During this Estimates session, I questioned why the National Australia Day Council’s website and their 2024-25 report seem to treat our flag as an afterthought. The report is full of glossy photos, yet the Australian flag is almost entirely absent, appearing only incidentally.
Is this a government directive to ignore our flag, or is the Council doing this on its own?
I noted that there has been a massive 120% increase in the Council’s grant budget, jumping from $4.5 million to $10 million. While the government claims this supports local events, I pointed out that this funding is being directed toward “reflective” activities like truth-telling workshops and smoking ceremonies.
I expressed concern that major events, such as the flag-raising in Sydney, emphasise Indigenous flags while the presence of the Australian flag remains unclear or secondary.
I confronted Minister Wong directly on whether the ALP government has “declared war” on our Western heritage. I wanted to know if this administration is ashamed of our history, as their actions suggest a move away from the traditional celebration of our nation.
The government’s response was to hide behind the “independence” of the Council, though they admitted to supporting these funding shifts.
I asked if they were ashamed of our heritage and the Minister responded with a simple “no,” – however their actions on the ground tell a different story.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
CHAIR: We are now going to rotate the call. I will go to Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending again. Good afternoon. Minister, national identity is important. I’m sure you’d agree. It’s one of the core issues for any country: national identity. Could you please explain why the website for the National Australia Day Council does not show the Australian flag? Does the government or the Prime Minister believe the Australian flag is not appropriate to the celebration of Australia Day?
Senator Wong: Which website, sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: The National Australia Day Council.
Senator Wong: I think they appear separately, Senator. I’m not trying to be difficult.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but you’re overseeing them.
Senator Wong: Am I?
Senator ROBERTS: Your government is.
CHAIR: I don’t believe they’ve been requesting the Australian flag.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what the government’s attitude is.
Mr Walter: Senator, the National Australia Day Council is a Commonwealth company, and they make their own decisions about their website. I haven’t looked at their website recently, but I can do that. But they’re an independent body. There’s an independent council that’s appointed that manages the secretariat and the company, so those decisions are a matter for it.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. The 2024-25 report by the National Australia Day Council has lots of glossy pages full of photos of the world that matters to them. No Australian flags are treated as a photo illustration. Three are seen in incidental shots. Is the National Australia Day Council acting on a government instruction to ignore that we have a national flag, or are they doing so on their own initiative?
Mr Walter: As I said, Senator, the National Australia Day Council is a company. It’s an independent company set up under Commonwealth company legislation. It makes its own decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand the National Australia Day Council budget for grants has risen from $4½ million in 2025, last year, to $10 million in 2026—a 120 per cent increase, more than double. This covers 849 grants in the amounts of $2,000 and 869 grants of $10,000 for larger events and a special rate for Aboriginal groups of up to $15,000. Are you aware, is this correct and do you condone it?
Mr Walter: The government absolutely supports the grants process. Funding has been provided over many years for a grants program for the National Australia Day Council. What those grants are used for is to host Australia Day events. That’s the purpose of the grants. They’re provided largely to local government instrumentalities to support their holding of Australia Day functions—functions in support of Australia Day. So, yes, the government does support that program.
Senator ROBERTS: This funding included funding for smoking ceremonies, truth-telling workshops and cultural performances and multicultural events. Direct National Australia Day Council examples include capital city events like Sydney’s flag-raising with Indigenous flags. Did those flag-raising events include the Australian flag?
Mr Walter: I’d have to take that on notice. I assume so, but I would have to take it on notice. I didn’t attend the events, but I would presume they did, yes. They’re for Australia Day.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question on this topic before switching briefly. I understand Minister Gorman required the National Australia Day Council to conduct these events—Minister Gorman; that’s my understanding—which he calls reflective. Minister, has the ALP government declared war on our Western heritage and flag? Are you, as a government, ashamed of our heritage?
I raised with Creative Australia the “rumoured” $800,000 grant to Sara M. Saleh. While the CEO, Mr. Collette, could not confirm this specific figure, he did clarify that artist Khaled Sabsabi, whose political views have been a point of contention, has received over $800,000 from the agency over the last 20 years, including his current representation of Australia at the Venice Biennale.
I questioned why a commercial entity like APRA, with record revenues of $740 million, requires $4.3 million in taxpayer-funded grants. This raises the question: should public money subsidise the talent development of a profitable private firm? We must ask if these funds are supporting growth or simply replacing private capital.
I also sought clarity on the accounting for Aboriginal arts programs. It was confirmed that approximately $32.1 million is dedicated to First Nations creative practice out of a total grant pool of $285 million.
Several questions have been put on notice. I will wait for the exact figures on overseas spending, recent grants to Mr. Sabsabi, and the specific KPIs from their annual report to ensure that “investment” isn’t just a buzzword for unchecked spending.
My focus remains on ensuring that government funding serves the Australian public effectively and stays clear of political extremism.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My first question is on behalf of a constituent, who provided it, actually. It is a fact check on social media reports that Sara M Saleh, a Palestinian Australian writer, activist and human rights lawyer, has received an $800,000 grant from Creative Australia. We can’t find anything on your website, and it’s a larger grant than usual. Do you have any information on this?
Mr Collette: I don’t have specific information. If you let me speculate for one moment, I think that, if it were a grant of that size, I would be aware of it. But we will have to take that on notice to check it.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.
Mr Collette: You have to remember that we give about 3,700 grants and contracts a year.
Senator ROBERTS: In reviewing your grants, we can see a lot that appear to be for the purpose of sending Australians overseas. My question is not criticism at this point. Please explain how much was spent sending artists or students overseas and what the cost benefit for taxpayers was.
Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice and get you the final figure. But, yes, we do invest in programs to send artists overseas. That is done for the best possible reasons: to support their careers and to make sure that great Australian storytelling and music making are experienced overseas. I’d ask you to keep this in mind, particularly in the fields of literature and contemporary music: we are a relatively small English-speaking market competing increasingly against very large English-speaking markets. Since the establishment of Revive, in particular, we’ve doubled down on supporting Australian artists to establish their careers overseas. We are at a particular moment now in contemporary music, for example, where we find that Australians have never listened to more music, because of streaming services, but that the Australian artists they are listening to constitute only about eight per cent of that. So we have a big challenge ahead of us. The way we are working in contemporary music, in particular, is through matched and incentive grants, which I think is a great development in Creative Australia. We have a very strong eye on export. We will co-invest in an artist and a career with a record label with other forms of matched funding that are trying to break this artist overseas.
Senator ROBERTS: Khaled Sabsabi and his extremist political views have been an issue for Creative Australia. First, he was our Venice Biennale selection, then he wasn’t, then he is again—perhaps—then he had a large grant, then it was a $100,000 ‘sorry’ grant. Can you provide us the latest on Khaled Sabsabi, please? What sort of money is he being given? Is he representing us in any way?
Mr Collette: He’s representing us, I’m very pleased to say, at the Venice Biennale, which opens in May this year. You’re aware of the history. We recommissioned Khaled Sabsabi as the artist and Michael Dagostino as his curator. We have worked very closely, as we do with all our Venice artists, to support the development of their work.
Senator ROBERTS: How much money has he received from Creative Australia?
Mr Collette: All up, we believe he’s received slightly in excess of $800,000 over a 20-year period. That includes his commissions for Venice.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the last 12 months?
Mr Collette: In the last 12 months he’s received—I’m trying to get the dates right in my head—his commission for Venice and he’s also applied for, competitively, and received a grant. Actually, more accurately, I think the South Australian gallery did to ensure that the work he does in Venice is able to be brought home so that Australians get to enjoy the work as well.
Senator ROBERTS: What would that total in the last 12 months?
Mr Collette: To get you an exact number, I’d have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Moving on, I note your continued strong spending on orchestras, theatre and dance. Thank you for that. This question goes to accounting, not to Australian values. You list the Australian Cultural Fund at $13.5 million, which includes several programs for First Nations. Then you have a line item for First Nations of $15.6 million. Is this figure the total spend for dedicated First Nations and Aboriginal arts programs or just an element of it? If not, what was the total spend on Aboriginal grants?
Mr Collette: We can get you that number. I think the number you are alluding to—the $15 million—under Revive we established a dedicated First Nations fund with its own First Nations board that has decision-making rights over the spending of those funds.
Senator ROBERTS: So you give money to the board and they disburse it?
Mr Collette: Yes. We had that fund, and the First Nations board, appointed by the minister, has decision making rights on how that fund is invested. What I’m trying to get for you is the total—I think the total for 2024- 25 invested in First Nation creative practice and arts was $32.1 million.
Senator ROBERTS: To give the figure context, for those new to the subject, this is out of a total spent on grants of $285 million—correct?
Mr Collette: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: And about $74 million for orchestras, including regional.
Mr Collette: As a part of the creative sector, the orchestras constitute our biggest area of funding. That is as part of the National Partnership Framework. Importantly, that is an understanding of co-investment with all the states and territories as well. We fund each of the state orchestras, plus the territory orchestras. We co-invest with the states.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I note that the Australasian Performing Right Association, APRA, has received around $4.3 million in grants in the last three years. APRA had record revenue last year of $740 million, with revenue noticeably outpacing inflation. Isn’t it their job to develop local talent and then benefit from increased Australian airplay and the royalties they collect from their talent? They have a great business model here, it seems. Why are taxpayers funding a commercial operation that should be funding new talent themselves?
Mr Collette: They do indirectly fund new talent, because their business collects receipts for—
Senator ROBERTS: So why should you be funding it?
Mr Collette: Well, the most particular thing we do with APRA is fund Sounds Australia. That is an organisation that we have funded historically, and we chose to continue that funding, even after the establishment of Music Australia, because it is such an effective way of supporting Australian artists to get to and benefit from overseas markets.
Senator ROBERTS: But can’t the Australasian Performing Right Association—which are a commercial entity, by the sound of it—do it on their own? They’re developing the talent and they’re making money off it.
Mr Collette: You’ll have to ask them that question.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re giving them money, so you—
Mr Collette: We’re giving them money because we think it is very good value for money, given the expertise they bring to supporting Australian artists to get to overseas markets.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you replacing private funding with government funding?
Mr Collette: Not at all. In fact, it’s growing, I’m happy to say. To get back to first principles, under Revive, our revised legislation allowed us, really for the first time, to co-invest. That means co-invest with philanthropic interests. It means co-invest with commercial interests. That is why, for example, if we want to invest in Australian artists getting overseas, we can ensure that we are co-investing with commercial interests to try and drive the value of our government funding further.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. There are only a few more quick questions to go. Doesn’t the music industry need more live venues? Have you done any grants in that area?
Mr Collette: I don’t think we’ve done any grants specifically into live venues, no.
Senator ROBERTS: You call these grants ‘investments’, yet we don’t see any mention of a return on investment—how Australia benefited from the spend. How many people attended events that you funded?
Mr Collette: We do have that number. I will get it to you. In the last annual report it was upwards of $14 million.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question: do you have any performance metrics to ensure that you are spending where the public want it spent, as evidenced by ticket sales, artwork sales—some tangible KPI?
Mr Collette: Yes, we do. If you look at our annual report, we report against KPIs, and attendance at the events we fund is very much part of that. Again, because of Revive, we will be putting an even greater emphasis on audience and market development going forward.
Senator ROBERTS: Where can we get that figure?
Mr Collette: We can get it for you. It is in the annual report last published.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/osyruYyYqYI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-07 13:08:372026-05-07 13:08:40Political Extremism and the Public Purse
Premier Malinauskas is wasting taxpayers’ money in the name of woke politics. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is now costing $3.2 billion, yet it has fewer services than the new Tweed Valley Hospital in NSW, which only cost $720 million — in part owing to its grandiose design over actual function.
More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen-powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind — with hydrogen as a backup — could provide baseload power. That is $580 million wasted.
More “woke” can be found in Premier Malinauskas’s decision to legislate an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, despite South Australians voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters; in fact, he has treated them with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. The $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke virtue signaling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes.
For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, then switched back again. Now, voters finally have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger, and more professional than it has been in any previous election.
We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Vote One Nation.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate their vote between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, and then back again. Now, though, finally, voters have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger and more professional than it has been in any previous election. We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Supporting One Nation is not voting against two parties, Liberal and Labor; it’s voting against one—the uniparty.
Sixty years of their failure have decimated our standard of living and made all except the government class poorer, less happy and less healthy than they were even just 10 years ago—a loss of wealth that’s even worse for Australians under 35, who are the first generation that will have less than their parents. The median income in South Australia, inflation adjusted, has risen from $1,290 per week in 2022 to just $1,300 this year. In other words, wages have gone nowhere under the Malinauskas Labor government. In that same time, the median rental in South Australia has risen from $480 a week to $630 a week. That’s 10 bucks more a week coming in to pay 150 bucks extra in rent. South Australians are going backwards. Great job, Premier!
When I came to Canberra 10 years ago, I was told a joke that was more of an observation. The Liberal Party, I was told, run Canberra for the benefit of their wealthy owners. The Labor Party run government for the benefit of union bosses. The Nationals run government for the benefit of themselves, and the Greens can’t govern at all.
To be clear, there are good union officials and there are good unions that are run for the benefit of their members. The Red Union is a great example of an old-fashioned union that just gets on with the business of looking out for its members. One Nation will have to prise South Australia out of the hands of Labor’s union mafia and woke climate change agenda zealots.
To illustrate this point, let’s compare the new Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital with the recently completed Tweed Valley Hospital, in New South Wales. Tweed has 430 beds. Adelaide has 410 beds—almost the same. Emergency departments and operating theatres are the same. Maternity services are the same, although Adelaide has 70 parental units. Tweed has oncology, renal, mental health and outpatient physical therapy. Adelaide has none of these. Tweed was built in under five years. Adelaide is two years into a build scheduled to finish in 2031—seven years, hopefully. Tweed Valley Hospital cost $730 million. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is at $3.2 billion, and further increases are expected.
The Adelaide hospital is larger as a building and more grandiose, despite providing fewer services. At $3.2 billion, the Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is what happens when woke is combined with political ego. The Malinauskas government has wasted more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money, which keeps CFMEU union bosses happy—stealing from taxpayers.
More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind with hydrogen as a backup could provide base-load power—$580 million wasted. Only coal, nuclear and hydro can provide cheap, stable base-load power, and that’s exactly what One Nation will build.
More woke can be found in the decision of Premier Malinauskas to legislate an Aboriginal voice to parliament despite South Australia voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters in the Voice referendum. In fact, he’s treated voters with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. That’s the difference between One Nation and the Labor Party. We listen to the people. Labor treats you with contempt. In reality, the $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke, virtue signalling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes. The Premier has misread the room badly.
Far from bringing chaos to parliament, as Ashton Hurn and the Liberals said last night, One Nation, if elected in South Australia, will bring honesty and authenticity, just as we have at a federal level now for nine years—a decade—and just as Pauline Hanson has done for 30 years. We will decide policies through the consideration of facts, not feelings. We will be a woke-free government of real people dedicated to doing what’s right for South Australians. I ask South Australian voters to choose a new path this election. Choose One Nation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/A2nhx_uQMiY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-19 16:25:202026-03-19 16:25:30Beyond Labor and Liberal
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/XteFhlSW_cM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-30 10:08:472025-12-30 10:08:50Setting the Record Straight on Indigenous Procurement
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?
From 2GB: One Nation has staged a protest against Welcome to Country. Party members turned their backs during the ceremony.
Listen to the full chat below:
Transcript
Ben Fordham: There’s been some tense scenes on the first day of federal parliament. One Nation has staged a silent protest during a welcome/acknowledgement in the Senate involving Indigenous Australians. Pauline Hanson and three of her party colleagues turned their backs and the One Nation leader says – our whole team has made it clear, we’ve had enough of being told we don’t belong in our own country. Now it’s not the first time Pauline has done this but it is the first time her long time colleague Malcolm Roberts has decided to take part and he’s on the line right now. Malcolm Roberts, good morning to you.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Good morning Ben. How are things?
Ben Fordham: Pretty good. Thank you so much for joining us. So, why did you join in with the protest yesterday?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Well our constituents Ben, across Australia have had a gutful. They’ve had enough of being welcomed to their own country and secondly and very importantly, we care for Aboriginals and what’s happening with these token services, token ceremonies is that they’re ignoring the real plight of Aboriginals which is real and we care about that. And we just listen to our constituents and our constituents have said both those messages.
Ben Fordham: Any reactions from some of your parliamentary colleagues in there? From the other parties?
Malcolm ROBERTS: No. No, not at all. They probably didn’t even realise it had happened.
Ben Fordham: I reckon there is a time and a place for these things and if there was a time and if there was a place it would be on the opening day of parliament, but you’ve obviously got a stronger view than me. You don’t think there’s any time, any place to have an Indigenous acknowledgement?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Not an acknowledgement of country Ben. I went to Yarralumba, the Governor-General’s residence on Sunday for a family day and we got a lecture, the Governor-General handed it over to the Indigenous – the aboriginal person and we got a lecture for ten minutes and the fact is that our sovereignty, there was never any sovereignty that had to be ceded. And then on Tuesday, we got four times a welcome to country or acknowledgement of country. The Ecumenical Church Service in the church started with that acknowledgement of country and then we had a welcome to country event and then we had the Governor-General opening parliament giving a welcoming ceremony and then we had the start of the Senate and that’s when we said “that’s enough, that’s it, we’ve had enough” and the President was appointed and she started the Senate with a welcome to country or acknowledgement of country. And Ben it gets ridiculous. I was at a conference in Mackay in Central Queensland and we had a speaker on a video tele-conference – she gave an acknowledge to the people of Canberra and to the people of Mackay. I mean this is crazy!
Ben Fordham: We revealed just on Monday that a daycare centre in Sydney where toddlers are being told they have to do a acknowledgement or a welcome at the start of the day.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah it’s just – it perpetuates division and diverts the real care away from needy and deserving aboriginals Ben. But it also fractures and indoctrinates people. There’s plenty to celebrate in every culture but we don’t have to be welcomed to our own country every day and especially in Kindy. Come on!
Ben Fordham: Is this something that you’re going to be doing again in the future?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes. Every day.
Ben Fordham: What, do they do it every day though? Is there a welcome or acknowledgement at the start of every day?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes, there is. In the Senate …
Ben Fordham: Every day?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Every day, mate. That’s what I’m talking about. Every day. It start with an acknowledgement to country and then we go onto the prayers. And then we get on with business. So, it’s not needed. We’ve got three flags in the Senate …
Ben Fordham: So there were calls about a year or so ago for people to boo during welcome to country ceremonies at the AFL and I came out at the time and said absolutely not. I mean you’ve got to think about the poor person whose been given the responsibility of getting up there and doing the welcome. It’s not their call that they’re doing it and it’s not fair to do that to people so this is a silent protest and Malcolm Roberts is saying that they do the acknowledgment at the start of every single sitting day and that’s what we’re talking about when we’re saying this is overdone, it’s an overload, which is why some people are saying “enough is enough”.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/522205785_1351917766502774_40356281373863499_n.jpg?fit=512%2C640&ssl=1640512Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-24 10:41:142025-07-24 11:49:02One Nation Turns Its Back on ‘Welcome to Country’
I travelled to Alice Springs to talk about actually supporting Australians in remote communities, not dividing us on race like the PM tried to do with his voice referendum.
One Nation will abolish the racially divisive indigenous departments that costs tens of billions a year and hasn’t closed the gap one bit.
Here’s what we’ll do instead.
The Northern Rail link is a 3,000 km proposal across the entire top of Australia.
The important part for remote communities is what will run right next door to that rail line: high speed internet, electricity and a water pipeline.
Those three essential utilities will allow us to turbocharge central Australia, for everyone who lives remotely.
Instead of handouts – One Nation will build real infrastructure that will allow remote Australia to make themselves richer. The best form of welfare is a job – we’ll build the infrastructure to create those jobs in rural Australia, based on need not race.
This is how you close the gap. It’s what One Nation has always said – treat people based on need not race.
When that happens fundamental needs come out. For people to have purpose they need to be able to contribute and hold a job. For a job you need industry and industry needs basic things: power, water and internet.
The 3,000km Northern Rail link sometimes referred to as the Iron Boomerang would bring all of these fundamental things and allow remote communities to thrive like never before.
This is what is possible when we address needs instead of separating people based on race.
At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired about the recent turmoil at the Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Authority (NAAJA), which has seen six CEOs appointed over a two-year period. One of the CEOs was found by the Federal Court to have been unfairly dismissed and chronic staff shortages have led to the suspension of legal representation, leaving approximately 75 Aboriginal individuals unrepresented in court. I questioned how someone with a history of domestic violence could be appointed Chairman of the Board and still remain a Director of the agency. The answer – this individual was elected by the other Directors.
Currently, a grant controller has been appointed to oversee the funds being given to the NAAJA to ensure they are spent appropriately. The grant controller is part of an external firm, adding another layer of bureaucracy to prevent misuse. Refunds of unspent funds are under review and an audit decision is expected by late November. A new Annual General Meeting (AGM) is scheduled for later this year. I asked why the government opposes full audits. Senator McCarthy denied any misuse of funds, though community members claim that money is not reaching the grassroots level. Performance audits will be provided to me on notice.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I have questions on the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. Does someone need to come up for that?
Ms Broun: Senator, we have got NIAA and Attorney-General’s Department.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know who to address this to.
Ms Broun: This is Attorney-General’s.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’m told the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory’s largest Aboriginal legal service, has been in turmoil in recent years. Since late 2022 there have been six CEOs appointed to the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. That’s in just two years. Its long-standing CEO, Ms Priscilla Atkins, was controversially sacked in February 2023, and she was found in June 2024 by the federal court to have been unfairly dismissed. The agency has suffered a chronic shortage of lawyers and other staff, leading to a suspension of the provision of legal services and almost 75 Aboriginal clients not being represented in court during the staff shortage. They are the figures I have. Minister, is Mr Hugh Woodbury, former CEO and domestic violence perpetrator, still a director of the board of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency?
Senator McCarthy: Yes, he is. We were asked these questions earlier today—just to let you know.
Senator ROBERTS: How is this man able to be appointed the CEO with such a history, given the prevalence of domestic violence as an issue within the Aboriginal community? We’ve seen Senator Cox and Senator Nampijinpa Price both raising this issue.
Mr Worth: Senator, it is for the membership of NAAJA to appoint board members under their constitution. They are an ASIC organisation registered with the ACNC. The appointment of Mr Woodbury to chair that board was made by the board without the knowledge or permission sought by the NIAA. Subsequent to that, Mr Woodbury has resigned as chairman of the board. He remains as a director of NAAJA as is allowed under the terms of the regulator for that organisation, being the ACNC, under the terms of the Commonwealth’s funding agreement. Given that Mr Woodbury is not directly involved in the management or service delivery in his capacity as a non-executive director, consent from NAAJA is not required from the Commonwealth for him to hold that position.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it seems pretty unusual for us to be asking the taxpayers of Australia to be giving money to such an entity. What is the state of Commonwealth funding to the agency? There’s been talk of refunds, stopping money, audit and misspent money.
Mr Worth: Since December last year the NIAA has had in place a grant controller managing the funding provided by the NIAA to NAAJA. Under the scope of that arrangement the grant controller reviews the expenditure from NAAJA in relation to those funded programs. When they are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been provided, they release funds to NAAJA. So it’s tightly controlled. All of the standard performance management and performance reporting requirements that exist within our contracts continue. So, again, they need to be meeting both the performance standards and requirements of the contract as well as having the additional scrutiny provided by the grant controller to ensure that there’s clear alignment between the expenditure and the funds that have been provided.
Senator ROBERTS: I missed the earlier part of your answer; I was looking down here. Where does the grant controller, the grant manager, fit in the scheme of things, in the hierarchy?
Mr Worth: The grant controller is an external firm that’s been appointed to manage those funds. They act on behalf of the NIAA, but they are an independent body and they effectively sit in between the NIAA and NAAJA, as I said before, to ensure that NAAJA is applying the funds appropriately in line with the contract.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’ve got the taxpayer giving money to the government, giving money to the NIAA, giving money to the grant controller—the grant manager—who then authorises the money to go to NAAJA.
Mr Worth: To be released—effectively the grant controller acts as a trustee of sorts in terms of just holding and releasing the funds once the evidence has been provided.
Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of people in the chain. Is the Commonwealth funding of $80 million over five years ending in 2025 still the plan, or is this sum being reviewed?
Ms Harvey: The Attorney-General’s Department is responsible for legal assistance funding. Through the National Legal Assistance Partnership, which is in place from July 2020 until the end of June 2025, we provide funding through to the Northern Territory government that then provides funding through to NAAJA as well as its legal aid commission and other bodies. So that funding is in place until the end of June next year.
Senator ROBERTS: Has this sum been reviewed? It is still in place, but what about the future?
Ms Harvey: Has the funding been reviewed?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Ms Harvey: There has been a broad review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership which was handed down earlier this year, but in terms of the funding to the Northern Territory there are conditions within the National Legal Assistance Partnership that they meet those milestone events and we release the funding to the Northern Territory. They then separately have a contract with NAAJA, for example, which have their own conditions in there.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Commonwealth still seeking a reimbursement of some unspent funds, as I have been led to believe?
Ms Harvey: The Northern Territory, I think, has been in contact with NAAJA and are working that through, in terms of their unspent funds.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re what?
Ms Harvey: The funding for legal assistance goes through the Northern Territory government, so they have the relationship with NAAJA about that funding including any underspends that there might be.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the amount being sought? Does anyone know?
Ms Bogart: Being sought in underspends?
Senator ROBERTS: Unspent money back.
Ms Bogart: The Northern Territory government is responsible for that under their grant agreement, and they’re working that through with NAAJA. I think they’re in a negotiation about what that amount looks like.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s been given to the Northern Territory government, another entity in the chain, and that’s been given to NAAJA, and NAAJA and the Northern Territory government are now haggling over the unspent money. Is that right?
Ms Bogart: They’re working through the amount and what, if any, can be retrieved back by the Northern Territory government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what has been the outcome of audits of the agency?
CHAIR: I’ll need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts.
Senator McCarthy: I’ll refer to Mr Worth.
Mr Worth: The audit is currently being finalised, so at this stage there is no outcome. We’re looking to have it finalised by the end of the year.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me about the nature of the audits: the scope, the purpose, the deadlines?
Mr Worth: The scope itself, yes. The auditor is reviewing expenditure for the 2022-23 financial year, both the application of funds received for the 2022-23 financial year through the national legal services funding as provided by the Northern Territory government as well as the NIAA funding.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that after Ms Priscilla Atkins was controversially sacked?
Mr Worth: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
*BREAK*
Senator ROBERTS: Back to the NAAJA, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency—I don’t know how you get your head around all these acronyms!—specifically, what is the nature of the current governance of the agency?
Mr Worth: Are you seeking the current status of NAAJA’s governance?
Senator ROBERTS: Governance, yes.
Mr Worth: We are in regular contact with NAAJA. We have received advice from them that they are looking to hold an annual general meeting later this month, on 27 November, in order to elect new board members.
Ms Bellenger: But they are registered with ASIC, and ACNC is their regulation body.
Senator ROBERTS: Who are the voters?
Mr Worth: The members of NAAJA.
Ms Bellenger: The members.
Senator ROBERTS: Is service delivery meeting the needs of the community? As I understand it, it’s suspended at the moment. And is legal representation in court meeting the needs of accused people and in accord with the contract with the Commonwealth Attorney-General?
Ms Harvey: Throughout the time that we have been working with NAAJA coming out of the kinds of issues that they have been having for nearly two years, service delivery has been a really key focus of ours and so we have tracked it really carefully. We understand NAAJA is now back at full service delivery. For example, I mentioned we were advised by NAAJA in October this year that there are no Aboriginal people going unrepresented in criminal proceedings in the Northern Territory except by choice. I think that is a very strong indication of the service delivery having resumed.
Senator ROBERTS: So there was a suspension of the services and they have been resumed?
Ms Harvey: Yes. Toward November last year, I think, there was a temporary suspension of some services. They rebuilt through the end of last year and over the start of this year, and I think it was maybe April—
Ms Bogart: First of April.
Ms Harvey: First of April this year they recommenced full service delivery.
Senator ROBERTS: How long were they suspended? Six months? Twelve months?
Ms Bogart: November to April, so about six months.
Senator ROBERTS: Six months, right. Minister, community members in Queensland tell me that taxpayer funds are not reaching the communities. That’s in the Torres Strait, that’s in Cape York, that’s in southern Queensland. Why does the government oppose full audits of Aboriginal agencies and why, in essence, does the government keep feeding the white and black Aboriginal industry of activists, consultants, academics, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians and others who are effectively barons while ignoring the plight of Aboriginal people in communities who are not getting what they are entitled to? They’re not getting the support they deserve and need.
Senator McCarthy: Thank you, Senator Roberts. If I could just ask for a breakdown of the particular agencies or departments that they’re not receiving, because there are health departments going out, there are educational departments going out—
Senator ROBERTS: They’re saying in general.
Senator McCarthy: Well, they’re taxpayer funds.
Senator ROBERTS: The money is being hived off to the barons in the white and black Aboriginal industry.
Senator McCarthy: Alright. If you’d like to give us examples that you have specifically, Senator Roberts, but I do know that taxpayer funding goes right across Queensland—federal government funds as well as state funds.
Senator ROBERTS: So why won’t you do audits?
Senator McCarthy: There are audits. The ANAO does its audits with respective organisations, certainly with the land councils that you’re referring to. Questions around audits for land councils actually do occur.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding, Minister, is that the ANAO does not do audits. It does scoping assessments, not comprehensive audits. They identify areas of weakness, but they do not do comprehensive audits.
Senator McCarthy: That is not correct, Senator Roberts, but perhaps I need to refer to those who work in the area. Mr Worth?
Mr Worth: The ANAO undertakes two kinds of audits on Commonwealth entities. The first ones are financial statement audits, which might be pointing towards the ones you’re talking about with how funds are received and applied through the departments—or agencies, I should call them. The second ones are the performance audits, which are the ones that look at how effective operations, governance arrangements and things like that are and make the recommendations on their findings on those. So there are the two different types of audit.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I have a list on notice, please, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agencies that have been audited in the last five years?
Mr Worth: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: The agency, the scope of the audit and the date.
