consider who to recommend the vaccines for. Establishing a clinical need isn’t just about infection—in fact, counting numbers of infections is not particularly interesting. It’s hospitalisations, severe disease and death that we’re particularly interested in or long-term consequences that could be prevented through vaccination. So that’s really what we look at. The first question is: is there a need for a vaccine? Then we look at the vaccine. Considering that TGA has already assessed the effectiveness and the safety, we further review that in the context of the clinical need. Further to that, when we provide advice to PBAC, they look not only at the clinical effectiveness and need but also at the cost-effectiveness. So ATAGI don’t assess that, but that is assessed for every vaccine before a recommendation is made that it be added to the NIP.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, could you show me anywhere where the absence of the vaccination has led to more hospitalisations and more deaths?  

Prof. Gibney: Certainly we can take that on notice and provide that.  

/1 Comment/by

Where is Our Flag?

,

During this Estimates session, I questioned why the National Australia Day Council’s website and their 2024-25 report seem to treat our flag as an afterthought. The report is full of glossy photos, yet the Australian flag is almost entirely absent, appearing only incidentally.

Is this a government directive to ignore our flag, or is the Council doing this on its own?

I noted that there has been a massive 120% increase in the Council’s grant budget, jumping from $4.5 million to $10 million. While the government claims this supports local events, I pointed out that this funding is being directed toward “reflective” activities like truth-telling workshops and smoking ceremonies.

I expressed concern that major events, such as the flag-raising in Sydney, emphasise Indigenous flags while the presence of the Australian flag remains unclear or secondary.

I confronted Minister Wong directly on whether the ALP government has “declared war” on our Western heritage. I wanted to know if this administration is ashamed of our history, as their actions suggest a move away from the traditional celebration of our nation.

The government’s response was to hide behind the “independence” of the Council, though they admitted to supporting these funding shifts.

I asked if they were ashamed of our heritage and the Minister responded with a simple “no,” – however their actions on the ground tell a different story.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: We are now going to rotate the call. I will go to Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending again. Good afternoon. Minister, national identity is important. I’m sure you’d agree. It’s one of the core issues for any country: national identity. Could you please explain why the website for the National Australia Day Council does not show the Australian flag? Does the government or the Prime Minister believe the Australian flag is not appropriate to the celebration of Australia Day?  

Senator Wong: Which website, sorry?  

Senator ROBERTS: The National Australia Day Council.  

Senator Wong: I think they appear separately, Senator. I’m not trying to be difficult.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but you’re overseeing them.  

Senator Wong: Am I?  

Senator ROBERTS: Your government is.  

CHAIR: I don’t believe they’ve been requesting the Australian flag.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what the government’s attitude is.  

Mr Walter: Senator, the National Australia Day Council is a Commonwealth company, and they make their own decisions about their website. I haven’t looked at their website recently, but I can do that. But they’re an independent body. There’s an independent council that’s appointed that manages the secretariat and the company, so those decisions are a matter for it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. The 2024-25 report by the National Australia Day Council has lots of glossy pages full of photos of the world that matters to them. No Australian flags are treated as a photo illustration. Three are seen in incidental shots. Is the National Australia Day Council acting on a government instruction to ignore that we have a national flag, or are they doing so on their own initiative?  

Mr Walter: As I said, Senator, the National Australia Day Council is a company. It’s an independent company set up under Commonwealth company legislation. It makes its own decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand the National Australia Day Council budget for grants has risen from $4½ million in 2025, last year, to $10 million in 2026—a 120 per cent increase, more than double. This covers 849 grants in the amounts of $2,000 and 869 grants of $10,000 for larger events and a special rate for Aboriginal groups of up to $15,000. Are you aware, is this correct and do you condone it?  

Mr Walter: The government absolutely supports the grants process. Funding has been provided over many years for a grants program for the National Australia Day Council. What those grants are used for is to host Australia Day events. That’s the purpose of the grants. They’re provided largely to local government instrumentalities to support their holding of Australia Day functions—functions in support of Australia Day. So, yes, the government does support that program.  

Senator ROBERTS: This funding included funding for smoking ceremonies, truth-telling workshops and cultural performances and multicultural events. Direct National Australia Day Council examples include capital city events like Sydney’s flag-raising with Indigenous flags. Did those flag-raising events include the Australian flag?  

Mr Walter: I’d have to take that on notice. I assume so, but I would have to take it on notice. I didn’t attend the events, but I would presume they did, yes. They’re for Australia Day.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question on this topic before switching briefly. I understand Minister Gorman required the National Australia Day Council to conduct these events—Minister Gorman; that’s my understanding—which he calls reflective. Minister, has the ALP government declared war on our Western heritage and flag? Are you, as a government, ashamed of our heritage?  

Senator Wong: No and no.  

/by

Political Extremism and the Public Purse

,

I raised with Creative Australia the “rumoured” $800,000 grant to Sara M. Saleh. While the CEO, Mr. Collette, could not confirm this specific figure, he did clarify that artist Khaled Sabsabi, whose political views have been a point of contention, has received over $800,000 from the agency over the last 20 years, including his current representation of Australia at the Venice Biennale.

I questioned why a commercial entity like APRA, with record revenues of $740 million, requires $4.3 million in taxpayer-funded grants. This raises the question: should public money subsidise the talent development of a profitable private firm? We must ask if these funds are supporting growth or simply replacing private capital.

I also sought clarity on the accounting for Aboriginal arts programs. It was confirmed that approximately $32.1 million is dedicated to First Nations creative practice out of a total grant pool of $285 million.

Several questions have been put on notice. I will wait for the exact figures on overseas spending, recent grants to Mr. Sabsabi, and the specific KPIs from their annual report to ensure that “investment” isn’t just a buzzword for unchecked spending.

My focus remains on ensuring that government funding serves the Australian public effectively and stays clear of political extremism.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My first question is on behalf of a constituent, who provided it, actually. It is a fact check on social media reports that Sara M Saleh, a Palestinian Australian writer, activist and human rights lawyer, has received an $800,000 grant from Creative Australia. We can’t find anything on your website, and it’s a larger grant than usual. Do you have any information on this?  

Mr Collette: I don’t have specific information. If you let me speculate for one moment, I think that, if it were a grant of that size, I would be aware of it. But we will have to take that on notice to check it.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.  

Mr Collette: You have to remember that we give about 3,700 grants and contracts a year.  

Senator ROBERTS: In reviewing your grants, we can see a lot that appear to be for the purpose of sending Australians overseas. My question is not criticism at this point. Please explain how much was spent sending artists or students overseas and what the cost benefit for taxpayers was.  

Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice and get you the final figure. But, yes, we do invest in programs to send artists overseas. That is done for the best possible reasons: to support their careers and to make sure that great Australian storytelling and music making are experienced overseas. I’d ask you to keep this in mind, particularly in the fields of literature and contemporary music: we are a relatively small English-speaking market competing increasingly against very large English-speaking markets. Since the establishment of Revive, in particular, we’ve doubled down on supporting Australian artists to establish their careers overseas. We are at a particular moment now in contemporary music, for example, where we find that Australians have never listened to more music, because of streaming services, but that the Australian artists they are listening to constitute only about eight per cent of that. So we have a big challenge ahead of us. The way we are working in contemporary music, in particular, is through matched and incentive grants, which I think is a great development in Creative Australia. We have a very strong eye on export. We will co-invest in an artist and a career with a record label with other forms of matched funding that are trying to break this artist overseas.  

Senator ROBERTS: Khaled Sabsabi and his extremist political views have been an issue for Creative Australia. First, he was our Venice Biennale selection, then he wasn’t, then he is again—perhaps—then he had a large grant, then it was a $100,000 ‘sorry’ grant. Can you provide us the latest on Khaled Sabsabi, please? What sort of money is he being given? Is he representing us in any way?  

Mr Collette: He’s representing us, I’m very pleased to say, at the Venice Biennale, which opens in May this year. You’re aware of the history. We recommissioned Khaled Sabsabi as the artist and Michael Dagostino as his curator. We have worked very closely, as we do with all our Venice artists, to support the development of their work.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much money has he received from Creative Australia?  

Mr Collette: All up, we believe he’s received slightly in excess of $800,000 over a 20-year period. That includes his commissions for Venice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the last 12 months?  

Mr Collette: In the last 12 months he’s received—I’m trying to get the dates right in my head—his commission for Venice and he’s also applied for, competitively, and received a grant. Actually, more accurately, I think the South Australian gallery did to ensure that the work he does in Venice is able to be brought home so that Australians get to enjoy the work as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: What would that total in the last 12 months?  

Mr Collette: To get you an exact number, I’d have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Moving on, I note your continued strong spending on orchestras, theatre and dance. Thank you for that. This question goes to accounting, not to Australian values. You list the Australian Cultural Fund at $13.5 million, which includes several programs for First Nations. Then you have a line item for First Nations of $15.6 million. Is this figure the total spend for dedicated First Nations and Aboriginal arts programs or just an element of it? If not, what was the total spend on Aboriginal grants?  

Mr Collette: We can get you that number. I think the number you are alluding to—the $15 million—under Revive we established a dedicated First Nations fund with its own First Nations board that has decision-making rights over the spending of those funds.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you give money to the board and they disburse it?  

Mr Collette: Yes. We had that fund, and the First Nations board, appointed by the minister, has decision making rights on how that fund is invested. What I’m trying to get for you is the total—I think the total for 2024- 25 invested in First Nation creative practice and arts was $32.1 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: To give the figure context, for those new to the subject, this is out of a total spent on grants of $285 million—correct?  

Mr Collette: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And about $74 million for orchestras, including regional.  

Mr Collette: As a part of the creative sector, the orchestras constitute our biggest area of funding. That is as part of the National Partnership Framework. Importantly, that is an understanding of co-investment with all the states and territories as well. We fund each of the state orchestras, plus the territory orchestras. We co-invest with the states.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I note that the Australasian Performing Right Association, APRA, has received around $4.3 million in grants in the last three years. APRA had record revenue last year of $740 million, with revenue noticeably outpacing inflation. Isn’t it their job to develop local talent and then benefit from increased Australian airplay and the royalties they collect from their talent? They have a great business model here, it seems. Why are taxpayers funding a commercial operation that should be funding new talent themselves?  

Mr Collette: They do indirectly fund new talent, because their business collects receipts for—  

Senator ROBERTS: So why should you be funding it?  

Mr Collette: Well, the most particular thing we do with APRA is fund Sounds Australia. That is an organisation that we have funded historically, and we chose to continue that funding, even after the establishment of Music Australia, because it is such an effective way of supporting Australian artists to get to and benefit from overseas markets.  

Senator ROBERTS: But can’t the Australasian Performing Right Association—which are a commercial entity, by the sound of it—do it on their own? They’re developing the talent and they’re making money off it.  

Mr Collette: You’ll have to ask them that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re giving them money, so you—  

Mr Collette: We’re giving them money because we think it is very good value for money, given the expertise they bring to supporting Australian artists to get to overseas markets.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you replacing private funding with government funding?  

Mr Collette: Not at all. In fact, it’s growing, I’m happy to say. To get back to first principles, under Revive, our revised legislation allowed us, really for the first time, to co-invest. That means co-invest with philanthropic interests. It means co-invest with commercial interests. That is why, for example, if we want to invest in Australian artists getting overseas, we can ensure that we are co-investing with commercial interests to try and drive the value of our government funding further.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. There are only a few more quick questions to go. Doesn’t the music industry need more live venues? Have you done any grants in that area?  

Mr Collette: I don’t think we’ve done any grants specifically into live venues, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: You call these grants ‘investments’, yet we don’t see any mention of a return on investment—how Australia benefited from the spend. How many people attended events that you funded? 

Mr Collette: We do have that number. I will get it to you. In the last annual report it was upwards of $14 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: do you have any performance metrics to ensure that you are spending where the public want it spent, as evidenced by ticket sales, artwork sales—some tangible KPI?  

Mr Collette: Yes, we do. If you look at our annual report, we report against KPIs, and attendance at the events we fund is very much part of that. Again, because of Revive, we will be putting an even greater emphasis on audience and market development going forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where can we get that figure?  

Mr Collette: We can get it for you. It is in the annual report last published.  

Senator ROBERTS: Send us that on notice.  

Mr Collette: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by

Is Your HiLux Next?

,

I raised the issue of the new “baby” Land Cruiser FJ – a vehicle Australians would love. It’s compact, attractive, and fits our lifestyle. Yet, we are hearing that it won’t be coming to Australia because it can’t meet the new emissions regulations.

The government promised “more choice” and instead, we are seeing the death of the affordable petrol and diesel vehicles people actually want. If they’ve already killed the baby Land Cruiser, surely the HiLux is next on the chopping block.

I also questioned the department regarding BYD and the way these “credits” are being handed out. It’s a disgrace!

The department confirmed that a company like BYD gets credits just for putting a vehicle on the Register of Approved Vehicles, not for actually selling it to a customer. They can park these cars in a warehouse, collect thousands of dollars in credits per vehicle (over $7,000 for a Sealion 7) and then sell those credits to other carmakers who produce “normal” cars.

I asked directly if the department is concerned that this policy is funnelling money into corporations controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. They admitted this hasn’t been raised with the Minister.

The department claims they might look at changing the scheme to a “point-of-sale” trigger in a 2026 review, however for now, the system is wide open for exploitation.

This is what happens when you build a system based on global targets instead of the actual needs of the Australian people. It robs citizens of affordable, reliable transport while enriching foreign entities.

My position on this remains clear: the government’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) is strangling the choices available to everyday Australians.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’d like to take up the new ‘baby’ Land Cruiser.

CHAIR: I hear it’s not coming to Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It’s a very attractive vehicle. It’s the size of a Suzuki Jimny. It would be very popular. Toyota knows it would be wildly popular, but it says, according to an article:

…the ‘Baby’ Land Cruiser FJ won’t make it to Australia in its current guise because its engine—shared with the HiLux—can’t meet upcoming emissions regulations, which may also see it dumped from the ute range.

When the government introduced the standard, you said it would give Australians more choice. Yet we have an example already of it meaning less choice for Australians. You’ve already killed the baby Land Cruiser. You’re going to kill the HiLux next with these standards. When are you going to admit the new vehicle efficiency standard is taking choices away from Australians who want to drive a normal, affordable petrol or diesel vehicle?

Mr Kathage: Can I just check, Senator. It may be that you’re referring to the noxious emissions standards Euro 6, rather than the new vehicle efficiency standard.

Senator ROBERTS: The NVES.

Mr Kathage: I’m not aware of those reports. I do understand that there’s been a reclassification of Toyota vehicles to meet the heavy-vehicle noxious emissions standard rather than the light-vehicle noxious emissions standard.

Senator ROBERTS: No. That’s just what’s been reported.

Senator O’SULLIVAN: If it helps, Senator Roberts, this is a new vehicle that Toyota have released, and my understanding is it will only be released in Japan. It’s a vehicle that would be highly sought after in Australia, but Toyota have said that, due to the NVES, it doesn’t fit their overall fleet requirements to be able to import them into Australia.

Mr Betts: The NVES doesn’t work on an individual vehicle level. It works across—

Senator O’SULLIVAN: As I’ve said, it’s across their fleet.

Mr Betts: Yes. So let’s look at what’s changed in the Australian market since the NVES hit the statute book. The number of brands on sale in Australia was 56 at the end of 2024; it’s now 65. It was 390 models; it’s 420 models now. The price increase of vehicles is below the rate of inflation; in other words, car prices generally have fallen in real terms. So there’s no evidence that there is a systemic diminution in customer choice or an increase in prices—as we forecast on the basis of experience in other jurisdictions.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, here’s one that’s not coming. On the new vehicle efficiency standard, you’d be aware of reporting by the Financial Review—you may have touched on some of this earlier on—from 2 November that BYD has imported far more vehicles than it has sold in Australia. Has that been raised today?

CHAIR: We have touched on that today.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it accurate that BYD receives those credits for electric vehicles under the scheme just for importing them? Do they get them just for importing a vehicle, rather than selling it?

Mr Kathage: I can answer that, Senator, if you like. Vehicles are counted in the scheme when they’re added to the Register of Approved Vehicles. That occurs during a calendar year. The interim emissions value, which is when units and other effects might occur, is actually issued on 1 February the year after. So vehicle suppliers put something on the Register of Approved Vehicles, there’s a period of time and then, at the start of the next year, effectively, the interim emissions value is issued, and credits are issued shortly after that.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s for bringing it in and putting it on the register as being here, not for selling it?

Mr Kathage: That’s correct, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your succinctness. So, even if BYD don’t go on to sell those vehicles, they still get credits and then they can sell them on to another carmaker who makes normal petrol and diesel cars? They can sell the credits?

Mr Kathage: BYD can import vehicles and put them on the RAV, and then, once the IEV is issued the next year, they can then deal with those units in whatever way they want. The previous evidence we’d supplied is that it does seem the case that BYD has orders that it needs to fulfil. They’ve indicated publicly that there’s been a delay in them being able to fulfil those orders, and their warehousing strategy is a matter for them.

Senator ROBERTS: The warehousing strategy is a what?

Ms Stagg: A matter for them.

Senator ROBERTS: Reporting the money going from the government to them is a matter for us. Reporting indicated that BYD would earn $7,050 in credits for one of its Sealion 7 vehicles, for example. Can you confirm how many credits in total have been issued to BYD under the new vehicle efficiency standard?

Ms Stagg: No units have been issued. As Mr Kathage explained, that will occur on 1 February and will take into account the entire fleet from the OEM for the period 1 July to 31 December 2025.

Senator ROBERTS: I have a few short questions on structure. Are you aware of the ownership structure of BYD?

Mr Kathage: Not personally.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department raised any issues with the minister about their policy leading to the enrichment of Communist China controlled corporations? That’s what you’re doing by giving them these credits. They’re connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

Ms Purvis-Smith: No, we’ve not raised that.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department done any work on changing to a point-of-sale trigger for the scheme, rather than an import trigger?

Mr Kathage: That’s something that we’re looking at. As the minister indicated in her second reading speech on the bill, that is a matter that the government will consider as part of the 2026 review. We’ve done some preliminary looking at the benefits and costs of doing so. We sort of touched on this a little earlier, but there are lots of questions that we need to resolve in relation to whether that would be a good idea based on implementation challenges.

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a lot of complexity when we introduce anything new that is not based upon people’s needs but rather on arbitrary or international targets or something like that. That’s what seems to be the issue here.

Mr Betts: That’s a statement. Mr Kathage indicated the legislation will be subject to review in 2026.

/by

The TGA’s Rubber Stamp

,

I asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) about the way they test the vaccines they market as “safe and effective” and mandate for children. I already knew the answer – I was just trying to get a clear statement so the public could understand just how much of a farce the “testing” process truly is.

The representatives danced around the questions, trying to be as confusing as possible.

The TGA does not actually test vaccines. Instead, they rely on safety and efficacy data provided by the manufacturer. This data is based on the company’s own testing of its own product. If the manufacturer (drug company) says it’s safe, the TGA gives it a stamp of approval.

Furthermore, we know that drug companies are not using the correct process for testing new vaccines or drugs. The standard should be to test the new product against an inert saline placebo. Instead, they use an existing vaccine or drug as the control.

This means our vaccines have been tested against products already known to have side effects – and approved as long as the side effects of the new drug are no worse than those of the old one. This is criminal behaviour.

Peer-reviewed papers have shown that the testing on the COVID-19 vaccines was fraudulent. It’s not good enough for the TGA to claim they review documentation carefully; the Pfizer testing scandal proves they do nothing of the sort.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  Question on notice 3215, I asked about a report from the American Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which stated perfectly clearly that there were 10 paediatric deaths were linked to the COVID jabs. I asked if you had supporting data in Australia. Your reply referenced reported paediatric deaths after COVID jabs and found:  

… causality has not been established for those in children.  

How hard did you look? Were there autopsies, an independent medical board reviewing the medical file for each, deciding that, no, the jab did not cause the death? What was the process you engaged?  

Prof. Lawler: Thanks for that question. I will ask Dr Dascombe to comment on the process that we’ve explained previously around our pharmacovigilance that is designed and delivers on our analysis of adverse events, including deaths that occurred temporally following vaccination. I would just highlight as well that, as previously stated regarding the identified paediatric deaths following vaccines, I mentioned that we’d not been provided with information regarding those deaths. I believe that still to be the case. The claim that there had been these deaths that had been causally linked to vaccination has not, to my knowledge, been substantiated. But, again, if that is not the case, I’d be very prepared to correct the record. Dr Dascombe can comment on the work that we undertake to respond to reported adverse events.  

Dr Dascombe: Every death that’s reported to the TGA following any vaccination is reviewed to determine whether a regulatory response is necessary based on the weight of available evidence. It’s important to note the TGA does not determine causes of death. This is determined by coroners and treating doctors, as we’ve explained before, and the TGA has no role in overruling causes of death that are included on a person’s death certificate. The causality assessment that’s done by the TGA is primarily concerned with the relationship between the vaccine and the adverse event, rather than the outcome itself, and it’s undertaken as a regulatory process with the intention of appraising risk-benefit balance at a population level for that specific vaccine under Australia’s regulatory framework.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do autopsies?  

Dr Dascombe: As I just said, the TGA has no role in the determination of cause of death for individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was my understanding too. In 2026, the United States’ Department of Health and Human Services removed rotavirus, COVID-19, influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A and hepatitis B from the schedule. Australia still requires rotavirus, hepatitis-B and meningococcal ACWY. Is the United States’ FDA wrong, or are you wrong on the risk-benefit of those vaccines?  

Dr Peatt: I can’t comment on the US, but, as outlined by my colleagues Professor Lawler and Associate Professor Katherine Gibney, the four vaccines to be made available on the National Immunisation Program requires a very high bar. It includes TGA assessment of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine but also undergoes ATAGI assessment for the clinical effectiveness. It then goes through Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee assessment and then needs to be approved by government for funding. There’s also ongoing monitoring by ATAGI and TGA, who constantly assess whether those vaccines are appropriate for the Australian community.  

Prof. Lawler: If I may very quickly add—I think it’s really important to note that one of the great strengths of Australia’s regulatory system and, indeed, of ATAGI is that we do make decisions based upon the nature of disease patterns in Australia. Every country will take its own approach to immunisation schedules. They rely on the evidence and rely on the demography and the epidemiology in their own areas. If we were simply to make decisions based upon what other regulators say, then I can almost guarantee that I’d be back at the next estimates answering questions around why we weren’t making our own sovereign decisions. So I think it’s important to note that the vaccination schedule is appropriate to the Australian context because of the evidence upon which it relies.  

/2 Comments/by

Can We Trust CASA?

,

I spoke with Ms. Spence from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and raised the issue of the agency’s poor history of integrity and transparency when handling complaints from industry stakeholders, including Mr. Geoff Barker. I pointed out that the Fair Work Commission had found that Mark Lewis, a disgruntled former employee of Geoff Barker and current CASA employee, had taken adverse action against Geoff Barker and had lied during Commission proceedings.

Ms. Spence admitted that CASA should have handled matters better regarding Mr. Barker; however, she declined to specify what should have been done differently or what changes would be implemented following the completion of internal investigations. She stated that CASA is currently investigating assertions that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Scott Duffy provided false and misleading evidence to the Commission while knowing that information to be untrue.

Furthermore, Ms. Spence confirmed that CASA has chosen not to release the independent probe into its remotely piloted aircraft system, which was completed in December 2021. When I requested access to the report, Ms. Spence took the request on notice.

I raised the question of whether CASA could still be trusted, given the volume of complaints regarding its lack of ethics and persistent abuse of authority.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. This one really disturbs me. Isn’t it true that CASA relied on a conflicted officer, Mr Mark Lewis, who the Fair Work Commission found had a personal vendetta against his former employer Mr Barker, and evidence was not credible enough—essentially lies—to take actions that severely harmed Mr Barker, his staff and his company?  

Ms Spence: I’m aware of the issue that you’re referring to. I would say that, certainly, CASA did not do things as well as we should have in relation to some of the issues that Mr Barker has been involved in. But I do not agree with the way in which you described it then.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Ms Spence. Isn’t it true that Mr Lewis was allowed to work on matters involving his former employer, with CASA knowing it was an obvious conflict of interest, and dishonestly tried to hide this fact? Isn’t it true that Mr Lewis and his manager Mr Scott Duffy gave false or misleading evidence to the commission?  

Ms Spence: Again, I don’t agree with the way you’re describing it. I’m not saying CASA was without fault, but we did have appropriate conflict-of-interest arrangements in place, and we’re looking into the issues Mr Barker has raised about the assertion of misleading evidence that was provided to the Fair Work Commission. But we’re looking into that at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: It must be serious, because you’ve admitted the slightest hint of responsibility, which I’ve never seen before, and you have also said you’re looking into it. Well, that’s not good enough. Isn’t it true that CASA, relying on Mr Lewis’s false claims that Mr Duffy knew were false, pursued heavy-handed enforcement, including criminal allegations and jail threats, that effectively shut Mr Barker’s business down and put his staff out of work?  

Ms Spence: No, that’s incorrect.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say is correct?  

Ms Spence: As I said, there are issues that we should have done better. I do not accept the assertions being made about CASA’s staff taking the kinds of actions you’ve just described. I think there were lessons that we’ve learnt around how we should manage conflict of interest, which does happen.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are those lessons?  

Ms Spence: I think they’re around the perception of conflicts of interest and making sure we’re closely monitoring how often these can happen. But I guess one of the things I would say is that in order to have people with the appropriate qualifications to operate as inspectors within the organisation they do need to have industry experience. We do have strong conflict-of-interest mechanisms in place, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be monitoring them more closely. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that integrity can be cast aside for industry experience?  

Ms Spence: Sorry?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that someone’s integrity can be ignored if he’s got industry experience?  

Ms Spence: No, I’m definitely not saying that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA regularly removed or downgraded Mr Barker’s firm UAS Pacific’s licence privileges without proper process and then sat on routine approvals for months or years, choking what was left of the business, destroying good will and reputation and driving clients away?  

Ms Spence: No, that’s not correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that multiple substantive bullying complaints were dropped by the commission only because CASA promised to change its behaviour going forward, not because CASA’s past behaviour was found acceptable by the Fair Work Commission?  

Ms Spence: A commitment was made around the engagement between the two staff members Mr Barker had raised concerns with, but I would not agree with the way you’ve described the outcome from the Fair Work Commission, where they I think first of all determined that they didn’t actually have jurisdiction on the matters being put to them, which is not the same as saying there was a guilty verdict in terms of the way our staff had behaved. And I do not accept the allegations that have been made.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Fair Work Commission found a personal vendetta against Mr Barker from his former employee.  

Ms Spence: I would have to check the transcript, but I do not accept the way you’ve described the outcomes from the Fair Work Commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA failed to hold anyone to account for bullying and giving false or misleading statements to the commission, effectively condoning that conduct as Mr Barker and his staff remained unsatisfied?  

Ms Spence: As I said, there is one element that we are looking into around the question of what information was provided to the Fair Work Commissioner, but in terms of the outcome of the process, I do not accept the way that you’ve described the way in which the matter has been handled.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the conflict of interest you’ve unearthed? What work did you need to do on conflict of interest?  

Ms Spence: No. As I said, we were aware of the issues relating to Mr Lewis, who’d been a former employee of Mr Barker, and we did have conflict-of-interest arrangements in place. That’s not the issue that I’m referring to. I do understand that some comments were made in the Fair Work hearing that we’re looking into to see whether they were misleading. We do not consider that they actually impacted the outcome of the Fair Work Hearing, but we are looking into it because, to your point, integrity is important. We want to make sure no-one has said anything that could be misleading to such an important organisation as the Fair Work Commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA has left false accusations on file about Mr Barker, his company and staff without correction, annotation or apology, allowing CASA to keep seriously hurting their ability to work and earn?  

Ms Spence: No. We have advised one person who was in a similar situation. There was one issue where the original allegation was subsequently withdrawn, and that was provided in writing. We have taken whatever efforts we can, without destroying official documents, to make it clear that (1) people can’t access our system to find the original assertion that was made, and that (2) if anyone were to get access to it, it would be very clearly marked to say that this matter was overtaken by subsequent events.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that an independent probe into CASA’s remotely piloted aircraft system, drones, branch’s alleged wrongdoing was finished on 12 December 2021 and that CASA refuses to release it or carry out all recommendations? And isn’t the real reason that public release would confirm systemic wrongdoing inside the CASA remotely piloted aircraft systems branch?  

Ms Spence: No. The report that you’re referring to has been considered within CASA. It was prepared for CASA. It looked at the way in which we were undertaking our regulatory arrangements. It identified reforms that we could implement, and we’re working our way through those. We didn’t accept some of them, but that’s perfectly reasonable. We’re making sure that we’re looking at how we do our work, and we’re improving things as we need to. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can we have a look at that report?  

Ms Spence: Can I take that on notice please?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. Isn’t it true that the combined effect of CASA’s conflicts of interest, discredited evidence, process breaches, suppressed report, punitive actions and leaving false allegations on file shut down UAS Pacific and left its people unemployed, consistent with an intent to destroy Mr Barker to hide CASA’s failures?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I do not accept the way in which you have presented it. We’ve had ongoing engagement with Mr Barker. I know that anything I say he will disagree with, but we’ve looked at these issues very seriously, and we’re looking into those areas where we have identified potential less-than-appropriate behaviour. But I do not accept the way you’re describing how those events occurred within the organisation.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can anyone trust CASA? We have so many complaints, serious complaints, from people in the aircraft industry about CASA—CASA’s lack of ethics, violation of ethics, violation of laws, violation and abuse of authority and misplaced public faith.  

CHAIR: We might take that as a statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is a statement. 

/2 Comments/by

Time to Clean Up Coal LSL

,

I questioned ANAO on the transparency, or lack thereof, surrounding Coal LSL.

While they’ve given the financial statements a “clean” bill of health, serious questions remain about the $2 billion sitting in this fund. I’m particularly concerned for our coal industry casuals. Employers are paying compulsory levies for these workers, but many leave the industry before the 8-year mark, meaning they never see a cent of that benefit.

Where is that money going?

The ANAO confirmed their remit is limited to the finances, not the management. It’s been decades since the courts flagged a lack of government accountability over this corporation, and it’s time we got real answers on board composition and the integrity of the scheme.

I won’t stop asking until we ensure these funds are serving the workers they were meant for, not just sitting in a pot controlled by an unaccountable entity.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing tonight. Have a good evening. The most recent audit report conducted by ANAO of Coal LSL—Long Service Leave—flagged higher risk related to both valuation of investments and the valuation of provision for reimbursements. What’s the real meaning of these two findings of risk as regards the effective operations of and the integrity of the scheme? These are risks of what and to whom?  

Ms Jago: That would be in relation to our annual financial statement audit for Coal Long Service Leave. That is setting out where we see the main risk areas. Often, when there are valuations of assets and liabilities, those are of higher risk in an audit because more assumptions and judgements are involved. In Coal Long Service Leave’s case, they are the two riskier items in their financial statements. We have completed that audit for the 2024-25 year, and they received an unmodified auditor’s report.  

Senator ROBERTS: That means you accepted it?  

Ms Jago: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What would be the fallout if these risks crystallised?  

Ms Jago: From a financial reporting perspective, it may be that we would conclude that it’s not a true and fair representation of the liabilities that are actually owed to others or assets held. If that were the case and it weren’t corrected, that may lead to what we would call a modified auditor’s report. That’s the financial reporting aspect. A more financial management aspect is that, if you don’t understand what liabilities you actually have, it’s very difficult to plan for how you’re actually going to meet those liabilities. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The funds arrive in the accounts of the scheme from compulsory levies upon the relevant employers. The funds held by the fund are now in excess of $2 billion. Who gets the excess income generated from the scheme after leave entitlements are paid out? I don’t know if you’re aware that there’s a significant proportion of casuals now in the Coal workforce.  

Ms Jago: No, I’m not.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of casuals. They don’t like the way they’re treated. They get in and get out before the eight years, so, effectively, their employer pays for their contributions but then they leave the contributions behind and don’t get it because they leave before the eight-year entitlement. Do you know what happens to that money?  

Ms Jago: I think that’s actually a question best directed to Coal Long Service Leave.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emmett J, In the Federal Court in 1998, had emphasised that there was a lack of control of the corporation by the government. He’s not talking about today’s Labor government or the last Liberal government; he’s talking about government and a lack of accountability to the government. Now, before I arrived in the Senate in 2016, COLE LSL, I was told, had never appeared at Senate estimates, and yet we saw some startling irregularities. That led eventually, when they were proven, to a review by the LNP, which in my opinion was a pretty soft review. But I would agree with Emmett about the lack of control of the corporation. What change in governance, if any, has occurred within Coal LSL since 1998?  

Ms Jago: That’s quite a long period of time. I don’t know that I could answer that today, and it’s how their governance arrangements changed is probably more a question for Coal Long Service Leave.  

Senator ROBERTS: So your assessment, your audit, was just to do with the financial reports?  

Ms Jago: Correct. We were auditing their financial statements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not the company—not the entity?  

Ms Jago: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got serious concerns about the board composition and many other governance factors. Given the fund was originally set up as a stopgap measure to cover an estimated shortfall of funds to cover Long Service Leave’s claims, can your office comment on what purpose is satisfied for the fund to continue generating millions of dollars per year after the original purpose was met a quarter of a century ago?  

Ms Jago: That’s not something that was part of our financial statement audit.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s beyond your remit.  

Ms Jago: We were just looking at the financial statements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all. Like me: short and sweet! 

/by

Patronage or Partisanship?

,

During this Estimates session, I questioned the Office of the Governor-General regarding their association with the political activist group Equality Australia.

My primary concern is the perceived loss of neutrality for the Governor-General’s office. I asked Mr. Martin how the Governor-General can justify being a patron of an organisation that advocates for irreversible gender treatments for children — positions that are political and non-neutral.

While Mr. Martin claimed patronage is “purely honorary,” I argue that it lends the credibility of the office to Equality Australia, effectively amplifying their specific political messaging.

I attempted to get to why Assistant Charities Minister Andrew Leigh intervened to grant Equality Australia charity status, despite multiple court and tribunal rulings finding they were not established for a benevolent purpose.

I raised the issue of Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status, which allows donors tax deductions. It’s my view that giving this status to such a group is a massive “favour” that warrants serious scrutiny.

Mr. Martin insisted that the Governor-General does not support specific advocacy positions of her patronages, though he did admit these matters are “always under review.”

I’m concerned that I did not get clear answers regarding this issue.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Australia’s Governor-General is supposed to be neutral as to taking political positions. My first question is: how is it that the Governor-General can be a patron of a political activist group, Equality Australia, that actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children?  

Mr Martin: The Governor-General is patron of around 209 organisations, at this point. The patronage is a purely honorary role. The Governor-General has no role in making decisions around policies or positions taken by the individual patronages. It’s purely an honorary position.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your answer and for being brief. Isn’t it that she lends her credibility or the office’s credibility to Equality Australia just by being a patron?  

Mr Martin: Yes, broadly speaking, the role of a patronage is to amplify the message of the organisation and to elevate it, to some extent, in their broad goals. But, again, the Governor-General’s patronage does not provide support for any position or support advocacy of any particular organisation. There are many patronages that seek to raise issues of all sorts of different types. While the Governor-General supports, through patronage, the general good work of the organisations, she doesn’t support or advocate any particular position taken by those patronages.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask the minister this, but I’ll ask you instead, Mr Martin. Why did Assistant Charities Minister Andrew Leigh intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when, on three occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings had held that Equality Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be noted—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to stop you there. That’s not a question appropriately directed to Mr Martin or this particular office. You would have to go back to—  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to have asked the minister.  

CHAIR: Well, no minister appears at this session—  

Senator ROBERTS: I can see that.  

CHAIR: because it’s not the appropriate session.  

Senator ROBERTS: I thought I’d try anyway.  

CHAIR: It’s just the office of the Governor-General.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have difficulty understanding patronage of an organisation that was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to DGR, deductible gift recipient status.  

CHAIR: In your opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Governor-General aware of this, or were you aware of it before tonight?  

Mr Martin: Yes, I am. The issues relating to DGR status were not in place when the patronage was accepted. Again, it’s an honorary position that has no role in those sorts of matters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Now that it is in place, do you have any change?  

Mr Martin: We regularly consider and review patronage. These matters are always under review.  

Senator ROBERTS: DGR, deductible gift recipient, status allows donors to claim tax deductions for their donations. Equality Australia was given such a massive favour by—  

CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, this question is not appropriately directed at these witnesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to ask a minister, but okay.  

CHAIR: As I’ve said, this is not the appropriate session. We can help you find the appropriate session for you to ask those questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I might put them on notice to the minister.  

CHAIR: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: My fourth and fifth questions are not appropriate. They’re for the minister.

/by