During my second session with AHPRA, I asked their representatives about their neutrality, bureaucratic overreach and entanglement with radical ideological and political advocacy groups.
When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on whether AHPRA caseworkers even possess the basic competence to distinguish between a psychoanalytic view of psychosis and a genuine psychotic disorder, or whether they’re weaponising ignorance to take unwarranted action against doctors, he could not provide an answer and took it on notice.
More importantly, I am extremely concerned about AHPRA’s institutional alignment with politicised organisations such as ACON and its Pride in Diversity program, including their active membership and participation in the Australian Workplace Equality Index.
Despite admitting that no formal assessment has ever been conducted to evaluate whether these ideological partnerships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest, Mr Untersteiner hid behind procedural bureaucracy and evasive talking points.
When asked how AHPRA can possibly claim to be an independent, unbiased regulator while paying to participate in programs designed to push progressive inclusion agendas, they dodged my questions, basically admitting they have no defence for the exorbitant legal costs hardworking Australian doctors face when forced to defend themselves against unaccountable regulators.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to skip a lot of my questions, Mr Untersteiner, and go straight to general questions. Would an AHPRA caseworker understand if a doctor were referring to a psychoanalytic view of psychosis rather than a psychotic disorder?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If they don’t understand, are they in a position to take action against such a doctor?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Given Ahpra’s affiliation with the Rainbow Tick scheme and ACON, a high-profile gender identity organisation, how can a doctor be sure that AHPRA is neutral and not biased against them?
Mr Untersteiner: I go back to an earlier point that I made, which is that we regulate one million health practitioners, and those one million health practitioners will see many millions of Australians as well. We have a paramount responsibility of public protection within the legislation. In order for us to fulfil that duty, we need to be engaging with all sorts of communities to understand their experiences in the health system and to understand their experiences with the regulator as well, and so we meet with many different organisations, including Australian Disability Network, for instance, Diversity Council Australia and many, many others. I could go on. We also work with Pride in Diversity for the exact same reason.
Senator ROBERTS: Can AHPRA confirm all formal and informal relationships it maintains with ACON and its programs, including Pride in Diversity.
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is AHPRA currently a member of Pride in Diversity or participating in the Australian Workplace Equality Index?
Mr Untersteiner: We do have a membership with Pride in Diversity.
Senator ROBERTS: At what cost, and when did you join?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What due diligence was undertaken before entering into these relationships, particularly given ACON’s explicit advocacy role on gender identity policy?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest in its regulatory functions?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m confident that they aren’t creating any kind of conflict. Again, as I mentioned, we use a range of different partnerships and memberships to ensure that we’re hearing different voices from the community. At the end of the day, our regulatory role is founded in the legislation and in the codes of conduct. Again, I’m very comfortable that we fulfil that duty without a conflict of interest.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts?
Mr Untersteiner: No formal assessment.
Senator ROBERTS: How does AHPRA reconcile its statutory obligation to act as an independent regulator with participation in programs designed to influence institutional behaviour toward progressive inclusion strategies?
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I think I’ve answered that.
Senator ROBERTS: Not specifically.
Mr Untersteiner: Again, we apply legislation and codes of conduct in our investigations. To go further, ultimate decisions are made by professional boards under the legislation. Members of the professional boards are not employees of AHPRA. They are statutory appointees appointed by every state and territory health minister and the federal health minister, so they are independent of AHPRA in that sense. Again, there is an arm’s-length arrangement in decision-making. Beyond that, there is a right of appeal through to tribunals and even the higher courts. Again, there is a very robust regulatory and legislative framework that ensures that there isn’t a conflict of interest that occurs as a result of us listening to different members of the community to understand their experiences.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what it costs to go to court?
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to have to rotate the call. This is your last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA received advice, internal or external, on whether alignment with advocacy organisations risks regulatory capture or bias?
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you Mr Untersteiner.
Right now, the top brass in the Defence Force is avoiding responsibility, and the Labor government is letting them get away with it. Why hold a Royal Commission into veteran suicide or an inquiry into honours and awards if the government is just going to ignore the findings?
One Nation proudly stands with Senator Jacqui Lambie’s urgent motion.
We are calling on the government to hold the top brass accountable; adhere to legal and moral obligations to our ADF members; and ensure no ADF member is denied legal protections or access to justice just because they are serving overseas.
It’s time to end sexual discrimination and ensure every man and woman in uniform is protected under the law.
It’s time to fix this problem.
— March | Senate Speech
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator Lambie for moving this motion. The Australian Defence Force, as Senator Paterson has just said, protects us and it relies upon its people to do so, and we need to protect the Australian Defence Force people.
One Nation supports getting this on the record and noted urgently—urgently! I agree with Senator Gallagher; this place is a shambles, and the Labor government is making it even worse. Labor is destroying formal motions. We saw yesterday a stunt persecuting and denying Pauline Hanson justice that was cooked up days in advance. It was in the media. So, yes, we agree with you; this place is a shambles. The top brass in the Defence Force is avoiding responsibility and that is what Senator Lambie is after here.
Why have a royal commission into veteran suicide, why have an inquiry into honours and awards and just ignore both of them—ignore everything—and just let the top brass run? We need to hold the top brass accountable.
As I read this motion, Senator Lambie is calling the government to immediately abandon this position, adhere to its legal and moral obligations to ADF members and ensure that no ADF members are denied legal protections or access to justice because they were serving outside of the Australia at the direction of the Commonwealth. She just wants women to be protected. She wants all people in the Defence Force to be protected. The key issue here is sexual discrimination and an answer from the government to fix this problem regardless of whether it goes to court.
One Nation cannot support this bill in its current form. While we agree that Australians caught up in the Robodebt scandal deserve closure, this legislation fails to deliver justice and accountability.
The government’s amendment MM100 introduces Section 44A, giving bureaucrats the power to use AI to mine data, match records, and even issue debt notices — all without human oversight. This is Robodebt 2.0. The same flawed approach that caused harm, heartbreak, and even loss of life is being repeated. The Royal Commission exposed the dangers of automated debt recovery. Why would we allow it again?
On top of that, Schedule 5 was added after the committee stage with zero scrutiny. It could suspend benefits for people accused, yet not convicted, of crimes. That’s a denial of natural justice and a dangerous precedent. An accusation is not a conviction, and financial penalties before due process is unacceptable.
One Nation supports restoring the six-year debt recovery limit, but without proper safeguards and accountability, this bill is a recipe for disaster. We’re calling on the government to pull these last-minute inclusions or send the bill back for full scrutiny. Australians deserve fairness, not another robodebt scandal.
— Senate Speech | November 2025
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Minister, this bill includes provisions that have been introduced after the committee stage and, as such, have not been subjected to proper scrutiny. It’s true that those who were caught up in the robodebt scandal need closure. One way or another, they need closure. A line needs to be drawn under as many of these debts as possible. This bill as it is, however, fails to achieve that objective to One Nation’s standard.
I note that government amendment MM100 was passed this morning on the voices. I would like to ask Hansard to note One Nation’s opposition to that amendment, and here’s why: the amendment includes section 44A, which allows the government to use a computer program—in other words, AI, artificial intelligence—to mine data and match data and decide whether a debt occurs, and even to issue the debt notice. Are you kidding? This just restarts a robodebt type of debt recovery, but this time using AI. The fundamental problem still exists—data matching across systems with different software, different indexing and different ages that led to matching errors. The government has spent $2 billion trying to sort this mess out and has now pushed back the timeframe to complete the linking of government data back to 2028. We’ll get you. Why ask for these powers now when you have no ability to deliver? There’s no scrutiny and no guardrails; just do whatever the hell the secretary wants. This is a recipe for robodebt 2.
The government must be responsible, accountable and transparent. The failure of robodebt was to try to match data from incompatible computer systems, which led to innocent people being presented with a debt notice, and it led to inaccurate amounts being claimed. This resulted from the use of computer matching software. Amendment MM100 repeats that same mistake and will surely lead to the same outcome of substantial errors in data matching leading to erroneous debt collection. As the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found, people died as a result of these debt notices. Introducing a system that makes these notices, untouched by human hands, is not the answer. The answer is careful scrutiny.
One Nation cannot support this bill with section 44A included. Senator David Pocock introduced a perfectly logical amendment to pull schedule 5 from the bill. The schedule was introduced after the bill went to committee. It has not been properly scrutinised. The provisions of schedule 5 could be misused to suspend benefits for persons accused, but not convicted, of a crime. In particular, fathers accused of domestic violence will be robbed of their benefits—whether that is unemployment, parenting payment, rent allowance or whatever—placing them in a weakened position to defend those charges. This schedule is designed to encourage domestic violence allegations. This provision should be limited to persons who have been convicted, not accused, of a crime, even where an arrest warrant has been issued. An arrest warrant is not a conviction. It is the police saying the accusation is serious and the complainant may be in danger. Suspending their liberty via an arrest warrant is how this is dealt with, not levying a financial penalty by terminating their income before a conviction. Greens amendment (2) on sheet 3487 restores the six-year limit for debt collection. While One Nation would have gone with seven years to align with the tax law, I understand that the six-year limit restores a provision the Liberal-National government repealed in order to facilitate robodebt initially. Again, you’re bringing it all back. Without this provision, the government has unlimited recovery powers. It has gone back to 2004 in some cases. I understand they have gone back to last century. This is a denial of natural justice and administrative fairness. Who has the documents from that far back to challenge a notice? Make no mistake: these debt notices are guilty until proven innocent. One Nation will support the Greens amendment.
Without all of those amendments in place, One Nation cannot support this bill. We are happy to work with the government to clean the mess called robodebt and have the bill reintroduced next year with due scrutiny of the ramifications of using AI and with schedule 5 properly scrutinised. Minister, my question is: will you pull these last-minute inclusions out of the bill or send the bill back to a committee so that these last-minute inclusions can be properly scrutinised by the people’s representatives in this house?
In Senate Estimates, I raised the issue of transparency in government appointments. The Minister has made transparency one of the key drivers for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and I wanted to put that principle into practice. I asked the questions Australians deserve answers to—starting with the basics: what is the total remuneration package for this position? Mr Kaiser confirmed it’s approximately $930,000 per year, inclusive of superannuation, on a five-year contract.
I explored Mr Kaiser’s background. He previously served as Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet under Labor Premier Steven Miles. Before that, Mr Kaiser was State Secretary of the Queensland Labor Party and even a member of parliament for Labor. These are facts that matter because they speak to the culture of appointments in government. When the Prime Minister praises Mr Kaiser’s experience in delivering large-scale projects and managing energy infrastructure, Australians should know the full story behind that experience.
Finally, I asked why the government still hasn’t released its “jobs-for-mates” review, which was handed to them in 2023. This review was supposed to end the very culture that raises questions about appointments like this one.
I’ll keep pushing for answers because accountability matters. Australians deserve a public service that is impartial, frank, and fearless—not one that looks like a revolving door for political insiders.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this morning. Minister, firstly, congratulations to you. It’s a challenging appointment; Anthony Albanese must trust you quite a bit. Mr Kaiser, congratulations on your appointment to run the department.
Mr Kaiser: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to focus on the third driver of the minister’s drivers to the department, which is more transparency. What’s your total remuneration package for heading the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water?
Mr Kaiser: Approximately $930,000 per annum.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that in total, or does it include super and allowances? Is that everything in your package?
Mr Kaiser: That’s inclusive of super.
Senator ROBERTS:So your gross salary package is $930,000.
Mr Kaiser: Approximately.
Senator ROBERTS: How long is your contract for?
Mr Kaiser: Five years.
Senator ROBERTS: What was your last job?
Mr Kaiser: I was one of what we call directors-general. I was Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet.
Senator ROBERTS: And the premier was Steven Miles?
Mr Kaiser: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Which party was he in?
Mr Kaiser: The Labor Party.
Senator ROBERTS: He was unceremoniously tossed out of government by the Queensland voters, and it’s the federal Labor government now appointing you.
Mr Kaiser: I think my career CV is a matter of record. I was employed by the Queensland government until 24 October 2004, and I commenced work with the Commonwealth government as the secretary of this department on 14 July 2025.
Senator ROBERTS: At one stage, you were state secretary for the Queensland Labor Party; is that correct?
Mr Kaiser: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: And were you a member of the parliament for the Labor Party?
Mr Kaiser: I was a member of the Queensland parliament for a brief period of time, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What role did you have that earnt the Prime Minister’s praise? I can see that he has been very glowing in his praise: ‘Mr Kaiser’s experience includes delivering on large scale projects, administering complex regulatory regimes and leading the Queensland government’s policies on planning and infrastructure.’ What role did you have on climate and energy plans?
Mr Kaiser: As a Queensland public servant?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Kaiser: I headed the infrastructure department that had overall responsibility for the program management of the infrastructure that was publicly funded in Queensland and aspects of private sector infrastructure; that certainly included energy infrastructure, for example. I was the director-general of the local government department; I had a lot of interactions between local governments and energy providers and also those developing renewable energy projects. I’m trying to think of other touch points. Obviously, as the Director-General of the—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your being so forthcoming. Did that include any of the pumped hydro storage systems?
Senator Watt: Chair, can I just get a ruling? I think these are questions that go to matters in the Queensland government, and I would have thought today is more about asking questions about what’s happening in the federal government. So can we just get some guidance on whether these questions are in order?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll deal with that. I understand the point that you’re making, minister. I think it’s relevant to the qualifications of the department’s secretary for the purposes of corporate affairs. So, unless it strays very much further into the Queensland government, I think these questions are in order for now.
Mr Kaiser: In terms of the pumped hydro projects being worked on in Queensland at the time while I was a public servant, it was certainly Queensland government policy that pumped hydro projects be developed in Queensland and, as a public servant, I played my legitimate role in assisting the government to fulfil its policy objectives.
Senator ROBERTS: Did that include Borumba and Pioneer-Burdekin?
Mr Kaiser: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Kaiser, how many of the projects that you oversaw have been turned around by the latest government, the new government?
Mr Kaiser: I can’t answer that. As a public servant, I worked diligently to fulfil the policy objectives of the government that I worked for and not a subsequent government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why hasn’t the government released its jobs-for-mates review into Public Service appointments? Senator Gallagher said back in 2023, ‘This review is all about putting an end to the jobs- for-mates culture.’ It was handed to your government in 2023, yet you still keep it secret; why haven’t you commented on it?
Senator Watt: I don’t know about that. That’s not a matter involving this department, but the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Finance are happening over the course of the week.
Mr Kaiser: Senator, if I may, it would seem to me that your questions go to my political background. There is no doubt and it’s a matter of record that I have political involvement in my background. I can assure senators, my ministers and the Australian people that I’ve had no involvement in politics—I’ve held no political role—for 16 years. When I was involved in politics, the public servants whom I admired the most were the ones who provided frank, fearless and impartial advice, and that’s a value I hold dear now as I exercise my responsibility as a public servant.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll have to share the call. If you have further questions, please let me know. Senator Dean Smith.
I questioned the Department of Parliamentary Services about the concerning departure of former Secretary Rob Stefanic who I questioned over serious issue previously. The President confirmed he was terminated due to “lost trust and confidence” – but both the President and current Secretary Ms Hinchcliffe dodged questions about whether Mr Stefanic intercepted a public interest disclosure letter, potentially contradicting his court affidavit.
Even more troubling: 14 senior executives have left DPS in just three years. This follows my previous questioning about serious cultural issues within the department.
As your Senator, I remain committed to ensuring proper oversight of taxpayer-funded positions. The Australian public deserves full transparency about what occurred under Mr Stefanic’s leadership and exactly why he was asked to step down, especially given his $478,000 salary was funded by taxpayers.
I’ll continue pushing for accountability. If you’re a current or former DPS staffer with concerns, you can contact me confidentially at senator.roberts@aph.gov.au
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again. Ms Hinchcliffe, last November I asked you a series of questions, and you and your department have plain refused to answer the questions I’ve put to you. You’ve raised no public interest immunity claim. Ms Hinchcliffe, you are the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services. You cannot expect us to believe that you don’t know the proper process is to raise a public interest immunity claim, not simply flat-out refuse to answer questions. You know a public interest claim is the correct process, don’t you?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: The questions on notice that you’ve raised—and, I’m sorry, I need to find them—
Senator ROBERTS: Question 116.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: We have provided an answer to those questions and those answers have been submitted. I suspect what you’d like to say to me is that those answers are not the answers that you’re looking for and you’d like to press me in relation to those. But we have provided answers to those questions.
Senator ROBERTS: In question on notice 116, I asked you about your predecessor, Rob Stefanic, who
stepped down in absolute controversy, yet you still won’t explain why he stepped down. That’s the answer I’m looking for. Why did he step down?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: That’s not a question for me.
Senator ROBERTS: Who is it a question for?
The President: It’s a question for the presiding officer.
Senator ROBERTS: President, why did Rob Stefanic step down?
The President: I provided an opening statement at the last estimates, at which I said we had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether Rob Stefanic intercepted a letter of an employee making a public
interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit that he made in court. The answer to that question is contained in documents that you have access to, both of you.
The President: Do you mean me, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
The President: I don’t have access to those documents.
Senator ROBERTS: Who does?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure what documents you’re talking about. As I said to you at the last estimates that you raised these, these matters are matters that pre-date me. I don’t know what occurred. It seems to me that question, of what Mr Stefanic did, is a question for Mr Stefanic rather than a question for me.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s either you or the President, the presiding officer.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: In terms of Mr Stefanic’s actions?
Senator ROBERTS: Why Mr Stefanic stepped down.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: Sorry, what—
Senator ROBERTS: Why did Mr Stefanic step down?
The President: I’ve answered that question: because the presiding officers lost trust and confidence in the secretary.
Senator ROBERTS: Did he intercept a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, and did that not contradict an affidavit given in court? Did he or not?
The President: Who’s the question to, sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: You.
The President: I’ve indicated that those are proceedings I have no knowledge of and nothing to do with. That is not my role as the President.
Senator ROBERTS: Who would have knowledge of that?
The President: I have no idea, I’m very sorry. That’s not a question for me.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have knowledge of that, Ms Hinchcliffe?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I don’t, and I’ve said before that I don’t have knowledge of that.
Senator ROBERTS: So no-one knows why he stepped down.
The President: I’ve answered that question twice now, and I’ve answered it a third time. I made an opening statement at the last estimates at which I said the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the details around that, and was his intercepting of a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court, part of the reason for losing trust?
The President: I indicated in my opening statement that I was not able to provide any further information. The letter that you’ve talked about, I have absolutely no knowledge of at all. I know nothing about it.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that answers your question—in that it was not a relevant factor in losing confidence if the President didn’t know about it.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that we request. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. And both of you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or in producing documents to this committee. As I understand it, President, the default position of senators is that the Senate prevails. So unless you can come up with a public interest immunity, we are constitutionally empowered to fulfil our duty to taxpayers.
The President: I’ll re-table my statement from last time. I made it clear that the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in the secretary and that it was not able to discuss, at that point, further matters in relation to the secretary. In relation to the matter that you are raising, a legal matter, whether it was me as a presiding officer or the previous presiding officers, which is where I understand this matter has its genesis, none of us would have—it’s not our role as presidents to have that level of depth of knowledge about court proceedings or DPS operations. That is not the role of the presiding officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Who oversees that? Whose role is it? Surely there’s someone with that role?
The President: A court matter is a court matter. It’s nothing to do with the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Did he or did he not, and who would be aware of that? Surely, someone must be?
The President: Ms Hinchcliffe has answered the question to the best of her ability. I have indicated, on a number of occasions, it’s not my role as the President. I have no knowledge of the matters you’re raising. We have answered your questions. I don’t know what else I can do.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve got a new question.
The President: These are matters which go back to previous presiding officers and previous DPS executive officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic left a rotten legacy. I want to know whether or not he intercepted a letter to an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit he gave to court.
The President: Senator Roberts, I would hate for the DPS staff who are watching this to think that they are dirty and rotten. They are fine officers. They do an amazing job.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that.
The President: I think that’s what you’re implying. I took that as—
Senator ROBERTS: I said he left a rotten legacy.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, don’t speak over the President.
The President: I’m not making a comment about that. The Presiding Officers acted swiftly. We lost trust and confidence, and he was terminated. We acted very swiftly in filling the position with Ms Hinchcliffe, and what we hope and what we’re looking forward to and what is currently happening within DPS is that we are restoring trust and confidence within that department. That is our role.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again. He left a rotten legacy. Many of your fine employees have come to me telling me of that, and still they’re very concerned about the legacy he left—what he actually did. I will ask if you can take it on notice to find out whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court.
The President: I can’t take that on notice because it’s not my business.
Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t know, then tell me who does know. Who should that question—
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve already said to you that I don’t know that information and that the person who would know that information is Mr Stefanic.
The President: This is a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter. It was a court matter.
Senator ROBERTS: He was paid by taxpayers, as are we—all three of us. We all have a responsibility, don’t we, to taxpayers?
The President: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you disrespecting the Senate and the taxpayer in this?
The President: Senator Roberts, you are asking me about a court matter. If you ask me about a DPS matter, of course I will answer to the best of my ability, and it will be a truthful and transparent answer. I can’t comment in court matters. They’re not my purview. I am responsible for the running of Parliament House, DPS, the PBO and the Department of the Senate. That is the extent of my responsibilities.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking a simple question. Who is responsible? Who can I ask this question of?
The President: Ms Hinchcliffe just told you: the previous secretary. It’s his matter. It’s a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Someone oversaw it. He intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Surely that affects everyone, ultimately.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: Senator, I’ve answered your question. I don’t have any knowledge of this. The person who you would need to ask is Mr Stefanic. If you’re asking about his actions, you would need to ask him.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Hinchcliffe, your department and what you do is immune to freedom of information requests. The only chance the Australian taxpayers and the fine employees of DPS have to hold you and the department accountable for your conduct is through questions we, as senators, ask. I’ve asked you to provide answers, and you’ve point blank refused. How are you meant to be accountable and transparent if you don’t answer questions this senator puts to you?
The President: That characterisation is incorrect. The secretary has not refused. She has answered questions to the best of her ability. Both Ms Hinchcliffe and her staff are working very, very hard to restore trust and confidence not only within DPS but with all senators in this room. Of course we have a responsibility to answer your questions as they relate to DPS. This does not relate to DPS. It relates to a former secretary on a court matter. I can’t be any clearer on that.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but it still remains the fact that apparently he intercepted a letter of a DPS employee making a public interest disclosure. That must bother someone. Please, someone.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered the question about my knowledge of this matter and who you would need to ask about whether or not Mr Stefanic intercepted the letter. I don’t know the answer to that. You would need to ask him.
Senator ROBERTS: So there is no-one—
The President: I think the actions that the Presiding Officers took in terminating the previous secretary indicate that we are very concerned about DPS and its reputation, so to suggest that no-one cares is, again, an incorrect characterisation. We acted as swiftly as we could. The secretary was terminated. We’ve acted extremely quickly to replace him, and I am very optimistic that with the new leadership at DPS we have a very, very exciting future.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we will need to conclude. We may be here next week for you to continue
questioning.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I just have one more question?
CHAIR: One more, and then the coalition has the call.
Senator ROBERTS: It must bother your employees—taxpayer employees, whom you serve and for whom you are responsible—that someone wrote a letter and that letter was intercepted in making a public interest disclosure. Why does that not raise a simple answer in you to say, ‘I will find out’?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered your questions here today about my knowledge of this matter and about who you would need to ask about your suggestion that the secretary intercepted a letter. I’ve been very clear with this committee about my views on the use of taxpayers’ money: that everything that we do as a department is spending taxpayers’ money and we need to be very clear that we are getting value for money. You heard the conversation I just had with Senator Hume on that matter and the work that I’m doing to ensure that we are really clear in the department that we are spending taxpayers’ money wisely and well to support each of you in your business here in
parliament. That is what we are here to do.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve had 14 senior executive service staff leave their senior positions in the last three years. That tells me something.
The President: If I could state—I think it should be on the record—I think the matter you’re referring to is a matter that goes back to 2018.
Senator ROBERTS: And when did Mr Stefanic leave? When was he removed?
The President: In December.
Senator ROBERTS: Of 2024. That’s six years in which he was doing—
The President: But none of the officers at the table, including me, including the current government, had anything at all to do with this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: That speaks to low accountability in your predecessors.
The President: It’s seven years ago, Senator Roberts.
I had the pleasure of joining Laban Ditchburn on the Be Your Own Super Hero podcast! We delved into my current world perspective, offering straightforward explanations of both current and past Australian politics. Plus, I shared my tips on staying sane in a world that often feels completely at odds with common sense.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-12-29-201841.png?fit=793%2C444&ssl=1444793Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-13 17:45:002025-03-13 17:51:23Podcast: Become Your Own Super Hero
I had a fantastic time chatting with Brodie Buchal on The Right Side Show! We dove into a range of topics, from Australian politics to the heated debate over the Under 16’s social media ban bill. We also tackled the lack of accountability in government processes and so much more.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-12-29-200244.png?fit=861%2C483&ssl=1483861Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-29 20:05:422024-12-29 20:05:44Podcast: The Right Side Show
Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, Labor is using every trick to keep Australians in the dark about their decisions. After 18 months of delays, Labor are protecting their mates while blocking Senate oversight on lobbying done by CBUS Super. The connections between CBUS Super and Labor run deep, with former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan now chairing CBUS.
Despite ordering the government to hand them over, these documents were only unveiled through a separate Freedom of Information claim decided by an independent commissioner.
So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese government.
Transcript
Here we are this morning in the house of review, and we hear cloaks of cover-up from the Labor Party when we’re trying to do our job. Labor responds, first of all, to Senator Bragg by hiding behind the gender argument. What that’s got to do with this is beyond us. Then Senator Walsh cloaks it as an attack from the coalition on super. How is making sure that we have probity on superannuation funds an attack on super? It’s protecting superannuation. Senator Bragg is just doing his job, as am I as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. We need questions answered.
The Labor Party’s defence this morning has not focused on Senator Bragg’s comments; it has focused on furphies and distractions, which are condemning the Labor Party. I’ve had the comedy of watching Senator Ayres respond twice in the last two weeks of sittings in this Senate—10 minutes each time of just nonsense, misrepresentations and labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the stupid, the dishonest and the fearful—no response based on fact. Instead we have distortions and labels.
To recall what Senator Bragg talked about, he wanted to know why the Treasurer told the Senate mistruths and false statements. That’s it. My question now is: why is the Labor Party trying to dodge and divert from that? We have a document from Cbus to the Treasurer. Cbus objected. Is Cbus running the country? They’re claiming commercial in confidence for not giving Senator Bragg the documents, while giving Mr Bragg the documents. What are they hiding by hiding behind commercial in confidence? It’s taken 18 months to get documents in this house of review—18 months. He had to use alternative channels as well. Labor’s behaviour in response to Senator Bragg is now rising to one of contempt—holding the Senate in contempt.
This is the way Cbus treats its members—hiding. This is the way this government treats the people of Australia—hiding. The government is protecting the CFMEU and Cbus. The government is doing more than just protecting it on superannuation. The government is protecting the CFMEU in Australia’s biggest wage theft case. The Senate has instructed the workplace relations minister to do an investigation into wage theft involving thousands of miners from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, up to a $211,000 claim from one person. It’s over a billion dollars in total, we believe, with miners being owed on average up to $41,000 per year of work. The Labor Party are burying it, hiding it, not doing what the Senate is telling them. Then we’ve got CFMEU directors involved in Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services and coal long service leave, and they’re all protecting each other and protecting the CFMEU.
My position on super, just so the Labor Party is clear, is that I believe people should have a choice—to access their money or to have it in a super fund that is also of their choice.
My last point is that I proposed a fair way of adjudicating these matters of withholding documents due to commercial in confidence and public indemnity. That has been rejected. That is still available. I also make the point that the Labor Party, as I disclosed last night, has almost a million dollars in donations for the last election from big pharma, and it is hiding, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the contracts from the people who paid $18 billion for COVID injections. That’s what we want. It’s hiding tens of thousands of homicides.
Confidence in Labor is plummeting. Support for Labor is plummeting. The truth has vanished, and that’s the reason you’re losing the confidence and support of the Australian people.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lSViqRvaiF4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-19 10:17:352024-12-19 10:31:52Superannuation Bosses Team Up With Labor to Hide Dodgy Deals
As we head into another election season, Australia’s trust in politicians is at rock bottom. It’s no surprise people feel betrayed by endless promises from the major parties that are never carried out.
A recent Roy Morgan survey reflects the truth — Australians believe in straightforward, principle-driven politics, and they recognize these values in One Nation.
It’s time for politicians to be accountable, communicate openly, and restore faith in our democratic process. One Nation stands firm against the censorship bill— because free speech and public debate are vital for democracy.
Transcript
Ask anyone in the real world what they think of politicians, and the answer is, ‘I don’t trust the bastards.’ And why should they? We’re again about to enter an election season where the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties will make endless promises about things they will never do. If you lie to the people, they won’t trust you, and Liberal, Labor and the Greens have done plenty of lying. It’s telling that in this chamber we can’t call out a lie. I can say that the Labor Party lies, that the Liberal Party lies and that the Greens party lies, yet I can’t say a particular senator has lied in a debate. That’s unparliamentary. Well, Australians are listening to this discussion live right now, and tens of thousands more will listen later on social media. Listening to the comments, Australians think the never-ending lies are what’s unparliamentary.
Teenagers make a lot of those social media comments, and teens certainly are not fans of the government. The memes that teenagers come up with in picking apart the government are as funny as they are cutting. Has Prime Minister Anthony Albanese started reading the comments on social media? Is that why he’s trying to get teenagers banned from social media?
Eighty-nine per cent of Australians agree most politicians will lie if they feel the truth will hurt them politically. The Australian people aren’t morons, and they aren’t just seeing things. Many politicians do lie, and they lie all the time. That’s not how it should be. It’s not what I believe in. Ministers stand up in this place and avoid answering simple, direct questions. They give themselves a pat on the back and cheer themselves, thinking they’re so clever for not giving an answer. Well, ministers, out in the real world, no-one believes the spin and the lies. They can see through the distractions and smears from ministers—for example, Ministers Watt and Ayres. People are laughing at and ridiculing you. Ninety-four per cent of surveyed respondents believe that a politician who is caught lying to the Australian people should resign their position. Liars are destroying trust in the democratic process and parliament. This place should deserve respect and trust as a gathering of representatives of the people. Every dishonest answer is a chip away from the health of our country.
So I say to the other parties: the proof is in the data, and the solutions are obvious from the data. On 18 October, the Courier-Mail in Queensland reported the Roy Morgan survey on political trust. They surveyed the number of people who trusted and distrusted four of the largest parties and looked at the difference to get a net figure. Have a listen to these figures: net trust for the LNP, minus 12 per cent; net trust for the Greens, minus 13 per cent; net trust for the Labor Party, minus 17 per cent. Guess which is the only party with a net positive trust rating? One Nation. It turns out that, if you have principles and you say what you mean, people trust you. Many people agree with what One Nation says. Some people don’t agree, yet everyone knows where we stand.
If politicians stuck to their guns as Pauline Hanson does and if they listened to the people and stood up and said, ‘This is what I believe in, and I can’t be changed,’ no matter what side of politics you’re on, our country would be in a better place. No matter how embarrassing they are in the short term, honest answers are better for politicians and for the country in the long term. What will it take for politicians from the major parties to understand this? The Australian people are not mugs. They can make up their own minds, and they sure know when you are lying, so it’s time to stop lying.
The misinformation bill treats people as if they’re all idiots who can’t be trusted with the facts. There’s nothing more damaging to trust and integrity than censorship. Australia doesn’t trust them, so the question immediately becomes: what are the Liberals, Labor and the Greens hiding? The answer is everything, because you stand for nothing. That’s why One Nation will move a motion asking the Senate to throw out the misinformation and disinformation bill this Monday. I’ll say that again. This Monday, One Nation will be moving a motion asking the Senate to throw out the misinformation and disinformation bill—the mad bill, the censorship bill, the one that doesn’t trust the people. To restore trust in politics, politicians must be trustworthy. No-one who seeks to censor the opinions of Australians deserves their trust. While Labor pushes for a censorship regime under the excuse that it’s about protecting your safety, One Nation pushes for you to be allowed to see the true facts and make up your own mind. There is nothing better for getting to the truth and being the arbiter of truth than free, open, public debate. Why do you not like free, open, public debate?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): The time for this discussion has expired.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/sd92VsBRd3w/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-21 12:15:002024-11-21 13:26:35It’s Time for Accountability, Transparency and Restoring Trust
If you haven’t voted yet, save paper and get your One Nation ‘how to vote’ suggestions straight to your email or phone.
Copy the link to your browser or open the link: 
Type in your address or select your electorate if known.
Find Locations | Your ‘how to vote’ will appear on the screen, along with pre-poll and election day voting centres.
Type in your first name and email address or mobile phone number.
The ‘how to vote’ will be sent to you exactly as you would receive it at polling booths.
