In this session, I asked about the system for testing childhood vaccines before authorisation and during use. I asked because the United States FDA has recently de-listed approximately half of their scheduled vaccines due to adverse events (side effects).
It was a simple question, yet the answer was “tag-teamed” across the panel of witnesses from the TGA to avoid answering it directly. It is damning that their own Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN) shows numerous adverse events, which the TGA simply ignores.
Instead, they quote the benefits of vaccines, which have never actually been proven in field trials. I have spoken about this before: in comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the unvaccinated were healthier. I will return to this line of questioning during the next estimates.
You will also note they relied on an answer provided to me in Question on Notice 3212, which has neither been published nor provided to me.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I come back to two separate points you raised. Ms Peatt, you mentioned that Australia assesses the vaccines. Do they do actual testing? What is the method of assessment? Trials?
Dr Peatt: I’d have to throw to Professor Lawler about the assessment that the vaccines go through, but, from my knowledge, we don’t assess the vaccines. What we do do is rely on evidence and data to ensure their safety. I’ll hand to Professor Lawler.
Senator ROBERTS:Okay. Where do that evidence and data come from?
Mr Henderson: We have a process where we rigorously evaluate submissions provided by sponsors of these vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS:The drug companies?
Mr Henderson: The pharmaceutical manufacturers, who then sponsor—
Senator ROBERTS: Submissions from the drug companies?
Mr Henderson: Yes. We require a significant amount of evidence to support our assessments of the safety, efficacy and quality of those vaccines before they can be marketed and supplied in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand this. I go back to March 2021. I think it was. I asked the previous head of the TGA, Professor Skerritt, or Dr Skerritt, what testing was done in this country on the COVID injections. He said none. They relied on the FDA. At the time he said that, it was after the FDA had admitted they did no testing themselves; they relied on Pfizer. You’re telling me you’re doing the same thing. Okay. The next—
Mr Henderson: Sorry, Senator. I might just jump in there. No, all the COVID-19 vaccines are now what we call fully registered, so they have been assessed on a full suite of evidence to support safety, quality and efficacy of those vaccines. For COVID-19 vaccines, as well, we did have a program in place where we did batch testing of all vaccines in the TGA laboratories before they could be supplied in Australia.
Prof. Lawler: I might add to that if I may, Senator. I note your use of the word ‘testing’. The role of the regulator—and this regulatory practice is standard worldwide—is that we undertake an unbiased and objective assessment of the evidence that is presented to us, particularly—
Senator ROBERTS: From what entity? The supplier?
Prof. Lawler: That was part of the rest of my answer, Senator. I’m going through the process that we follow. While, for the most part, that is supplied by the sponsor who is seeking registration of the product, it does undergo an appropriate assessment by our own experts to determine that the size of the sample, the controls that are placed, the primary endpoints, the outcomes and the adverse events—all of those elements of the study—indicate that the risk-benefit analysis is positive. The process that we undertake is similar to others.
As Mr Henderson’s highlighted, during COVID we had a provisional registration pathway. This was during a time, as you would recall, when the risk-benefit of providing a provisional authorisation for that vaccine was high. Since then we have undertaken a transition of that vaccine through to a full market authorisation. There are other mechanisms for assessing the evidence, and obviously in this instance we can also rely on the real-world evidence that the overwhelming benefit—that the risk to benefit is positive given the number of lives saved by the administration of the COVID vaccine when compared to the incidence of adverse events.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Lawler, before I ask my—
Prof. Lawler: Professor Lawler. Sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, you said a minute ago in another answer ‘Australian disease patterns—forget overseas’. Now you’re saying they’re similar to others, so our testing is similar—or our assessment is similar to others; you don’t do testing.
Prof. Lawler: I actually said neither of those things, Senator. I certainly didn’t say that we should forget other countries. What I said is that we make our own vaccine schedules based on the demography, the epidemiology, the disease patterns and so forth of Australia. We certainly have a mind to others. Just as an example, the disease patterns in the northern part of the world circulate to the southern part of the world some six months later. So we certainly have to be mindful of what’s going on in the rest of the world. We don’t forget what’s going on there. What I then said was that there are consistent, if not identical, approaches to regulatory decision-making around the world. There is significant positive collaboration and work sharing between regulators so that we can know what the appropriate practices are, particularly horizon scanning, so that we know what’s coming up. But I would highlight that the answer that I gave actually went to how we regulated during COVID, which was different to other countries. Other countries undertook what’s called an emergency-use authorisation. We undertook a process of provisional registration, which was an abbreviated and expedited process that did not lift from sponsors the requirement to provide appropriate evidence, particularly real-world evidence, and then the appropriate, more fulsome transition to full market authorisation thereafter.
Senator ROBERTS:I can only go by what your predecessor said—that they relied on the FDA. Dr Peatt, you said the childhood injections are free.
Dr Peatt: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re actually paid for by $750,000 by the taxpayer.
Dr Peatt: Yes. That’s correct. What I should have said is that they are provided free to people who are eligible for those vaccines. But, yes, they are fully funded by the government.
Senator ROBERTS:The taxpayer.
Dr Peatt: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s no such thing as government money. It’s all taxpayer money.
During this session with Housing Australia, I call out the lack of transparency and the questionable math behind the home deposit guarantee schemes.
I asked Mr Langford why it took nine weeks to get an answer to a simple question: how many borrowers have exited the scheme? They finally admitted that of the 185,000 guarantees issued since the scheme was launched, over 45,000 have already been discharged.
I’m highly sceptical of their reported “success” rates. They previously claimed that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000. The actual arrears rate on bank loans is around 1% – 227 times higher than the claimed arrears rate of 0.0044%. Therefore, it’s statistically impossible!
My point is simple: they don’t actually track people once they exit the scheme, so they’re essentially flying blind when it comes to the data.
Despite Minister Ayres’ attempts to paint every exit as a “success story,” the data proves it’s not that simple.
As at the end of December 2025: ❌ 0.3% or 336 of borrowers are 90+ days in arrears, ❌ 0 .8% or 1000 are currently under hardship arrangements and ❌ 347 are in early-stage arrears (30–90 days).
While they boast that many are ahead on payments, I’m concerned about the “cliff” ahead.
When I asked for modelling on what happens to these 95% mortgages if interest rates rise three more times this year, they admitted they have no modelling for that scenario.
Ms Jarman has committed to providing me with a copy of the information guide for first-home buyers. I want to see for myself if it properly warns Australians about the massive risks of a 95% mortgage in a rising-rate environment.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
CHAIR: I’m going to rotate the call. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again today, Mr Langford. You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. That should be a number you have to hand very easily. You haven’t answered it in the nine weeks since the hearing. Why not?
Mr Langford: I’ll ask my colleague Ms Jarman, who has just come to the table, if we have that information to hand. As to the delays, we apologise. There may have been some delay if we didn’t have that information to hand.
Ms Jarman: Sorry, Senator—can you repeat exactly what information you’re after?
Senator ROBERTS: You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two per cent and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. I’d like the number, please.
Ms Jarman: Yes, we do have the number that have exited. Of the 185,000 guarantees that have been issued since the launch of the scheme, 45,837 of those have discharged.
Senator ROBERTS: You told me at the last hearing that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000 guarantees issued. The actual arrears rate on banks’ loan books is around one per cent. That’s 227 times higher than your claimed arrears rate of 0.0044 per cent. Do you accept that your number is almost statistically impossible and only appears good because you don’t actually track the people who exit the scheme? Once they’re gone, they’re gone.
Senator Ayres: Exiting is good.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t track them once they’re gone.
Senator Ayres: These are people who have bought a home—
Senator ROBERTS: Don’t try and change the topic. I’m asking the question. I want to know—
Senator Ayres: under the scheme, then sold their home and moved on to their next home. That is the foot on the ladder that the scheme is designed to provide.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister Ayres, at the last hearing, you said—
Senator Ayres: That’s what it’s for.
Senator ROBERTS: that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance. Do you know that that’s false?
Senator Ayres: What do you mean?
Senator ROBERTS: ‘People who are facing hardship can’t refinance,’ you said. That’s false.
Senator Ayres: I said that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what you said.
Senator Ayres: I don’t know what context I said that in. You’re moving—
Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on—
Senator Ayres: from one proposition, demonstrably not the case—
Senator ROBERTS: And you’re changing my proposition. I’m trying to get on with it.
Senator Ayres: which is that it’s a bad outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you running from this, Minister Ayres?
Senator Ayres: No. I’m running to this. I’m running to this. This is a good outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: You changed my first proposition.
Senator Ayres: This is a good outcome. I’m sorry if you’re confused about it. This is a good outcome for young Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re misleading.
Senator Ayres: Buying a home, selling a home, buying a new one—this is a good outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on your latest percentages for in advance, on schedule, in arrears and hardship?
Ms Jarman: I can do that. As at the end of December, 0.3 per cent of the portfolio were 90 days plus in arrears, 0.8 per cent were under hardship arrangements, 26 per cent of the portfolio were on schedule with payments and 73 per cent were in advance of their repayment schedule.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you also have the actual numbers each of these percentages represent?
Ms Jarman: I do.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them please?
Ms Jarman: Sure. We had 33,134 on schedule, 93,104 in advance, 336 ninety days in arrears and 1,000 in hardship. There is another category, for completeness. If you’re adding up to the total number of guarantees, in arrears of 30 to 90 days—so early arrears—there are another 347 customers there.
Senator ROBERTS: How many total guarantees are those percentages of—is it less than the 250,000?
Ms Jarman: The 250,000 is the number of Australians supported under the scheme. We’ve only ever issued 185,000 guarantees, but only 127,000 of those are active in the book at the moment. The rest of those have already discharged out of the scheme.
Mr Rimmer: I gave evidence earlier in the day that the 0.3 per cent 90-day arrears rate is better than the other relevant arrears.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I heard that.
Senator Ayres: I also should have said, Senator, again for the sake of completeness, that people exit the scheme if they sell their home. They also exit the scheme when they hit the 80 per cent loan-to-value ratio. That is, they come in at five per cent and make repayments that pay the 15 per cent gap over time, and then they’re considered to have exited the scheme. That’s also a good thing.
Senator ROBERTS: How many five per cent mortgages that you got first home buyers into do you expect a default if interest rates are raised three times this year?
Senator Ayres: Your One Nation colleague asked the same questions about an hour and three-quarters ago.
Senator ROBERTS: He actually said ‘if we are entering a cycle’. I want to know what would happen with three interest rate rises.
Mr Langford: I don’t believe we have modelling for that proposition that you’re putting forward.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you, as the administrator of the five per cent deposit guarantee, provide first home buyers with any warnings about the risk of a 95 per cent mortgage?
Ms Jarman: Yes, we do. As part of the application process, we’ve got an information guide. That guide clearly outlines what the guarantee is and how the guarantee is there to protect the lender and not the borrower. It also outlines the obligations of the borrower in terms of repayment of the mortgage and the circumstances in which the borrower is still liable.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have a copy of that on notice, please?
During this session with the Fair Work Commission, I asked Mr Furlong if he agreed that you cannot use an enterprise agreement to strip away rights provided by the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. He agreed.
During our exchange, I highlighted several concerns:
I reminded Mr. Furlong that the High Court in Rossato was clear — contract terms must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. You can’t take away annual leave or award entitlements if the law says otherwise.
When I asked how losing annual leave and getting lower pay could possibly make a worker “better off,” the Commission hid behind “abstract” assessments. There is nothing abstract about a coal miner losing their leave and being underpaid compared to the Black Coal Award.
The Commission tried to tell me we’ve “traversed” this ground before. My response was simple: I will keep traversing it until these workers get what’s owed to them in full compliance with the law.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, you have previously agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove all applicable award entitlements. You have agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove entitlements provided under the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. Both of them were in November 2022. Do you still hold the same views today?
Mr Furlong: I do.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that these propositions were confirmed by the majority of the High Court in the Rossato decision?
Mr Furlong: I can’t talk to the High Court decision, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The court went on to say: …where there are express terms of the contract between the parties, they must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. Are you aware of that?
Mr Furlong: It has been a long time since I’ve looked at that decision. I can’t comment on it.
Senator ROBERTS: I know what you mean. If an agreement includes terms that would remove statutory rights such as annual leave and other award entitlements, wouldn’t those terms be considered contrary to statute?
Mr Furlong: It’s difficult to talk in the abstract about such matters. The terms and conditions in an enterprise agreement are that they need to be better off overall. It’s a global assessment in determining whether or not an enterprise agreement will satisfy a member of the commission and subsequently be approved by that member.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This issue was further considered in One Key Workforce v CFMEU. The full bench of the Federal Court held that: It is an error of law to fail to have regard to relevant material in a way that affects the exercise of power. An administrative decision-maker— the Fair Work Commissioner— who makes such an error exceeds his or her authority and acts without jurisdiction. Isn’t this exactly what the commissioner did when approving an enterprise agreement that ignored the Black Coal Award, which was relevant material?
Mr Furlong: I think that the circumstance of One Key relate to the One Key enterprise agreement. Are we are talking about Chandler Macleod and other agreements about casual coalminers? Senator ROBERTS: If an enterprise agreement takes away annual leave by calling someone a casual, is that going against statute? Mr Furlong: It depends on whether the employee is a casual or a permanent employee. If they are a permanent employee, they would be entitled to annual leave and sick leave and all the other conditions that would be applicable to a permanent employee. There are casual conversion entitlements now for employees that they can exercise if they want to transition from casual employment to an ongoing role. Senator ROBERTS: How does it comply with the National Employment Standards and the Fair Work Act if someone loses annual leave, ends up on lower pay and doesn’t meet award provisions? It goes against statute.
Mr Furlong: The Fair Work Act provides the framework that members of the commission have to observe before they can approve an enterprise agreement. If there is an aggrieved party to a decision made by a member of the commission, those decisions can be the subject of an appeal. If the agreement has reached its nominal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can make an application to have that agreement terminated.
Senator ROBERTS: So the express terms of the contract or EA must be given effect unless they are contrary to this statute?
Mr Furlong: No. What I’m saying is that for a member, in assessing whether or not to approve an enterprise agreement which has been lodged with the commission for approval, a number of statutory tests need to be satisfied. One of them is the better off overall test. Once a member of the commission who has been allocated that file is satisfied that each of those conditions has been met, they are required to approve the agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me how the loss of annual leave, a pay rate that is less and the loss of other award provisions complies with better off overall, because the award prevails? That’s the High Court.
Mr Coyle: It’s very difficult to talk in the abstract here. It’s a case-by-case basis.
Senator ROBERTS: The loss of annual leave, a lower pay rate and the loss of other award provisions—that’s not abstract.
Mr Furlong: We’ve traversed this several times.
Senator ROBERTS: I will keep traversing it until we get these people their fair due in compliance with statute.
The Labor government is overriding our courts and regulators to hand-pick which advocacy groups get tax-deductible status.
In a recent Senate Estimates hearing, I questioned why Equality Australia was granted specific Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status in the 2025 Budget, despite being rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), and the Full Federal Court. All three bodies ruled that their work is political advocacy, not “direct benevolent relief.”
When I asked for the legal basis or the principles used to bypass these independent determinations, the government hid behind “Cabinet confidentiality.”
This isn’t just about one group; it’s about the integrity of our tax system. We cannot have a system where groups who lose in court simply lobby a Minister for a custom-made law.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are actually brief, but I have to untangle the acronyms. I have to give you some background first to set up my questions. Equality Australia applied for public benevolent institution status in 2020 and was rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission because its primary purpose was advocacy and law reform, not direct benevolent relief. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission found its activities were ‘too indirect’ to qualify as benevolent relief. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission’s decision. The Full Federal Court dismissed Equality Australia’s appeal in September 2024, confirming that advocacy and campaigning for law reform did not meet the statutory definition of a public benevolent institution.
After losing in court, Equality Australia wrote to Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh in November 2024, seeking a specific listing for deductible gift recipient status under the Income Tax Act 1997. Cabinet approved the listing in early 2025 and the March federal budget included Equality Australia as a named deductible gift recipient entity for five years. Media commentary highlights concerns that this decision effectively overrode determinations by three accountability bodies, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court.
My questions are: why did Treasury support a specific deductible gift recipient status listing for Equality Australia after the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission refused public benevolent institution status, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed and the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 5 September 2024 all on the basis that Equality Australia’s activities are advocacy, not direct benevolent relief? What principles justify overriding three independent determinations?
Ms Berger-Thomson: Decisions made on DGR-specific listings are decisions of cabinet.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what principle justifies overriding three independent determinations?
Senator Gallagher: I don’t have anything further to add to that. I’m not aware of it.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?
Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Did Treasury advise cabinet that a specific listing bypasses the ordinary deductible gift recipient pathway for a single organisation?
Ms Berger-Thomson: Typically, we do provide advice on specific listings. Specific listings are only for those organisations that do not qualify for any of the other 52 DGR categories that are administered by the ATO.
Senator ROBERTS: You did give advice?
Dr Johnson: It’s not appropriate to talk about cabinet material in Senate estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: What about Treasury advice?
Dr Johnson: That’s Treasury advice for a cabinet process.
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t provide it on notice?
Dr Johnson: No, not in relation to things that relate to a cabinet process.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s pretty handy. I have two final questions: on what legal basis did Treasury rely to proceed where the courts found the activities did not meet the public benevolent institution test? Secondly, how does Treasury ensure consistency with the statutory meaning of ‘benevolent relief’ used by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court, when recommending by name a deductible gift recipient? What legal basis did Treasury rely on?
Senator Gallagher: As to specific listings—there are a few every budget that the ERC or the government considers when other avenues have been exhausted. That reflects a decision of government.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what legal advice Treasury received.
Senator Gallagher: Treasury provide advice on the listings that come before us. Ministers get briefed appropriately, but ultimately it’s a decision for government.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did the government ignore or bypass three institutions with experience in this area and responsibility for this area—the Federal Court, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Australian Charities—
Senator Gallagher: I’ve taken that on notice. I was just more generally saying how the decisions are taken.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide an answer to that?
Senator Gallagher: I have undertaken to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: And also the basis for the decision?
Senator Gallagher: Yes, I have taken that on notice.
https://cdn.phototourl.com/free/2026-04-16-e289daff-bc84-433a-bb32-89655f3949c6.png6311126Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-04-16 15:05:462026-04-16 15:05:55A Private Line to the Minister
RBA Governor Bullock: “Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing.”
– Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand that household inflation expectations have a big impact on inflation itself. At the economic roundtable, Treasurer Chalmers said: Real wages are growing at their strongest rate in five years, inflation has a two in front of it and interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. People are still talking about high grocery bills and inflation in insurance premiums and all kinds of insurance. What does that do to people’s expectations of inflation?
Ms Bullock: Well, all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2½ per cent. That’s what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2½ per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have a quick question before I go to a separate topic. What does having 4.5 million visa holders, non-citizens, in the country do to demand for houses and to the price of houses?
Ms Bullock: Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing you have.
Another round of questioning regarding the Labor government’s pursuit of environmental water. And frankly, the answers I’m getting from the Department and Minister Watt leave me deeply concerned for our rural communities.
Here is where we stand:
I asked the officials exactly how much water they’re still looking to strip from the system. It turns out they are only about halfway to their 450-gigalitre target. By their own admission, there are still 229 gigalitres left to be recovered. That is a massive amount of water that will no longer be growing food or fibre.
I asked Minister Watt why he’s ignoring his own Labor counterparts in the New South Wales Legislative Council, who voted unanimously for a Royal Commission into water. The Minister dismissed the idea as an “expensive repeat,” preferring to stick to their own reviews. It’s clear they don’t want a truly independent set of eyes looking at the damage being done.
This is the part that should really worry every Australian.
The government is paying an average of $5,040 per megalitre for buybacks. Meanwhile, temporary water trading prices have jumped 250% over the last decade. They are forcing water prices to “ludicrous levels.”
They claim they want “value for the taxpayer.” The Reality? They’re outbidding farmers, forcing them off the land.
When I asked how much more taxpayer money is needed to finish these buybacks, they refused to give me a number, claiming it’s “commercial-in-confidence.” Simply, they don’t want sellers to know!
All Pain, No Clear Gain!
I asked them directly what exactly this 229 gigalitres will achieve that justifies gutting our farming sector. The answers were the usual bureaucratic fluff about “supporting variations in flows” and “waterbird breeding.”
They are prioritising bird breeding over the survival of the towns that feed this country.
The government admits their “Sustainable Communities Program” is in such early stages that they can’t even tell if it’s working, yet they are charging ahead with buybacks that will be finished by December 2026.
We cannot allow “environmental outcomes” to become a suicide pact for regional Australia.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: How much is the remaining water for the environment in gigalitres? What’s outstanding? How much more will we claim back?
Senator Watt: There are a couple of different categories, so maybe one of the officials can give you the updated figures.
Mr Southwell: Are you referring to the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: I thought it was 292. That’s the remaining water for the environment, as I understand it. Am I wrong?
Mr Southwell: Do you mean the sustainable diversion limit, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: I mean the total buybacks yet to be bought.
Mr Southwell: Okay. Perhaps I can start by answering the question around the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, as I think that might go to part of your question. We’re around halfway towards that target. As of 31 December, we’ve recovered 221 gigalitres towards that. That’s a mixture of purchases and infrastructure as well as other mechanisms. I’m hoping that that goes to your question.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got about 229 left to go.
Mr Southwell: Correct, Senator. We’re about halfway.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, the Legislative Council of New South Wales has voted unanimously to call on the federal government to convene a royal commission into water. Your own party, the Labor Party in New South Wales, voted for this measure. Do you support a federal royal commission, and, if not, on what basis do you disagree with your state counterparts?
Senator Watt: I’m not sure that it was a unanimous vote of the legislative council. I am aware that there was a vote of the legislative council. It’s not my view that we need yet another royal commission into water policy or the Murray-Darling Basin. I recognise there are some Independents, particularly in the New South Wales parliament, who support that. This year, we have several reviews under way around the future management of the Murray Darling. You may have seen, just last week, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released a discussion paper about the next version of the plan. My view is that we should proceed with the work that is already intended, rather than launch an expensive repeat of a royal commission.
Senator ROBERTS: The Third review of the Water for the Environment Special Account report has found that the money in the account used to buy back water will only last until December 2026. How much more money is needed to complete the 450 gigalitres of buybacks the Albanese Labor government is intent on undertaking?
Mr Sullivan: In terms of the money required, traditionally we wouldn’t give you that figure because it’s a commercial tender process. The money is available inside the contingency reserve to complete the government’s commitment to 450 gigalitres. But, in terms of the water purchasing component of that, my understanding is that that is a figure that is not for publication—
Senator ROBERTS: Because you don’t want sellers to find out.
Mr Sullivan: Exactly. Mr Southwell: I’ll just add to that. We’re trying to maximise the value for taxpayers through this process.
Senator ROBERTS: According to the report, at 1.1.1, recent purchases have averaged at $5,040 per megalitre. Water for actual farming is uneconomic above $100 to $200 a megalitre, depending on the crop. Is your buyback forcing up the trading price of water to ludicrous levels, forcing family businesses off the land?
Mr Southwell: I’ll start and perhaps ask for some of my colleagues to come to the table. We’re very much well aware that water purchasing has an impact. As you’re aware, as part of the process for initiating a purchase program, there is a consideration of socioeconomic impacts. That process is a routine part of our decision-making when conducting these water purchase programs.
Senator ROBERTS: Average water trading prices in the December quarter 2025 were over $500 per megalitre, which is 250 per cent higher than in the same quarter 10 years ago. Both quarters had similar rainfall below long-term averages, with some areas in drought. So they’ve got similar inflow in the period. If water prices have not been inflated by buybacks, what has inflated them?
Ms MacRae: Water prices, particularly the temporary water prices that I think you’re referring to, are $200 to $500 per megalitre for the annual purchase of water as opposed to the permanent purchase of water, which is what we focus on in the department. Permanent access is more like buying a house as opposed to renting a house. Of course, it is more expensive to buy a house outright permanently than it is to perhaps buy that house, for example, for a 12-month period. That’s the price difference you mentioned. We’re paying on average $5,400 per megalitre, but temporary trades are in that $200 per megalitre range. I think over the last 10 years there have been many shifts in irrigated agriculture as well as water reform that have led to a change in pricing. This can be compounded by many things, including—
Senator ROBERTS: You have affected the market though.
Ms MacRae: There is an impact on prices in the market from the government purchasing water. There are many reports that do talk about that. But in many cases, while there is an initial impact, that does settle down initially after a period of time.
Senator ROBERTS: To get to this point so far you’ve bought up water that farmers didn’t need, and/or you’ve bought up water that farmers did need but who needed your money more than they needed the water. You’ve brought up water that only appears in a flood, and now you’re down to buying water that’s needed to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. What price do you expect to pay for the remaining acquisitions?
Mr Southwell: We run open and competitive tender processes. Those processes are underway. As I said earlier, we seek to obviously maximise the return for the taxpayer through this process, and we will evaluate those purchases based on the offers that are made and determine them based on value for money.
Senator ROBERTS: The report at 1.1.2 also found current funding was insufficient to make up for the damage your buybacks are doing to rural and regional communities. What increase in allocation will you need to provide just compensation for the loss and damage you’re causing to rural communities?
Ms Johnson: The government’s Sustainable Communities Program is providing $300 million over four years for community adjustment assistance. That was something that was referenced in the WESA third report. It found that the Sustainable Communities Program has the potential to offset some impacts in these communities that receive adjustment assistance. But because, of course, that program is still in the early phases of delivery, the third WESA report, which was tabled last year, found it was too early to assess the outcomes. But that’s certainly an important program when we think about community adjustment assistance in this space.
Mr Coates: That’s actually in section 1.1.2 of the WESA report, where it refers to funding sufficiency. It’s talking about constraints measures, not the Sustainable Communities Program or programs to mitigate socioeconomic impacts.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?
Mr Coates: Constraints is a whole different program under the Basin Plan. It’s not my area of expertise, but it’s about achieving environmental outcomes.
Ms Johnson: Senator, on that one, the report found that the funding available to 31 December this year, 2026, is sufficient for the projects that are likely to be delivered in this period. Others can talk to constraints; there is quite a significant body of work that can be done. But, for the projects that are underway, you’ll see in that section 1.1.2 that it found that the funding available is sufficient for those projects expected to be delivered this calendar year.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, may I just inquire as to remaining questions and if there’s any possibility of putting some of those on notice. I’m not going to cut you off.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m nearly finished, I think. I think they’ll be short answers.
CHAIR: Okay.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what specifically will the remaining quantity of what will actually be 229 gigalitres for the environment be used for?
Senator Watt: What will it be used for?
Senator ROBERTS: What are the KPIs? What environmental need is so critical that farming needs to be so damaged by these buybacks?
Mr Southwell: I’ll start and then hand over to my colleague Simon Banks. The water purchasing and water recovery for that 450-gigalitre target is to acquire water to support environmental outcomes to meet the Basin Plan. Dr Banks can talk through the detail of what that water is used for, but effectively it will deliver outcomes that support the—
Dr Banks: Any water that is recovered through the program entitles us to a greater share of water in any particular year that we can then use to return to the environment. We’re able to support variations in flows and support the movement of native fish and the building of condition of native fish. We’ve been able to support waterbird breeding, which again is about how we improve the overall basin outcomes for the environment. So I can assure you there will be plenty of opportunity to use the available water, and my job is to make sure that we get the best out of the water that we’re responsible for managing.
I briefly questioned the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) regarding the massive $1.5 billion class action suit brought by Doyle’s Farm Produce and others.
I got the usual run-around — bureaucratic talk about “normal insurance processes” and passing the buck to the government’s insurer.
More alarmingly, I questioned Minister Watt about the $3 million being funnelled toward a scheme where intermediaries (likely union super funds) would buy up farms and water. I asked how corporate-owned “government farms” can magically create environmental water, reminding him that state run farming is a page straight out of the Mao and Stalin playbook.
When I asked how we are going to feed our growing population once the family farm is destroyed and the bush is emptied, the Minister fell back on “environmental management” platitudes.
This government is trading real food security for a radical agenda, and the farmers know it.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Referencing the New South Wales Supreme Court case of Doyle’s Farm Produce Pty Ltd atf Claredale Family Trust and others versus the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and Anor, a class action—this is claiming up to $1.5 billion in damages. Have you made a contingent liability for any sum at all in connection with this case or any other such claim?
Mr McConville: The court action has been completing, and we are awaiting the judgement on that. We work with the AGS through normal insurance processes, so there’s not much more I can say on that.
Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t made a contingency; you’re just relying on insurance?
Mr McConville: It’s the task of the government’s insurer to make those contingencies.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, this report discusses the $3 million allocated by the Labor government to the states for the development of a proposal to buy farms with water allocations through intermediaries, which would, I am sure, include union superannuation funds. Those corporations would then operate the farms. Minister, where did the $3 million come from, and how does purchasing a water allocation from a government farm make it environmental water?
Senator Watt: Unless one of the officials knows the answer, I will have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Anyone? This is my last question. Didn’t Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin already try that, Minister? I’m just curious—once you have destroyed family farms through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and emptied out the bush, what will Australians in your cities, and your millions of new arrivals, eat?
Senator Watt: The government’s view is that the long-term health of the Murray-Darling Basin system and the future of the agriculture industry in that region rely on better environmental management of water in the basin. We think this is essential to future food security.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure many, many farmers don’t agree with you on that one.
This discussion with Matt Kean, Chair of the Climate Change Authority (CCA) and former Liberal NSW Energy Minister, focuses on the accuracy of his advice regarding energy prices, the reliability of renewable transitions, and the global commitment to Net Zero.
I challenged Mr. Kean on a 2020 claim that Australia could become an “energy superpower” with low-cost power. I argued that power prices have actually “increased astronomically” since then.
Mr. Kean maintained that wholesale prices are currently trending downward due to increased renewable penetration. He cited ABS data showing a recent 10.2% monthly drop in prices and AEMO reports showing a 38% quarterly decrease in wholesale costs. He attributed high bills to network charges and the unreliability of ageing coal plants rather than the renewable transition itself.
I questioned the $1 billion expenditure on the Waratah Super Battery, calling it a “wasted” stopgap for the Eraring coal plant, which has not yet closed. I asked how a short-duration battery could replace a 24/7 coal station.
Matt Kean said that the Waratah project is a “systems battery” (SIPS), not a standard storage battery. He said its purpose is to act as a “shock absorber” for the grid, allowing existing transmission lines to operate at higher capacities and “sweat” existing coal assets harder while integrating renewables.
Mr. Kean and Senator Ayres argued that the primary driver of cost and instability in the grid is the extreme age of Australian coal plants (averaging 38 years).
Senator Ayres noted that there had been daily unplanned outages from major coal plants (like Bayswater and Loy Yang) over the preceding three weeks, totalling 2.5 gigawatts of lost capacity, which spikes market prices.
Matt Kean corrected his previous figure (53% of global GDP), stating it is now much higher. He claimed that 165 countries representing 79% of global GDP and 87% of the world population have now committed to Net Zero targets, with many (including Australia) enshrining them in law.
This insane transition to renewables is a threat to our economic stability and industrial capacity. A One Nation government will dismantle Australia’s climate bureaucracy by abolishing the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, along with advisory bodies like the Climate Change Authority and the Net Zero Economy Authority.
Further, we will withdraw Australia from the Paris Agreement, repeal the Climate Change Act 2022, and eliminate the Renewable Energy Target.
Scrapping agencies such as ARENA and the CEFC, One Nation will end all subsidies for renewables, shifting the nation’s regulatory and administrative focus toward lowering electricity prices through the expansion of coal-fired power and the introduction of nuclear energy.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. Mr Kean, my questions go to you. Your responsibility is to give the government correct advice. Is that correct?
Mr Kean: Frank and fearless correct advice—that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: That advice could steer the direction of our entire country and potentially affect every one of the 28 million people in Australia. Is that correct?
Mr Kean: We provide advice that’s frank and fearless to the government of the day. It’s up to the government of the day as to whether or not they’ll accept that advice.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’d agree that it’s vital for the country that your advice is accurate and correct?
Mr Kean: We provide the best advice based on evidence and science to the government. As you well know, Senator, it goes through the cabinet process, the party room process and the parliamentary process. It’s up to the government and the parliament as to whether or not they accept the CCA’s advice.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to go to your track record and some forecasts. I’m going to quote you from the Energy Insiders podcast in 2020 with Renew Economy. You said: ‘If they’re looking for a global competitive advantage when it comes to low-cost energy, we can provide it. But we’ve got to move quickly and we’ve got to move now. That is an opportunity for us to be an economic superpower—not just an energy superpower but an economic superpower. It’s too big an opportunity not to grab.’ Since you said that you can provide low-cost energy in 2020, power prices have increased astronomically. When are Australians going to get the cheap power you promised?
Mr Kean: According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, they are already seeing those power prices coming down as a result of renewables. Look at power prices in October. They were 10.2 per cent lower than in the previous month. We know that they bounce around, particularly as state and Commonwealth rebates come into force or conclude, as it just happened to be. I, as a former energy minister in New South Wales, and we, as the Climate Change Authority, are acutely aware that some households and businesses are doing it tough and are looking at what costs they can contain. In the energy and climate war that we seem to be mired in yet again, perspective can be the first casualty. In the present consumer price index basket of goods and services that the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses to track inflation in the economy, electricity prices have a 1.84 per cent weighting. That’s not nothing, but I think it’s an important bit of context for you. Going back to those price trends that you talked about and that I stand by, no doubt you will have noted that wholesale prices have largely been in retreat of late, and that’s because renewable energy’s share of the grid is increasing. Check out AEMO’s Quarterly energy dynamics report for the September quarter. If you need the facts, they’re right there available to you. You’ll see that wholesale power prices across the national electricity market were on average 38 per cent below those of the June quarter this year. Compared with the September quarter last year, the fall was 27 per cent. That’s not because more fossil fuels have entered the market; that’s because renewable energy is pushing down wholesale prices. The more cheap energy we get into the market, the better off consumers and businesses will be.
Senator ROBERTS: Are wholesale prices going to be cheaper or more expensive than they were five or 10 years ago? Are they cheaper or more expensive than they were?
Mr Kean: As I said, just look at the Quarterly energy dynamics report that AEMO has just put out. It is clearly showing that wholesale prices are only heading in one direction. They make up about a third of a typical household’s—
Senator ROBERTS: Are they cheaper than they were five or 10 years ago?
Mr Kean: I’m not referring to the wholesale dynamics report comparing them to 10 years ago. I’m referring to the most recent one, which shows that wholesale prices are coming down.
Senator ROBERTS: My question was: are they cheaper or more expensive than they were five or 10 years ago?
Mr Kean: I don’t have that data in front of me, but I’m very happy to table that data for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Wholesale prices are only one part of someone’s bill. There will be many people watching here—small businesses, large businesses, families—who will have taken issue with what you said. An increasing part is the network charges, especially for transmission. Are the network charges going down as well?
Mr Kean: As I said, wholesale prices make up about a third of the typical household bill, and we know that the cheapest form of new generation is renewables. We know that ageing coal-fired and even gas-fired power plants will shut in the coming decade or so. So, to unlock that cheap wholesale energy produced by renewables, you will need more networks built. That’s for sure. Certainly I can talk to the situation in New South Wales, and perhaps some of these questions can be directed to the energy minister, which I am no longer. But what I will say, as the former energy minister in New South Wales, is that, when we legislated the roadmap, we looked at the net impact on consumer bills of transitioning towards a firmed renewables-based grid, including transmission line upgrades. What we were able to clearly demonstrate is that net, on average, consumers would be much better off as a result of the transition.
Senator ROBERTS: In your role as New South Wales energy minister you commissioned the $1 billion Waratah battery, which recently suffered a catastrophic failure. You commissioned and designated as a top priority project this huge expenditure as a stopgap for the closure of Eraring this year. It was forecast to close this year. Eraring didn’t close this year. Experts are saying it might not close before 2030. So the $1 billion shock absorber you put in place as New South Wales energy minister isn’t needed anymore as a stopgap. If you wasted $1 billion on a battery that wasn’t needed, why should we trust that you can provide good advice to the federal government? Can you explain exactly how a 0.7 gigawatt battery that lasts for two hours is meant to replace a coal-fired power station that can run at 2.8 gigawatts for 23 hours a day.
Mr Kean: I’m very happy to explain what we did when it came to considering the exit of Eraring. It’s a matter of public record that Origin Energy suggested they would bring forward the closure of that coal-fired power station seven years earlier than we anticipated. As the former minister for energy, I can say we conducted an arms-length process headed up by a number of experts, including Kerry Schott, the former chair of the Energy Security Board. We ran a competitive tender process for different technologies to fill that gap. We had input from AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, the engineers who the run the system, and we compared the cost of extending Eraring for 18 months with a number of other options to fill that capacity gap. In terms of the work that was done by independent expert advice, we were advised that the best option for the total New South Wales power grid was to build a systems battery, a SIPS battery, that would unlock greater capacity in the transmission networks to be able to sweat the other coal-fired power stations harder and would open up the ability to bring more renewable energy into the system. You’re characterising the battery as a storage battery. It’s not a storage battery; it’s a systems battery that unlocks more capacity and new transmission networks. That means you can run your existing coal-fired power stations harder—think Vales Point and Bayswater—and you can get more renewable capacity stored. That was the basis from which we went down that path, and anyone suggesting otherwise is being dishonest.
Senator ROBERTS: On New South Wales election night, when your government was defeated in 2023, I distinctly remember the incoming Labor energy minister flagging the need to keep Eraring open. She was quite clear about it. She was on a panel and on the night of the election she said, ‘We’re going to have to do something about keeping Eraring.’ They weren’t her words, but that was basically what she said. Why would she have that point there? Many people think that New South Wales cannot operate as an industrial economy without Eraring continuing, and now there are talks of Eraring continuing. What did she know as opposition energy minister and spokesman that you didn’t?
Mr Kean: Maybe I could refer you to the evidence of Deputy Secretary Duggan who just appeared before the inquiry. He made the point that the average age of our coal-fired power stations in the national energy market is 38 years and the average end closure date of coal-fired power stations is 42 years. We can’t keep putting bandaids or temporary solutions in place. We need to plan for the future. What you need are clear targets and good policies to get new capacity installed. Just because you say you’re going to extend an aged, clapped-out coal-fired power station doesn’t mean it’s going to work. We need to build new capacity before the old capacity closes. That’s the responsible thing to do. Whether it be in my role as the former New South Wales energy minister or in my current role as the independent chair of the Climate Change Authority, I will always act on the best evidence and advice of experts. I’m advising you to do likewise.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re hiding behind averages. A lot of damage can be done doing that.
Mr Kean: No. I’m just making the point.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked you a question about Eraring. Why did the incoming Labor energy minister want to keep Eraring open?
Mr Kean: It’s another question for—
Senator Ayres: I think it’s outside of—it’s pretty hard for Mr Kean to put—
Senator ROBERTS: It goes to the accuracy of forecasts.
Senator Ayres: himself into the mind of the current New South Wales energy minister. I think that’s a very difficult thing for him to do. But Mr Kean’s right—the biggest driver of cost in the electricity system at the moment is our ageing coal generators and the incessant, regular outages. There has not been a single day over the last three weeks where there hasn’t been an unplanned outage. A couple of days ago we had Bayswater, Gladstone, Loy Yang, Vales Point and Yallourn—a total of 2½ gigawatts of unplanned outage. That drives cost in the system. Mr Kean’s point is right. The way to deal with that is to build more renewables, build more storage and build more transmission. Nobody from Cape York to Bruny Island or from Sydney to Perth is going to build a coal-fired power station, because it’s a dumb idea. It’s a dumb idea economically.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the national electricity market been tested?
Senator Ayres: It’s a dumb idea in commercial terms. It’s a bad idea for the grid. It builds additional cost into the system. At the moment we are dealing with the reality of the fact that it’s coal that’s driving cost. A decade of disinvestment is compounding that. That’s the truth of it. If you want to keep prosecuting the imported culture wars, go for your life.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question?
CHAIR: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The minister seems to be unaware of the electricity rules and the national electricity market, which favour solar and wind and destroy coal. We’ll leave that aside. You say: ‘The world is moving in this direction. Fifty-three per cent of the world’s GDP has signed up to achieve zero net emissions by 2050, so it’s only going in one direction.’ Yet we’ve seen the USA China and India—we’ve seen massive numbers of countries—walk away from net zero, and others don’t bother complying. Do you still stand by your figure that 53 per cent are committed to achieving net zero by 2050?
Mr Kean: No, I don’t. I’d like to revise that number. It’s now 165 countries that have announced a net zero target. These countries account for 78 per cent of global emissions, 79 per cent of GDP and 87 per cent of the global population. That was in 2022. That’s a vast increase since I cited those figures a few years ago. So 149 countries have announced a net zero target by 2050 or sooner and around 50 countries have enshrined their net zero target in domestic legislation—including Australia—with more planning to do so. That’s 37 out of 38 OECD member countries having a net zero target. So, no, I don’t stand by those previous comments. They’ve been exceeded since then, and people denying the reality of the momentum behind the need to reduce our emissions are not acting in Australia’s interests.
Judge for yourself: does the head of the department overseeing security and immigration seem reluctant to answer simple questions? Do her answers give you confidence?
Secretary Stephanie Foster refused to say how safe Australians currently are. Instead, she tried to deflect the question to ASIO, only belatedly mentioning that the government had allocated $102 million to assist with security for Jewish sites.
Minister Watt and the government haven’t received the message: One Nation will not vote for legislation that packages necessary legal provisions we support with “bundled” provisions that strip away basic rights such as free speech and instil needless control over the people.
The answer to terrorism is not to take away the basic freedoms of Australians; the answer is to stop terrorists from entering Australia in the first place. Based on Minister Watt’s response today and Minister Ayres’ response yesterday, it’s clear that Labor is growing concerned about the surging support for One Nation.
Rather than misleading by omission and spreading falsehoods about One Nation, wouldn’t it be more effective if the “Uniparty” — Liberal and Labor — started serving Australians?
Telling the truth can be tough. However, as One Nation does, it’s better for the long-term interest of the country to raise difficult truths and facts. Instead of dragging others down out of fear, Labor should try lifting itself up.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: These questions are for Home Affairs. What is the risk to Australians of a terrorist attack on Australian soil since the Bondi atrocity at the hands of Islamic terrorists of Middle Eastern extraction and the failed bombing attempt by homegrown white supremacists?
Ms Foster: You’re absolutely right that is a question for the Home Affairs portfolio, but the threat assessments are actually done by ASIO. Director-General Burgess will be appearing later today.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask him similar questions. Isn’t it pertinent that you should know as well?
Ms Foster: That’s a specific role assigned to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you interact with ASIO and AFP to coordinate activities?
Ms Foster: We do. In terms of actually formulating that assessment, that’s a role that belongs with them.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you whether or not you formulate the role. Thank you for explaining that ASIO does that. I thought they did that. What I’m asking is: do you know it? I can ask you questions about your department’s response based on the level of threat.
Ms Foster: I’m hesitating because an amount of the assessment work is classified in nature. I’ll need to take the question on notice before I answer about what is my state of knowledge of the classification level of the material that I have.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know whether or not your department knows what the level of risk is right now. What’s the rating?
Ms Foster: That’s the question I’m being cautious of. When agencies make assessments about threat, that can often be drawn from classified sources. It’s on the public record that the Director-General raised the threat level for terrorism to ‘probable’ on 5 August 2024. That’s the national terrorism threat level, which as he explains means a more than 50 per cent chance of that occurring.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask him this question as well, and thank you for that answer. My understanding is that the risk level rating has to be increased immediately after an attack. Has it been increased? What I’m getting to, Secretary, is: what are you doing differently now compared with before Bondi?
Ms Foster: Again, publicly, the director-general has affirmed that the national terrorism threat level remains at ‘probable’, that he did not, on the basis of information available to him, change that at the time. In terms of what we collectively have done since Bondi, you’ll see a very significant range of activities—obviously some of which you participated in in the debates on the bills which were passed a couple of weeks ago.
Senator ROBERTS: How safe are we now, living in Australia?
Ms Foster: I can only give you my previous answer, which is that it is the director-general of ASIO who makes assessments of Australia’s national terrorism threat level, and he will be appearing later today. But I’ve given you the publicly stated information to date. Mr Hansford has just reminded me that, in terms of another very significant action since Bondi, there is the allocation of a $102 million investment in security for Jewish institutions, places of worship and educational facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you do anything to educate everyday Australians or citizens of Australia as to what we can do to enhance our safety?
Mr Hansford: We—as in the Commonwealth—have a range of actions, including information on the national security website and a range of information that can help people to be informed about security issues in Australia. We also play a leadership role, and I co-chair the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee that has met post Bondi a number of times to talk about how we prepare, knowing what we know about Bondi from the law enforcement and policy community across Australia. We’ve had discussions around how law enforcement and policy agencies can respond to and learn from what’s happened in Bondi, cognisant of the inquiries that are underway.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound very concrete to me. What about things like tightening up immigration standards regarding who we let into the country?
Senator Watt: We recently passed some laws to strengthen the minister’s powers to cancel visas of people promoting hate, and your party voted against those laws.
Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things that we did not like in the bill.
Senator Watt: So you voted against what you were asking for?
Senator ROBERTS: We voted against the other provisions of your bill.
Senator Watt: Which were to make it easier to ban association with Neo-Nazis. Was it that bit that you didn’t like? What was it that you didn’t like?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we could talk for hours about the specifics of that bill. This is a time for you to answer my questions; it’s not for me to answer your questions.
Senator Watt: The problem with One Nation is that you call for things to happen and then vote against them. You’ve done that now on hate speech and hate crime.
Senator ROBERTS: We do not vote against tighter immigration.
Senator Watt: You voted against same job, same pay, when you called for better labour standards.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you increase the immigration vetting standards?
Senator Watt: You voted against cheaper medicines when you wanted things done for poorer Australians. At some point, Australians are going to see through One Nation and observe that you make promises that you don’t keep when you come to Canberra. You did it again recently, by calling for hate preachers to be banned and restricted and then voting against laws that would do that. You called for migration screening and then voted against it. So I’ll leave it to Australians to see through what One Nation does rather than what One Nation says.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you think Australians are fools and not seeing what you’re doing right now? We’ve asked for tighter immigration standards. Will you answer the question: will you provide tighter immigration standards to keep terrorists out?
Senator Watt: We just did that, and you voted against it.
Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things in your bill.
Senator Watt: But we did what you were asking for, and you voted against it—
Senator ROBERTS: Correct, because of the other things.
Senator Watt: just as you always vote against the things that you say need to be done, and we’re onto you.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re happy to leave it in the hands of the Australian people.
Senator Watt: The Australian people, over time, will be onto you.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you call out ideologies that promote terrorism?
Senator Watt: We’ve done that, and we’ve just passed laws.
Senator ROBERTS: It took a long while for you to call out ideologies—
Senator Watt: We’ve done that. We’ve gone and done more than just call it out; we’ve passed laws. We’ve just passed laws. We don’t just call things out; we pass laws to restrict hate speech and hate preachers, and you vote against those laws.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, until the Bondi attack, only one party was calling out ideological Islam, and that was us. Now, all of a sudden, we’ve got more doing so.
Senator Watt: That’s not true.
Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister didn’t.
Senator Watt: There’s a long series of statements from the Prime Minister and ministers in this government. They have condemned some of the hate speech that we’ve seen in the community, whether it be from Islamic preachers or white supremacists; there is a long series of those statements. But we don’t just call things out. When we come to Canberra, we pass laws to restrict that kind of activity. So I invite you to work with the government to restrict that kind of activity, rather than just pretend that you care about these issues.
Senator ROBERTS: Secretary, do you have adequate resources to do what needs to be done?
Ms Foster: The Department of Home Affairs has a very substantial budget and staffing level, and I am able to deploy those resources to the government’s priorities.
In the recent estimates session, I questioned officials from the Attorney-General’s Department about the Legal Services Directions – the rulebook that dictates how the government must behave when involved in legal proceedings.
The government isn’t supposed to play dirty. Under these rules, they are required to act as “model litigants”, meaning they must be honest, fair, and efficient.
The Department isn’t a “police force.” Government agencies are largely responsible for reporting their own mistakes. The Department just “supports” them in fixing those errors.
I asked officials if these rules were followed during the Brittany Higgins settlement and the ongoing cases of Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown. Their response: they stated that Comcover (the government’s insurer) is handling the cases and “complying absolutely” with the rules.
When asked why the government hasn’t “accepted” court findings that cleared Reynolds and Brown of wrongdoing, officials dodged, stating they simply “note” the judgments but see them as separate from the Higgins settlement.
When I asked about legal costs or why the government isn’t mediating with Fiona Brown, the Department passed the buck to the Department of Finance.
The big question? Is the government actually following its own rules, or is the system designed to let them off the hook?
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again today. What are the Legal Services Directions? Could you explain that, please?
Ms Jones: The Legal Services Directions are established under statute in order to provide an overarching framework for the conduct of legal proceedings that the Commonwealth is party to. I have the experts to the right of me who can talk to that in detail.
Mr Ng: Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts. As the secretary has indicated, the Legal Services Directions are made by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act, and they govern, in part, the conduct of much of the Commonwealth legal services.
Senator Roberts: There are requirements for sound practice in the provision of legal services to the Australian government?
Mr Ng: That’s correct. One of the aspects that they cover is in relation to, for example, how the Commonwealth is to conduct itself in litigation. One of the appendices to the Legal Services Directions reflects those model litigant obligations.
Senator Roberts: Are they binding, and on whom are they binding?
Mr Ng: The application of Legal Services Directions applies in full to non-corporate Commonwealth entities. There are aspects of the directions that apply to corporate Commonwealth entities, who are in a different category. Also, they won’t apply to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which are not covered. They’re referenced in a couple of points, but not directly covered.
Senator Roberts: Does noncompliance have to be reported? If so, by and to whom?
Mr Ng: There are provisions under the Legal Services Directions where noncompliance with the directions is reported to the Office of Legal Services Coordination within the department. It remains the responsibility of agencies, relevant agencies or named agencies, to assess those allegations of noncompliance, but the department maintains an overarching role in supporting those agencies to assess and deal with the complaints that they may have received.
Senator Roberts: So it’s the department’s responsibility?
Mr Ng: How I would characterise it is that agencies have a responsibility to notify our department of possible or actual breaches of the Legal Services Directions and to assess their compliance with that. The department has a role in that, in supporting those agencies in meeting their obligations and in addressing noncompliance. Absolutely, the department has a role, but the agencies themselves are the ones who, of course, are responsible, and are running their own cases, where some of these complaints may arise.
Senator Roberts: Who enforces noncompliance?
Mr Ng: The Office of Legal Services Coordination is not a regulator as such. Our role here as a department is to support agencies in the assessments they make. They submit what are called agency notification forms to the department which identify both the allegation of the breach and, where there are instances that the agency themselves has assessed as noncompliant, the corrective steps that are taken and the corrective steps they intend to take as well. The department plays a role in engaging very closely with those agencies to ensure that those steps are taken.
Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions applied in the Brittany Higgins mediation and settlement?
Mr Ng: The matter you refer to is a matter that was managed by Comcover; that is probably the first thing to say in that instance. Comcover, as a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, is required to comply with the Legal Services Directions, and that was managed in accordance with the Legal Services Directions.
Senator Roberts: So they did comply. Are the Legal Services Directions being applied in Linda Reynolds’s and Fiona Brown’s cases?
Mr Ng: Both of those cases are, again, managed by Comcover, within the Department of Finance. Comcover is obliged, as I outlined earlier, to comply with the Legal Services Directions in all aspects of the management of those cases.
Senator Roberts: Were they complied with?
Mr Ng: I’m sorry; I’m just trying to clarify your question, Senator. Is it whether there are allegations of noncompliance? What is it that—
Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions being applied?
Mr Ng: From the department’s perspective, Comcover are complying absolutely with the Legal Services Directions, noting that they’re managing those claims.
Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against Fiona Brown were without foundation?
Ms Jones: It’s not a matter for us to accept the findings of court judgements. We note the judgement, but those proceedings dealt with issues that were separate to the settlement that we had a role in administering.
Senator Roberts: What are the total legal costs incurred to date by the Australian Government Solicitor in external legal assistance for the federal government in relation to Fiona Brown’s claim against the Commonwealth?
Ms Jones: I think we’d need to take that on notice. It’s a matter for Comcover. In fact, I would request that question be put to Comcover. They are the instructing agency.
Senator Roberts: What external legal assistance has been engaged, and from whom? What rates have been agreed, and who approved any extra rates? Ms Jones: Again, that is a matter for Comcover. They are the instructing agency. S
Senator ROBERTS: Who does Comcover report to?
Ms Jones: The Department of Finance. They’re a division within the Department of Finance, although set up as a separate entity.
Senator Roberts: The bureaucracy is so big that we can’t comprehend it all. Why is the Commonwealth not mediating with Fiona Brown?
Ms Jones: We couldn’t provide a view on that. I think that goes to the conduct of that matter, which is a matter for Comcover.
Senator Roberts: Moving to Linda Reynolds—
Mr Ng: As it’s an ongoing legal proceeding, of course it would not be appropriate for us to comment.
Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against then minister Reynolds were, in the words of Justice Lee, ‘without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact’ and, in the words of Justice Tottle, ‘objectively false and misleading’ and ‘dishonest’?
Ms Jones: I return to my previous comment. It’s not a matter for us to accept or not accept comments that are made by judges in the course of their decisions. Those proceedings addressed separate issues to the issue of the settlement of Ms Higgins’s claims.
Senator Roberts: Have these judgements that I just referred to given you cause to review your actions in relation to then minister Reynolds over the Brittany Higgins settlement?
Ms Jones: I think I’d just repeat my previous comment that the settlement in relation to Brittany Higgins’s claims went to related but slightly different issues than to the matters that were the subject of the two judicial observations that you’ve referred to.
Senator Roberts: Is the current Reynolds litigation being handled as an exceptional case or as a major claim, and who made that determination?
Ms Jones: I think—
Ms Chidgey: It’s a matter for Comcover again. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, Senator.
Mr Ng: Also, it’s been reported as a significant issue under the Legal Services Directions.
