FOI requests, and the information they reveal, are an important element of Senate Estimates. In the past, a reference to the FOI number would prompt a staff member to appear with the relevant information to enable discussion. At the start of my question, a staff member approached the table with their laptop open—most likely with the FOI document displayed—so that system still exists. Nonetheless, Professor Lawler avoided discussing the FOI.
Some Senators provide their questions in advance so the FOI can be ready, however this also gives the witness time to prepare an evasive answer and removes the possibility of an unguarded admission. The point of my question was simple: the TGA’s own guidelines—which the FOI meeting notes confirmed—state that single-use medicines and vaccines should not contain preservatives. That unguarded admission is exactly what I was referring to. Professor Lawler stated that preservatives relate to multi-dose vaccines, not single-dose vaccines.
This is the argument I will make moving forward. At the last Estimates, I reviewed data that clearly linked preservatives in vaccines with autism. Single-use vaccines do not contain preservatives (or should not). Why don’t we immediately return to administering vaccines in single-use doses that are certified and tested as preservative and contaminant free? Then we can monitor autism cases in real time.
Many mothers have told me their child’s autism began the day after their shots. This approach would quickly show us whether there is a link in the real world. Let’s take a simple, immediate step to address this issue, and then conduct a full review of vaccine safety and efficacy.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I reference freedom of information 26-2122, released 30 September 2025. It’s weirdly specific: the minutes of the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. I think that’s part of the TGA. Is that correct?
Mr Comley: That sounds to me like PBAC.
Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify which committee you referenced?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes: the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. They’ll be coming to the TGA pretty soon.
Prof. Lawler: No. We have a number of advisory committees, but we don’t have an advisory committee on prescriptions. We have an advisory committee on medicines and an advisory committee on vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps if I give you the question you might be able to tell me. Held on 24 March 2015 and regarding the matter of preservatives in single-use injections, the meeting concluded: … single-use injections should be preservative-free. … if an ingredient is added for a reason other than use as a preservative, then the sponsor should provide scientific justification for inclusion at that concentration. Is this guideline still current?
Prof. Lawler: I must admit I don’t have that document in front of me, so I’m finding it hard to respond to that on the fly.
Senator ROBERTS: You can take it on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to do that. The best I can take it is that we look to preservatives predominantly for multi-use vials because, obviously, there’s a period between them being used first—but I’m happy to take that on notice and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like the answer to the question, ‘Is this guideline still current?’ is correct, but I’m not going to hold it to you. Thank you for that. The next questions, possibly also on notice, are: have you allowed any single-use injection product to contain preservatives, and were all of those approvals compliant with your own guidelines?
Prof. Lawler: Again, given the first question, I’m happy to respond to that on notice, if that’s alright.
Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the list of any that were approved. If you have allowed single-use injections to contain preservatives, why did you make the change to allow preservatives when your expert committee opposed the idea?
Prof. Lawler: My understanding is that the committee you’re referencing—what was the date of the—
Senator ROBERTS: It was 24 March 2015—probably before your time.
Prof. Lawler: It was well before my time. That is an older committee. I think, in the interest of providing you with a comprehensive response, we’d be happy to roll those up into one response, if that’s alright.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know if it’s still current.
Prof. Lawler: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know this too: Which multidose vaccines contain preservatives? Have you obtained safety data to show those preservatives are safe at the levels used?
Prof. Lawler: There are a number of branches across the TGA and also, potentially, ATAGI to which those questions apply.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Dr Pengilley: To the best of my knowledge, the only use of preservatives in multi-use vials is for pandemic vaccines, and that, at the moment, is the influenza ones; COVID, just for clarity, doesn’t contain preservatives. We haven’t—
Senator ROBERTS: It does or doesn’t contain—
Dr Pengilley: Does not. I probably can’t go into applications we have and haven’t had, but, as far as I know, we haven’t registered a preservative-containing pandemic vaccine—say, an H5N1 vaccine.
Senator Watt has circulated an edited version of my exchange with the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, which omits a large part of the discussion. This is the full exchange.
I asked the new Islamophobia Envoy about a report he delivered to the Government a few months ago which, in One Nation’s view, whitewashed Islamic terrorism and Sharia Law, while advocating for the suppression of criticism under the guise of stamping out Islamophobia. We have seen how this same approach in the UK has resulted in 65 Sharia law courts and the development of a parallel society between Islamic and Christian citizens—where criticism of Christianity is permitted, but criticism of Islam is not.
The Envoy lectures on Sharia Law at the University of Technology, so he should be well aware of its provisions and its incompatibility with Australian and Western civilisation.
One Nation will oppose Sharia Law and the development of parallel societies within Australia.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript (Draft)
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Malik for appearing on notice. Could you please tell me how many staff you have? What is your annual budget and how much of that budget did you report titled A National Response to Islamophobia cost?
Senator Shoebridge: Good luck with that.
Mr Malik: So in regards to budget, I can take that on notice. I don’t have that at hand. In regards to staff, I began recruitment for my own staff from my office once the federal election results have been made clear. Up until that point I have been using or utilising the support of the Envoy Support team. Home Affairs did however provide me two staff full time staff, one of them is an office manager and the other is a communication Support officer. So they have been dedicated towards me, supporting me in social media, website management, proofreading, graphic design, printing and basically ensuring that my day to day affairs are in order.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you how many staff do you expect to have?
Mr Malik: I have recruited for five staff. I’m hoping to close. I’m finalising interviews for the final member of staff.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, thank you. Your report, a national response to Islamophobia, does not mention Sharia yet. Sharia law, should it be allowed in Australia, would replace Australian law, Australian courts, police and governance. How can you talk about opposition to Islam without addressing the elephant in the room?
Mr Malik: Sharia law? I don’t believe it is an elephant in the room. I mean, my role is to understand the reverse of that. My role is to understand what have been the impacts of the past 25 years upon Muslim communities who are facing the brunt of discrimination, marginalisation, exclusion. And so my job is to really understand that the question you raise is, is a good question because it highlights the misconception around Sharia law. A statement I made in the House of Parliament at the end of July was that when people talk about Sharia law, it’s always good to ask them what do they mean by Sharia law. So there tends to be different understandings of Sharia law. And I further said that most Muslims would be, would be difficult for them to address one of the principles of one of the five principles of Sharia law. So, a good question which highlights a challenge and which I hope to address in the coming months.
Senator ROBERTS: Your report – thank you. Your report does not include a definition of Islamophobia, but then makes more than 50 recommendations to solve the thing you haven’t defined. How can you call for extensive legislation and a large bureaucracy to combat something you can’t or don’t define?
Mr Malik: So the report does address that on the first page. It’s 54 recommendations. And there’s an argument amongst academics to how to define this term called Islamophobia. What academics are not disagreeing about are the impacts of this prejudice or hatred or racism. And one of the things I wanted to avoid is to avoid falling into the pits that Great Britain has fallen in and that is an annual conversation around the definition of Islamophobia masks all along the repercussions of this phenomenon of being ill advised or not being addressed. And so what I do say however, is in the Commission of inquiry I do ask whether or not Australia requires a definition of Islamophobia in the Australian context and whether that will hinder or progress the cause.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Mr Malik’s report does not accept that people who may have a legitimate concern about Islam. For instance, the report does not mention ISIS, al Qaeda, nor does it mention that the latest briefing provided by the provided to the Senate by the ASIO Director General Mike Burgess showed 25 of Australia’s 29 prescribed terrorist organisations are Islamic based organisations. It seems that he’s simply redefining a factual and logical and genuine concern about Islamic terrorism as Islamophobia. Minister, how would measures designed to combat Islamophobia differ from measures to combat anti Semitism or the growing anti Christian hate coming from the hard left? Surely the words and actions directed to one group or the other would not differ in their legal implications.
Minister Watt: Well, Senator Roberts told you …
Mr Malik: …
Minister Watt: I think that question was to me.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, it was.
Minister Watt: Senator Roberts, I haven’t followed the work of either special envoy terribly closely. I’ve certainly followed media reporting of the work that both special envoys have done and I think that’s really valuable work at a time when social cohesion is deeply at risk in Australia because of the activities and language of a range of extreme groups in the community. And the last time I looked, Mr Aftab’s role was to advocate for the needs of Muslim Australians, particularly in the face of gross Islamophobia that has been going on in our country. Just as Miss Siegel has been engaged to advocate for the needs of Jewish Australians at a time when we are seeing gross anti Semitism in our country. And I would encourage you and other members of your party to think about that Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, all of the three: anti-Christian, anti-Semitism and anti-Islamophobia are religion-based hate. They’re not anti-religion.
Chair: Thank you.
Minister Watt: I don’t really know what point you’re making …
Senator ROBERTS: I know you don’t.
Minister Watt: But I have to answer questions from you and your colleagues on a regular basis in the Senate chamber, which I would describe as Islamophobic. So I would I would encourage you to think very carefully about the sorts of questions and sorts of statements that you and your colleagues make in the public domain at a time when we are seeing social cohesion under threat and when we are seeing at a time when we are seeing the rise of neo Nazis and other extremists with whom you sometimes associate. And you should think about that.
Senator ROBERTS: False.
Chair: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: I do not associate with neo-Nazis.
Minister Watt: ??? experience.
Senator ROBERTS: But let me tell you. You make comments about – let me tell you my comments are about pro Australia. I put Australia first -pro Australia.
Minister Watt: Well, you have your view of what Australia is …
Senator ROBERTS: We want unity.
Minister Watt: And it’s out of step with the majority of Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: My party’s name is One Nation because we believe in unity.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/BcadgTrR71g/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-04 11:10:252025-12-04 11:10:44One Nation, One Law
The Government is currently spending what will likely amount to $20 billion building and upgrading the Inland Rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane. However, Brisbane is constrained. Its ability to handle additional container traffic is very limited, and the railway connection from Toowoomba to Brisbane is almost at capacity. Widening the line is not possible.
For this reason, One Nation supports extending Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, which has the space to expand to become Australia’s main container Port. This would reduce import and export times and lower the cost per container, ultimately reducing prices for consumers.
I asked the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) where they were with this connection. The answer was – nowhere! How can we grow the economy and provide for the millions of new arrivals the Albanese Government is allowing in without a corresponding increase in our productive capacity?
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The current planning for Inland Rail includes consideration of a connection to the Port of Gladstone. Where are we up to on that?
Mr W Johnson: I think I updated you last time that there were some interested parties, in terms of the Port of Gladstone, in connectivity to Inland Rail and the alignment of Inland Rail as it is. GreenLink, in particular, is the organisation that ARTC continue to have some interaction with. They’re progressing through what design operations and/or funding could look like for that in the future. We remain engaged with GreenLink, as ARTC. Inland Rail remain focused on delivering the project to Parkes, as it is today approved, and the enabling works north of Parkes. They’re not focused around any connection, at this point, with GreenLink. That’s what ARTC has been working with.
Senator ROBERTS:Regarding GreenLink, do they have the finance?
Mr W Johnson: I’m not sure of the exact status. I’d have to take that on notice, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: Do they also have the intellectual property, the property feasibility study?
Mr W Johnson: My understanding is they’re working on both concept designs as well as funding programs, and they’re well advanced in those endeavours.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you working with IPG global?
Mr W Johnson: No. Sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The Port of Gladstone currently does not have a major container-handing function. An application to build one has been delayed for 11 years. What steps have you taken to ensure the Gladstone port is capable of accepting container traffic when the connection is completed? For clarity, it makes no sense to connect Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone if the port can’t handle container traffic.
Mr W Johnson: There’s no work from ourselves in terms of the Port of Gladstone.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, just as an aside, the Port of Gladstone could be a development of major national significance, with regard to container terminals. Why is there a delay on that?
Senator McCarthy: I can take your question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I’m deeply concerned with the delay, mainly, in the connection and the approval of Gladstone—the processing for a container-handling application. Going back to the ARTC, if the connection is not built, the Port of Brisbane becomes a primary container port. On notice, can you provide the data you have on the remaining rail spots to bring container trains to the Port of Brisbane, the capacity of the port and the expected volume of container traffic Inland Rail would generate from import and export traffic for the Port of Brisbane.
Mr W Johnson: Sorry, I’d have to take the details of container movements on notice; I’m happy to do so. We continue some interaction and engagement with the Port of Brisbane around what connectivity would look like in the future, but there are a significant number of products that are domestic bound from both North Queensland and also southern states into Queensland. That is the purpose of the connectivity of the existing and the future inland rail.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, going back to the previous question, is there any way you can get onto the Gladstone Ports Corporation and ask them to resolve the application immediately?
Senator McCarthy: I’d have to take that question on notice.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) should be renamed the Australian Institute for Breaking Apart Families. Their persistent pro-female, anti-male bias is unbecoming of a government agency.
During Estimates in October, I asked why they misreport domestic violence data to portray men as perpetrators and women as victims, when the actual data shows victimisation rates are almost equal.
I will continue monitoring this failed agency to see what other misinformation they spread.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the Australian Institute of Family Studies. In June this year, this headline rang out: ‘One in three men report using intimate partner violence’. That was plastered across the news. There was widespread coverage of research from the Ten to Men study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which found one in three men reported being violent towards their partners. Are you aware of that study?
Ms Neville: Yes, I am aware of that research.
Senator ROBERTS: The institute failed to mention in their report that almost a third—30.9 per cent—of the men surveyed were victims of similar violence, which included both physical and emotional abuse. The correct headline should have been: ‘One in three men report using intimate partner violence, and one in three men report being the victims of intimate partner violence’. Why did you misrepresent the data presented in your own study?
Ms Roberts: You are referring there to what we call bidirectional violence, which is acknowledged in the report. We did not explore deeply the question of men’s experience of violence because we were focused primarily on the experience of gender based violence, which is situated within the ethos of the National Plan to End Gender Based Violence. That was a significant factor. There were other issues, too, in terms of the scope of the report. I will now hand over to Dr Sean Martin, who is the leader of—
Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, before we go to Dr Martin. The AIFS reported data excluded all the men who were victims, yet not perpetrators, of violence—a total of 355 forgotten survivors, or seven per cent of the sample. Why was this data excluded? Even if the focus of the report was on male perpetrators, surely, it provides important context for the community to know that almost as many men are victims as perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Are you peddling feminist propaganda at taxpayers’ expense? The taxpayers fund you. This is misleading.
Dr Martin: If I could address that question, I was involved in that report that you’re talking to. First of all, in terms of men’s experiences around intimate partner violence, our approach is driven by external expertise which suggested that the acute need was around data on perpetration of intimate partner violence. Of course, there are other estimates around men’s experiences of intimate partner violence, like the personal safety study, which points to one in 16 men having recently experienced intimate partner violence, and one in four women. That was very much known. The report itself, as you indicate, did include some information around men’s experiences of intimate partner violence. The reason we did that, as our director has just pointed out, is that we wanted to get a sense of this bidirectional relationship with intimate partner violence. We wanted to know how many men perpetrated or used intimate partner violence and how many men both used and experienced intimate partner violence. That was the approach that we took, because we had to limit the scope of this particular report. What we didn’t include in that report was men who solely experienced intimate partner violence. Again, that was done purely because we needed to contain the scope of the study. If we wanted to have a look at that specific issue, it would require a different analytical approach which was outside the scope of this particular report.
I have consistently asked the government and its bureaucrats for a straight answer on the total cost of reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions to meet their targets, yet no one can provide it. I’ve heard figures ranging from hundreds of billions to $1.9 trillion, but Australians deserve to know the real number. We need transparency on what these policies will cost compared to doing nothing at all.
I made it clear what I’m asking about: the costs of wind and solar generators, transmission lines for scattered renewables, shutting down coal, restrictions on livestock, bans on petrol and diesel engines, and the impact on vehicles like the V8 LandCruiser. These are sweeping changes that will reshape our economy and lifestyle. Officials agreed to take my question on notice, but the fact that they cannot answer upfront is deeply concerning.
I also raised the issue of rising electricity prices and subsidies. Net zero policies are driving up power costs, threatening industries like aluminium smelting. The government then uses taxpayer money to subsidise vulnerable consumers, adding another layer of expense. I want to know the total cost of these subsidies and interventions. Australians need the full picture before we continue further down this path.
Finally, I challenged the minister on what Australians call the “ute tax,” which is hurting vehicles like the V8 LandCruiser. He denied its existence but admitted the government introduced fuel efficiency standards, this is just a net-zero tax in disguise. He claims these standards will save consumers money, but I remain concerned about their impact on vehicle choice and affordability, especially for regional Australians. These policies are not just about efficiency—they are part of a broader net zero agenda that is increasing costs, threatening jobs, and changing our way of life without honest disclosure of the consequences.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. It seems to me that everyone in government and the bureaucracy is incapable of telling people how much reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide—
CHAIR: I will stop you right there. We will be respecting the people sitting at the table. Would you like to rephrase your question?
Senator ROBERTS: I can’t get an answer from the government or the bureaucracy on how much it’s going to cost in total overall for cutting Australia’s carbon dioxide production to meet your targets. Why is that? I’ve heard everything from a couple of hundred billion here or there to $1.9 trillion. What is the number?
Mr Fredericks: Senator, I know we’ve had this discussion before. I think the generality of your question makes it very hard for us as officials to answer it in any meaningful way. We always want to try to assist you because your questions as a senator are legitimate.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Mr Fredericks: If there’s a way you can in some way refine it, we can have a crack. Otherwise, if you think it would be better to put it on notice, and we can give you a response on notice, I’m happy to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Fredericks. I will accept your invitation. I’m talking about all the costs of wind, solar generators and power lines needed for the scattered wind and solar; the killing of coal; the killing of the farting cows; the banning of petrol and diesel engines; and the killing off the V8 Toyota LandCruiser. How much is it all going to cost Australia to get to where you somehow think we’re going to be in 2050 compared to just letting Australians be? What is it going to cost to do all of that versus what does it cost to do nothing?
Mr Fredericks: Senator, I think if it’s okay with you, we’ll take that on notice. Because you’ve given some specificity, we are in a position to be able to describe, as it appears in the budget, costs associated with some of the measures you just described. We can legitimately do that. We will take that on notice and do that.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. So you understand what I’m asking now, even though I haven’t named every single component? There are a hell of a lot of components that I would like to know the cost of.
Senator Ayres: I think, Senator Roberts, that Mr Fredericks has said that they will answer it as far as they can. I can say to you that in your question were a couple of assertions. Killing off the V8 Toyota LandCruiser is not an initiative of the Albanese Labor government. Killing the Australian auto industry was an initiative of the Morrison, Abbott and Turnbull governments. International auto makers now make vehicles. Australia doesn’t make cars anymore because they killed the industry. That is not something that can be costed, Senator. It’s the economic harm that is done by coalition governments to Australian manufacturing that is entirely the responsibility of Mr Hockey—I saw him featured in the newspapers yesterday; it was a pretty interesting article— Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull, Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg. All these characters thought it was an act of total genius to kill 40,000 jobs and Australia’s capacity to make cars. You can see that there is a contrast with this government. There is $2 billion, for example, in your home state of Queensland, to back the aluminium sector so that investment is sustained in Australia. The aluminium sector is going through their own process. You might not like it. They have just on the back of that announcement—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking about the aluminium sector.
Senator Ayres: I know you like the aluminium sector. You might not like the fact that they are shifting to a lower carbon profile. They have on the back of the Albanese government’s investment in the aluminium sector. It has given them the confidence to invest themselves $2 billion in renewable energy capability in Queensland. That’s more jobs for Queensland with a government that has a local content plan for the renewables sector, which will mean more engineering, more structural steel and more jobs in Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the key issue in producing aluminium in Queensland is the prices.
Senator Ayres: I didn’t interrupt you, Senator. I’m just trying to make the point that some of the assertions you make go to things that are not what the government is up to here. The government is up to supporting Australian manufacturing and Australian industry and rebuilding a modern electricity grid so that we are competitive for the future.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator Ayres: That’s what we’re up to. The fruits of that are most starkly evident in regional Queensland at the moment, where 5,000 jobs are sustained in Gladstone and Central Queensland because of that one announcement and investment in new renewable energy capability. The alternative is the plan that these jokers have for nuclear reactors that will force the aluminium sector offshore just like the auto industry was forced offshore.
CHAIR: Minister, I will ask you to refer to our colleagues respectfully.
Senator Ayres: What did I say? I’m sorry.
CHAIR: You called them jokers.
Senator DUNIAM: We don’t normally joke about things. In the vein of respect—
Senator Ayres: My friends over here.
CHAIR: Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that.
Senator Ayres: Sorry, Senator Roberts. I took a side track.
Senator ROBERTS: Gladstone is under threat because of both this government and the previous government’s passion for net zero. That’s why it’s under threat. Electricity prices are the key ingredient to an aluminium smelter. I happened to live in the Hunter Valley when the alumina smelter at Kurri was built. I know that it has shut down and others are under threat now because of electricity prices and the conversion to net zero. I would also like to understand the subsidies, the support, and what that is going to cost. We have these net zero policies increasing the cost of electricity. We then have the government milking the taxpayer and electricity users to subsidise people who are vulnerable. I would also like to know that specifically.
Senator Ayres: I want to make two observations about that.
Senator ROBERTS: By the way, Minister, you introduced the ute tax. That’s what is hurting V8 LandCruisers. Did you not?
Senator Ayres: I want to make a few observations about this. Firstly, Senator, the most disturbing thing I’ve heard this morning is your assertion that you were around in the Hunter Valley when the Kurri smelter was built. I cannot believe it. You look so youthful.
Senator ROBERTS: I used to go to school at Kurri.
Senator Ayres: Really there’s cognitive dissonance there. I am going to have to adjust to this idea.
Senator ROBERTS: I went past the Kurri aluminium smelter on my way to Kurri High School every day.
Senator Ayres: I once persuaded somebody who didn’t come from the Hunter Valley that there were two towns in the Hunter Valley—one called Kurri and the other called Kurri.
Senator ROBERTS: Wagga?
Senator Ayres: Indeed. That’s right. Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: Did you or did you not introduce the ute tax that is killing V8 LandCruisers?
Senator Ayres: Well, there’s no arrangement called the ute tax. You know it. If people want to buy LandCruisers or any other kind of vehicle, they are very welcome to. The broader point, though, is that because the questions you ask go outside the scope, apart from the assertions that I don’t agree with and the ones like your relative age that I can’t reconcile myself to, we will take those questions on notice. The department will do their best to look within the scope of their responsibilities to answer on the cost of measures. I will—
Senator ROBERTS: It is disturbing that you are now qualifying Mr Fredericks’s answer.
Senator Ayres: I think I’m saying exactly the same thing as Mr Fredericks; that is, we’ll take those things on notice and they will answer to the extent that they can.
Senator ROBERTS: That they can? Senator Ayres: Yes. They can answer questions that go to the scope of the department’s activities. If you want economy-wide measures—even if you end up at PM&C or Treasury—you will find that a very substantial number of these investments is private investments. They are encouraged or facilitated by developments in the international market and developments that the Australian government is supporting. You mention government support. We unequivocally support Australian manufacturing. The biggest program factor—
Senator ROBERTS: It is being called by your policy of net zero.
Senator Ayres: is the biggest pro-manufacturing package in Australian history to back investment in areas such as critical minerals, iron and steel and aluminium. It is backing current jobs and prospective investment. It is the kind of thing I would have thought your political party would support. The alternative is zero in industry policy and forcing important industries such as the auto industry offshore, which is what my friends over there, in the era they want to go back to—the Morrison period.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re very pleased, Minister, to say our policy—
Senator Ayres: The Morrison period, where they want to go back to, had 40,000 jobs gone. I think it’s a very strong contrast and one that I’m very happy to talk about over the coming weeks and months.
Senator ROBERTS: Our policy is to end net zero and restore manufacturing. Do you admit, Minister, that a Toyota V8 LandCruiser simply cannot survive under your vehicle emissions rules and that you effectively killed it off?
Senator Ayres: I can answer in terms of my own practical experience. I went in to work this morning. There were all sorts of vehicles on the road. Some of them were old vehicles. Some of them were new ones. Some of them had been purchased new. Some of them had been purchased second-hand. The government has, as we canvassed a bit earlier before you came in—
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, everyone can see you on TV.
Senator Ayres: But you came in—
Senator ROBERTS: Everyone can see you answering this question.
Senator Ayres: The government has introduced a set of fuel efficiency standards. Before that, Australia was operating on the basis of standards that had been developed in the 1970s. We were the dumping ground for vehicles just like the Russian economy and a couple of other places around the world that hadn’t taken this step. It’s in the interests of—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m deeply concerned about Australians.
Senator Ayres: It’s in the interests of people having to buy less fuel. It’s cheaper for people when there is a vehicle efficiency standard. It means that cars aren’t overusing petrol or diesel. It costs less to get from one place in regional Queensland to the other because you are using less fuel. That’s a good thing. It’s a good thing for consumers. It’s a pity that we don’t have an automotive manufacturing sector in Australia that would be able to take advantage of those things as well and build LandCruisers, Hiluxes and all sorts of things for the Australian market and the international market. We lost that opportunity because of previous—
Senator ROBERTS: Power prices are rising too high.
Senator Ayres: Because a previous government decided to force the auto industry offshore.
In Senate Estimates, I raised the issue of transparency in government appointments. The Minister has made transparency one of the key drivers for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and I wanted to put that principle into practice. I asked the questions Australians deserve answers to—starting with the basics: what is the total remuneration package for this position? Mr Kaiser confirmed it’s approximately $930,000 per year, inclusive of superannuation, on a five-year contract.
I explored Mr Kaiser’s background. He previously served as Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet under Labor Premier Steven Miles. Before that, Mr Kaiser was State Secretary of the Queensland Labor Party and even a member of parliament for Labor. These are facts that matter because they speak to the culture of appointments in government. When the Prime Minister praises Mr Kaiser’s experience in delivering large-scale projects and managing energy infrastructure, Australians should know the full story behind that experience.
Finally, I asked why the government still hasn’t released its “jobs-for-mates” review, which was handed to them in 2023. This review was supposed to end the very culture that raises questions about appointments like this one.
I’ll keep pushing for answers because accountability matters. Australians deserve a public service that is impartial, frank, and fearless—not one that looks like a revolving door for political insiders.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this morning. Minister, firstly, congratulations to you. It’s a challenging appointment; Anthony Albanese must trust you quite a bit. Mr Kaiser, congratulations on your appointment to run the department.
Mr Kaiser: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to focus on the third driver of the minister’s drivers to the department, which is more transparency. What’s your total remuneration package for heading the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water?
Mr Kaiser: Approximately $930,000 per annum.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that in total, or does it include super and allowances? Is that everything in your package?
Mr Kaiser: That’s inclusive of super.
Senator ROBERTS:So your gross salary package is $930,000.
Mr Kaiser: Approximately.
Senator ROBERTS: How long is your contract for?
Mr Kaiser: Five years.
Senator ROBERTS: What was your last job?
Mr Kaiser: I was one of what we call directors-general. I was Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet.
Senator ROBERTS: And the premier was Steven Miles?
Mr Kaiser: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Which party was he in?
Mr Kaiser: The Labor Party.
Senator ROBERTS: He was unceremoniously tossed out of government by the Queensland voters, and it’s the federal Labor government now appointing you.
Mr Kaiser: I think my career CV is a matter of record. I was employed by the Queensland government until 24 October 2004, and I commenced work with the Commonwealth government as the secretary of this department on 14 July 2025.
Senator ROBERTS: At one stage, you were state secretary for the Queensland Labor Party; is that correct?
Mr Kaiser: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: And were you a member of the parliament for the Labor Party?
Mr Kaiser: I was a member of the Queensland parliament for a brief period of time, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What role did you have that earnt the Prime Minister’s praise? I can see that he has been very glowing in his praise: ‘Mr Kaiser’s experience includes delivering on large scale projects, administering complex regulatory regimes and leading the Queensland government’s policies on planning and infrastructure.’ What role did you have on climate and energy plans?
Mr Kaiser: As a Queensland public servant?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Kaiser: I headed the infrastructure department that had overall responsibility for the program management of the infrastructure that was publicly funded in Queensland and aspects of private sector infrastructure; that certainly included energy infrastructure, for example. I was the director-general of the local government department; I had a lot of interactions between local governments and energy providers and also those developing renewable energy projects. I’m trying to think of other touch points. Obviously, as the Director-General of the—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your being so forthcoming. Did that include any of the pumped hydro storage systems?
Senator Watt: Chair, can I just get a ruling? I think these are questions that go to matters in the Queensland government, and I would have thought today is more about asking questions about what’s happening in the federal government. So can we just get some guidance on whether these questions are in order?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll deal with that. I understand the point that you’re making, minister. I think it’s relevant to the qualifications of the department’s secretary for the purposes of corporate affairs. So, unless it strays very much further into the Queensland government, I think these questions are in order for now.
Mr Kaiser: In terms of the pumped hydro projects being worked on in Queensland at the time while I was a public servant, it was certainly Queensland government policy that pumped hydro projects be developed in Queensland and, as a public servant, I played my legitimate role in assisting the government to fulfil its policy objectives.
Senator ROBERTS: Did that include Borumba and Pioneer-Burdekin?
Mr Kaiser: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Kaiser, how many of the projects that you oversaw have been turned around by the latest government, the new government?
Mr Kaiser: I can’t answer that. As a public servant, I worked diligently to fulfil the policy objectives of the government that I worked for and not a subsequent government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why hasn’t the government released its jobs-for-mates review into Public Service appointments? Senator Gallagher said back in 2023, ‘This review is all about putting an end to the jobs- for-mates culture.’ It was handed to your government in 2023, yet you still keep it secret; why haven’t you commented on it?
Senator Watt: I don’t know about that. That’s not a matter involving this department, but the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Finance are happening over the course of the week.
Mr Kaiser: Senator, if I may, it would seem to me that your questions go to my political background. There is no doubt and it’s a matter of record that I have political involvement in my background. I can assure senators, my ministers and the Australian people that I’ve had no involvement in politics—I’ve held no political role—for 16 years. When I was involved in politics, the public servants whom I admired the most were the ones who provided frank, fearless and impartial advice, and that’s a value I hold dear now as I exercise my responsibility as a public servant.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll have to share the call. If you have further questions, please let me know. Senator Dean Smith.
During my time with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) in Senate estimates, I raised serious concerns about the handling of the Robodebt referral. The inspector’s report revealed that Commissioner Brereton declared a conflict of interest because he knew one of the individuals involved—yet despite that, his involvement in the decision-making was extensive.
The inspector found maladministration under the NACC Act. Mr Brereton contributed to discussions, settled meeting minutes, helped formulate reasons for the decision, and even shaped the media statement. That’s not how a conflict of interest should be managed. To make matters worse, the press release contained a false statement about investigative powers—an error acknowledged by the commission. For a former Supreme Court appeals judge, that’s a serious mistake. This isn’t about one error; it’s about trust.
Australians need confidence that the NACC operates with integrity and independence. When conflicts of interest aren’t properly managed, that confidence is undermined.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: In relation to the robodebt referral, Mr Brereton declared that one of the people who was subject to the decision not to investigate was a person he knew well.
Mr Reed: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Where did he know this person from?
Mr Reed: The letter that was tabled here didn’t identify that person’s name. The inspector has investigated that matter, and her report was produced on 30 October last year. It goes into a reasonable amount of detail about how that conflict of interest was managed, and it made a finding of maladministration against the commissioner.
Senator ROBERTS: Maladministration?
Mr Reed: That’s correct, under the NACC Act.
Senator ROBERTS: Despite declaring the conflict of interest, his involvement in the decision-making was comprehensive. That’s what the inspector said.
Mr Reed: That’s what the inspector found.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m now quoting the inspector, who said Mr Brereton contributed to the discussion at that meeting, settled the minutes of that meeting and was involved in formulating the reasons for the decision and also the terms of the media statement.
Mr Reed: And all of those facts are on the record in the inspector’s report.
Senator ROBERTS: And the decision to not investigate someone who had a close association with him; that is correct too?
Mr Reed: Sorry, I think I missed the point of the question.
Senator ROBERTS: The decision to not investigate someone that he had a close association with was his decision?
Mr Reed: The decision taken in relation to robodebt was not a decision of the commissioners; it was a decision or a matter—it was under assessment. It wasn’t an investigation; it was under assessment. That matter was allocated to a deputy commissioner because of the conflict of interest. What the inspector found was that he hadn’t managed that conflict of interest effectively—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying.
Mr Reed: and, therefore, the decision about robodebt was made by a deputy commissioner, not by the commissioner.
Senator ROBERTS: Is my understanding correct that the press release on the decision not to investigate robodebt contained a false statement that another commissioner had the power to investigate those people, and did he, Mr Brereton, suggest including that when he helped formulate the media release?
Mr Reed: All of that was covered in the inspector’s report and—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I know.
Mr Reed: the commission acknowledged, as part of that, that that was an error in that statement.
Senator ROBERTS: From a former Supreme Court appeals court judge who would have known this?
Mr Reed: People make mistakes.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a hell of a mistake. He would have known this. It would have been ingrained in him.
Mr Reed: This has all been explored in the inspector’s report. We’re going back over old ground here.
Senator ROBERTS: The inspector said his involvement in the robodebt decision to not investigate his mates was an error of judgement, would you just acknowledge?
Mr Reed: I don’t think those are the words that were used.
Senator ROBERTS: Was it an error of judgement?
Mr Reed: No. I don’t think ‘mate’ was referred to in that report, but I might be wrong.
Senator ROBERTS: So what would you call it? A colleague? An associate?
Mr Reed: It was a colleague from a former life.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been through Mr Brereton’s former position in the appeals court in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That’s arguably the second highest tier of court in Australia. Is he really trying to make us believe, through you, that, given his experience, he would make such a consequential error of judgement?
Mr Reed: The error has been acknowledged, and it’s on the record, so I’m not quite sure where this is heading.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s heading to a loss of confidence in the NACC. That’s where it’s headed.
Mr Reed: I think it’s unfair that one matter, one aspect of the work of the commission, one of the first decisions that was announced about an assessment, as distinct from an investigation, somehow undermines the NACC for the rest of time.
In Senate estimates, I asked questions about the Brereton Afghanistan inquiry and its implications for integrity in public office. When Mr Brereton wrote his report, he declared that command responsibility for alleged war crimes did not extend to senior officers or headquarters. That raises serious concerns.
I pressed officials on whether Mr Brereton had close associations with those officers and whether this pattern of judgment affects his fitness to lead the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The response confirmed that while his association was professional, he continued to provide advice on the inquiry—even after becoming commissioner.
Australians deserve confidence that those tasked with fighting corruption are beyond reproach. Transparency and accountability are not optional—they are essential.
What do you think? Should prior involvement in controversial inquiries disqualify someone from heading an anti-corruption body?
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: When Mr Brereton wrote his Afghanistan inquiry report he declared that command responsibility and accountability for war crime allegations does not extend to senior officers and headquarters, joint taskforce 633 and the joint operations centre. Did he know any of those officers well, or did he have a close association with any of those officers?
Mr Reed: That report was produced before the National Anti-Corruption Commission began and therefore—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to—
Mr Reed: I’m not in a position to be able to tell you about—
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?
Mr Reed: I can’t advise you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?
Mr Reed: No, I don’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice to ask Mr Brereton, please?
Mr Reed: I’m not sure. Is it relevant?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is, because it’s going to the commissioner’s fitness for the job of heading up the NACC and establishing whether there’s a pattern of behaviour here. There seems to be a pattern of behaviour, from what I can tell.
Mr Reed: I’ll pass to my colleague Rebekah O’Meagher.
Ms O’Meagher: Thank you, Philip. If it assists, in terms of the previous line of questioning, the commissioner has put it on the record that, in terms of that association, it was a professional one, not a friendship. It was a historic—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not doubting that.
Ms O’Meagher: professional association. As to the reasoning of how that error of judgement occurred, those referrals came to us in the third day of our operation as the commission, and the commissioner has explained that he maintained involvement—not decision-making but involvement—because it raised issues in terms of the breadth of corrupt conduct under the act. That was the reasoning. He declared what the conflict was on multiple occasions. He stated how he was going to manage it. And another deputy was the decision-maker for the referrals.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC received any referrals or complaints in relation to the Afghanistan inquiry that Mr Brereton conducted?
Mr Reed: It’s not something I’m going to be able to answer here.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice please?
Mr Reed: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Has Mr Brereton recused himself from the complaints against the Afghanistan inquiry, or does he need the inspector-general to tell him to do that again?
Ms O’Meagher: The commissioner has stated that he will recuse himself, and he has recused himself, from all matters involving that IGADF.
Senator ROBERTS: Has he continued to provide advice to the inspector-general of the ADF on the Brereton report? He has, hasn’t he?
Mr Reed: That’s what we were talking about earlier—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.
Mr Reed: and the answer is yes. But it was advice, not regular or structured but infrequent.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm, Mr Reed, if there have been any complaints to the NACC about the Brereton report? He’s not advising the NACC?
Mr Reed: If it was a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission about the IGADF—
Senator ROBERTS: And the Brereton report.
Mr Reed: he would recuse himself from that matter.
During a session with CSIRO at Senate Estimates, I raised serious questions about Australia’s pandemic preparedness and biosecurity.
The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza took a decade to develop, yet it was shelved during COVID. I asked CSIRO whether this plan is being updated and what lessons have been learned.
I also pressed CSIRO on their handling of live viruses—rabies, Ebola, and others—and sought assurances that Australia’s highest-security facility will never repeat the mistakes of Wuhan. CSIRO advised of their world-class biocontainment standards and of their 40-year record without a breach.
Finally, I asked Professor Sutton about his recent comments suggesting future pandemic responses could avoid harsh lockdowns. His view: policy decisions should be “less restrictive” than what we saw during COVID.
Australians deserve transparency and accountability on pandemic planning. I’ll keep asking the tough questions.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions now go to pandemic preparedness. This is the Australian—
Senator Ayres: We’re off the horses and ferrets now, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the rats and the birds.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve got three minutes.
Senator Ayres: We’re now going to move on to the main event.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza was developed over 10 years, concluding in 2019, just in time for COVID. But it wasn’t used; it was binned. As your department is pandemic preparedness, Professor Sutton, are you working on updating this plan and correcting whatever reason caused it not to be used?
Dr Hilton: Again, Professor Sutton is not responsible for the ACDP, which is our centre for pandemic preparedness. Professor Sutton is responsible for our research unit, named health and biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the CSIRO handle live viruses? Your achievement page mentions lyssavirus— including rabies and Ebola, for example. If you have live viruses, which ones do you have?
Dr Hilton: So are we back to horses and weasels and ferrets?
Senator ROBERTS: Just viruses.
Dr Hilton: Yes; we hold a number of—
Senator ROBERTS: I treat this pretty seriously.
Dr Hilton: So do I.
Senator Ayres: I’m trying, Senator.
Dr Hilton: I just want to make sure we’re going back to your first line of questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going through whether or not you handle live viruses.
Dr Hilton: I think we’ve established that. We do handle live viruses.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you assure the committee that CSIRO will not slip up in the way the Wuhan Institute of Virology did in the escape of their Frankenstein COVID experiment?
Dr Hilton: I would not characterise it in that way. CSIRO takes its responsibility for biosecurity exceptionally seriously in all of its facilities and works closely with regulators to ensure that it maintains the highest standards.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: What won’t escape?
Senator ROBERTS: Live viruses.
Dr Hilton: Any live viruses? I will give you assurance that we work assiduously to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity as an organisation, across our sites.
Senator ROBERTS: Highest standards—can you give me an assurance that they won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: Senator, we maintain our facility to the highest standards of biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Taylor: Senator, I can add that the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness is one of three facilities in the world that has the highest biocontainment. It is quite unique in its capabilities. Its box-in-a-box design means that, even if the facility fails and if electricity fails, there are triple redundancies in the system. It is world renowned for its secure capabilities. That is why we handle high consequence live viruses there, and that’s its purpose. It’s done that for 40 years without a biosecurity breach.
Senator ROBERTS: Obviously you won’t give me an ironclad guarantee, but that’s fine. In Professor Sutton’s podcast interview, conducted recently, he made the statement that the government could consider not introducing the intrusive COVID social restrictions—lockdowns for instance. Is his opinion based on the work you have done at CSIRO or could you expand on what aspects of the social restrictions should be reconsidered? If Professor Sutton can’t answer it, perhaps you could do it.
Dr Hilton: I think that would be one that Professor Sutton could shed light on—to the interview.
Senator Ayres: He’s been champing at the bit to respond!
Prof. Sutton: That reflection was really based on the fact that it’s a matter for future governments as to the policy settings in response to any future pandemic. It’s not for me to say what the settings could be, but I could certainly imagine a future in which policy decisions could be less restrictive than we’ve experienced historically.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. See, that wasn’t so difficult.
Prof. Sutton: Not at all.
Dr Hilton: It was a pleasure.
CHAIR: Thank you for your rapid-fire approach, Senator Roberts.
I spoke with the CEO of the National Blood Authority, Adjunct Professor Ms Adriana Platona. She confirmed that the Australian Government owned the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories before it was privatised. She also stated that the National Blood Authority was established in 2003.
I asked her what steps had been taken to ensure the safety of concentrates containing Factor VIII. I did not receive a satisfactory answer—rather, I was given an attempted history lesson. Ms Platona went on to explain that the National Blood Authority was created as a result of the negative issues experienced by recipients of blood products during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. She said that an apology had been issued. I question whether an apology alone is enough to compensate victims who were infected with Hepatitis C and HIV?
Ms Platona stated that there have been no contaminated blood incidents since 2003. I suggested that the Commonwealth Government surely had legacy responsibilities, at which point the Deputy Secretary of the Department, Ms Penny Shakespeare, intervened. She said that these issues were primarily the responsibility of the States and Territories. I pointed out that in March 1953 the WHO recommended that dried plasma should be taken from small pools of 10–20 donors only, for safety reasons. Apparently, by the mid-1980s in Australia, plasma was mass-pooled from large numbers of donors, contrary to WHO recommendations. I asked why this had occurred – which had to be taken on notice.
I then asked whether it was considered an acceptable risk—of high probability—that haemophiliacs would contract Hepatitis Non-A, Non-B, and Hepatitis C during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Again, I did not receive a satisfactory. I asked whether adequate compensation would be paid to the victims, as has happened in the UK, but was dismissed, and then my session was cut short by the Chair.
I will continue to seek justice for the victims of this terrible blunder by the Commonwealth and their continued denial of responsibility.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got several issues here that I’d like to discuss—National Blood Authority about tainted blood, the pelvic mesh, the Lyme disease, ATAGI following on from Professor Lawler’s comments. So I’ll start with National Blood Authority, please. Is Dr John Rowell here? No. A lot of people are plagued with tainted blood, a heavy burden. At CSL’s 2024 annual general meeting, Chair Brian McNamee stated that, prior to its privatisation, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Is that correct?
Prof. Platona: The National Blood Authority was formed in 2003 as a statutory legislative agency. I’m very happy to answer questions about the National Blood Authority’s role and work since 2003.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m wanting to know if you could confirm that before the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was sold off to the public, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.
Prof. Platona: I believe that is correct, sir.
Senator ROBERTS: What steps did the Australian government take to regulate the safety of the Factor VIII and IX concentrates manufactured by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the seventies, eighties and nineties?
Prof. Platona: As I said in the first statement, the National Blood Authority was formed in 2003. I’m happy to answer questions about the work of the agency since then. You are referring to matters that precede the formation of the National Blood Authority by several decades.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me—I know it was a long time ago, but a lot of people are severely suffering now. Whose responsibility was it at the time, Ms Platona—is it Professor?—
Prof. Platona: Yes. Ms Platona is fine.
Senator ROBERTS: to ensure the safety of the Factor VIII and XI concentrates? This has relevance to what you’re doing now.
Prof. Platona: Indeed. The National Blood Authority was formed, as I said, as a result of some negatively affected people in the seventies, eighties and nineties. My predecessor provided a lot of context in response to your question in November 2024 on Hansard, as to the steps that led to the formation of the National Blood Authority, the apology, the formation of what is now the national Red Cross Lifeblood organisation, the apology that Red Cross Lifeblood made in 2014, and a number of actions by state and territory governments to deal with, really, the failings of the blood transfusion in the past. I do not want you to think at all that I don’t think about the lives of the people that Haemophilia Foundation, for example, is working to support—not at all. I’m the officer that has got the Public Service Medal for making the direct antiviral medicines available. Those hepatitis C treatments are now considered to be best practice and curative. So I do want to acknowledge the hard circumstances of the people affected by the disease.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. Did you want to say any more on that?
Prof. Platona: I’m keen to do a good job, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How can you do a good job for people with tainted blood? It was the government’s responsibility.
Prof. Platona: Since the organisation was formed in 2003, to date there has been no contaminated blood incident.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you not have any legacy responsibilities from your predecessors? The Commonwealth government is responsible.
Ms Shakespeare: Prior to 1991, the Commonwealth’s role was largely through providing funding to state and territory governments to operate blood services. States and territories regulated the blood supply system in Australia until, as Ms Platona has explained, the National Blood Authority was established in 2003, and it now provides that national coordination. I think we also had the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. After that, there were changes to the way that blood was regulated as well. Before that, the regulation largely would have been occurring through state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: But it was overseen by the Commonwealth. Let’s go through the history, and correct me if I’m wrong, Ms Shakespeare. In March 1953, the World Health Organization released a report that recommended dried plasma should be prepared from small pools of no more than 10 to 20 donors. This was ignored, and, by the mid-1980s, factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, significantly increasing the risk of hepatitis and HIV. Why were these early recommendations ignored? You weren’t around then, but that was a federal responsibility.
Ms Shakespeare: We can try and take on notice if there’s anything in the archives about what happened in the 1950s, but it is a little bit difficult for us to talk to you about what happened at that time.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take these on notice then, please. It was in the mid 1980s. Factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, which went against the prevailing wisdom. Could you find out, Ms Shakespeare—and I thank you for your attention—if it was considered an acceptable risk that there was a high probability of haemophiliacs using factor concentrates that would be infected with hepatitis Non-A, hepatitis Non-B, hepatitis C in the seventies, eighties and nineties?
Ms Shakespeare: Senator, what I can tell you is that the first specific test for hepatitis C became available in late 1989. Australia was one of the first countries to commence using the test, in November 1989, with implementation completed by February 1990. Similarly, we were one of the first countries to introduce HIV patient screening in May 1985. When tests have become available to make sure that the blood supply was safe and could be monitored for those particular medical issues, we’ve implemented that as early as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m wondering how to help these people.
Ms Shakespeare: I think Ms Platona has spoken about some of the assistance that has been provided, and I can go through some of the help that has been provided. There was a review of the blood arrangements in 2001 that was conducted by a former High Court judge. The recommendations from that review were provided to all Australian Health Ministers and led to the establishment of the National Blood Authority and the centralised coordinated arrangements we have to ensure a safe and adequate blood supply that we still have today. We have haemovigilance—
Senator ROBERTS: Can I interrupt?
Ms Shakespeare: Of course.
Senator ROBERTS: That would assume that, prior to that, the blood wasn’t considered to be safe.
Ms Shakespeare: Decisions will have been made based on the state and territory governments’ delivery of blood products about the introduction of testing when it became available, when those tests were developed. As I said, compared to other countries, Australia was one of the first adopters and introduced those tests at a very early stage. But we didn’t just stop there. We’ve been establishing arrangements to make sure that the blood products that we provide to people today are nationally coordinated, that we’ve got consistent arrangements and that we don’t have differences between regulation and provision in different states and territories. The national haemovigilance program for Australia has been developed. That’s a set of surveillance procedures covering the entire blood transfusion chain, from donation and processing of blood to their provision and transfusion to patients. We have monitoring, reporting, investigating and analysing of adverse events related to donation processing and transfusion, and development and implementation of recommendations to prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of adverse events. So we’ve got a whole haemovigilance program that now operates that’s been developed and implemented through the National Blood Arrangements. For people that have acquired hepatitis C the direct-acting antivirals, which were listed on the PBS in 2016—at that time that was the largest single PBS listing that had ever been made. We have future-generation directantivirals that are now provided through the PBS. If I can give an example, in 2023-24, we had 9,167 scripts of a drug called glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, which is a current-generation treatment for hepatitis C at a cost to government of $161 million. In the same year, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, another medicine to treat people with hepatitis C, had 10,953 scripts at a cost to government of $131 million. So we’re providing access to those treatments. Now that covers anybody with hepatitis C. It doesn’t matter how they acquired it, but it would certainly benefit those who acquired it through the blood system before the testing was available.
Senator ROBERTS: For some of these people with tainted blood, their lives have been really shot. Perhaps you could look at the camera—and I’m not trying to put pressure on you, or Ms Platona, or the minister, but what do we do for these people? Where do they go for compensation? Britain compensated their people with tainted blood, long, long, long ago; they admitted it and got on with the job. How do these people recover? How do these people get compensation if they can’t? I know you’ve given a list of drugs. What do we do?
Ms Shakespeare: Those are curative, in many cases, direct-acting antivirals, which will be of significant benefit to people with hepatitis C. I should also say that the Australian government contributes to the hepatitis C litigation settlement schemes, which were set up and are managed by the state governments for people that were infected through the blood supply system before we had the National Blood Authority established. That offers financial settlements for people who contracted hepatitis C between 1985 and 1991. So there has been compensation made available and the Australian government contributes to that.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to have to share the call. We are tight on time.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your interest, Ms Shakespeare.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/So4yc2UKSho/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 16:20:322025-11-13 16:20:35Decades of Neglect: Victims Still Waiting for Justice
