Posts

The Reality of Comcare: Outdated and Overdue

,

During Senate Estimates, I questioned the Minister and Department about the long-overdue review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Comcare).

The report, delivered back in September 2025 with 124 recommendations, made one thing crystal clear: the 36-year-old Act is so outdated that there is “no option but to redraft the current legislation.”

Yet, months later, the Minister’s repeated answer to crucial questions on implementation, return-to-work duties, and preventing psychological harm caused by claims management was simply: “The government is considering the report.”

We are still months away from even seeing an exposure draft. Bureaucracy cannot drag its feet when injured workers are paying the price.

Safety shouldn’t be a compliance box. It’s a moral and strategic imperative.

I also spoke with Comcare about workplace health and safety. Cutting corners doesn’t create a competitive edge. It leads to tragedy, ruined lives, massive penalties, and destroyed businesses.

I shared a definition of safety I developed 30 years ago: “Safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage, and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss.”

True safety requires accountability at every level, especially from the top. A safe, highly engaged workforce isn’t just the right thing to do morally, it builds a stronger, more productive nation.

I’ll keep pushing to ensure our workplace laws are reformed quickly and effectively.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: I thank the witnesses for appearing. Minister, a comprehensive review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has a date of September 2025. The review says: ‘Change is urgent. It is now time to deliver long overdue reform.’ On what date did you receive the final SRC Act review, and on what date were you first briefed?  

Senator Walsh: The review was released publicly in December 2025. Is that enough information for you at this point?  

Senator ROBERTS: When did you first receive the final copy?  

Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Mr Duggan: I can help there. The final report was delivered to government on 25 September 2025.  

Senator ROBERTS: What day were you first briefed, Minister?  

Senator Walsh: I am the minister representing Minister Rishworth, so the secretary may be able to assist.  

Mr Duggan: I’ll need to take the precise date on notice, but I imagine it would have been within a very short period of 25 September.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could put it on notice, please.  

Mr Duggan: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the minister decided to accept the review in full or in part?  

Senator Walsh: The government released the report in December, and the government is considering the recommendations and findings of the report.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to the question, ‘Do you have an implementation plan?’ would be no, not yet?  

Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about a recommendation-by-recommendation response table? Have you got one of those?  

Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you approved further consultation?  

Senator Walsh: There is work going on around the report. The secretary spoke to that earlier and can speak to that again.  

Mr Duggan: We undertook some target consultations in March through April of this year. The intent is to consult further in the second half of this year to inform the response to what was a very comprehensive report with 124 recommendations. It’s a complicated area so, as you can imagine, we want to make sure that we do that work thoroughly before we provide advice to government on its response.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Secretary. Do you have opening and closing dates for consultation?  

Mr Duggan: Do you mean for the consultation that has occurred, or the consultation that is to occur? 

Senator ROBERTS: The consultation that will occur.  

Mr Duggan: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will it include an exposure draft bill or clauses? If not, what exactly is being consulted?  

Mr Duggan: We are a couple of steps away from being at the point of an exposure draft of legislation. So at this stage we are consulting for the purposes of informing our advice to government on the policy and programmatic design. That would include advice on any changes required to legislation. Following on from that, the process would be legislative drafting instructions and an exposure draft, et cetera. We’re several steps away, so I can’t give you a definitive answer to that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the consultation is to develop the legislation changes, if any?  

Mr Duggan: If any, that’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: The review explicitly says the extent of changes means, ‘no option but to redraft the current legislation.’  

Mr Duggan: Yes, I am aware of that. So as we work through the 124 recommendations and our advice to government, were we to reach the same conclusion, then a legislative package would accompany our advice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What time frames are you looking at—I know it’s early days—for redrafting and introduction of the legislation?  

Mr Duggan: I gave evidence earlier that we are working through this. Again, there is a lot to work through, but we are working through it through the second half of this year with the intent of being in a position to provide comprehensive advice to government before the end of the year. Questions of the timing of introduction of any legislation, and the timing of any announcements around the way the scheme would work in the future, are questions for government and not something that the government has made a statement on at this point.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the single biggest issue holding things up?  

Mr Duggan: I don’t think there is a single biggest issue. I referred to 124 recommendations in a very complicated area, the need to work through that rigorously and to consult broadly to make sure that we get right our advice to government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you accept the review’s principle that the scheme must cause no harm, and that harm caused by interacting with the scheme should be prevented or reduced?  

Senator Walsh: The work of the Comcare scheme is about assisting people. There should be no harm in relation to the scheme. In relation to all of this work, we commissioned the review. The review covers a whole range of issues around governance and usability and entitlements. We want the scheme to be focused on the people who need assistance through it, and that was the focus of the review. I repeat that the government is considering the recommendations. The secretary has laid out a time line for the department to consult around the recommendations. The act is almost 40 years old—  

Senator ROBERTS: and complex.  

Senator Walsh: and there hasn’t been substantial reform of it, so this review is comprehensive. There are, as the secretary has said, 124 recommendations. The department is working to consult on those recommendations and provide advice to government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will you implement the review’s position that step-downs—lighter duties— should not apply where the employer has refused or been unable to provide suitable duties?  

Senator Walsh: In relation to any recommendations of the review, the government is considering the review.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you legislate enforceable employer return-to-work duties, including the duty to provide suitable work, with consequences for noncompliance?  

Senator Walsh: All answers around the review and review recommendations are that the government is considering the review.  

Senator ROBERTS: The review notes that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes. Do you accept that poor claims management can cause or worsen psychological harm?  

Senator Walsh: The government is considering the review.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I knew these things 40 years ago. There’s no gotcha in this one; all right? I just want to reassure our constituents, because we’ve had constituents come to us with problems. Surely you can acknowledge that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes.  

Senator Walsh: As I said, in establishing the review, the government wanted to make sure that the scheme is centred on the people that it is there to assist and that it is fit for purpose to be focused on the people that it’s there to assist. You said you’ve been focused on this issue for a number of years. The act is 36 years old. It hasn’t been reformed. There are a lot of recommendations. The secretary has outlined the process which the department is following to assess the recommendations. We’ll provide advice to government.  

Senator ROBERTS: I know that 40 years ago we learned that selected duties or light duties—whatever you want to call them; I prefer ‘selected duties’—can be highly significant in getting people back to work, fully back to work, and getting them back to work quickly. That’s better for their mental health and their physical recovery at times. That’s why I’m interested in that. Will you implement or consider, or do you recognise, the review’s approach of trauma informed claims management, enforceable service standards and public reporting?  

Senator Walsh: You’re asking me these questions, Senator, as you are entitled to do—  

Senator ROBERTS: From our constituents. Senator Walsh: I welcome your questions. I’m just wondering whether some of them may relate to current practices of Comcare and whether Comcare would like to assist in some of the answers about how you approach these issues, if you’re happy with that, Senator.  

Mr Radford: I’ll ask Mr Vivian-Taylor from our claims division to join us at the table, if that’s all right, Minister.  

Senator Walsh: Yes.  

Mr Vivian-Taylor: We do some trauma informed training for our claims managers. That’s what we do in claims management at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve finished my questions of the minister. Mr Radford, you were talking about Cleanaway with Senator Dolega. In my experience—and I use this strategically—safety has moral benefits. Safety has personal responsibilities and personal benefits. It also has economic benefits. What is the level of understanding in industry generally, and within Comcare, that safety can be used to improve a business—not just the moral, personal and safety benefits but the economic and business benefits?  

Mr Radford: I agree with your proposition, Senator. I can’t speak for industry, in terms of the level of industry knowledge, but certainly at Comcare we are of the view that safer workplaces, by and large, are more productive workplaces. You have a more engaged workforce—  

Senator ROBERTS: Lower turnover.  

Mr Radford: Lower turnover, higher retention. We, as the regulator, focus very heavily on the human cost of unsafe workplaces, as you would expect. There is no doubt that safe, fulfilling work is a huge benefit to workers. As you mentioned earlier, it has a significant, positive impact on their mental health. It also has a very positive impact, as I mentioned earlier, on productivity. From my engagement with industry, in both this role and previous roles in this space, I know that the vast majority of employers want other employers to do the right thing, because employers that cut corners on health and safety are probably also cutting corners in other areas in terms of their regulatory responsibilities. The majority of employers want to know that someone is not getting an unfair or competitive advantage by essentially not adhering to their responsibilities under workplace health and safety laws. As I said, I can’t speak specifically for industry, but from my engagement with industry and industry leaders and industry representative groups, by and large, they want everyone to do the right thing so that it is a fair and even playing field. It obviously supports the economy.  

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to pick you up on something you said there—that people who take shortcuts on safety have an economic advantage. That’s what you’re implying—  

Mr Radford: No, I said—  

Senator ROBERTS: I believe it’s wrong.  

Mr Radford: No. People can think that, if they take shortcuts, they can get a profit gain.  

Senator ROBERTS: They think that, but they don’t, because they end up hurting the business.  

Mr Radford: They end up hurting the business. As I said in evidence—I think prior to you joining, Senator— we certainly take the view that no profit or productivity improvement is worth the price of a human life. I think the majority of employers also think that way, but, unfortunately, there are those who think they can cut corners. The Cleanaway matter was resolved last week, on top of the very significant human cost of two people losing their lives and two people being seriously injured. Cleanaway has now been fined $1.1 million as a result of its failure in the training of the truck driver involved. That should send a very clear message that cutting corners has human consequences. It also has economic consequences for any company that thinks it can get away with it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps, if Cleanaway had been more enlightened in its management, it wouldn’t have had the fatalities and it would have had a better bottom line.  

Mr Radford: I can’t speak to their balance sheet, but in my experience no good ever comes from a serious injury or a fatality in the workplace.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s taken for granted. What I’m getting at is that just improving safety can be a strategic advantage, leading to reducing costs, increasing productivity and increasing profitability.  

Mr Radford: Yes. I agree.  

Senator ROBERTS: To what extent do people in the industry accept that? Is it still limited?  

Mr Radford: As I said, I can’t speak for industry. Certainly, a large part of Comcare’s role is to educate industry and the economy more broadly about the benefits of safe work and the benefits of having a highly engaged, safe workforce, whether that’s physical safety or psychological safety. The more engaged your workforce is, the safer your workforce is and the higher your productivity is likely to be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you make a comment on this. This is a definition of safety that I developed 30 or 40 years ago: safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss. Do you agree?  

Mr Radford: I would agree, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about accountability all the way throughout an organisation.  

Mr Radford: Through the whole supply chain, through all of the activity. I agree, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Everyone’s responsible for safety, but the senior people have the ultimate responsibility.  

Mr Radford: Yes. Under our legislation and the work health and safety laws right across Australia, everyone does have responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe workplace. But ultimately the responsibility at the highest level rests with those who have control of that workplace, and the workplace is controlled by the managers and the leaders of that enterprise.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.  

Mr Radford: Thank you, Senator. 

/0 Comments/by

The Shocking Truth About Australian Crime Rates

,
Are our streets more dangerous than the US?

Australia faces a serious crime problem. Many Australians believe our crime rate is low compared with countries like the United States, yet sadly that myth stems from misunderstanding statistics about how crime is measured.

Media coverage reinforces the myth and the real questions are why that misunderstanding persists and what can be done about it.

Consider a simple example. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that only about 19 per cent of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to police, while in the United States about 45 per cent are reported. Obviously, simply comparing reported crimes therefore dramatically understates the extent of the problem in Australia.

Both countries try to address this gap using large-scale surveys that estimate total crime, not just crimes reported to police. The Australian Bureau of Statistics runs such a survey annually. In the United States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the National Crime Victimisation Survey, which surveys about 240,000 people each year.

When we compare these broader estimates, Australia’s rape and sexual assault rate is roughly three times higher than that of the United States. Australia’s assault rate is about twice as high, and its burglary rate is about 2.5 times higher. Robbery is the only category where the two countries report similar rates.

Whether people report crimes depends a lot on whether people think the criminals will be caught and punished.

Although, key methodological differences still affect these comparisons. Australian data count the proportion of people or households victimised at least once during the year, while US data count the total number of crimes. If someone in Australia is robbed twice in a year, the survey records only one victimisation. In the US, the survey counts two. This difference means the figures still understate how much higher Australia’s crime rates may be.

Image: Pexels

Earlier international comparisons reinforce this pattern. The International Crime Victimisation Survey used consistent definitions and methods across countries. Even in 2000, it found Australia’s violent crime rate (including robbery, sexual incidents, assaults, and threats) was 104 per cent higher than in the United States. Robbery was 150 per cent higher, sexual assaults 167.9 per cent higher, and assaults and threats 72.3 per cent higher.

Australia is clearly safer in one area: homicide.

Latest data show Australia’s homicide rate at about 2 per 100,000 people in 2024, compared with roughly 4 per 100,000 in the United States in 2025. But homicides make up a tiny share of overall violent crime – less than 0.1 per cent in Australia and about 0.3 per cent in the United States – so they do not reflect most people’s risk of victimisation.

In the United States, murders concentrate heavily in very small geographic areas. Just 2 per cent of counties account for about 56 per cent of all murders, and within those counties, roughly two-thirds of killings occur within areas spanning about ten city blocks. Gangs drive most of these murders, and about 90 per cent of offenders already have prior violent criminal records.

In contrast, 52 per cent of counties report zero murders, and another 15 per cent report just one.

Reducing crime is straightforward: policymakers must raise the risks criminals face. Three ways that can be done are to increase arrest and conviction rates, to lengthen prison sentences and to allow victims to defend themselves.

Yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not collect data on arrest or conviction rates for specific crime types. This glaring omission prevents direct comparisons with the United States.

Another major difference separates the two countries. In practice, Australians cannot use guns for self-defence. In the United States, in contrast, people use guns defensively far more often – roughly five times more frequently to stop crimes than criminals use guns to commit them.

Those who benefit most from owning guns are often the most vulnerable – people who are physically weaker, such as women and the elderly, and those who face the highest risks of violent crime. In the United States, that risk falls disproportionately on poorer Black residents in high-crime urban areas.

The National Crime Victimisation Survey provides detailed breakdowns that highlight these patterns, unlike the more limited data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In most cases, a man commits the crime, and when a man attacks a woman, the strength disparity is typically greater than when a man attacks another man. A firearm can significantly offset that imbalance and increase a woman’s ability to defend herself.

Additionally, research shows that women who respond passively face much higher risks. Women who do not resist are about 2.4 times more likely to suffer serious injury than those who defend themselves with a gun.

The issue goes beyond guns. Outside of Western Australia, Australian law prohibits people from carrying pepper spray or mace for protection. It also bars individuals from carrying knives for self-defence – and in any case, knives offer limited help to women, since using one requires close contact, where a male attacker can more easily overpower them.

Australians cannot address crime effectively if they underestimate its scale or ignore how measurement differences distort comparisons. Policymakers should focus on raising the risks to criminals – through higher arrest and conviction rates – and on giving law-abiding citizens more ability to protect themselves.

Until Australia confronts these realities, it will continue to misdiagnose the problem and fall short on solutions. Australian lives will continue to be endangered more so than in the USA.

Australian and American data point to the solution needed to reduce Australian crime rates and improve Australians’ safety.

Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and a world-recognised expert on crime. He is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center in the United States. During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and then the Office of Legal Policy in the US Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions, including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.

/1 Comment/by

Stop Terrorists, Not Free Speech

,

Judge for yourself: does the head of the department overseeing security and immigration seem reluctant to answer simple questions? Do her answers give you confidence?

Secretary Stephanie Foster refused to say how safe Australians currently are. Instead, she tried to deflect the question to ASIO, only belatedly mentioning that the government had allocated $102 million to assist with security for Jewish sites.

Minister Watt and the government haven’t received the message: One Nation will not vote for legislation that packages necessary legal provisions we support with “bundled” provisions that strip away basic rights such as free speech and instil needless control over the people.

The answer to terrorism is not to take away the basic freedoms of Australians; the answer is to stop terrorists from entering Australia in the first place. Based on Minister Watt’s response today and Minister Ayres’ response yesterday, it’s clear that Labor is growing concerned about the surging support for One Nation.

Rather than misleading by omission and spreading falsehoods about One Nation, wouldn’t it be more effective if the “Uniparty” — Liberal and Labor — started serving Australians?

Telling the truth can be tough. However, as One Nation does, it’s better for the long-term interest of the country to raise difficult truths and facts. Instead of dragging others down out of fear, Labor should try lifting itself up.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: These questions are for Home Affairs. What is the risk to Australians of a terrorist attack on Australian soil since the Bondi atrocity at the hands of Islamic terrorists of Middle Eastern extraction and the failed bombing attempt by homegrown white supremacists?

Ms Foster: You’re absolutely right that is a question for the Home Affairs portfolio, but the threat assessments are actually done by ASIO. Director-General Burgess will be appearing later today.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask him similar questions. Isn’t it pertinent that you should know as well?

Ms Foster: That’s a specific role assigned to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you interact with ASIO and AFP to coordinate activities?

Ms Foster: We do. In terms of actually formulating that assessment, that’s a role that belongs with them.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you whether or not you formulate the role. Thank you for explaining that ASIO does that. I thought they did that. What I’m asking is: do you know it? I can ask you questions about your department’s response based on the level of threat.

Ms Foster: I’m hesitating because an amount of the assessment work is classified in nature. I’ll need to take the question on notice before I answer about what is my state of knowledge of the classification level of the material that I have.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know whether or not your department knows what the level of risk is right now. What’s the rating?

Ms Foster: That’s the question I’m being cautious of. When agencies make assessments about threat, that can often be drawn from classified sources. It’s on the public record that the Director-General raised the threat level for terrorism to ‘probable’ on 5 August 2024. That’s the national terrorism threat level, which as he explains means a more than 50 per cent chance of that occurring.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask him this question as well, and thank you for that answer. My understanding is that the risk level rating has to be increased immediately after an attack. Has it been increased? What I’m getting to, Secretary, is: what are you doing differently now compared with before Bondi?

Ms Foster: Again, publicly, the director-general has affirmed that the national terrorism threat level remains at ‘probable’, that he did not, on the basis of information available to him, change that at the time. In terms of what we collectively have done since Bondi, you’ll see a very significant range of activities—obviously some of which you participated in in the debates on the bills which were passed a couple of weeks ago.

Senator ROBERTS: How safe are we now, living in Australia?

Ms Foster: I can only give you my previous answer, which is that it is the director-general of ASIO who makes assessments of Australia’s national terrorism threat level, and he will be appearing later today. But I’ve given you the publicly stated information to date. Mr Hansford has just reminded me that, in terms of another very significant action since Bondi, there is the allocation of a $102 million investment in security for Jewish institutions, places of worship and educational facilities.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do anything to educate everyday Australians or citizens of Australia as to what we can do to enhance our safety?

Mr Hansford: We—as in the Commonwealth—have a range of actions, including information on the national security website and a range of information that can help people to be informed about security issues in Australia. We also play a leadership role, and I co-chair the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee that has met post Bondi a number of times to talk about how we prepare, knowing what we know about Bondi from the law enforcement and policy community across Australia. We’ve had discussions around how law enforcement and policy agencies can respond to and learn from what’s happened in Bondi, cognisant of the inquiries that are underway.

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound very concrete to me. What about things like tightening up immigration standards regarding who we let into the country?

Senator Watt: We recently passed some laws to strengthen the minister’s powers to cancel visas of people promoting hate, and your party voted against those laws.

Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things that we did not like in the bill.

Senator Watt: So you voted against what you were asking for?

Senator ROBERTS: We voted against the other provisions of your bill.

Senator Watt: Which were to make it easier to ban association with Neo-Nazis. Was it that bit that you didn’t like? What was it that you didn’t like?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we could talk for hours about the specifics of that bill. This is a time for you to answer my questions; it’s not for me to answer your questions.

Senator Watt: The problem with One Nation is that you call for things to happen and then vote against them. You’ve done that now on hate speech and hate crime.

Senator ROBERTS: We do not vote against tighter immigration.

Senator Watt: You voted against same job, same pay, when you called for better labour standards.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you increase the immigration vetting standards?

Senator Watt: You voted against cheaper medicines when you wanted things done for poorer Australians. At some point, Australians are going to see through One Nation and observe that you make promises that you don’t keep when you come to Canberra. You did it again recently, by calling for hate preachers to be banned and restricted and then voting against laws that would do that. You called for migration screening and then voted against it. So I’ll leave it to Australians to see through what One Nation does rather than what One Nation says.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you think Australians are fools and not seeing what you’re doing right now? We’ve asked for tighter immigration standards. Will you answer the question: will you provide tighter immigration standards to keep terrorists out?

Senator Watt: We just did that, and you voted against it.

Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things in your bill.

Senator Watt: But we did what you were asking for, and you voted against it—

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, because of the other things.

Senator Watt: just as you always vote against the things that you say need to be done, and we’re onto you.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re happy to leave it in the hands of the Australian people.

Senator Watt: The Australian people, over time, will be onto you.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you call out ideologies that promote terrorism?

Senator Watt: We’ve done that, and we’ve just passed laws.

Senator ROBERTS: It took a long while for you to call out ideologies—

Senator Watt: We’ve done that. We’ve gone and done more than just call it out; we’ve passed laws. We’ve just passed laws. We don’t just call things out; we pass laws to restrict hate speech and hate preachers, and you vote against those laws.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, until the Bondi attack, only one party was calling out ideological Islam, and that was us. Now, all of a sudden, we’ve got more doing so.

Senator Watt: That’s not true.

Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister didn’t.

Senator Watt: There’s a long series of statements from the Prime Minister and ministers in this government. They have condemned some of the hate speech that we’ve seen in the community, whether it be from Islamic preachers or white supremacists; there is a long series of those statements. But we don’t just call things out. When we come to Canberra, we pass laws to restrict that kind of activity. So I invite you to work with the government to restrict that kind of activity, rather than just pretend that you care about these issues.

Senator ROBERTS: Secretary, do you have adequate resources to do what needs to be done?

Ms Foster: The Department of Home Affairs has a very substantial budget and staffing level, and I am able to deploy those resources to the government’s priorities.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Prioritising Australian Safety

,

The safety of Australians is the first priority of any government. Following the horrific Bondi atrocity and the attempted Australia Day bombing in WA, I questioned the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on what they are doing to bridge the gaps between ASIO, Home Affairs and the AFP, and what specific new steps are being taken to prevent future acts of terrorism?

The response from the Commissioner and the Deputy was that while their “architecture” is mature, there is nothing specifically new being implemented in response to these recent events. They are relying on existing “enduring relationships” and a new National Security Investigation Team to monitor “hate extremism.”

While they claim information sharing is “excellent,” we cannot afford to be complacent. “Strong and enduring” relationships are good, however they don’t replace the need for constant improvement when lives are at risk.

I will continue to monitor these “joint arrangements” to ensure they are actually delivering the protection all Australians deserve, NOT just more bureaucracy.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: We can rotate the call. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given the role of the Australian Federal Police to enforce Commonwealth laws and to protect Australians, what further steps have been taken to open up the lines of communication between ASIO and the AFP and between the AFP and Home Affairs to prevent future acts of terrorism post the Bondi atrocity and the attempted bombing in Western Australia on Australia Day this year?  

Ms Sirec: The AFP has long and enduring relationships with in particular ASIO. Our counterterrorism construct has been in for a significant amount of time and the information sharing is excellent. Equally with the various Commonwealth agencies, in particular Home Affairs, there are enduring and constant relationships and information sharing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have any additional arrangements been made?  

Ms Sirec: The relationships there are strong and enduring. When we do set up new capabilities such as the National Security Investigations apparatus, there’s a restrengthening of relationships there in particular even with the states and territories. The AFP brokers relationships of the Commonwealth with states and territories as well. It’s a very mature apparatus and architecture.  

Senator ROBERTS: But nothing specifically new?  

Mr Nutt: I’d go further to not only what the commissioner has said but also the deputy around the announcement of the National Security Investigation teams as a new initiative and also, as the commissioner said in the opening statement, around working with state security investigation or intelligence units on intelligence security investigations. One of the key aspects of that is looking for any intelligence or investigation that involves hate extremism that could transition into a joint counterterrorism arrangement, which has been in place for a very long time. Again, it’s another mechanism that supports existing arrangements nationally.  

/1 Comment/by

Clarifying Chemical Safety Responsibilities with APVMA

,

I inquired with the Australian and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) about the responsibility for the safety of chemicals. I was informed that the APVMA is responsible for the safety of the chemicals they issue permits for, while the States are responsible for their application and that permits are issued based on the safety data on the chemical labels.

I mentioned that there were discrepancies between the data in the safety brochures and the actual permits and was asked to bring that information to their attention.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I will just continue. What was going to be my second set of questions, I will do now because I will continue on from Senator Canavan. There is label use and there is permit use. Where are the Australian environmental impact studies for both these chemicals regarding widespread applications in South- East Queensland and northern New South Wales? Do they have to do an EIS? 

Mr Hansen: Not an EIS, but they need to meet the environmental thresholds of the statutory criteria in terms of not being harmful to the environment, and that’s an assessment that gets done by APVMA before we issue the permit. 

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s built into the permit? 

Mr Hansen: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who is responsible for that? Is it APVMA? 

Mr Hansen: It’s our responsibility to look at how they are proposing to use it, to put the restrictions on how it should be used to make sure there is no impact to the environment, and then the actual following of those instructions are the responsibility of the state jurisdictions. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’m appreciating your succinct answers. How does the program justify treating areas with no evidence of nests, and how can this be effective if the bait is only active for 24 hours after application? 

Mr Hansen: I’m sorry, that’s something for the program. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why there are discrepancies and contradictions between the latest permit and the safety data sheets regarding safety precautions and application guidelines? I think the permit they are talking about is the permit of the helicopter. 

Mr Hansen: For the aerial applications. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Hansen: I heard that question before. I would be interested to see what the variations are—particularly the variations between label and not necessarily the safety data sheet but the label and the permit. If there were differences on that, I’d be interested to see them if you had them. 

Senator ROBERTS: How do people get hold of you? 

Mr Hansen: We’ll find a way. 

/1 Comment/by

Judicial Oversight Urged for Ex-Detainee Restrictions

,

Since the High Court held that forced ankle bracelets and curfews on ex-detainees are unconstitutional and punitive, the government has indicated its intention to legislate measures that would empower the Minister to enforce restrictions for the purpose of ensuring community safety. This approach is likely to fail for the same reasons outlined by the High Court in YBFZ.

What is needed instead is legislation to expand the judiciary’s power to order such measures, which would ensure separation of powers, rather than leaving it with the Minister, who is part of the Executive.

/by

Minister Dodges Accountability as Border Force Grapples with Safety Concerns

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired with Border Force officials about what was needed to ensure the safety of Australians.  True to form, Minister Watt attempted to shift blame onto the previous government. He mentioned measures like monitoring and curfews, but refused to accept responsibility for detainee-related crimes, and failed to offer a reasonable solution. 

When asked about the government’s legislation regarding the re-detention of dangerous detainees, departmental representatives explained that it was a high bar to meet before requests could be put before a court seeking an Order.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree, Mr Outram and Ms Holben, that it’s a difficult issue? It’s a challenging issue. You’ve got safety considerations. You’ve got legal considerations—all the things you mentioned a minute ago, Mr Outram. It’s not easy.

Mr Outram: Running borders is challenging.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is, and it’s a fundamental duty of the federal government to keep our borders secure. To make it clearer and easier for us and safer for people, what are your greatest issues? What are the core
issues that you need to have addressed by the government?

Mr Outram: That’s a very wide-ranging question. I could talk for a very long time. Our functions fall into three areas, I suppose. One is the customs function that we undertake, which is of course about collection of duty revenue, management of and administration of the Customs Act, and ensuring that prohibited goods don’t get brought across our border.

Senator ROBERTS: I mean in relation to keeping people safe in this country and keeping our border secure. What do you need on this issue that we have been talking about at length for hours now?

Mr Outram: Preventing prohibited goods from coming in across our border keeps our country safe. So I’d say—

Senator ROBERTS: On this issue—

Mr Outram: the management of cargo is a big area for us. We have, as I said in my opening statement, a 70 per cent projected increase in cargo over the next ten years.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I’m trying to help you on this issue, which is about the safety of the citizens of this country and about dealing with hardened criminals, murderers, rapists and domestic violence offenders. I’d like to know: what are your biggest cost components? You’ve talked about surveillance. You’ve talked about so many different measures that you’ve had to do—’unprecedented’. Senator Ghosh was getting at a good point. But what do you need from us or what do you need from the government to fix this?

Mr Outram: As I said earlier on, our budget is sitting at unprecedented levels. There’s a lot of work going on behind the scenes in relation to our civil maritime capabilities. We’re working very closely with Defence and looking at how we put those capabilities on a more sustainable footing going forwards into the future. That will be really important.

Senator ROBERTS: You said that you have to comply with the law. I’m pleased to hear you say that. You said that you’ve got to do it within the legal regime you’ve got. What legal regime would you prefer? What fine-
tuning would you need?

Mr Outram: That’s really a policy question.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what do these people need to solve this problem?

Senator Watt: What was the question?

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve talked about unprecedented cost levels and unprecedented risks. What do we need to solve the problem?

Senator Watt: Sorry, what is the problem that you’re talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: Safety of people, keeping these murderers and other criminals in the country at the moment—how do we get rid of them? How do we protect people’s safety?

Senator Watt: What the government has been trying to do is to keep the Australian people safe. That’s why there are a range of cases that have had their visas cancelled with a view to deportation. Those people have been kept in detention during that time. As a result of a High Court decision and other legal decisions, the government’s attempt to keep these people in detention or deport them has been overturned. What we’ve done is follow the law, comply with the law, which I would hope that you would agree is needed, but we do it in a way that maximises the safety of the Australian people by putting into place—

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve also got—

Senator Watt: Hang on, can I just finish—by putting into place an unprecedented system of protection with electronic monitoring and curfews. We just heard in response to those questions from Senator Ghosh that, in the time Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister, it would appear that dozens of murderers, sex offenders and other offenders were released from detention without a single skerrick of protection like what this government is putting in place. There was not one electronic bracelet nor one curfew, and yet Mr Dutton and his cohorts are out there claiming that this government is not protecting the Australian people when we’re doing more than Mr Dutton ever did as the minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Will Minister Giles rescind directive 99? Will he stop people claiming to be Aboriginal connected to overturn a deportation order, failing character tests? Will directive 99—

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I think the chair has been clear that we’ve dealt with direction 99.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Why has Labor not applied to redetain noncitizens who pose an unacceptable risk to the community in the last six months since Labor passed legislation specifically aimed at
doing just that? Why have you not redetained people?

Senator Watt: I think Ms Sharp addressed that prior to the lunch break, but she might be willing to give you a summarised version of that again.

Ms Sharp: Certainly, Senator. As I was saying prior to lunch, the Community Safety Order scheme is modelled on the High Risk Terrorist Offenders Scheme. Applications under it need to be made to the court and need to be accompanied by a very substantial set of evidence. The evidence needs to go to all information known to the Commonwealth for why the order should be granted, and also all information known to the Commonwealth for why the order should not be granted. That requires an extensive review of records held by government agencies across the Commonwealth, and the states and territories, followed by the receipt of expert evidence that looks at the risk profile of the individual. That expert evidence is gained through individual assessments, one-on-one with psychiatrists et cetera, to really form up whether we have a reasonable case to demonstrate to the court that the only way to protect the community from a high risk of the person committing a serious, violent or sexual offence is detention. It’s a very high legal bar to cross.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to the recent Palestinian refugees from Gaza given fast-track visas. Why were they given special treatment, where some visas were said to be given with only an hour of scrutiny and
processing? An hour?

Chair: Senator Roberts, officials will probably dispute the assumptions made in your question. I won’t put myself on the other side of the table, but we did have extensive questioning on that earlier—it does relate to
outcome 2 as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Given that 80 per cent of Palestinians support the inhuman terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza, how can these Palestinians be shown not to be a danger to Australians in such a short time?

Chair: Senator Roberts, that relates to outcome 2. Apart from being divisive language, it’s probably not an appropriate question in parliament—

Senator ROBERTS: Last question—when will Palestine be declared a country of concern so that high-risk applicants from Palestine are not able to be considered for a visa?

Senator Watt: I’m not actually even sure if that’s possible, given that Palestine is not a nation.

Senator ROBERTS: So you have to have a nation before you can—

Senator Watt: I don’t know, I’m guessing that’s the way it works, but officials might know better than me.

Senator Reynolds: Yes—

Senator Watt: I’m doing my best to assist the committee, Senator Reynolds!

Chair: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Chair: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Paterson.

/6 Comments/by

Event: Rockhampton – Tackling the Crime Crisis

Numbers are crucial, so please RSVP here at: https://www.onenation.org.au/rocky-hero

Queensland is experiencing a surge in violent youth crime, causing tensions to escalate among concerned households. Frustrated with the lack of action, community members have taken it upon themselves to address this issue, with former One Nation candidate, Torin O’Brien, leading the charge in working with police to bring local criminals to justice. 

When: Saturday | 27 May 2023 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm

Where:

Rocky Sports Club
1 Lion St
Wandal , QLD 4700
Australia
Google map and directions

Contact: Office of Senator Malcolm Roberts | senator.roberts@aph.gov.au | (07) 3221 9099

/by

Urgent PFAS Compensation Needed For Farmers

,

This week I visited farmers in and around Oakey who have had their lives and livelihoods destroy by PFAS contamination from the nearby Army Aviation Centre in Oakey. One Nation is calling for affected resident to receive like-for-like compensation as soon as possible so they can get on with their lives. PFAS FACT SHEET https://tinyurl.com/ya877sqy

Transcript

Hi, I’m Malcolm Roberts and I’m a senator for Queensland, and I’m near the Oakey Army Base here in just west of Toowoomba. We’re going to show you a clip of some water flowing overland and it’s going through this water course here, and it shows PFAS contamination.

And what annoys me is that governments in this country, both liberal, national and labor, just ignore the damn data. They just completely ignore it. Now, I happen to have worked in an industry where if you ignore data, people die, so I’ve become very conditioned to data and I understand its power.

Now, the European Union has set a new limit for PFAS contamination in beef. It’s eight nanograms per kilogram of body weight, it’s much, much lower than in Australia. And, in fact, the Department of Defence and some other departments in this country don’t even recognise any damn level at all is significant.

So what happens if we continue to ignore this data, we continue to ignore the plight of people? What will happen if someone in the EU is inspecting our meat and they come across highly contaminated PFAS? The whole of our beef industry will be shut down, that’s what’s at stake.

So we need the government to come clean, look at the data and admit what they’ve been doing for 40 years knowingly in this country. I’m so sick and tired of this, and we need people here who in this country, who have been belted and smashed, livelihoods, future for their retirement completely destroyed, and the Department of Defence has known about it.

We need like for like compensation, we need those people to be relocated and we need those properties to be declared unsafe. That’s all we want, but we want people to abide by the data. For goodness sake, these are people’s livelihoods at stake, whole lives at stake.

And it’s not only the people involved in the PFAS contamination zones like this one, this is where overland flows are contaminated, overland flows are coming from the base, but it’s also mums and dads because they are not being told that some of the beef is contaminated and they’re feeding contaminated beef to kids.

It’s all over Australia, that’s what we want fixed. The people in this land, in this land here, are taking responsibility, but they need to be compensated for that, like for like compensation, and we need to have healthy, safe food levels for production in this country.

/by