Posts

Bluesky vs. X

,

During Senate Estimates in December, I asked the eSafety Commissioner why social media platforms like X are being targeted, while Bluesky — a known hangout for the left — seems to be getting a free pass.

The Commissioner claimed there’s no “political bias” and that Bluesky has not been exempted – they’re just focusing on where the most kids are. She called Bluesky a “young company” that’s still finding its feet. It looks like a double standard to me — conservative platforms get targeted, while ‘left-wing hangouts’ get a free pass for being ‘low risk.’

Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers based on politics. We need transparency, not a “dynamic list” that changes whenever a bureaucrat feels like it. Whether it’s the Labor Party or the Coalition, Australians are sick of the double standards and the “Big Brother” tactics.

I’ll keep speaking up to make sure your voice isn’t silenced by bureaucratic overreach. We need one rule for everyone, and total protection for our free speech.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: It wasn’t my intention.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I know that. Thank you for appearing again. I have, perhaps, an insight. Since COVID, people in Australia are very wary of government. That’s not just the Labor Party; that’s both. Commissioner, you have exempted Bluesky from your under-16 social media minimum-age restrictions, yet Bluesky is almost identical to X, as I understand it. It currently allows 13-year-olds or younger people saying they are 13 to sign up, and they have no age verification. Do you understand, Commissioner, that you have an obligation to discharge your duties without the perception of political bias? Your decision to exempt a left-wing hangout and to include a conservative hangout, X, looks like political bias.

Ms Inman Grant: Bluesky has not been exempted. They present a very low risk. They have actually identified themselves as an age-restricted social media platform. They probably have 50,000 Australian users—a very small number of young users. They’re building up their age inference tools. They’re a very young company. What we’ve decided to do—we’re talking to a range of companies that could be age restricted social media platforms, whether it’s Yubo, Yope, Lemon8 or other ones that we know we’re going to go to. But you missed the opening statement, where I said our focus—these assessments that we’re doing are voluntary. I don’t have specific declaratory powers in terms of who is in and who is out, so I can’t say anyone is exempted. It’s up to the legal teams of those companies to determine whether they’re in or out. Where we will focus our compliance is where the vast majority of young people are. For the purposes of transparency, fairness and due process, we developed the self-assessment tools. Then we did some initial assessments so that we could at least have a body of major companies that would fit the criteria set forth by parliament. We’ve got 10 that we’re starting with, but I’ve always said that this will be a dynamic list. If we see that there are significant migratory patterns with young people that are going over to Bluesk —again, we’ve had three conversations with them—we expect that they will start applying some of their age assurance tools. They’re just at the beginning of that journey.

Senator ROBERTS: So what you’re saying, Commissioner, as I interpret it, is that you’ve got objective criteria that you assess platforms against.

Ms Inman Grant: We developed a self-assessment tool, so there are consistent assessment criteria. The criteria we have to use are the criteria that was in the legislation that parliament passed. That primary test is around whether or not a particular site—if it didn’t meet an exclusion, say, the messaging exclusion, the online gaming exclusion or the education and mental health exclusion, we had to do a sole-and-significant-purpose test. If its sole or significant purpose was online social interaction, then our preliminary view—it is not a determination—was that they were an age restricted social media platform.

Mr Fleming: Senator, just to give you a pointer, it’s in section 63C of the Online Safety Act. The criteria are set out in the act, and, if someone meets those criteria, there are a set of rules that the minister made. If the rules apply to that platform, then they’re out of the scheme. That’s how it works. To reinforce the point the commissioner made, there’s no determination that platforms are in or out. We’ve just expressed our preliminary view based on our assessments against the criteria, like the platforms can do for themselves. Then we focused on where most of the kids are, and that’s where we’re going to focus our initial efforts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, your government chose to use legislation against social media platforms. However, the commissioner has then included search engines in the scope of age restrictions, using an industry code under the Online Safety Act. Couldn’t you have simply done the whole thing under existing powers and created an industry code of practice, mandatory if necessary, for age control of social media instead of this whole blunt instrument legislation—an industry code as opposed to enforcement?

Senator Green: I’ll let the eSafety Commissioner answer because there would have been advice given to government about the best way forward. This is a very important step forward that we’re taking, and legislation was required.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I asked you because I’m not allowed to ask—

Senator Green: No, you are allowed to—

Senator ROBERTS: for an opinion of an officer.

Senator Green: No, it’s not an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: If the minister wants you to, that’s fine.

Senator Green: You’re asking why legislation was required. They can answer that question.

Ms Inman Grant: The industry codes were included in the Online Safety Act of 2021 under the then coalition government. What they decided was that they would split the technology industry into eight different sectors, from search engines to social media sites to ISPs to some broader categories, including the designated internet services and relevant electronic services. What Paul Fletcher, who was my minister at the time, decided was that he wanted to continue the tradition of co-regulation that had existed for many years across telecommunications and ensure that the industry developed the codes. We would decide whether or not they met appropriate community safeguards. If they did, we’d register them. If they did not, then I would create standards, and that would be a disallowable instrument that would require additional parliamentary scrutiny. It took 4½ or five years for all this deliberation, for this to happen. In most other jurisdictions, the regulator writes the code, but, with respect to the search engine code that I think you’re referring to, I don’t know if you missed the interaction I just had with Charlotte Walker—

Senator ROBERTS: I did.

Ms Inman Grant: They were written by Google and Bing, and they pretty much codify safe search practices that are used today. So, come 27 December, if you’re searching the internet and you come across violent pornography or explicit violence, it will be blurred. This is because 40 per cent of kids tend to come across this kind of violent conflict. The search engine is the gateway, and it’s unexpected, it’s unsolicited and it’s in their face. If you’re an adult and you want to continue through, you can do that. You only have to be age verified if you decide to search the internet with a Google account on, for instance, and a lot of families may choose to have a Google account on so that they can have different age-inappropriate settings set up. But, if you’re concerned about it, you just use DuckDuckGo, Bing or whatever other one. The other thing that I think is really important about the search engine code is that, if there’s a person in distress who is seeking to take their life, rather than the search engine taking them directly to a lethal-method site, it will redirect them in the first instance to an Australian mental health support provider. We all know that suicide is a terribly damaging thing for families and communities. So, if we can give someone in distress the support that they need rather than the directions in terms of how to take their life, any family would be grateful.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure they would. X currently—

Senator Green: I’m sorry, Senator, I misunderstood your question at the beginning. I thought you were asking about the minimum age legislation, so I apologise.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s alright.

Senator Green: I understand now what you were asking, and the eSafety Commissioner has given a very good answer.

Senator ROBERTS: X currently has, in early deployment, routines which do the following: pattern matching to determine age without the use of personal identifiers, such as a digital ID; pin protected parental controls—I tend to think government should not be undermining parents—to allow parents to set guardrails for their children on content that will be granulated to individual accounts, keywords or topics; and interaction monitoring to identify what could be harassment based on the pattern of posting, the words used and the ages of the people involved to stop offending posts being seen by anyone but the poster. If industry can do this by themselves, why did we need legislation? Why wasn’t a simple code of practice used instead of this ‘big brother, big stick’ drama?

Ms Inman Grant: Is that a question? I would just say in response—

Senator ROBERTS: It looks like the platforms are developing new technology.

Ms Inman Grant: I would just say that we had a very constructive meeting with X. They walked us through a number of the tools. They did say they were going to use age assurance with Grok, which could have some interesting outcomes. But a large number of parents don’t utilise parental controls. Sometimes it’s because they’re too difficult for parents to find or to work. This was a bipartisan act that the parliament obviously started. The momentum started in South Australia and then in New South Wales. But my view, after talking to so many of the ministers, the Prime Minister and the opposition leader, who supported it, was that they wanted to do something monumental. They wanted to create a significant normative change.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what scares us.

Ms Inman Grant: One normative change that isn’t scary, I would think, is that we know that 84 per cent of eight- to 12-year-olds already have social media accounts, and, in 90 per cent of cases, parents have helped them set them up. Why? Because they wanted them to be exposed to harm early? No. It’s because they’re concerned that their kids’ friends are all on the sites and their kid will be excluded. What this change does is delay them from being exposed to all the harmful and deceptive design features. They can also sit down with their kids and say: ‘Hey, you’re not ready for this. You’re not going to be on it and your friends shouldn’t be on it either.’ So it takes the FOMO, exclusionary element out of it, and this is what we’ll be measuring.

Senator ROBERTS: So the government excludes them instead of their friends? It should be the parents, shouldn’t it?

Ms Inman Grant: They’re setting a standard like you’d set a drinking age or the age for cigarettes. They’re setting an age for social media that they think is the right age and—

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Commissioner, the search engine code included a grace period of 12 months to allow search companies to write their code to comply. As I just indicated, social media companies are close to a technological solution that will also solve their compliance. Will you allow a grace period to allow social media companies to properly write, test and deploy age-verification technology in an orderly manner—in other words, delay?

Ms Inman Grant: We’re following the letter of the law, but what we’ve said is that we are looking for systemic failures. We don’t expect accounts to immediately disappear overnight. We also have another requirement beyond the deactivating of the under-16 accounts on 10 December, which is preventing under-16s from creating accounts. We accept that that’s going to be a longer-term journey for a lot of these companies, and many that we’re talking about here already have very sophisticated age-inference tools or AI tools. Some of them will be supplementing them with third-party tools that have been tested with the age assurance technical trial. Again, they’re taking a layered approach. We will watch closely. If they have glitches, we’ll talk to them about it. What we care about is that they’re clear with us about the tools and the success of validation or the layered approach they plan to take. If it’s not working, the other requirement is continued improvement, which the technology is doing every day. So in some ways we will be providing a grace process.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems that you accept that this rushed introduction with insufficient time for social media companies to get the software right, with no time for testing and very little public education, could be a recipe for chaos.

Ms Inman Grant: I think they’ve had plenty of time and they’re all technically capable of achieving this.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, noting the time, we’re due to take a short break. Do you have a final question? Then we’ll take a break and rotate the call after that.

Senator ROBERTS: Why was the decision made to time the introduction for school holidays, which is when children will be wanting to access social media to stay in contact with their friends, sports and activities?

Ms Inman Grant: It was written into the legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: It was one of the reasons we opposed it.

Senator CANAVAN: It’s killed Christmas.

Ms Inman Grant: That’s a legitimate concern. Kids are—

Senator CANAVAN: They’ll get new gadgets that they won’t be able to use.

Ms Inman Grant: Only for gaming.

CHAIR: That’s a good note.

/by

The NACC: Big Budget, Small Results

,

Since its inception in July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has spent over $140 million of taxpayer money. Yet, despite having more powers and more staff than its predecessor, the results so far are underwhelming: just one conviction, two simple investigations, and ten historical cases carried over from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. That’s a staggering cost for such limited outcomes.

I acknowledge that corruption investigations are complex and take time—but Australians deserve transparency and accountability, especially when such vast sums are being spent. The fact that the Commissioner won’t front up to answer questions only raises more concerns. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being used, and I’ll keep asking the hard questions until we get the answers.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Since being established in July 2023, the NACC has spent north of $140 million of taxpayer funds. Correct me if I’m wrong, but with more powers and more staff this time, the NACC has concluded one prosecution, 10 historical investigations from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, two NACC initiated simple investigations, with one conviction—is that correct? 

Mr Reed: At the moment— 

Senator ROBERTS: One hundred and forty million. 

Mr Reed: the commission has 38 corruption investigations underway, and 12 of those are joint investigations. We’ve got 33 preliminary investigations, which are part of the assessment process. We finalised 10 investigations, nine when it became clear that corrupt conduct would not be found and one where a corruption finding was made in a report provided to the minister, which is one of the matters that I put in my opening address. We’ve assessed 5,103 referrals. That’s 84 per cent of the 6,055 that have come in. So the NACC is a very busy organisation. The investigations of corrupt conduct are complex. They take time, and any organisation like this will take more than two years, usually, to complete investigations. What I said in my opening address was that, as the commission enters this next phase—this third year of operations—complex investigations will reach completion, and the commission’s operational achievements will gradually become more visible. That’s the reality of a new organisation picking up a significant workload, picking up a workload from a predecessor organisation and having to complete that work at the same time as dealing with the referrals that have come through. It’s not a straightforward, simple exercise, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. 

Mr Reed: These are complex matters. 

Senator ROBERTS: But $140 million in two years, plus a commissioner who won’t front and be held accountable to taxpayers, raises many questions. 

Mr Reed: The annual appropriations are on the record. They were agreed to as part of the forward estimates before the NACC commenced. We’re still recruiting people into roles. The fact that the commissioner is not here is not a lack of accountability; it’s the accountable authority that you’ve got sitting in this chair, and it’s the accountable authority who is expected to be at estimates. I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with the commissioner not being here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/1 Comment/by

AEMO and the Net Zero Deception

,

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) runs our entire electricity grid. Sounds like a government agency, yet it’s a private body.

No FOI’s allowed, no Senate scrutiny, no transparency.

Net zero = hide the costs, hide the damage, hide the plan.

They are taking us over a cliff – blindfolded.

Transcript

A culture of hiding behind secrecy, spin and broken promises—the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, operates our entire electricity grid. It sounds like a government agency, yet, somehow, it’s a private body. No-one’s allowed to lodge a freedom-of-information request with them. They don’t turn up to parliamentary hearings or Senate estimates. They hide from scrutiny. That’s a key word for this government and for net zero: hide. Hide the costs, hide the lack of a policy basis, hide the environmental damage, hide the economic damage, hide the social damage and hide the lack of a plan. They’re taking us blindfolded over a cliff. 

Where did it start? It started in the years from 1996 to 2007 under the LNP and John Howard’s prime ministership. He started this insanity, based, they assured us, on science. Yet six years after getting the boot in faraway London, John Howard confessed that ‘on the topic of climate science I’m agnostic’. He didn’t have the science. The whole parliament has been hijacked for the last 30 years—three decades. 

/2 Comments/by

Transparency Starts with Honest Answers

,

In Senate Estimates, I raised the issue of transparency in government appointments. The Minister has made transparency one of the key drivers for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and I wanted to put that principle into practice. I asked the questions Australians deserve answers to—starting with the basics: what is the total remuneration package for this position? Mr Kaiser confirmed it’s approximately $930,000 per year, inclusive of superannuation, on a five-year contract.

I explored Mr Kaiser’s background. He previously served as Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet under Labor Premier Steven Miles. Before that, Mr Kaiser was State Secretary of the Queensland Labor Party and even a member of parliament for Labor. These are facts that matter because they speak to the culture of appointments in government. When the Prime Minister praises Mr Kaiser’s experience in delivering large-scale projects and managing energy infrastructure, Australians should know the full story behind that experience.

Finally, I asked why the government still hasn’t released its “jobs-for-mates” review, which was handed to them in 2023. This review was supposed to end the very culture that raises questions about appointments like this one.

I’ll keep pushing for answers because accountability matters. Australians deserve a public service that is impartial, frank, and fearless—not one that looks like a revolving door for political insiders.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this morning. Minister, firstly, congratulations to you. It’s a challenging appointment; Anthony Albanese must trust you quite a bit. Mr Kaiser, congratulations on your appointment to run the department.  

Mr Kaiser: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to focus on the third driver of the minister’s drivers to the department, which is more transparency. What’s your total remuneration package for heading the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water?  

Mr Kaiser: Approximately $930,000 per annum. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that in total, or does it include super and allowances? Is that everything in your package?

Mr Kaiser: That’s inclusive of super.  

Senator ROBERTS: So your gross salary package is $930,000.  

Mr Kaiser: Approximately. 

Senator ROBERTS: How long is your contract for?  

Mr Kaiser: Five years.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was your last job?  

Mr Kaiser: I was one of what we call directors-general. I was Director-General of the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the premier was Steven Miles?  

Mr Kaiser: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Which party was he in?  

Mr Kaiser: The Labor Party.  

Senator ROBERTS: He was unceremoniously tossed out of government by the Queensland voters, and it’s the federal Labor government now appointing you.  

Mr Kaiser: I think my career CV is a matter of record. I was employed by the Queensland government until 24 October 2004, and I commenced work with the Commonwealth government as the secretary of this department on 14 July 2025.  

Senator ROBERTS: At one stage, you were state secretary for the Queensland Labor Party; is that correct?  

Mr Kaiser: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: And were you a member of the parliament for the Labor Party?  

Mr Kaiser: I was a member of the Queensland parliament for a brief period of time, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What role did you have that earnt the Prime Minister’s praise? I can see that he has been very glowing in his praise: ‘Mr Kaiser’s experience includes delivering on large scale projects, administering complex regulatory regimes and leading the Queensland government’s policies on planning and infrastructure.’ What role did you have on climate and energy plans?  

Mr Kaiser: As a Queensland public servant?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Kaiser: I headed the infrastructure department that had overall responsibility for the program management of the infrastructure that was publicly funded in Queensland and aspects of private sector infrastructure; that certainly included energy infrastructure, for example. I was the director-general of the local government department; I had a lot of interactions between local governments and energy providers and also those developing renewable energy projects. I’m trying to think of other touch points. Obviously, as the Director-General of the—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your being so forthcoming. Did that include any of the pumped hydro storage systems?  

Senator Watt: Chair, can I just get a ruling? I think these are questions that go to matters in the Queensland government, and I would have thought today is more about asking questions about what’s happening in the federal government. So can we just get some guidance on whether these questions are in order?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll deal with that. I understand the point that you’re making, minister. I think it’s relevant to the qualifications of the department’s secretary for the purposes of corporate affairs. So, unless it strays very much further into the Queensland government, I think these questions are in order for now.  

Mr Kaiser: In terms of the pumped hydro projects being worked on in Queensland at the time while I was a public servant, it was certainly Queensland government policy that pumped hydro projects be developed in Queensland and, as a public servant, I played my legitimate role in assisting the government to fulfil its policy objectives.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did that include Borumba and Pioneer-Burdekin?  

Mr Kaiser: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Kaiser, how many of the projects that you oversaw have been turned around by the latest government, the new government?  

Mr Kaiser: I can’t answer that. As a public servant, I worked diligently to fulfil the policy objectives of the government that I worked for and not a subsequent government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why hasn’t the government released its jobs-for-mates review into Public Service appointments? Senator Gallagher said back in 2023, ‘This review is all about putting an end to the jobs- for-mates culture.’ It was handed to your government in 2023, yet you still keep it secret; why haven’t you commented on it?  

Senator Watt: I don’t know about that. That’s not a matter involving this department, but the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Finance are happening over the course of the week.  

Mr Kaiser: Senator, if I may, it would seem to me that your questions go to my political background. There is no doubt and it’s a matter of record that I have political involvement in my background. I can assure senators, my ministers and the Australian people that I’ve had no involvement in politics—I’ve held no political role—for 16 years. When I was involved in politics, the public servants whom I admired the most were the ones who provided frank, fearless and impartial advice, and that’s a value I hold dear now as I exercise my responsibility as a public servant.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll have to share the call. If you have further questions, please let me know. Senator Dean Smith. 

/by

Secrecy, Power, and Big Pharma

,

The Labor Government is running scared of scrutiny. Their atrocious bill to establish an Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC) is significant legislation—and I’ll go so far as to say it’s the worst I’ve seen in my nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous.

There were countless amendments that required answers, and many speakers were denied the opportunity to contribute. Serious questions remain unresolved.

The Albanese Government manipulated the speaking list to push One Nation Senators to the bottom. Just before it was my turn to speak, Labor guillotined the bill, preventing any further speeches from being delivered. I managed to use the debate on the guillotine to deliver part of my speech, which is the video you see here.

This marks a new low for the unscrupulous and arrogant Labor Government. The Greens should be ashamed for supporting the guillotine on such an important bill.

The CDC will provide the government of the day with cover to do whatever it wants. It’s expensive, it will control dangerous research, and the reporting and scrutiny provided in this bill are virtually non-existent. This is unacceptable.

One Nation will repeal this bill.

Transcript

Yet again, a guillotine stops debate immediately before I was scheduled to speak against this bill, and after pushing all three One Nation senators, who were going to speak, to the bottom of the list. One Nation opposed the guillotine. We want to know why the coalition and the Greens join with Labor in supporting big pharma.  

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

Senator ROBERTS: Except Senator Canavan. Thank you, Senator Canavan. This is significant legislation, and I’ll go so far as to say that it’s the worst legislation I’ve seen in nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous. There are many, many amendments that need answers, and there are many speakers that missed out. There are many questions.  

The first question I have for you is: why are you avoiding scrutiny? This is half a bill! The bill establishes what the CDC director can do. It does not, though, establish what the director cannot do. There’s nothing in this legislation to establish rules around the following, so can you please clarify. What is the process for determining where the CDC will be located and what the site features should be—what protections for the community? What research will be conducted at the CDC, if any? Will that research include gain-of-function research, which was the cause of the COVID outbreak in 2019, which killed millions of people? Who will own the taxpayer funded CDC research? There are no answers to these questions. These are fundamental. What research will be conducted in cooperation with research facilities overseas, and what countries should be excluded on national security grounds? Start with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and exclude Anthony Fauci’s haunts, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and America’s National Institutes of Health, and Fauci’s colleagues including Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak. 

Will live animal testing be conducted, and, if so, on what animals and how? Will research be conducted on behalf of commercial corporations, and, if so, who owns the taxpayer funded research. What annual reporting will be produced to alert the parliament and the Australian people about the risks to which they’re being exposed? If the CDC facility handles sensitive material, what level of containment will be used, and what will be the process for investigating and rectifying breaches? And what is the purpose of and limit to research? Is it just ego—’Look at what we can do!’—or is there a genuine medical outcome they’re working towards? 

We know the CSIRO at its Geelong facility is already conducting risky experiments on deadly viruses such as Ebola, and they’re experimenting on animals. Those are my questions. Additionally, what’s happening with taxpayer funds? We know the CSIRO monetises its research, or used to, and we know lately the CSIRO has been publishing the results of their research allowing corporations to piggyback off that research free of charge, saving them years in developing new drugs from which the Australian taxpayers will have no commercial benefit. The taxpayers pay and get no benefit. This is the state of medical research in Australia. What impact will the CDC have on the CSIRO? We don’t know. The bill doesn’t set out these matters. It’s a glaring omission. 

The minister says the Australian CDC will undertake technical and advisory functions based on its public health expertise and knowledge and access to relevant information. What expertise? It hasn’t started yet. You’re assuming bureaucrats and health officials actually have the expertise and knowledge to perform these studies, yet there’s nothing in this bill to say they must have that knowledge—nothing. This is a pretence to give ‘thank you’ jobs to COVID era health officials who have a track record of very dangerous, dishonest and inhuman decisions. These bureaucrats will be given powers. The Chief Medical Officer, for example, must be a doctor, but the director of the CDC does not. What could possibly go wrong? 

Continuing cover ups from the government and freedom of information—an issue which One Nation senator for Western Australia Senator Whitten has raised is the changes the bill makes to the Freedom of Information Act. The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt the CDC from freedom of information applications to which the same documents are currently open. I wonder if this is to cover up information from the COVID years or just to get ahead of the next lab leak. 

Finally, I’ve already discussed sensitive biological agents with regard to Ebola. The CDC bill transfers responsibility for the Security Sensitive Biological Agents Regulatory Scheme from the department to the Australian CDC. This scheme regulates certain biological agents that are considered dangerous. Now, let’s take a closer look at this one. Who would decide if a biological agent is sensitive and subject to extra checks? The CDC. Who would be most likely to be importing sensitive biological agents like Ebola and heaven knows what else? The CDC. Who would now be their own regulator? You guessed it, the CDC. This is a recipe for no accountability, a recipe for disaster, a recipe for rampant, unbridled control over the people. 

Officially, this bill simply brings together powers spread across several departments into one place. If that’s really the case, why does the bill have a price tag of $250 million for the first three years and $73 million per year after that? Shouldn’t the cost of the CDC be offset through savings in other departments? If that’s all they intend, then that would be true. Clearly the Australian CDC will be doing much, much more. You’re given them the money to do it, and they’ll be doing it away from prying eyes and protected with freedom-of-information blocks and negligible reporting criteria, regulating itself and sending the bill to the taxpayers. In nine years in the Senate, this is one of the worst bills I’ve dealt with. Minister, I’ve given you many questions. I’d like some answers. 

/1 Comment/by

The PM’s Political Weaponisation of Staff

,

Right now, the Prime Minister has the authority and sole discretion to decide how many advisers each senator receives—an authority he’s used to punish those who challenge him.

Advisers are vital for researching and scrutinising legislation, engaging with constituents, and holding the government accountable. Cutting staff for senators who oppose him does not pass the pub test. It’s not just unfair—it’s undemocratic. What is the Prime Minister afraid of? Is it scrutiny, truth, or the rise of One Nation? His actions show he fears accountability and seeks to silence those who stand up to him.

The staffing decisions reveal a disturbing pattern. Senators who vote with Labor—David Pocock, Tammy Tyrrell, Lidia Thorpe, Jacqui Lambie—kept all their advisers. Those who challenge Labor—Senator Ralph Babet and One Nation senators—had their staff cut in half. Senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor, had no advisers before or after the election. Queensland, which I proudly represent, has ten times Tasmania’s population and a vastly larger economy, yet Tasmanian senators receive more than double the staff. This inequity across states is blatant and raises serious concerns about bias, discrimination and political bastardry. The Prime Minister’s refusal to meet with Senator Hanson and me together, his lack of consultation, and his disregard for administrative law and workplace safety standards show a pattern of vindictive, chaotic governance.

This bill is a practical, fair solution supported by Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation. It sets minimum standards for staffing while preserving the Prime Minister’s discretion to allocate more. It ensures that support for senators is not subject to political whim.

Previous Liberal PMs treated all senators fairly—PM Albanese does not. He promised transparency and fairness, but his actions betray those values.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this bill to restore fairness, integrity and justice to allocation of staff in crossbench senators’ offices, to protect accountability in parliament and to guard democracy. The Prime Minister currently has the authority and sole discretion to determine the number of parliamentary advisers to crossbench senators. 

Here’s how he allocated staff in the previous parliament, and then after the recent election. Firstly, the crossbench senators who largely vote with Labor. David Pocock had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Tammy Tyrrell had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Lidia Thorpe had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Jacqui Lambie had three advisers before the election—three! After the election, it was unchanged—three advisers. 

Secondly, let’s move on to the crossbench senators who often oppose Labor in the Senate. Senator Ralph Babet had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was cut in half, to one adviser—one! One Nation senators had two advisers each before the election. After the election, on average, it was cut in half, to one adviser each—one! 

Thirdly, crossbench senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor in the last term, embarrassing the Prime Minister and the Labor Party, had zero advisers before the election—nil! After the election, she had zero advisers—nil, none! 

Next, consider this: the Prime Minister sacked both of my advisers. He bypassed me, their employer. The parliamentary adviser’s duty, the personal adviser, is to assist senators with researching proposed legislation, assist senators in writing speeches, advise on parliamentary tactics, help prepare questions for Senate estimates hearings, be the first point of contact for community groups, and deputise for the senator in meetings when the senator is engaged in the chamber or elsewhere in the state. The Prime Minister radically gutted the staffing of those senators who hold the Labor Party accountable. This does not pass the pub test, nor any test for fairness, integrity or justice.  

When the Prime Minister cuts the staffing of those senators who take positions opposing his, he has an obvious conflict of interest. The incentive for the Prime Minister is to cut the resources of his political opponents, seeking to take political advantage and to cut us off at the legs. Reducing the number of support staff for a senator effectively reduces the ability of a senator to function on behalf of the electorate and provide an effective opposition, a foundation of our Westminster system of democratic government. This is an abuse of taxpayer funds and of the nation’s top political office—that of Prime Minister—to cripple senators with the courage to hold the Prime Minister’s government accountable and to reward those senators who support the Prime Minister’s agenda. This Prime Minister seems to forget that parliament does not serve him. He serves the people through the democratically elected parliament. 

The state I proudly represent, Queensland, has 5.7 million people. Tasmania has 575,000. The state I represent has around 10 times the number of constituents as Tasmania. Queensland is 25 times larger in area that Tasmania. Queensland has more diverse regions and climates and a much larger and more diverse economy. Queensland’s gross state product is 12 times larger than Tasmania’s. Yet the Prime Minister allocates more than twice the number of advisers to each Tasmanian crossbench senator than to each Queensland crossbench senator. Senator Whitten’s state of Western Australia has an area almost 40 times that of Tasmania. He has to get around that. The state of New South Wales has a population 14 times that of Tasmania’s. The disparity between our states and the Australian Capital Territory, with its tiny population, are even more striking than with Tasmania. 

This treatment of different Senate offices is inequitable and raises issues of bias, discrimination and political bastardry. This clearly shows the Prime Minister to be incapable of fairness and clearly displays his vindictiveness, incompetence and biased behaviour. Is he aiming to cripple One Nation after we received a huge increase in votes, doubled our members in parliament and came close to having a total of seven senators elected? One of our candidates for the House of Representatives achieved two-party preferred status and came close to being elected. Is the Prime Minister afraid of One Nation’s rise? Perhaps the Prime Minister is sensitive to criticism or to being held accountable. He reportedly found $886,000 of taxpayer money to splash on refurbishing the new Greens party room, his partners in the government’s communist coalition. By the way, the journalist who exposed this news was banned from parliament for a week. Of what is the Prime Minister afraid? 

Further, after his gutting of our staff, the Prime Minister and his chief of staff refused to meet with Senator Hanson and me together. He insisted that he and his chief of staff would meet with only one of us. In my subsequent meeting with the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, I raised three main issues: the unfairness of the Prime Minister’s staffing allocation; that the Prime Minister’s actions breached recognised processes expected under administrative law provisions; and that the Prime Minister was imposing needless stress on staff who are already working hard in the taxpayers’ interest. 

Let’s next consider the process the Prime Minister chose to follow. On 23 June 2025, Prime Minister Albanese notified Senator Pauline Hanson of his decision to slash half the parliamentary staff allocation for each One Nation senator, from two each to one each. In doing this, he had exercised a discretion authorised under sections 4(1), 11(3) and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, the MOPS Act. In determining these allocations of parliamentary advisers and implementing these notices of allocation, the Prime Minister breached important provisions of administrative law, which is defined in common law as decisions from courts, including the High Court. The breaches include that he gave no reasons for his decision; he had not consulted or sought input from any One Nation senator; he did not act in good faith; he did not act with a proper purpose; he had not considered relevant matters; he had not acted on reasonable grounds, given that One Nation had doubled its number of senators from two to four, with no increase in personal staff offered; he did not act based on supporting evidence; and he had not provided procedural fairness to affected persons, including personal parliamentary staff and senators. 

Senators and affected staff were given no opportunity to put their case to the Prime Minister before he made his decision to slash staff allocations. He or his office ordered the employment of my staff to be terminated before my staff were made aware—the only senator’s office in which that occurred. I was given 12 minutes notice to respond to a communications deadline late on a Friday evening, and I worked that night until 10.30 pm and did not check my emails—12 minutes notice to respond! The Prime Minister had not properly considered the merits of the decision. He has still not indicated that he had evaluated all relevant evidence. He had not acted reasonably or fairly, as senators were not allocated staff on the basis of need. Nor were senators treated evenly. Some senators had savage cuts made to their staff, while others had no cuts made at all. The Prime Minister did not inform senators that he had made a decision that affected them. Some senators found out via the media. 

Our Australian courts have clearly recognised that the exercise of administrative discretion, including the decision to reduce support for selected senators, must follow the procedural principles set out in Australian case law. The Prime Minister did not follow these principles. The process he stumbled through appears to be different for every crossbench senator. 

The decision also flies in the face of the recent Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet review of health risks to parliamentary staffers from workplace stress and excessive work demands that lead to workplace health and safety issues. A Parliamentary Workplace Support Service review into the resourcing of parliamentary staff concluded: 

Staffing levels overall are not adequate to meet all the parliamentary and electorate work demands placed on staff in some offices. 

This translates to the fact that personal staff are overworked and translates further to a workplace health and safety issue. 

The way in which the Prime Minister slashed some senators’ staffing and caused staff to be brutalised shows he does not care about workers. If the Prime Minister supports a fully functioning parliament and democracy and supports accountability, then he should ensure that members and senators are provided with reasonable resources, including qualified and professional advisers as personal staff. After securing re-election based on promises of transparency, the Prime Minister appears to have abused his position, disrespected Australian law and courts and jeopardised democracy for his political advantage. The Prime Minister shows he is incapable of fairness and competence. He will be more able and likely to hide with a reduced opposition. That hurts Australia. It hurts democracy. This is clearly a further example of the Prime Minister seeking control over democratic processes. 

I remind everyone that always beneath control there is fear. Why is he afraid of democratic scrutiny? Why is he afraid of losing the control that he covets? Why is the Prime Minister afraid of me? I’m not a big bloke. Is he afraid of my work as a crossbench minor party senator? Is he afraid of my passion for exposing the truth and serving constituents? Is he afraid of my teamwork with my staff, making us more effective as a team? Is that why he dismantled my team and stressed them needlessly? Is he, with just one year’s experience in the real world, afraid of my diverse practical experience, including underground coalface miner, vineyard labourer, engineer, mine and project manager, executive leadership consultant, and board director? Is he afraid of One Nation rising, or does he still have blind prejudice towards One Nation, as revealed in his adjournment speech of May 1998? Last week during question time in the House of Representatives, why did he try to ridicule me, a small-party crossbench senator? Doesn’t he realise that name-calling and labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest or the fearful and are signs of fear? 

Before the election, the Prime Minister promised transparency and fairness. His actions show why I take note of people’s actions, not their words. What’s important is what we can do, not who we can be. In other words, what we do matters; our title matters not. 

This new bill’s co-sponsors include Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation—indicating a unity of support. Under this new bill, the government retains over 520 staff and access to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of departmental staff. The bill provides fair allocation of staff to government, opposition, Greens, other parties and crossbench senators. This bill is well considered, well written and fair. The bill offers career progression for crossbench staff. It nominates only minimum standards. The Prime Minister still has the freedom to allocate more and to exercise his discretion. 

We are all tired of partisan politics that threaten to destroy our country and our democracy. This bill will ensure that support for senators and for Australian democracy is not subject to the whims of a recalcitrant prime minister who puts his own needs ahead of the effective operation of this chamber. Both preceding Liberal prime ministers allocated equal numbers of personal advisers to each crossbench senator, showing that they both saw merit in fairness and in democracy. Prime Minister Albanese hides from, buries, prevents and kills democracy. 

One Nation welcomes the spirit with which many diverse senators approached this issue’s resolution in a united way. This bill is a sensible, practical and responsible solution to digging the Prime Minister out of the ridiculous and embarrassing hole he has dug for himself. All One Nation senators support this bill. I encourage all senators to support this bill. I say to all Australians: the ABC, and the media generally, won’t report this issue, so, if you’re concerned about the Prime Minister’s abuse of power and taxpayer money, please share it and spread it. Bringing back and restoring our country starts with the people driving parliamentary accountability. 

/by

It’s Not Government Money — It’s Yours

,

One of the most fundamental duties of a senator is to scrutinise the government — not just its words, but its actions. That means asking tough questions about how public money is spent, and demanding transparency when answers are withheld.

Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as “government money.”

Every dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers — from you, from your family, from every working Australian. Yet time and again, ministers dodge this truth. When asked directly, Minister Walsh couldn’t even say the word “taxpayer.” Instead, she danced around the issue, talking about “revenues” and “costed policies.” But the reality remains: it’s your money. And what’s happening with it? Billions of dollars are being funnelled into subsidies and climate schemes with no parliamentary scrutiny.

The government even refused to answer questions about an alleged fund linked to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I made no accusations – I just asked questions – yet the government doesn’t want those questions asked. This secrecy is becoming a pattern. Whether it’s Housing Australia or climate targets, Labor refuses to disclose where taxpayer money is going.

Meanwhile, the push for net zero continues — a policy introduced by the Liberals and Nationals – costing Australians billions. There’s no detailed plan, no milestones, no way to measure progress. Even the CSIRO can’t quantify the impact of human carbon dioxide on the climate.

So, what are we paying for? Australians deserve better. We deserve transparency. We deserve respect. And above all, we deserve to know how our hard-earned money is being spent.

https://youtu.be/nWGyg9fpVfk

Transcript

I rise to take note of Minister Ayres’s comment. One of the most fundamental parts of a senator ‘s job is to review and scrutinise the government. That’s why I support almost every single order for the production of documents, regardless of who moves it. Most importantly, scrutinising the government means scrutinising how the government is spending money—and, by the way, scrutinising the impacts of government policy on the national economy and on individual Australians is part of scrutiny of government. 

To build back on the first point, scrutinising how the government is spending our money: the government forgets that what it spends isn’t the government’s money; it’s taxpayer money. Minister Walsh recently couldn’t utter the word ‘taxpayers’. I asked her what government money was. She said it is about revenues and that the policy was fully costed. She twisted and turned and gave me several other answers, but she could not utter the words ‘taxpayers’ money’. There is no such thing as government money. It is all taxpayer money. As taxpayers, we all pay taxpayer money. It is Australians’ money. 

Last week I spoke in the Senate about Minister Bowen taking subsidies, completely away from parliamentary scrutiny. It was a cosy little deal worth billions of dollars. I mentioned a potential deal with a fund taken over by Julia Gillard, the former Labor prime minister. I made no imputations. I’m just saying we need to have a look at that data. The government is hiding, hiding, hiding and stopping scrutiny, stopping us from doing our jobs, which is a theme for this government. Too often the government is willing to waste hard-earned tax dollars. The minister has just been hauled in front of the Senate to explain because the government refused to answer where they’re spending taxpayer money. This is the second—we’ve just had discussions about Housing Australia—and the government has refused again. This secretive Labor government refuses to tell Australians where it’s spending its taxpayer money. Why the secrecy? Why the hiding? It’s not your money. It’s the Australians’ money. It’s because you don’t want Australians to know that you don’t treat taxpayer money with respect. 

Now we come to the second motion that Labor is trying to keep secret, on climate targets. There’s a backstory here that shows how incoherent the Liberals and the Nationals are. The motion is from the Liberal-National coalition asking the government to hand over documents in relation to the Climate Change Authority and their targets. Australians hear all the time that the Liberals and the Nationals want to ditch net zero, yet here’s a motion that the Liberal-National coalition pursues that’s criticising the government for not putting out information on net zero targets. This is insane. It’s almost as insane as the net zero pipedream. 

While the Liberals and the Nationals spin their wheels and try to figure out which way the wind is blowing, One Nation is clear. On this motion, One Nation says to the government, we’re not bothered about you handing over your net zero targets. We say, don’t bother pursuing net zero at all. All of these billions of dollars amounting to trillions of dollars and efforts to keep things secret are a waste of time and money. Every minute you spend making climate targets, bogging businesses down in green and blue tape and hamstringing our productive capacity harms the country. Give it up, government, and start putting Australians first. 

Remember that the Liberals and the Nationals introduced every major climate and energy policy, including net zero. You did it. That Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison introduced net zero after breaking his election promise to not pursue net zero. What about the government spending trillions on net zero without a detailed project plan—no milestones, no measures of progress, just leading Australia towards an economic cliff blindfolded. Worse, net zero is taking Australia to energy ruin without any policy basis. The CSIRO have never specified—and I’ve asked them repeatedly in personal sessions and in Senate estimates—the specific, quantified effect of human carbon dioxide on the climate. Without that, you can’t have a policy. Thus there’s no basis for policy cutting human carbon dioxide. That’s why there’s no way of measuring the progress of implementing climate and energy policies. That’s why you’ve got to keep it secret. That’s why you’ve got to hide it. I’ll continue my remarks on this topic in the future. 

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by

Transparency Needed: Rob Stefanic’s Departure

,

I questioned the Department of Parliamentary Services about the concerning departure of former Secretary Rob Stefanic who I questioned over serious issue previously. The President confirmed he was terminated due to “lost trust and confidence” – but both the President and current Secretary Ms Hinchcliffe dodged questions about whether Mr Stefanic intercepted a public interest disclosure letter, potentially contradicting his court affidavit.

Even more troubling: 14 senior executives have left DPS in just three years. This follows my previous questioning about serious cultural issues within the department.

As your Senator, I remain committed to ensuring proper oversight of taxpayer-funded positions. The Australian public deserves full transparency about what occurred under Mr Stefanic’s leadership and exactly why he was asked to step down, especially given his $478,000 salary was funded by taxpayers.

I’ll continue pushing for accountability. If you’re a current or former DPS staffer with concerns, you can contact me confidentially at senator.roberts@aph.gov.au

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again. Ms Hinchcliffe, last November I asked you a series of questions, and you and your department have plain refused to answer the questions I’ve put to you. You’ve raised no public interest immunity claim. Ms Hinchcliffe, you are the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services. You cannot expect us to believe that you don’t know the proper process is to raise a public interest immunity claim, not simply flat-out refuse to answer questions. You know a public interest claim is the correct process, don’t you? 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: The questions on notice that you’ve raised—and, I’m sorry, I need to find them— 

Senator ROBERTS: Question 116.  

Ms J Hinchcliffe: We have provided an answer to those questions and those answers have been submitted. I suspect what you’d like to say to me is that those answers are not the answers that you’re looking for and you’d like to press me in relation to those. But we have provided answers to those questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: In question on notice 116, I asked you about your predecessor, Rob Stefanic, who 

stepped down in absolute controversy, yet you still won’t explain why he stepped down. That’s the answer I’m looking for. Why did he step down?  

Ms J Hinchcliffe: That’s not a question for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who is it a question for?  

The President: It’s a question for the presiding officer. 

Senator ROBERTS: President, why did Rob Stefanic step down?  

The President: I provided an opening statement at the last estimates, at which I said we had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.  

Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether Rob Stefanic intercepted a letter of an employee making a public  

interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit that he made in court. The answer to that question is contained in documents that you have access to, both of you.  

The President: Do you mean me, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

The President: I don’t have access to those documents. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who does? 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure what documents you’re talking about. As I said to you at the last estimates that you raised these, these matters are matters that pre-date me. I don’t know what occurred. It seems to me that question, of what Mr Stefanic did, is a question for Mr Stefanic rather than a question for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s either you or the President, the presiding officer. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: In terms of Mr Stefanic’s actions? 

Senator ROBERTS: Why Mr Stefanic stepped down. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: Sorry, what— 

Senator ROBERTS: Why did Mr Stefanic step down?  

The President: I’ve answered that question: because the presiding officers lost trust and confidence in the secretary.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did he intercept a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, and did that not contradict an affidavit given in court? Did he or not?  

The President: Who’s the question to, sorry? 

Senator ROBERTS: You.  

The President: I’ve indicated that those are proceedings I have no knowledge of and nothing to do with. That is not my role as the President.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who would have knowledge of that? 

The President: I have no idea, I’m very sorry. That’s not a question for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have knowledge of that, Ms Hinchcliffe? 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I don’t, and I’ve said before that I don’t have knowledge of that. 

Senator ROBERTS: So no-one knows why he stepped down. 

The President: I’ve answered that question twice now, and I’ve answered it a third time. I made an opening statement at the last estimates at which I said the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the details around that, and was his intercepting of a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court, part of the reason for losing trust?  

The President: I indicated in my opening statement that I was not able to provide any further information. The letter that you’ve talked about, I have absolutely no knowledge of at all. I know nothing about it.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that answers your question—in that it was not a relevant factor in losing confidence if the President didn’t know about it.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that we request. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. And both of you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or in producing documents to this committee. As I understand it, President, the default position of senators is that the Senate prevails. So unless you can come up with a public interest immunity, we are constitutionally empowered to fulfil our duty to taxpayers.  

The President: I’ll re-table my statement from last time. I made it clear that the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in the secretary and that it was not able to discuss, at that point, further matters in relation to the secretary. In relation to the matter that you are raising, a legal matter, whether it was me as a presiding officer or the previous presiding officers, which is where I understand this matter has its genesis, none of us would have—it’s not our role as presidents to have that level of depth of knowledge about court proceedings or DPS operations. That is not the role of the presiding officers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who oversees that? Whose role is it? Surely there’s someone with that role? 

The President: A court matter is a court matter. It’s nothing to do with the department. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Did he or did he not, and who would be aware of that? Surely, someone must be?  

The President: Ms Hinchcliffe has answered the question to the best of her ability. I have indicated, on a number of occasions, it’s not my role as the President. I have no knowledge of the matters you’re raising. We have answered your questions. I don’t know what else I can do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve got a new question. 

The President: These are matters which go back to previous presiding officers and previous DPS executive officers. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic left a rotten legacy. I want to know whether or not he intercepted a letter to an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit he gave to court. 

The President: Senator Roberts, I would hate for the DPS staff who are watching this to think that they are dirty and rotten. They are fine officers. They do an amazing job. 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. 

The President: I think that’s what you’re implying. I took that as— 

Senator ROBERTS: I said he left a rotten legacy. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, don’t speak over the President. 

The President: I’m not making a comment about that. The Presiding Officers acted swiftly. We lost trust and confidence, and he was terminated. We acted very swiftly in filling the position with Ms Hinchcliffe, and what we hope and what we’re looking forward to and what is currently happening within DPS is that we are restoring trust and confidence within that department. That is our role. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again. He left a rotten legacy. Many of your fine employees have come to me telling me of that, and still they’re very concerned about the legacy he left—what he actually did. I will ask if you can take it on notice to find out whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court. 

The President: I can’t take that on notice because it’s not my business. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t know, then tell me who does know. Who should that question— 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve already said to you that I don’t know that information and that the person who would know that information is Mr Stefanic. 

The President: This is a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter. It was a court matter. 

Senator ROBERTS: He was paid by taxpayers, as are we—all three of us. We all have a responsibility, don’t we, to taxpayers? 

The President: Absolutely. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you disrespecting the Senate and the taxpayer in this? 

The President: Senator Roberts, you are asking me about a court matter. If you ask me about a DPS matter, of course I will answer to the best of my ability, and it will be a truthful and transparent answer. I can’t comment in court matters. They’re not my purview. I am responsible for the running of Parliament House, DPS, the PBO and the Department of the Senate. That is the extent of my responsibilities. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking a simple question. Who is responsible? Who can I ask this question of?  

The President: Ms Hinchcliffe just told you: the previous secretary. It’s his matter. It’s a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter. 

Senator ROBERTS: Someone oversaw it. He intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Surely that affects everyone, ultimately. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: Senator, I’ve answered your question. I don’t have any knowledge of this. The person who you would need to ask is Mr Stefanic. If you’re asking about his actions, you would need to ask him. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Hinchcliffe, your department and what you do is immune to freedom of information requests. The only chance the Australian taxpayers and the fine employees of DPS have to hold you and the department accountable for your conduct is through questions we, as senators, ask. I’ve asked you to provide answers, and you’ve point blank refused. How are you meant to be accountable and transparent if you don’t answer questions this senator puts to you? 

The President: That characterisation is incorrect. The secretary has not refused. She has answered questions to the best of her ability. Both Ms Hinchcliffe and her staff are working very, very hard to restore trust and confidence not only within DPS but with all senators in this room. Of course we have a responsibility to answer your questions as they relate to DPS. This does not relate to DPS. It relates to a former secretary on a court matter. I can’t be any clearer on that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but it still remains the fact that apparently he intercepted a letter of a DPS employee making a public interest disclosure. That must bother someone. Please, someone. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered the question about my knowledge of this matter and who you would need to ask about whether or not Mr Stefanic intercepted the letter. I don’t know the answer to that. You would need to ask him. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there is no-one— 

The President: I think the actions that the Presiding Officers took in terminating the previous secretary indicate that we are very concerned about DPS and its reputation, so to suggest that no-one cares is, again, an incorrect characterisation. We acted as swiftly as we could. The secretary was terminated. We’ve acted extremely quickly to replace him, and I am very optimistic that with the new leadership at DPS we have a very, very exciting future. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we will need to conclude. We may be here next week for you to continue  

questioning. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I just have one more question? 

CHAIR: One more, and then the coalition has the call. 

Senator ROBERTS: It must bother your employees—taxpayer employees, whom you serve and for whom you are responsible—that someone wrote a letter and that letter was intercepted in making a public interest disclosure. Why does that not raise a simple answer in you to say, ‘I will find out’?  

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered your questions here today about my knowledge of this matter and about who you would need to ask about your suggestion that the secretary intercepted a letter. I’ve been very clear with this committee about my views on the use of taxpayers’ money: that everything that we do as a department is spending taxpayers’ money and we need to be very clear that we are getting value for money. You heard the conversation I just had with Senator Hume on that matter and the work that I’m doing to ensure that we are really clear in the department that we are spending taxpayers’ money wisely and well to support each of you in your business here in  

parliament. That is what we are here to do. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve had 14 senior executive service staff leave their senior positions in the last three years. That tells me something. 

The President: If I could state—I think it should be on the record—I think the matter you’re referring to is a matter that goes back to 2018. 

Senator ROBERTS: And when did Mr Stefanic leave? When was he removed? 

The President: In December. 

Senator ROBERTS: Of 2024. That’s six years in which he was doing— 

The President: But none of the officers at the table, including me, including the current government, had anything at all to do with this matter. 

Senator ROBERTS: That speaks to low accountability in your predecessors. 

The President: It’s seven years ago, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/by

Conservatives Must Unite: A Call for Integrity and Common Sense

,

In recent days, the call for conservative unity has been undermined by actions that contradict this goal. Social media, often used as a form of coercive control through lies, can instead be a platform for community and support for those feeling abandoned in a rapidly changing society. 

One Nation believes in stead-fast human rights tempered with common sense. Conservatism means treating others with honesty, respect, courtesy, and consideration, not because the government makes us but because it is the conservative way. As a conservative party, One Nation opposes any restriction on free speech, except where it incites violence. This has been my position since joining the Senate. Violence has no place in society or social media.  

Recent events have shown the need for integrity and leadership, qualities demonstrated by Senator Babet, John Ruddick, and Topher Field – and I thank them for that.  We have an obligation to inspire the best possible outcomes and I am committed to staying focused on exactly that. 

Representing Queensland in the Senate is a rare honour shared with only 107 other Queenslanders since Federation, and I am proud of my record and the achievements One Nation has accomplished, including wage justice for casual coalminers, pushing the Labor government to act. We are working to recover over $5 billion for casual workers. Additionally, we introduced a bill to make medicinal cannabis more accessible through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 

Our work also includes defeating and removing the cash ban bill, defeating the misinformation-disinformation laws, tabling legislation to prevent vaccine status discrimination, and securing a committee inquiry into terms of reference for a COVID Royal Commission. I promised to hound down those responsible and I will honour that promise. We blocked the Morrison government’s so called Ensuring Integrity Bill, and secured a dairy industry code of conduct.  We aim to end child labour in supply chains of products imported into Australia. 

Senator Hanson’s efforts led to the inclusion of Zolgensma on the PBS for treating spinal muscular dystrophy in children. She also secured an inquiry into family law, resulting in significant improvements. One Nation obtained $500 million for regional road projects in Queensland and funding for many community facilities. We successfully extended community TV licenses twice and are pushing back against child mutilation as a treatment for gender dysphoria. 

This is just a sample of our work, much of it successful through collaboration with the government. I look forward to continuing my work in the 48th parliament as a senator for Queensland with One Nation, a party led by Pauline Hanson, who has tirelessly fought for Australians’ rights at tremendous personal cost.  Pauline Hanson was Australia’s first political prisoner and after 28 years, she remains a formidable figure, casting a shadow over those who advance themselves as alternatives. 

In recent weeks, we’ve outlined One Nation’s plan to increase wealth and opportunity for all Australians. It’s clearly gone over well, because our political rivals have tried to distract from this plan, but our supporters see through it, and our membership has grown.  And the best is yet to come! 

One Nation’s policies will enable Australians to keep an extra $40 billion through policies like joint tax returns, reducing electricity and fuel excises, allowing pensioners to earn without it affecting their pension and raising the tax-free threshold for self-funded retirees to $35,000. We aim to end mass migration, deport illegal immigrants, and remove GST on building products for five years. 

We will also invest in infrastructure projects like Hells Gates Dam, Emu Swamp Dam, the Urannah water project, and extending Inland Rail. These projects will bring logistics benefits and reduce costs for all Australians. 

By cutting government spending, we will pay off national debt by an additional $30 billion a year (annual interest will hit $50 billion a year in 2026-27, making interest payments the single largest item in the budget) .  

One Nation is committed to putting more money in your pocket and restoring wealth and opportunity for our country.  Our commitment to conservative values and practical solutions will continue to guide our efforts in the Senate. We invite all Australians to join us in this mission. 

Transcript

I’d be rich if I had a dollar for every time someone asked, ‘Why can’t conservatives all get on with each other?’ The last few days remind me of these nine simple words made meaningless due to the actions of the very parties calling for conservative unity. These events remind us social media is often used as a form of coercive control through lies. It need not be. Social media can instead inform, inspire and save lives through the ability of social media to offer a community to those who feel life doesn’t care about them—Australians who feel abandoned, vulnerable, alone. These may be divorced men, detransitioners, traditional wives, farming families, vaccine injured and so many others being abandoned in the rush to a woke society that degenerates with each day. 

I’m concerned that social media may be the baby thrown out with the bathwater unless reason and self-control return to public discourse. Encouraging blatantly false statements for political objectives is disgraceful. After personally pointing out the lie, leaving false posts in public shows it’s wilful. I ask those in this debate to consider Proverbs 15:4. ‘Gentle words are a tree of life; however, a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.’ We have an obligation to lead through example to inspire the best outcomes possible, and I will remain focused on doing exactly that. 

One Nation understands that, while human rights are immutable, these are always tempered with common sense. As the saying goes, ‘Just because one can does not mean one should.’ This is the essence of conservatism: to consider we are part of a community composed of other human beings, who we have an obligation to treat with honesty, respect, courtesy and consideration not because the government makes us but because it is the conservative way. As a conservative party, One Nation stands opposed to any restriction on free speech—except one. Free speech stops where incitement to violence starts. That has been my position since coming into the Senate and it remains my position. It matters not who the parties are; violence has no place in a civil society, no place in a conservative society and no place in social media. I want to pay my compliments and extend my appreciation to Senator Babet, John Ruddick and Topher Field, who have in the last few days demonstrated decency, leadership and honesty. 

I thank them for that. Representing the state of Queensland in this Senate is a rare honour shared with only 107 other Queenslanders since Federation. I am proud to be contributing to Queensland and to Australia. I am proud that, in seven years in the Senate, I’ve only missed one day of sitting, and that was spent in hospital. I am proud of how I have decided my vote on the 378 bills that have come before the Senate in that time. Positions are decided on the basis of data and empirical evidence and on the basis of what is best for our beautiful country, and I will continue to do so. You may not agree with every position I’ve taken. Then again, if votes were cast only for politicians with whom one is in perfect agreement, no-one would be elected. 

I am proud of the work One Nation has advanced in the last six years. This includes, amongst many other things, wage justice for casuals in the coalmining industry. My bill shamed the Labor government into passing their own bill after years of delay, yet the Labor bill deliberately hid and failed to recover more than $5 billion stolen over the years from casual workers. This is something we’re remedying. It also includes a bill to down-schedule medicinal cannabis so that every Australian with a medical need can access natural Australian whole-plant medicinal cannabis on prescription available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 

Our work also includes defeating and removing the cash ban bill, and defeating the misinformation and disinformation laws. Such laws will never work, since one person’s misinformation is another person’s missing information. It includes tabling legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of vaccine status, a bill to which we will return in the next parliament, as well as securing a committee inquiry into terms of reference for a royal commission into the COVID pandemic. I promise to hound down those responsible, and I will honour that promise. It also includes a bill to end child labour in the supply chain of products imported into Australia; blocking the Morrison government’s so-called ensuring integrity bill, which unfairly targeted unions; and campaigning for and securing a dairy industry code of conduct. 

Senator Hanson’s personal representation resulted in the addition of Zolgensma, a drug to treat spinal muscular dystrophy and atrophy in children, to the PBS. Senator Hanson secured an inquiry into family law and the family court, which resulted in substantial improvements to the family law system. One Nation secured $500 million for regional road construction projects in Queensland, as well as Rockhampton stadium, Ipswich raceway, Yeppoon Aquatic Centre, $5 million for a driver training centre in Townsville and $12 million for community radio. We campaigned successfully on two occasions to extend community television licences. We are also leading the pushback against child mutilation as a so-called treatment for gender dysphoria.  

This is just a sample of our work, much of it having a successful outcome after working with the government of the day. I look forward to continuing my work in the 48th parliament, if voters so choose, as a senator for Queensland—a senator with One Nation, a party with a leader who has fought tirelessly for the rights of everyday Australians at tremendous personal cost. So-called Liberal Party conservatives colluded with senior Labor Party members to send Pauline Hanson to jail on trumped-up corruption charges to shut her up—she was released on appeal—charges for which her protagonist Tony Abbott has now apologised. Pauline Hanson was Australia’s first political prisoner, and here she is now, after 28 years, still casting a formidable shadow over those who advance themselves as alternatives. 

I look forward to engaging the libertarians, the United Australia Party, the Liberals and Nationals, the Greens and the teals in a battle of ideas, and may the best team win. The preferences of our voters will, of course, go wherever each of our voters place them on their individual ballot papers. In a federal election, parties do not allocate preferences, voters do—for whoever you want. Personally, I will be preferencing third parties ahead of the majors, with the Greens and teals last, of course. 

In the last few weeks I have set out One Nation’s plan to put more money back in the pockets of all Australians while restoring wealth and opportunity for all. This is our entry in the battle of ideas. It’s clearly gone over well, because our political rivals have panicked and have engaged in a classic straw-man play for almost a week. ‘Don’t look at this amazing plan to restore wealth and opportunity to this beautiful country,’ they say. ‘Instead, look over here at outrage confected with a bill that was decided before it came to the Senate in a Liberal, Labor, Greens and teals party stitch up.’ I have yet to see any criticism of those parties that actually voted for the bill, because this isn’t about the bill; it’s about the outrage and the distraction. I’m pleased to see that so many of our supporters saw straight through it, as did our new members. In the last week, One Nation membership has risen. Thank you. 

So what is One Nation’s election platform that has our competition running scared? Let us go over what we’ve released so far, and can I say that the best is yet to come. One Nation’s election platform starts with allowing Australians to keep an extra $40 billion of their money. This includes these costed policies: joint tax returns for couples with one child and one wage earner on the average wage, saving them as much as $9,500; a reduction in electricity prices of 20 per cent immediately and more than 50 per cent in the longer term once new zero-emission coal plants come online; a 26c a litre reduction in the fuel excise; cuts to the alcohol excise, to be announced shortly; allowing pensioners who meet the assets test to earn an income without losing the pension, adding as many as 600,000 experienced, motivated and dedicated older Australians to the workforce; allowing self-funded retirees to earn more before paying tax to encourage further self-funding of retirement. One Nation’s basic policy here is simple: less welfare and more wealth. Other policies include ending mass migration to take the pressure off inflation, especially in housing, and deporting 75,000 illegal immigrants; and removing GST on building products for five years and eliminating the NDIS building code and the six-star energy code as a requirement for new homes, saving as much as $75,000 on the construction cost of a new home. The truth about these building codes is that, in an attempt to be inclusive, we are excluding many young Australians from the housing market. Letting Australians keep more of their own money will be paid for through cutting government spending by $90 billion—all costed—and adding $13 billion in additional gas excise from gas exports. I’ll explain this in more detail closer to the election. 

Finally, One Nation will build, baby, build, including Hells Gates Dam, on the Burdekin River, for irrigation and flood mitigation, to protect coastal Queensland; Emu Swamp Dam, to provide water security to Stanthorpe; the Urannah water project, to provide water security, irrigation and flood mitigation to Broken River in North Queensland, while supplying Moranbah with the water necessary for an expansion in employment and development in the area—watch for that announcement soon; Inland Rail, which will be extended along the forestry route to Wandoan, Banana and then the Port of Gladstone, along with an $8 billion container facility to turn Gladstone into Australia’s premier container port and a multimodal just west of Gladstone; and public works in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. That will bring logistics benefits to all Australians. There will be cheaper and quicker goods going in and out of the country, through Gladstone port. The public works will be announced shortly. 

Finally, with the cut in government spending, we will pay off our national debt by an additional $30 billion a year, the annual interest on which will hit $50 billion a year in 2026-27, making interest payments the single largest item in the budget. One Nation will put more money in your pocket and restore wealth and opportunity for our whole beautiful country. 

/2 Comments/by

Podcast: The Right Side Show

,

I had a fantastic time chatting with Brodie Buchal on The Right Side Show! We dove into a range of topics, from Australian politics to the heated debate over the Under 16’s social media ban bill. We also tackled the lack of accountability in government processes and so much more.

/by