Posts

One Nation vs Labor: Putting Money Back in Your Pocket

,

The Labor government introduced legislation to increase the petrol and diesel excise by 16 cents a litre. When combined with GST (a tax on a tax) and retailer margins, everyday Australians will face an extra 32 cents per litre at the pump. This is money going straight into Treasury to fund Labor’s wasteful spending.

This tax hike hits those who can least afford it. While large corporations can pass these costs on to consumers, small and medium businesses lack market power and must absorb the hit directly from their profits. For everyday families, commuting, running errands and simple drives will all become more expensive.

Contrary to claims, reducing the fuel excise is not inflationary. It directly lowers fuel prices, which immediately reduces CPI inflation.

Furthermore, because fuel is a core input across the whole economy (farmers, tradespeople and freight operators), lowering fuel costs relieves inflationary pressure across all goods and services.

When One Nation proposed cutting the fuel excise by 50% and freezing indexation, it was dismissed. Yet, when the government temporarily adopted our measure, it proved to be a resounding success for living costs and inflation. That is why One Nation is calling on the government to freeze the fuel excise and cancel all indexation increases until June 2028.

While Labor is raising taxes to fund its reckless spending, a One Nation government would put a line through these wasteful projects.

We would:

➡️ Terminate all Net Zero spending, including associated departments, grants, and subsidies.

➡️ End funding to the “Aboriginal industry”, replacing it with direct grants to local councils for housing, infrastructure, and community support.

➡️ Scrap Snowy Hydro 2.0, saving taxpayers from a financial sinkhole that could reach $100 billion.

➡️ Cancel the $3.8 billion federal allocation for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop, an insane project projected to cost $216 billion that serves to line the pockets of union bosses.

The Albanese government must stop overtaxing Australians to funnel money to renewables, union mates, and left-wing causes.

One Nation will put money back in your pocket, starting with a freeze on the fuel excise until 2028.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: This week the government is introducing legislation to make a 16c a litre increase to the excise levied on petrol and diesel. When including the GST, which is levied on top of the fuel tax—it’s a tax on a tax—and then adding retailer margins, this will cause petrol to go up around 20c a litre before the weekend. Every litre, 20c—kerching into the Treasury for Labor to waste. This is occurring just when small business and everyday Australians are recovering from the high petrol prices caused as a direct result of the war in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Make no mistake, this is a tax on those who cannot afford it. Large corporations can simply pass this rise on to their customers—meaning you’ll be paying more. Small and medium businesses can’t do that. They have no market power. They are price takers. This tax rise will come straight out of what is left of their profit. Everyday Australians will find their drive to work will be more expensive, as will running around after the children. Even a simple day out, just getting in the car and going out for a drive, will be more expensive. 

I know when One Nation promised a 50 per cent reduction in the fuel excise at the last election, the commentariat called that ‘inflationary’. Then the government copied our policy and suddenly it’s no longer inflationary! Which is correct? It’s not inflationary. Reducing the fuel excise reduces the petrol price, which is directly trapped in the CPI—the consumer price index—calculation. Lower fuel prices means lower inflation. 

There is a second-round effect as well. Fuel is an input cost right through the economy, from the farmer running a cool room or ploughing a field, to the local tradesman, to the truckie who delivers everything we buy. When fuel goes up, everything goes up. When fuel goes down, inflationary pressure is taken out of the economy. Reducing the fuel excise will reduce inflation. It’s that simple. It’s proven. This is why One Nation promised, at the last election, to reduce the fuel excise by 50 per cent and suspend indexation for 12 months, with a review after that. 

Well, the government borrowing our policy for a few months has provided the review we needed to know that the policy is a winner. Everyday Australians have enjoyed the lower cost of living. Inflationary pressures were taken out of the economy for a short time. This is why One Nation are calling on the government to not increase the fuel excise until June 2028, including cancelling all indexation increases, and then review it after the next election, which any incoming government would do anyway. Give hardworking Australians and small businesses two more years of respite from the Albanese government’s high—stubbornly high—inflation. 

Why do the government need to put this tax up? Because they’re wasting our money again, that’s why! This budget included measures that One Nation would have put the red line through. I’ve already spoken about our policy promising to remove all net zero spending, including the department itself, loans, grants and associated boondoggles. We’ve already announced all spending on the Aboriginal industry will be terminated. Instead, One Nation will give grants directly to local government to build the homes and roads and provide maintenance and support to Aboriginal communities. 

We’ve already announced that Snowy Hydro 2.0 will be terminated and taxpayers saved from a financial disaster which may reach $1 trillion for capital costs, interest, maintenance and subsidies for the tiny amount of electricity the project will generate in the period the construction loans are being paid back. The budget set aside $3.8 billion for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has put the cost of this project at $216 billion over a 50-year finance cycle. This is an insane project. Even Victorians don’t want it. It’s there to put money into the pockets of corrupt union bosses and assorted underworld figures, as 60 Minutes clearly showed last night. One Nation would terminate that project. 

We will have more policy announcements in the months ahead. For today’s debate, let me say this: the Albanese government needs to stop overtaxing everyday Australians so it can funnel money to its mates in the unions, to the renewable solar and wind industry, academia and other costly lefty nonsense causes—spending that does not benefit everyday Australians and certainly benefits the Labor Party’s election campaign funds. Labor is making life harder during a severe cost-of-living crisis. One Nation will put more money back in people’s pockets, starting with a freeze on fuel excises until 2028. 

/0 Comments/by

Bureaucracy, Grants and Closing the Gap

,

I questioned Commissioner Kiss, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission regarding her comments warning against right-wing parties following the One Nation win in Farrer. She said that she did not recall making any such statements. 🤔

Moving on, I directed my questioning toward the “Aboriginal industry,” raising concerns that allocated funds are being consumed by middlemen, bureaucrats and activists rather than reaching impoverished Indigenous Australians.

Following interventions from the Chair, I asked about crime statistics and accountability within communities.

I then pressed the issue with the Minister representing the Government on the effectiveness of their spending and closing the gap.

As for an acceptable answer- crickets 🦗🦗🦗

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Kiss. You recently made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties. Apparently that was after the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election.
Is that correct?

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

Senator ROBERTS: After the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election, you made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties.

Ms Kiss: I don’t recall using that language at all. Can you clarify what you’re talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s all I’ve got here. What benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would such a statement bring?

Ms Kiss: Again, I’m not clear what you’re referring to. So, if you could, give me some clarity around where I might have used that language. I don’t recall using that language.

Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t use it?

Ms Kiss: Not that I can recall.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What are your thoughts on the Aboriginal industry—that is, what’s referred to as the Aboriginal industry, the lawyers, the politicians, the public servants, the bureaucrats, the contractors, the
academics and the activists living off the money allocated to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in poverty despite receiving welfare payments the same as other Australians in need? The money is being allocated, but it’s not getting to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts on that?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that sounds an awful lot like you’re asking the commissioner for an opinion. That’s not—

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have an opinion?

Ms Kiss: I do have an opinion, but it’s not my role to share my opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that that’s happening?

Ms Kiss: I can speak to the fact that we know that there is a fair amount of financial allocation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services and supports. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of welfare support, but I do have concerns about the fact that funding that’s being allocated to our communities and to our organisations and to government agencies is not actually meeting the needs of our communities. That’s evident in the Closing the Gap targets.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’re agreed. Are you aware that often more than half the grant money is eaten up by salaries and other middleman costs before getting to the people the grant was supposed to assist?

Ms Kiss: The indication of that has been presented in Productivity Commission reports and Indigenous expenditure reports, so, yes, I am aware that there is consideration of that.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m struggling to see the connection between your questions and the role of Commissioner Kiss.

Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ll see it fairly soon.

CHAIR: Okay, I’m looking forward to that. That would be helpful.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that most assaults upon Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia are committed by Aboriginal men?

Senator COX: No, they’re not.

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure that those statistics are necessarily accurate.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Why does nobody comment that the large proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal people are in jail because they committed crimes warranting a jail sentence from a magistrate or judge? That’s
called social justice.

Ms Kiss: I can’t make comment on that, Senator. That’s not a question for me.

CHAIR: Again, it’s asking the commissioner for her opinion.

Ms Kiss: Senator, I don’t make the decisions about who goes to jail and how they’re sentenced. Sorry. Senator ROBERTS: Minister, when will this government learn that throwing money around is not the solution? These people are living in misery, in poverty, and throwing more money at them and throwing it to the activists and the parasites in between is not being effective. It’s quite clear. Social justice includes people
accepting responsibility for their own actions and genuine help on the ground. What is your government going to do about closing the gap, because it’s widening now?

Senator Green: Thanks for the question, Senator. I reject the language in your question. Yesterday, in front of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the National Indigenous Australians Agency
appeared and gave a lot of evidence about all of the work that we are doing to improve outcomes and close the gap. Our government is committed to that. The Prime Minister gave a statement to acknowledge the Closing the gap reports. We acknowledge that not enough is being done and more needs to be done, and that’s why we’ve made significant investments in the budget. I want to thank the commissioner for the work that she does in highlighting not just to governments around the country but to everyone in the country how important it is that we do close the gap, not just for the people who are living these lives right now but for future generations of Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Kiss. Could I have Dr Cody to the table again please? I want to read a statement from the Australian newspaper. It’s wrong, what we’ve learned today. It’s wrong, so I’m not accusing
you of doing this, okay? I want to ask you a follow-up question. It says: Yet it is women from across the political spectrum who are appalled by her relentless campaign to erase sex-based rights. The problem is not you, is it? The problem is the Labor Party’s 2013 law—correct?

Dr Cody: The law is as it has been passed. My role is to advocate for gender equality, for the rights of women and also for the rights of the LGBTQI+ community within a human rights context.

Senator ROBERTS: So what I’ve picked up today is that the problem is the law, the law is an ass, yet many people perceive you as an activist. Does that tell you anything about the way you fulfil your role?

Dr Cody: I’m not sure what the question is, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. This is another quote from this article: The global pushback Cody is witnessing isn’t against women’s rights—it’s for them. Do you agree or disagree?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think this is again veering into the territory of asking for opinions. If you’ve got questions relating to Commissioner Cody’s role and her responsibilities, feel free to ask.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just finish with that. The global pushback isn’t against women’s rights; it’s for women’s rights and women’s safety. Thank you very much for appearing.

/0 Comments/by

The Aboriginal Industry Is Failing Aboriginal Kids

In March, I warned that the plight of Aboriginal children remains an indictment on governments past and present, while taxpayer funds are being swallowed by a sprawling “Aboriginal industry” of consultants, activists and bureaucrats that delivers little to the communities it claims to serve.

The gap is widening because there are too many people feeding off the system.

Adding yet another commission will only deepen confusion, waste and dependency, instead of delivering the basics children need.

Cut the bureaucracy, stop the hiving-off of funds, celebrate Aboriginal potential, and direct support based on real need, not race, so Aboriginal kids get real outcomes and taxpayers get accountability.

— March | Senate Question Time

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The plight of Aboriginal children is well documented. We know that from so many people. Senator Pauline Hanson has been raising this issue for around 30 years. Senator Nampijinpa Price has done an exceptional job as well, and Senator Kerrynne Liddle and indeed the minister there. The plight of Aboriginal children is an indictment on parts of our society and especially on the government. I’m not just talking about the Labor government; I’m talking about previous uniparty governments and the Liberal-National coalition. 

I was visiting Badu Island a few years ago in the Torres Strait. A wonderful young councillor stood up and said, ‘While there is a Closing the Gap initiative, the gap will widen, because so many people are feeding off the Closing the Gap campaign that they have become dependent on it.’ I’m talking about the parasites who are pushing some of the Aboriginal industry. They’re white as well as black. The bureaucracy is massive and self-perpetuating. So many of the campaigns are to keep bureaucrats in a job. The bureaucracy is massive, and that means no accountability, and there is the heart of the problem. We now have an Aboriginal industry. 

Basic management shows that this commission will have negative effect. It won’t help. It will hamper and hurt. The aim is to look good, not do good. There are so many things we see every year in the House of Representatives. The Prime Minister—it doesn’t matter who it is, whether Liberal or Labor—and the opposition leader stand up and tell us things about how Closing the Gap is going backwards, and we’ve still got work to do, but it’s all rosy. It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. 

Minister, surely basic management shows that a system that is clogged like the Aboriginal industry is, with so many people feeding off it—consultants, activists, politicians, lawyers, academics—will be only clogged up further. What are your intentions for managing this properly so that it doesn’t clog up the system? 

Senator McCARTHY: Thank you, Senator, for the question. I certainly reject the assertion about ‘Aboriginal industry’ being a negative, Senator Roberts. We have, in fact, just this morning, certainly come together with the Coalition of Peaks—bodies that are clearly defined in the way that they work with local communities on the ground.

You mentioned Badu Island in the Torres Strait. I certainly commend our new convener—the joint convener, with me, on the joint council—and that is Donnella Mills, a Torres Strait Islander woman who is very passionate about wanting to ensure that, on the ground, in terms of local people having local solutions and support, they are supported by community controlled organisations. And those community controlled organisations are accountable, Senator Roberts.

They’re accountable every year, just like any other business in this country that’s provided with either federal or state or territory funds. They are accountable. They’re accountable to the parliaments. And they are certainly accountable to this Senate. That accountability is about transparency, Senator Roberts. So I would just caution you, if I may, around the language that you use that really stereotypes, in a very negative way, the good work that is being done by First Nations organisations and individuals across Australia.

I’ll just take this moment, Temporary Chair, if I may, to acknowledge the commissioner, Commissioner Hunter, in the gallery, and members of the Coalition of Peaks, and those who came this morning for the launch of our latest peak body.

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Coalition of Peaks, Minister. There’s part of the issue. This is a massive bureaucracy. You’ve got to have representatives of the peaks. There’s no audit. And I’m speaking now on behalf of taxpayers, as well as Aboriginal children and Aboriginals. 

I’ve been to every one of the communities, white and black, on Cape York, and I’ve asked: What’s Close the gap? What do they know about Close the gap? What do they think about Close the gap? Some of the communities there don’t even know about Close the gap, because they’re not getting the benefits of the funding that’s coming from the taxpayers; it’s getting hived off by the parasites, white and black—activists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists, academics, politicians and bureaucrats—along the way. 

How is this additional bureaucratic load, this additional constipating layer in the middle, going to strengthen coordination across government? It’s adding more people into the middle of this government mess. As I said, it’s not just your mess; it’s previous governments’ messes as well. 

Then these are going to be ‘advising the Commonwealth’—this is from your own bill. ‘Advising the Commonwealth’? How many more people do you need to get advice from? This is getting ridiculous! People across the country, especially Aboriginal people, are laughing at this. Some of them are crying at it. 

And then there’s the third activity: ‘undertaking and commissioning research into systemic issues and barriers’. There’s no doubt there are systemic issues and barriers. We can see them. Why do you need yet another group of researchers? This is just going to confuse the mess again. 

Then there’s ‘providing and commissioning educational programs’. Children won’t know which way is up, they’ll have so many different messages from so many different bureaucrats—so many different parasites. 

Next there’s ‘undertaking public advocacy’ to promote the rights and interests of children and young people. We’ve got so many people in parliament doing that. We’ve got so many people outside parliament doing that. You’ve got so many bureaucrats, tripping over each other, doing that. 

They’re ‘to amplify their voices and strengths’. Oh, really? Really? It’s not working so far. The nanny state is not working so far. 

As to engaging with children: how many more people are going to engage with children? These kids will have their heads spinning. What about basic needs? Get to the core of the problem. There are, clearly, crucial human needs, and they’re being bypassed by these people looking after their own administrative jobs. I also remain concerned about two things. One is that this is a divisive piece of proposed law that is defined by race. It draws distinctions and promotes divisions by race, which makes it racist. It overtly continues and entrenches the them-versus-us mentality that prevails in conjunction with the patronising mentality of victimhood status. 

In Aboriginals—and you’re an example of this, Minister—we have four per cent of Australians who are Aboriginal; we have 11 per cent of parliamentarians who are Aboriginal. Aboriginals have high potential, but so many are being locked into victimhood. Surely what we need to do is free up Aboriginals to fulfil their enormous potential. They’re leading in the NRL, the AFL, business, sport, academics and science, and yet some of the communities are terrible. I think we need to start celebrating Aboriginals rather than locking some victims— 

Senator Waters: Stop calling them parasites, then. What about all the taxpayer money you’re defrauding? You talk about parasites. You lie, you steal— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll take that interjection from Senator Waters. I’ll make it very clear: she misrepresented me then, because I am not calling Aboriginals parasites. I’m calling Aboriginals fantastic human beings with huge potential. I’m calling them parasites in the bureaucracy—the activists, the lawyers, the administrators, the bureaucrats, the consultants, the academics—who are living off the money that’s going from taxpayers to the Aboriginal industry. That’s what I’m talking about. This is just going to add more complexity and more bureaucracy. 

One Nation policy is to get rid of the Aboriginal industry, to save $15 billion, and instead provide real care through government grants based on real needs, regardless of skin colour. This bill has an aim, I believe, to look good, not to do good. In trying to look good, you do a lot of harm. You just add more to the constipating layer of bureaucrats. Minister, isn’t this an option to start celebrating Aboriginals, rather than casting them as victims, and to start giving grants based upon real needs? Isn’t that what’s really needed here?

Senator McCARTHY: Senator Roberts, firstly, I agree that we should celebrate First Nations culture in this country. I agree that there are many outstanding athletes, as we saw with the Rabbitohs recently and the great score trier that everybody roamed the field on with AJ. But there are many, many others, whether they’re athletes or otherwise. There are professionals in business, in the sciences and in our schools. We’ve even got our young woman here from Yirrkala, who’s doing very well— Siana, I’m watching you as a bit of a trailblazer for us.

You’re right that we should celebrate First Nations people and culture, Senator Roberts. But that’s probably about as far as our similarities might go, because I certainly reject the assertion that there is no accountability or transparency. As I said in my previous response to you, every organisation that is receiving funding does get audited, whether it’s from the Australian National Audit Office or having to provide their annual reports to this parliament.

I certainly have many statutory bodies whose reports have to be delivered to the Senate. That is accountability, Senator Roberts. That is where we differ. You keep asking for audits. Well, audits actually happen as an annual event for organisations, and those organisations that are not doing well obviously get picked up in this as well. Like non-Indigenous organisations and businesses, there are some across the country that don’t do well, and they need extra support to get them back on their feet or, like many, they go out of business.

The accountability structure is there in terms of the audits, and, as I said, I agree with you in terms of the celebration of First Nations people, but the way we do that is also about lifting families. This is why this bill is incredibly important. It’s important because we are listening to what the communities have been asking for for a long time. I might walk you through just a bit of that history. The Bringing them home report in 1997 actually raised this back then, and we’ve had subsequent organisations through the Coalition of Peaks.

There are 70 organisations who’ve given guidance on this. I would not dismiss—and I am sure you, as a senator for Queensland, would not dismiss—those who come to us to give advice. That’s what this parliament asks for in terms of the Coalition of Peaks and the agreement that we’ve signed with every state and territory to that Closing the Gap agreement. We’ve got organisations like SNAICC, which cares for the children. We’ve got VACCA, the Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency, and the Korrie Youth Counsel.

All these organisations have come forward to say there needs to be this national commissioner. There needs to be a role where the national First Nations commissioner is there for the children who are being taken away, who are in out-of-home care. We’ve seen those figures rise staggeringly, especially in states like Victoria. Having the ability for the national children’s commissioner to work with each state and territory and to inform this parliament is absolutely critical. Senator Roberts, there are some things we kind of see a bit of similarity on, but probably most not.

But I do appreciate your interest. You have shown that at estimates as well in the questions that you’ve raised around communities. I would urge you and your party to get behind this bill. What Commissioner Hunter will be able to do is know that she has the support of this parliament behind her to work with our kids across the country.

/by

Is the Gap Closed?

,

During this session I pressed Commissioner Kiss on waste, duplication and middle-man costs in the Aboriginal industry.

She acknowledged the funding failures, yet still joined the chair and other senators in pushing back on my questioning – proving that even when everyone admits the money isn’t reaching communities or Closing the Gap targets, they resist being held accountable.

My point was clear: money is being poured in, yet outcomes are worsening, accountability is missing, and real on-the-ground help is being smothered by bureaucracy.

How much taxpayer money will this government burn before the Gap Closes?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Kiss. You recently made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties. Apparently that was after the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election. Is that correct?  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: After the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election, you made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties.  

Ms Kiss: I don’t recall using that language at all. Can you clarify what you’re talking about?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s all I’ve got here. What benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would such a statement bring?  

Ms Kiss: Again, I’m not clear what you’re referring to. So, if you could, give me some clarity around where I might have used that language. I don’t recall using that language.  

Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t use it?  

Ms Kiss: Not that I can recall.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What are your thoughts on the Aboriginal industry—that is, what’s referred to as the Aboriginal industry, the lawyers, the politicians, the public servants, the bureaucrats, the contractors, the academics and the activists living off the money allocated to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in poverty despite receiving welfare payments the same as other Australians in need? The money is being allocated, but it’s not getting to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts on that? 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that sounds an awful lot like you’re asking the commissioner for an opinion. That’s not—  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have an opinion?  

Ms Kiss: I do have an opinion, but it’s not my role to share my opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that that’s happening?  

Ms Kiss: I can speak to the fact that we know that there is a fair amount of financial allocation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services and supports. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of welfare support, but I do have concerns about the fact that funding that’s being allocated to our communities and to our organisations and to government agencies is not actually meeting the needs of our communities. That’s evident in the Closing the Gap targets.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’re agreed. Are you aware that often more than half the grant money is eaten up by salaries and other middleman costs before getting to the people the grant was supposed to assist?  

Ms Kiss: The indication of that has been presented in Productivity Commission reports and Indigenous expenditure reports, so, yes, I am aware that there is consideration of that.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m struggling to see the connection between your questions and the role of Commissioner Kiss.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ll see it fairly soon.  

CHAIR: Okay, I’m looking forward to that. That would be helpful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that most assaults upon Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia are committed by Aboriginal men?  

Senator COX: No, they’re not.  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure that those statistics are necessarily accurate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Why does nobody comment that the large proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal people are in jail because they committed crimes warranting a jail sentence from a magistrate or judge? That’s called social justice.  

Ms Kiss: I can’t make comment on that, Senator. That’s not a question for me. 

CHAIR: Again, it’s asking the commissioner for her opinion.  

Ms Kiss: Senator, I don’t make the decisions about who goes to jail and how they’re sentenced. Sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, when will this government learn that throwing money around is not the solution? These people are living in misery, in poverty, and throwing more money at them and throwing it to the activists and the parasites in between is not being effective. It’s quite clear. Social justice includes people accepting responsibility for their own actions and genuine help on the ground. What is your government going to do about closing the gap, because it’s widening now?  

Senator Green: Thanks for the question, Senator. I reject the language in your question. Yesterday, in front of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the National Indigenous Australians Agency appeared and gave a lot of evidence about all of the work that we are doing to improve outcomes and close the gap. Our government is committed to that. The Prime Minister gave a statement to acknowledge the Closing the gap reports. We acknowledge that not enough is being done and more needs to be done, and that’s why we’ve made significant investments in the budget. I want to thank the commissioner for the work that she does in highlighting not just to governments around the country but to everyone in the country how important it is that we do close the gap, not just for the people who are living these lives right now but for future generations of Australians.  

/by

Tents vs. Space Programs

,

I seemed to have upset my colleagues when I questioned why more than half a million dollars was being spent on a grant exploring “Indigenous connections to outer space” and whether Aboriginal people “cared for other planets.”

How do such projects help Australians who are living in tents, skipping meals, or struggling to pay rent?

While people are hurting, the Labor government is spending $1 billion a year on grants like this.

Taxpayers deserve to know why.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Moving on, Dr Lara Daley at the University of Newcastle received a grant of $528,491 over three years, including salary and project costs to study: ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge in Australian space policy, using songlines and creation stories, aiming to broaden understandings of outer space by identifying and supporting Aboriginal connections between space and life on Earth to develop culturally respectful and environmentally responsible space exploration.’ How would Aboriginal environmental management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management that includes Aboriginal management of the environment? 

Prof. Shergold: My answer to this and other questions I suspect are going to be identical. I can do no more than describe the peer-review processes that are being used and hopefully make it clear why it would be entirely inappropriate for me or the board to step in on particular projects on which we would have far less expertise than the assessors to overturn decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Shergold. That doesn’t give the taxpayers much confidence. How would Aboriginal management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management full stop? Does the ARC expect Elon Musk to encounter an Indigenous population on Mars for which we should prepare? According to her bio, Dr Daley’s research is grounded in herself as, inter alia, ‘a white, non-Indigenous person on unceded Aboriginal country specialising in human and more-than-human research, including outer space as being already known, cared for and inhabited through Indigenous ontologies. Did Aboriginals inhabit other planets?  

CHAIR: The scope of estimates is very broad, but it is contained to the operations and expenditure of departments and agencies, and I—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, one more question.  

CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wonder: did Aboriginals care for other planets in the solar system? You appear to be trying to extend Aboriginal mythology to other planets in the solar system. How far out—Pluto, Saturn, to infinity and beyond, as Buzz Lightyear said in Toy Story?  

Senator FARUQI: My God. Read some books, Malcolm!  

Senator ROBERTS: Australians are living in tents, struggling to buy food. Hundreds of thousands of people are struggling. Tens of thousands are living under bridges and in cars, and this is what you spend your $1 billion a year on. Unidentified speaker: Is there a question, Chair?  

Senator FARUQI: Chair, please put us out of our misery.  

CHAIR: Malcolm Roberts, please take a moment. Senators, I appreciate all the feelings at the table, but it is important that senators are able to be heard in silence as they ask their questions, as it is important for witnesses to be heard in silence and not spoken over. I will be enforcing this on both counts. Senator Roberts, you have the call to keep asking your question. Senators, regardless of what you think of it, please allow him to do so in silence.  

Senator ROBERTS: With Australians struggling, why is this what you spend your $1 billion a year on? Taxpayers would be saying, ‘Shame on you.’  

Senator Walsh: Was that for the professor or for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: Both.  

Senator Walsh: I’ll go first, Senator Roberts, and say that you are a politician and that you are expressing your political views right now—  

Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of many constituents, yes.  

Senator Walsh: and what we did is we removed politics from the processes that the ARC uses, because we believe in peer review of research not political review of research. The ARC’s process is rigorous. It is independent. As Professor Shergold has said, it is based on a strong network of peer reviewers. That is the decision of the government. We based that decision after an independent review of the ARC Act. Our reforms came into force from 1 July 2024, and we established an independent and expert ARC board to be responsible for the approval of grants, fellowships and the like. Professor Shergold and his team are discharging their obligations under the legislation to assess grant applications through these processes—through the panel, through peer review. They are discharging their obligations appropriately, and the government undermines efforts to undermine the trust in the Australian Research Council.  

Prof. Shergold: You are quite right to be directing the question to me. It isn’t a ministerial decision. It is in very large measure a decision for me and the board of the ARC. You’re quite right. The reality is, as I said, that we had about 1,000 grants that were approved last year. It is inevitable that there will be 10 or 20 of those that will become highly controversial for the reasons you’ve suggested. I suppose my view is—and it’s not giving any view on any particular research—that the fact that becomes controversial is not a bad thing. The whole purpose of research is to look for new paradigms, to interpret in new ways, to provoke and, to be honest with you, to raise hackles on existence. It is the way in which we continue to improve what we do economically, socially and environmentally and have debates about culture within Australia. I can’t, like you, sit down and say, ‘I think that looks like a really good piece of research to me, and that one looks a bit whacky.’ I’ve got to be dependent upon the experts that I use. My task, as I’ve said, is to make sure that they are doing it with integrity. I want to make sure, to see, that there are no conflicts of interest. I want to look at the outcomes of that research, to make sure that all universities are getting agreement that Indigenous scholars—not just on Indigenous issues, incidentally, but Indigenous scholars in all areas—are getting fair access. That’s what I’m looking at when I look at the 4,000 grant applications we receive and the thousands of decisions we make. It’s making sure that, in all ways, the peer review process is working and, with the board, looking at ways in which it can be improved all the time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/by

Niche Ideology vs. Taxpayer Value

,

I seemed to upset my colleagues when I questioned why the Australian Research Council is spending close to a billion dollars a year on grants that taxpayers would struggle to see any value in.

ARC leadership repeatedly hid behind “peer review processes”, refusing to justify cost-benefit while signing off on a $889,275 grant for an Arab/Muslim Australian social movements study, and another $322,213 grant that produced a commercial sold book Coming of Age in War on Terror.

While I respect independent review processes, the real issue is being ignored.

How is this supposedly “world-class system” allowing taxpayer money to be poured into niche ideological research with no demonstrated benefit to the people footing the bill?

The problem isn’t that research exists – it’s why taxpayers are being forced to fund it.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing tonight. Good evening. I have here grant reference FT220100427 for beneficiary Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, covering the period from 2022 to 2027, with a grant amount $802,000, since increased to $889,275. The purpose of this very large grant—inter alia—is: Arab/Muslim Australian Social Movements since the 1970s: a hidden history … aims to recover previously untapped oral histories and rare archival collections of Arab/Muslim Australian activists … Who have struggled against external systems and internal conflicts to build a socially just future … include a greater understanding of the transformative activism of communities whose movement work is often relegated to the margins. This is what you’re spending taxpayer money on. What is the cost benefit of this study sufficient to justify an almost $900,000 price tag? 

Senator FARUQI: Why do you hate Muslims, Malcolm?  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t; we have some in this party.  

Prof. Shergold: Let me answer that question and I’m happy to do so because the key change to the ARC legislation, as you will be aware, is that, at this stage—in most instances, not all—it is the ARC and board which make the decision on grants and not the minister. So the minister is clearly at arm’s length. Now, what do you do if you’re on a board and you are trying to make sure that you use public funds for the best purposes available for projects that are deemed by universities to be in the national interest? If you look at the number of applications that come forward, you’ll start to understand what a challenge it is. I think last year—I’m looking for the numbers—there was something about 4,000 applications.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is this getting to the answer of my question?  

Prof. Shergold: I am going to get there, because I want you to share my pain. We’ve got 4,000 applications and about, give or take, 25 per cent are accepted. It is quite unrealistic and very bad governance to imagine I and the board members sit down and look at 4,000 applications, even as well as presented as you’ve just done with this one, and say yes or no. How do you do it? You try and make sure you have the very best world-class system, which is a peer-review process. The role of myself, the role of the board, isn’t to go through and second-guess those expert peer reviewers in the decisions they make. My role—an important one; I feel a burden of responsibility—is to make sure that the processes that are being used are best practice in peer review and are done with honesty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a cost benefit?  

Prof. Shergold: This was a proposal that came forward out of about was about 1,200, give or take, that were accepted last year.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t tell me—  

Prof. Shergold: What I can tell you is we are using the best peer-review processes that we have available. It was thought by members of college of experts and then by disciplinary experts that this would be an important and innovative and, no doubt, provocative piece of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me the cost benefit.  

Prof. Shergold: Well, I tell you what I can do. I can tell you the cost benefit as assessed of the ARC grants overall, which we had undertaken a few years ago—  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that for this grant?  

Prof. Shergold: which gave a return on all our grants of about I think $3.20 on the dollar, something like that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on. This isn’t your first grant to the doctor. There was also grant DP110101249 titled ‘Youth in the digital age: Being young and Muslim in Australia’ for $322,213 covering 2018 to 2021. Now my question is: why didn’t you use the correct name of the project, which was: ‘”Trust, Politics, and Fear: ‘Generation 9/11’ Muslim and Non-Muslim youth compared”‘?  

Prof. Shergold: Well, it wasn’t my piece of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: This grant allowed the doctor to write a book titled Coming of Age in the War on Terror, published by Allen and Unwin. Why are you funding this person to write a book which she sold commercially and for which the doctor most likely received payment? Did she?  

Prof. Shergold: I have no idea—  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what bothers me.  

Prof. Shergold: if she received payment from that. But I am delighted overall when pieces of research that we fund end up in books or articles. I think that was a good use of money.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is socialising costs and privatising profits. Why is the Australian Research Council allowed to use taxpayer money to provide a commercial benefit to their friends in academia—paid to write the book, paid to sell the book? This seems to be a great scam going on here for academia.  

Prof. Shergold: Well, in answering the question, and you were frustrated at the delay, the one thing I did show is how this is a best-practice peer-review process, and to identify that as a scam is probably stretching it somewhat.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is the ARC allowed to do this—socialise costs and privatise benefits? 

Senator Walsh: The ARC’s role in the process is through its independent and expert board to use the process of peer review that Professor Shergold spoke about to be responsible for the approval of grants and fellowships and so on. That’s the ARC’s role and they rely on independent peer review to discharge their obligations. I think you’re asking questions about academics then publishing books after they have conducted research which may be funded by the ARC or may be supported in other ways. I think that publishing opportunity is just a part of higher education; it is standard procedure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you have been funding this person continuously since 2018. Dr Randa Abdel Fattah is a radical Islamic activist who just participated in the figurative ‘burning down’ of the Adelaide Writers Festival. Is this grant nothing more than the ARC funding Islamic activism?  

Prof. Shergold: I won’t repeat the process which the minister has described well. I will say we have a college of experts carefully selected who do a first assessment. We then have detailed assessments from over 20,000 assessors from Australia and around the world that then assess each of those pieces of research. And roughly about 25 per cent of them manage to make the cut. I wish I could fund more. There are many more good projects you could, but that’s the truth. There is a process. I can’t possibly step in and start to overrule decisions of that process on the basis that I don’t like particularly the political advocacy that someone does. I’ve got to make sure on your behalf that that process is being used as well as it possibly can be to make sure that decisions are being made fairly, honestly, transparently and in the national interest.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re nice words. But I’d leave this to the taxpayers to decide. The doctor has now organised an alternative event to the Adelaide Writers Festival, which, by all reports, is designed to exclude people of a certain faith or belief. Minister, I keep on hearing about social cohesion and yet this grant has gone to a person who is attacking social cohesion to advance Islamic propaganda. Why is your grants program encouraging social conflict?  

Senator Walsh: There are a lot of incorrect premises there about the role of the ARC and the grants process and the investigation that was undertaken by Macquarie University. Essentially, Professor Shergold has already gone through that process. To go over it again, briefly, the minister wrote to the ARC and, I think, to Professor Shergold and asked the ARC to look into this particular grant to the doctor and make sure that the grant was being appropriately used. The way that works is that it’s the university that receives the grant that is then tasked with doing the investigation. Macquarie University appointed academic experts to conduct the review. The review investigated whether the grant funding was being used for its intended purpose. During that process, the funding was suspended. The process concluded and the grant was reinstated. It was reinstated, as I understand it, because there was no evidence that there was an inappropriate acquittal of public funds. So that’s the process.  

Prof. Shergold: The only thing I would add is that, of course, we will continue to review this grant, just as we review all the other grants.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister. Just moving on then—  

Senator FARUQI: Chair, may I raise a point of order?  

CHAIR: Yes.  

Senator FARUQI: Senator Roberts is making completely unfounded and false allegations about a very respected academic and researcher. I would really like you to ask him to withdraw those or stop that line of questioning.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to move on, Chair.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to wait for me to respond to the point of order before you can direct the committee to move on. I take your point, Senator Faruqi, but I don’t believe there has been a breach of the standing orders from what I can observe. But I would just remind all senators, as we continue through this session, to do so respectfully of the witnesses and topics we’re dealing with and of each other at the table. Senator Roberts, you still have the call.  

/by

Bureaucrats Swallowing Vulnerable Funds

,

Bureaucracy shouldn’t be swallowing up funds meant for our most vulnerable communities.

I recently questioned the NIAA at Senate Estimates on the ongoing failures of the Closing the Gap initiative. Case in point: out of a recent $40M grant for the Alice Springs Camp, roughly half was chewed up by administrative salaries rather than direct aid.

When pushed for a genuine, independent external audit to see where the money is actually going, the NIAA pointed to internal reviews. ANAO does not conduct the deep financial audits required here. This is just the department monitoring itself.

Worse still, when asked if basic welfare payments are enough to survive on in remote areas, the NIAA directed me to the Department of Social Services.

How can we close the gap if the leading agency refuses to look at the actual baseline standard of living?

A One Nation government will demand transparency and independent audits, ensuring that funding goes to people that need it – not middlemen.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you all for appearing again. Good morning, Minister. One of the ongoing tragedies is the failure of the Closing the Gap concept when there are so many people whose vested interests lie in ensuring the gap will never close. Why is so much grant money wasted on enriching middlemen and middlewomen and only a proportion of the grant money ends up with those who the grant was intended to benefit? This is the flaw in the existing grant models where only a fraction is actually spent on the purpose. An example of this relates to grant money allocated to support those Australians living in the Alice Springs camp. Recently, a grant of more than $40 million was made, but half of that was used for salaries, with less than half going to direct assistance. Is this acceptable, Minister?  

Senator McCarthy:  We have gone through the breakdown of the funding for Tangentyere in terms of the town camps, Senator. I will ask Ms Bellenger to go through that again with you.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you.  

Ms Bellenger:  As we outlined earlier in the session, Tangentyere receives 18 activities funded through the NIAA. If all of those activities are successfully delivered, they will receive around $20.3 million. That does depend on the successful delivery of all of those programs.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That didn’t answer my question but let’s move on. Does half the grants going in salaries explain why so much money is spent on Closing the Gap, yet the gap keeps getting bigger? Let’s face it, it gets bigger every year.  

Ms Bellenger:  There is money spent on salaries through the NIAA grants, and they are for the services that are directly provided and are almost entirely filled with First Nations local people. I would argue that a job in the first instance supports—but then the services that are provided to people are also the primary outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. When will a genuine audit of expenditure and outcomes be done on the effectiveness and the value-for-money basis of all Indigenous grants and NIAA programs over the last five years? 

Ms Guivarra:  We have rigorous monitoring of our own grants through internal assessment processes, and this occurs every year. We monitor for the effectiveness and efficiency and value for money, which is required under the PGPA Act, with all of our investments. You would have seen over a number of years now that the NIAA’s funding has been directed more and more to our engagement with community-controlled organisations being responsible for the provision of our services to communities so that there is a greater connection to what it is that is going to be required to make change for those communities, because now essentially many more of our grants are being delivered through community-controlled organisations.  

Senator ROBERTS:  When will we see a third-party independent audit.  

Ms Guivarra:  We have a number of different accountability mechanisms as a Commonwealth executive agency as it is. We have regular performance audits by the Australian National Audit Office that we’re required to do. I will get our group manager for integrity to go through a little of some of the more recent ANAO audits that we have had.  

Mr Worth:  The assurance mechanisms in place for our funding and how it’s spent, and the value delivered, are multilayered. Within the agency itself we have requirements through all of our funding agreements for providers to report against KPIs in terms of their service delivery. Each time those reports are received, they’re reviewed by the teams. It’s checked off against their own experience, checking with community and visiting the providers themselves to sight those services. With the financials themselves, each time an acquittal is required, staff within the NIAA review the acquittal—that is, the funding claim being made by the provider against that—and they check that it’s in line with the contract and that likewise it’s supported by the performance reports. Then, as Ms Guivarra mentioned, the ANAO, in terms of independent audit, conducts audits of our own—  

Senator ROBERTS:  The ANAO told me a couple of times that they don’t do detailed, comprehensive audits. What you’re talking about is monitoring yourself. I want to know when an independent external audit will be done.  

Mr Worth:  The ANAO conducts two types of audits. One is of the actual processes and the way that we operate in order to ensure that the key risks that the Commonwealth is exposed to through our operations are being properly managed through our processes and controls and so on. When it comes to individual audits, the requirement for any audited accounts from providers varies according to the assessed risk for that particular provider. We do require some providers to have their accounts audited independently, and those are checked and received. However, it’s not always the case. As I said before, we do full checks of the acquittal claims made by our own staff. Of course that’s independent from those making the claims who are the providers. So there are a large number of checks and balances in place. There are, where required, given our risk assessments, independent audits required of some providers. On top of that, our own processes and our own approach to risk management is subject to audit by the ANAO.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Do most adult Indigenous people living in remote areas, if not working, receive a fortnightly welfare payment?  

Ms Guivarra:  I would say, Senator, there is an Australian requirement that, after a certain period of time, if you are not working you are entitled to a payment. Yes.   

CHAIR:  That’s all Australians.  

Ms Guivarra:  That’s all Australians, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So I’m guessing you’re saying yes. Is that likely to be the same or more than that received by non-Indigenous recipients?  

Senator THORPE:  We get triple! Didn’t you know that!  

Ms Guivarra:  I would say there’s no difference in treatment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from other Australians.   

Senator ROBERTS:  Is the payment enough to live on?   

Senator WHITEAKER:  Chair, I’m not sure this agency’s responsible for the payments to which the senator is—  

Ms Guivarra:  We are not. Our responsibilities are for the programs and policies that we administer. If it’s in relation to the social security system, then I would suggest you direct those questions to the Department of Social Services.   

CHAIR:  To ensure you get the accurate answers to your questions, Senator Roberts, we would direct you to them. This is your last question before we rotate.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Where does the money go? Is the payment enough to live on? Surely that’s part of your remit. What proportion goes in rent? Why is the attendance at school so low? What is being done to fix it?   

CHAIR:  That’s an awful lot of issues in one sentence, Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS:  I want to know what they’re doing.  

CHAIR:  many of them not related to this department, although that’s not to go to the relevance of your question. But you’re probably going to need to break it down a little for the officers to appropriately respond.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Is the payment enough to live on? Where does the money go, and specifically rent?  

Ms Guivarra:  I think a lot of the issues that you are raising are not within the remit of this agency. As I said, if it’s in relation to social security payments of any sort, it is actually the Department of Social Services who would be able to provide that. My understanding is they are on next Wednesday.   

CHAIR:  Senator Roberts, on that—  

Senator ROBERTS:  I would have thought you would know how these things—  

CHAIR:  Senator Roberts, can I just clarify a piece for you there. ‘Is it enough to live on’—you could ask that about anybody in Australia. You would have to look to the social security people about how it’s assessed. In terms of housing, this agency does not have a breakdown of how people spend any money they may receive in welfare payments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  How do you assess whether or not people are living satisfactorily?   

Senator THORPE:  How do you spend your money?   

CHAIR:  Yes, exactly.   

Senator THORPE:  How do you spend your money, Malcolm?   

Senator ROBERTS:  I’m not being questioned here.   

Senator THORPE:  Well, you should be.   

Ms Guivarra:  It is not our job to monitor the personal payments or spending habits of individuals. Our role is to administer the programs and policies that we are responsible for.   

Senator ROBERTS:  Do you assess the standard of living?  

CHAIR:  Senator Roberts, we are going to rotate the call, so I will give you one final question.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Do you assess standard of living and what’s needed to upgrade—to close the gap?   

Ms Guivarra:  We are in constant contact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities around the country for pressure points for their own cost of living. It is why there is a lot of focus and attention on what is happening in remote communities across the country. You were not present previously when the minister referred to the work that she has been undertaking with the Coalition of the Peaks in regard to the monitoring of the current fuel crisis, where we have, obviously, been in contact with community controlled organisations about the cost of service delivery to remote communities across the country. So those types of issues, in terms of how we understand the impact of the cost of living for remote communities—there are various mechanisms by which we do that all of the time.   

Senator ROBERTS:  Thanks, Chair. 

/1 Comment/by

Setting the Record Straight on Indigenous Procurement

,

In this session of Senate Estimates, I sought clarity on the operation of the Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP). There’s a lot of confusion around whether government contracts over $7.5 million must be awarded to Indigenous businesses.

After questioning officials, it’s clear that this isn’t the case. The policy doesn’t mandate awarding contracts based on race—it requires that, for large contracts delivered in Australia, companies meet minimum Indigenous participation targets. These targets can be achieved through employment, subcontracting, or a combination of both.

Australians deserve transparency on how their taxpayer money is spent. While the government says these measures aim to close the gap, we must ensure that procurement decisions remain focused on value for money and fairness for all. I’ll continue to scrutinise policies that risk introducing race-based preferencing into government processes. Accountability matters.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Alright, I’ll move on to clarifying the operation of the Indigenous procurement policy. I’m told that every Commonwealth agency is obligated to choose Indigenous content on contracts over $7.5
million, so if there’s a choice between a white employer and an Aboriginal employer the government must choose the Aboriginal agency. Is that correct?

Ms Guivarra: I think you’re referring to mandatory minimum requirements which actually relate to employment. There are mandatory set-aside requirements for contracts valued between $80,000 and $200,000,
where, all other things being equal, if it is an Aboriginal organisation, then a preference is allocated.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you talking about employment or expenditure?

Ms Guivarra: No. I think the figure you were referring to was the $7.5 million, which refers to the mandatory minimum requirements. For contracts over $7½ million, there’s an employment target.

Mr Dexter: That’s right. The $7.5 million threshold is one part of the IPP. It’s the mandatory minimum Indigenous participation requirement. It does not require Commonwealth agencies to grant those contracts to
Indigenous businesses. That’s not a feature of the IPP.

Senator ROBERTS: So if the contract is granted, then they must hire—

Mr Dexter: What it does require is for there to be mandatory minimum Indigenous participation targets as part of that contract, and that’s for contracts delivered wholly in Australia valued at $7.5 million or more in 19
industry categories. That’s been one of the three parts of the IPP since 2015.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what’s the basis for the government engaging in race based preferencing?

Senator McCarthy: I reject outright your assertion there. I have called on all senators and members of parliament to join me in trying to close the gap in terms of the targets we’re trying to achieve. Those targets are
specifically aimed at trying to improve Indigenous employment and Indigenous businesses, and we make no apologies for that.

Senator ROBERTS: So, all things being equal, an Aboriginal will be preferred based on race to a non Aboriginal?

Mr Dexter: No, that’s not correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m exploring this.

Mr Dexter: I’m trying to be helpful in clarifying that that’s not a requirement of the policy. In selecting those contracts, Commonwealth procurement officials are always required to demonstrate value for money for the
contract, whether there are MMRs applied for the contract or not.

Senator ROBERTS: But then there will be hiring criteria that are favourable to Aboriginals if the company gets a contract. Is that correct?

Mr Dexter: How the supplier meets those targets is entirely a matter for the company. They can do it through subcontracting arrangements, they can do it through employment arrangements or they can do it through a
combination of both.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you very much.

/by

Widespread Late Reporting by Aboriginal Corporations

,

During Senate Estimates, I asked the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) about the issue of late reporting by Aboriginal corporations. I was told that of the 3,312 Aboriginal corporations registered with ORIC, 2,940 were late in submitting their required reports and 1,162 reports for the 2024 financial year had not yet been lodged.

Of the reports not yet submitted, 84% were from small corporations with an income of less than $100,000. ORIC advised that out of the approximately 3,300 corporations, 60 had been listed for prosecution, with 27 already prosecuted. Penalties imposed ranged from deregistration and winding up to personal litigation against directors.

The most common reason cited for non-submission of financial reports was apathy. As part of their response to this issue, ORIC is now offering training for all relevant parties to help improve compliance.

– Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to ORIC, the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. Thank you for being here. It has been widely reported that many Indigenous corporations have not submitted reports required under statute. How many Indigenous incorporations are in breach of requirements to submit their required reports for this period?  

Ms Stroud: As at 6 October, I can confirm that, of the 3,312 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, 2,940 are required to lodge one or more annual reports—some have exemptions. Of those 2,940 corporations required to lodge one or more reports, I can confirm that 1,162, or 39½ per cent, have not yet lodged their 2024 reports, which would’ve been due in December 2024, noting that the 2025 reports are not due till the end of this year. For context, though, I would add that, of those 1,162 corporations that have failed to lodge last year’s reports, 84 per cent are small corporations. They are corporations that have a consolidated growth income revenue of under $100,000 each year and are only required to lodge a general report. Corporations that are large and, rightly so, are those that should be subject to greater public scrutiny and funding body scrutiny, represent two per cent of those corporations that have not yet lodged their reports.  

Senator ROBERTS: My rough mental arithmetic is about 250 that are not small corporations have failed to lodge a report.  

Ms Stroud: I’ll give you that number—it’s 241.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was pretty close. That’s a lot. It might only be two per cent, but it’s actually about eight per cent of the total of corporations. How many board members, on average, are on a corporation board?  

Ms Stroud: I don’t have that figure on hand. I can take that on notice. I can tell you that, across the 3,000 odd corporations, there are 17,649, in total, director positions. That doesn’t account for that some directors might sit on multiple corporations. Under the legislation, corporations can have up to 12 directors and over 12 requires an exemption to do so.  

Senator ROBERTS: Say that again about the exemption, please.  

Ms Stroud: To have fewer than three or over 12 directors on a board requires an exemption.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are overseen, helped or serviced by these boards?  

Ms Stroud: Sorry, I wouldn’t be in a position to answer that question. I can tell you that, of the just over 3,000 corporations, they are made up of just shy of 245,000 members, again, that’s not accounting for that some members might be members of multiple corporations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was that number again?  

Ms Stroud: It is 245,594, to be exact. Those 3,300 corporations, as I mentioned before, can be very small corporations with under $100,000 in assets or $100,000 in income through to large corporations. They do everything from cultural heritage protection to land and water management, schools, health services and other vital social services. I wouldn’t be in a position to even estimate the total reach of those services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and beneficiaries.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve mentioned that 2,940 are required to report, and 3,300 is the total number. So about 360 are not required to report.  

Ms Stroud: Eighty-eight per cent of corporations are required to lodge some form of annual report.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your concise and direct answers. Thank you for that. Why have these breaches occurred? I know for small corporations it’s probably lack of—well, you tell me.  

Ms Stroud: There are a number of reasons why corporations don’t lodge their annual reports. We encourage corporations, wherever possible, to reach out to us and let us know to help us understand the reason for it. It can be turnover in boards, difficulties of getting the services of auditors, disruptions in corporations or it can be just apathy and negligence of directors’ duties. Why we encourage corporations to reach out and let us know—and be on almost an update plan with us so that we can keep on top of when we can expect reports—is that we take that into consideration with our prosecution work. We have referred 60 corporations to CDPP for prosecution for failing to lodge reports. Twenty-seven corporations have been prosecuted. They are medium and large corporations, so, again, they’re corporations with over $100,000 annual revenue and those from which the public would rightfully expect a higher degree of accountability to their members and to their regulator and also to their funders. That’s why medium and large corporations are those which we refer for prosecution where they persistently fail to lodge reports for a couple of years. We now deregister corporations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What happens when they’re deregistered?  

Ms Stroud: If a corporation is deregistered, it no longer exists. There are challenges with deregistering corporations, particularly those that hold assets. There might be a corporation that holds assets but is ordinarily not conducting business and continually failing to lodge its reports. We’ve recently sought legal advice on alternative measures for those corporations, including winding up. We’ve also flagged to the public that, where a corporation continually fails to lodge its reports and has been subject to prosecution and still refuses, we will consider civil prosecution against individual directors.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the directors can be liable?  

Ms Stroud: It’s a lengthy and expensive exercise for ORIC to peruse civil litigation against directors that continually fail, hence why we flagged it in our recent regulatory posture. It’s done so because, where a corporation is prosecuted for failing to lodge its reports, it’s an offence of the corporation, and the corporation is what pays the fine if the court imposes one. Our intention now is that, where directors sit behind that, we will civilly pursue individual directors. I’ve also got with me Deputy Register Andrew Huey, who can help answer your questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any suggestion of fraud being involved or incompetence being involved, or is it just apathy? You mentioned apathy. What would be the defining characteristics?  

Ms Stroud: For the small corporations—again, that’s 84 per cent of corporations not lodging reports—I would say it is a capacity and capability issue, or challenge, and a degree of apathy around reporting. We have no evidence that there is an immediate and direct correlation between medium and large corporations failing to lodge their financial reports and evidence of fraud, noting that, when corporations do lodge their annual reports, a quality check by us has been done, directors have signed off on it and directors have done their declaration to accept responsibility for it. That is one way of identifying where there might be red flags. But, in the main, evidence of corruption, fraud, mismanagement or negligence of director duties or abuse of director duties comes through other avenues—through referrals, reports of concerns and complaints.  

Senator ROBERTS: Finally, apart from keeping track of it, what changes in oversight will you introduce to ensure the integrity of the management of these Indigenous corporations? Have you got an overall plan for raising the standards?  

Ms Stroud: We have refreshed our two-day guidance training. It’s for directors sitting. Current directors are given priority. Members and relevant staff can also attend the training, and we’ve also introduced a new one-day ‘understanding your finance’ training, which is designed for directors to understand how to read financials and have greater confidence in asking questions, knowing what to look for and holding their management staff accountable for financial reporting to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Building understanding to build confidence?  

Ms Stroud: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by

Australians Said No!

What we suspected all along about The Voice to Parliament …

When Australians rejected the Voice to Parliament, they were not saying ‘No’ to a single referendum question – it was ‘No’ to a broad activist ideology seeking to entrench racial privilege into democracy.

Australians were deeply offended by the push to create treaties between Australians.

They were horrified by the suggestion that taxation would become a matter of skin colour.

And they remain furious about efforts to erase Australian history and have ancestral stories brutalised by so-called ‘Truth-Telling’ commissions.

The experiences of our pioneers, convicts, and free settlers – the ancestors of so many Australians – have been deliberately and maliciously twisted with the full authority of state governments who see the past as a tool to implement vile racial movements which, ultimately, desire land and money that belong to all Australians.

Remember when ‘Yes’ proponents of the Voice promised their demands would be ‘mild’?

Racism is never mild. It is corrosive.

Western Australia has authorised an $85,000 per person ‘reconciliation payment’ for Aboriginal people. A payment that takes money off people who were never perpetrators and hands it to another group who were never victims.

This is not equality.

How many national parks, beaches, mountains, rivers, and forests have a racial lock on the gate?

We are seeing this in Victoria where the Jacinta Allan Labor government has ignored the voice of Victorians and pushed ahead with a Voice-like entity known as the First People’s Assembly – a body set up to negotiate a Treaty.

This month, the Yoorrook Justice Commission handed down 100 recommendations to the government, each more appalling than the last.

Many of these demand public money, resources, and power.

They ask that racial priority be given for housing, health, government contracts, and jobs. Widespread compensation, reparations, and tax relief is being sought for Aboriginals.

The recommendations are divisive and discriminatory suggesting that Aboriginal people should be treated differently from other Australians.

The Report says that the Victorian government must establish income streams based on land, water, and other natural resources to benefit self-determination and other First Peoples-led initiatives and to seek access to a portion of government revenues.

Victoria will soon have streets of families treated differently by the state government and local council based purely on how they look.

Living side-by-side, born under the same sun, and yet deemed unequal.

This is what people voted against.

One Nation does not support a bottomless money pit approach to perpetuate a victim mentality for Aboriginals and a permanent guilt trip to be imposed on the rest of Australia.

One Nation supports equitable access to all the benefits available to all Australians which should not discriminate based on a person’s race or faith.

We are all of One Nation.

Revealed! by Senator Malcolm Roberts

What we suspected all along about The Voice to Parliament

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by