Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 6:45:34 to 7:40:02
Debate over the proposed 'Office for Men' and further clarification on the remit and institutional scope of the Antisemitism Royal Commission.
Topics: Social services, Workplace culture, Royal commissions
Speakers: Hon Michaelia Cash, Hon Penny Wong, Andrew Walter, Tyron Whitten, Unknown Speaker, Blair Exell, Karen Grogan
>> Um, my questions are mainly directed at you, Minister. Um I I went to the last estimates and um attended the uh department of women and talked about um the possibility of a department of men and they directed me here to ask these questions of you. So
>> thank you. >> Fantastic. >> Minister, >> I got to find out who that was. >> You mean the office of women? >> I I thought that Senator Gallagher I think I might have observed some of that questioning and I thought she answered, if I may say much better than I might, the her the government's view about equality being important uh for both men and women uh and the work that uh the government was doing in relation uh for example to men's health uh and other areas is um but what is your question
is there going to be an office for men >> And I'll give you some stats. >> Men make up 77% of suicides. The 95% of workplace deaths. Uh, they only have primary care of their children, around 10% of the separations. They're 92% of the prison population. Boys under 18 are three times more likely to be be on ADHD medication and Australian boys are now 38% of students start starting university. It would seem that boys and men could um could do with an office for men if there's an office for women.
I always um over the years [clears throat] that I have advocated in various contexts for equality including in my own party for affirmative action and in this place. you know I I think a kind of zero sum game around equality is not helpful to our society and what
>> would you mind speaking up? I'm really I'm happy for you. O
>> over the years, sorry, I'll try and repeat. Over the years that I have advocated for greater equality uh whether it's inside our party, affirmative action or here. Um I've I've also put the view that I think you know equality is to is a benefit to all. uh and uh that uh dealing with some of the structural disadvantage and discrimination against women was not something that um ought be feared. Now the the issues you raise around uh we are the first government I think I'll stand and correct it if I'm wrong that has appointed um an envoy for men's uh you know and you know that is a good and I don't think the fact that uh there is an office of for women to try and deal with the the disadvantage and discrimination that our daughters and our still experience is should be seen as somehow a negative for men and boys.
>> Yeah. I'm I'm not necessarily talking about discrimination. Um it's Society, families, women, children would all do better with better men. Um men men can do so much better. And um I just don't understand why there wouldn't be an office for men to help that cause because there's so many benefits to having good moral men. I'm not saying men are being discriminated against or and I'm not taking anything away from women, might I add. I'm 100% agree and support the office for women. I'm just curious as to why there wouldn't be an office for men given the challenges that that men and
>> I'm not sure it's an estimates question,
>> um a comment perhaps. Um I think the envoy, you might want to follow uh the social media of um the envoy for men's health. It's I I think you quite appreciate it. >> He's a little entertaining. There's There's no doubt. But I think there's some very, very solid material in there.
>> Yeah, I'll probably
>> Did you have another question, Senator
>> Sorry.
>> Did you have another question?
>> Um, no, I'll leave it at that, but I just want to put on the record that I I would think that an office for men um would be warranted given the challenges that men and boys face in the current climate. not taking anything away from
>> Thank you. Um, Senator Cash, would you like to take us out to the break?
>> Absolutely. Is that quarter past 4 or 4:00?
>> Let's call it 5 4 to give you a run.
>> 5 4 fabulous. I can do that. Could I just briefly then turn back to the Daily Telegraph article used to indoctrinate New South Wales kids in unauthorized pro Palestine lesson plans? Um can I just confirm in terms of the uh terms of reference of the royal commission a tackling anti-semitism by investigating the nature and prevalence of anti-semitism in institutions and society um are educational institutions for example schools like I've referred to are they captured in that term
>> the sorry senator just confirm you're talking about the letters paint now yeah
the letter yes
>> I think the better answer which I ought to have given you before was the government's announcement arising out of the implementation of the special envoys report of appointing David Gonsky uh to estate uh as head of or chair of the anti-semitism education task force I believe that does uh look at anti-semitism in schools
now um I just want to now ensure that we're all on the same page age. So, Virginia Bell, is she able to look at anti-semitism in schools as part of her
Uh, Senator, um, if I I can refer you to the greeting in the letter's patent, uh, which, uh, states, um, that, uh, hearing from the Jewish community will be important to informing the recommendations of your inquiry and recognizing concerns relating to educational and cultural institutions and other sectors of the of Australian society. Uh so to in the short yes the royal commission will
>> well these are matter I mean all Mr. Mr. Walters is being very helpful by reading the letters patent to you. Um so obviously ultimately the royal these are matters for the royal commission about how they choose to proceed. All we can refer to as the legislator. I was trying to be very helpful which is to point out to you that it the Royal Commission is not the the full sum of what the government has done or is doing on anti-semitism. uh and that uh you know the recommendation uh that Miss Seagull um made uh which first I think there was a report card and now there is a task force that David Gonsky is chairing goes more broadly more specifically I should say to the issue of anti-semitism in in schools. >> Is that right?
[laughter] interested in the Royal Commission uh and what the Royal Commission is able to look at or not look at. I have now had this raised with me by many many people who want to know the answer to and I'll just read a bit more now onto the record to make sure
we're all on the same page. >> No, hang on. I appreciate you want to read things into the record. Um these are matters for the Royal Commissioner. All we can do are able to >> well all we can do is point you to the part of the terms of reference which is relevant to that.
>> So and I don't want an I think I may I'd be a bit worried Senator Wong if I leave here today and I don't get a clear yes to can Virginia Bell actually look at this material that is being shared on a WhatsApp group by teachers and is being taught in New South Wales schools.
>> Senator Mr. >> Because I can't answer for Virginia Bell. I can only answer from the terms of reference. And Mr. Hang on. Is it
>> It's a simple yes or no.
>> Well, no. It's an interpretation by the commissioner surely if there's a hook in there.
>> But is it within the scope?
A3 making recommendations to counteract and prevent manifestations of anti-semitism.
>> So is that yes or no?
>> So that's through the section >> and the um uh I think the fifth paragraph and hearing from the Australian Jewish community will be important to informing the recommendations of your inquiry and recognizing concerns relating to educational and cultural institution and other sectors of Australian society. Now we are being careful about because the legal nature of the royal commission which is the royal commissioner is in charge not the government of the day. Uh but I think those two provisions make it clear. But additionally, and I don't know why you want to dismiss this, there's a task force in in the work under the envoys report where David Gonsky is specifically being asked by the government to look at this issue.
>> I'm certainly not dismissing it, Senator Wong. I'm trying to get clarity. Can I go back to then of the letters patent A1 where it says investigating the nature and prevalence of anti-semitism in institutions. What is the definition of an
>> I think uh senator institution would take its natural meaning in that that context. So uh it could be a a range of institutions both government and social
How did that answer my question? Can you give me some examples then?
>> Uh well, obviously it could include uh government departments, could include uh universities,
um
>> I think it's entirely open to uh the again being very mindful of what the minister has said. >> The Royal Commissioner wants to go there. I think it's entirely open to her to do so.
>> Yeah. Thank you. That's all I needed. When we're saying institutions and you said government departments, does that include government itself, decisions made by this government?
sorry, I'm just struggling a little bit with what you're trying to get at, Senator. Could you give me an example of what you're you're trying to uh capture or what what you're concerned about?
>> Is the royal commissioner, should she choose, able to look into decisions made etc. by the executive of the federal
So I think that um they're very broad terms of reference and it's a matter for the royal commissioner what she looks into. I think the the um this aspect of the terms of reference is very much focused on what's happening now, what is the prevalence, what's happening and what could be done better. Um so to the extent that would be relevant then yes um I think it would be open to her to at least ask those questions and and seek information in relation to it but it's it's entirely a matter for for her.
>> So if I go to letters patent E any matter reasonably incidental to a matter referred to in paragraphs A to D or that you believe is reasonably relevant to your inquiry. um that would appear to be very open-ended. Does that basically leave it up to the royal commissioner herself as to what she less would like to look at?
>> Yes, the government was cons the government was very clear that there were a couple of areas where it absolutely wanted the royal commissioner to focus uh but was also conscious that there might be other things that arise as she goes about her work that she might want to pay attention to. But
there's no specific term of reference in relation to decisions made by the federal government, for example, since October the 7th, 2023.
No, just as there's no specific reference to the failure of the coalition to support legislation that was asked for by the executive council of Australian jury and the anti-semitism of envoy. You're correct.
I clearly touched a point, Senator Wong, because
>> I'm just saying I'm just making I'm just making the point, Senator. >> You argued you, you know, you you you >> you argued to come back and then you did you, including you personally, didn't vote for the legislation. So,
>> uh, and I'm asking about the terms of reference which do not appear to have >> a section specifically dedicated to >> decisions made by this government. Um, is there an ability for the public to provide input into the Royal Commission?
>> Senator, it's entirely for the Royal Commissioner to determine how she will go about uh, managing this process. Um, past royal commissions have used a whole range of different mechanisms including public hearings, calls for submissions, uh, small roundts, those types of things. But that's a matter for the uh, commissioner. I understand the official secretary to the Royal Commission is appearing uh, today in the legal and constitutional affairs >> commission uh, committee. Uh, I think your question is best directed to her at this point.
>> Okay. Um, Minister, do you think anti-semitism being promoted by teachers as reported in the article um should be
>> I'm sorry,
>> Do you think that anti-semitism being promoted in schools by teachers as reported in this article should be
I think that we should as a country um ensure that we understand how best to confront and prevent anti-semitism and other hatred. uh and you know I am I have confidence in the royal commissioner uh to make the appropriate judgments.
>> I would have said yes but I also accept your answer. I think mine was probably a little more succinct and clearly conveyed um where we sit on certain
things. Can I just go to if I may if I
>> certainly
>> that there is an independence of the Royal Commission here Senator that I'm trying to respect right ministers are not making decisions about what is in or out the royal commissioner is charged with the fire the latest patent uh and is is has the power to make a whole range of decisions about what she thinks are relevant uh to those terms of reference. So you might wish to try and make a political point about my answer. My answer respects the independence of the Royal Commission.
>> Wow.
>> And on that point,
>> greatest terrorist attack [clears throat] ever experienced
>> We will return at 4:20. Thank you. >> Okay, welcome back everybody. Um, we are returning with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and we will go directly to Senator Cash.
>> Uh, thank you very much, Chair. Um, could I just perhaps get Mr. Walter back to the table just in relation to the evidence he gave uh at the outset of prime minister and cabinet uh just in relation to the establishment of this royal commission. So the royal commission um into anti-semitism. I just want to make sure um I've got the evidence correct. Um in terms of advice in relation to whether or not call a royal commission versus concentration on draft letters patent. Could you just take me through what the role of the attorney general's department was? Did you go to or did the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet go to the Attorney General's Department uh to give advice in relation to whether or not to call the Royal Commission?
>> Uh Senator
>> or should be established, should I say, should be established following the Bondi terrorist attack.
>> Uh so Senator, the evidence I gave earlier was uh primarily around the drafting of the letters patent. Yep. >> Uh and this is a good opportunity for me to correct the record as well. I think I might have said we instructed OPC on the 6th.
>> Correct.
>> Uh it was actually the 7th.
>> The seventh.
>> Uh so if I can correct that little bit of evidence while I'm here. Um so the evidence I gave earlier was in relation to um the drafting of the letters patent which as the prime minister has said were ultimately decided upon by government on the uh 8th of January uh and then put to the governor general formally on the 9th. Um so uh that was my evidence earlier. Uh in terms of your other question, the decision to um establish a royal commission is of course a matter of government. Uh and we talk that
>> so just in terms of evidence given by um the secretary of the attorney general's department earlier today. I I'm I'm just trying to work out. I just don't want to misquote anybody. That's all. So the secretary stated or the question put to the secretary was secretary were you asked to give any advice in relation to whether or not a royal commission should be established following the bondi terrorist act. The answer the secretary gave was no senator. The question then was so you weren't asked to give any advice you weren't consulted. The secretary stated the attorney general's department was consulted on some draft letters patent once the decision had been taken to establish a royal commission but we had not provided advice previously. Is that your recollection? The attorney general's department were only brought into this when they were consulted on some draft letters patent.
issue here for me is um as the minister has said there were and the prime minister has said there were a range of decisions being taken by government in relation to its response and they went through the usual government decision-m processes. uh and they of course uh involve the attorney general, the attorney general's department depending on uh the circumstances. So uh without going into those it's very difficult for me to um respond to what you're telling me Senator uh Secretary Jones said. Um I can talk about the consultation on the letters patent and yes what you've said she said sounds right to me. Um but in terms of that broader government uh decision-m I'm I'm a bit reluctant to go there because of the um the nature of that decision-m and we don't normally talk about those things.
>> Well, hold on. But there's now evidence on the record and I just want to establish um the correctness of this evidence. So the secretary of the attorney general's department states that they were not asked to give advice on the establishment um of a royal commission following the Bondi terrorist attack. To the best of your knowledge, is that correct?
>> I think I think Senator, it'd be best if I took it on notice. I mean, if that's what Secretary Jones has said, I'm not meaning to dispute that in any way, but I think I'd have to take it on notice to confirm.
>> Well, Mr. Walter, did you consult with the attorney general's department prior to them being consulted on some I'm using her words, some draft letters
>> Um, I think the the I think the thing I'm struggling with here, Senator, is the two kind of travel together. The decision to establish a royal commission and to recommend to the governor general to issue letters patent, it's it's the same decision. Um so we we we consulted with Secretary Jones's department with on the letters patient but they do lead to the establishment of Royal Commission. So in that sense we consulted I think we're giving the same answer. We're just approaching it from from different angles.
>> I think they're two entirely different answers with all due respect. When was the first time that you consulted with the attorney general's department on what date?
>> I think he's taken that on notice, hasn't there?
>> Well, you did direct him to. I did say
>> No, I just said he might want to see what um we I I haven't seen what the secretary said.
>> Yes.
>> So, I was just saying we we might want to see it. I'm happy to put that on the record. Um so, we can confirm. You've asked him to confirm an answer he's not saying. That's all.
>> And and I would prefer to see what exactly Secretary Jones has said and in relation to what questions I can uh answer appropriately.
>> I can assure you and and I appreciate that. I have not in any way. I have read out as it is in what's been produced. I'm not trying to mislead you in any way.
>> What your office has sent you, Senator.
>> It's clearly >> No, not at all. It's actually the verbatim transcript that comes out. >> Okay. Thank you, Secretary. Were you asked to give any advice in relation to whether or not a Royal Commission should be established following the Bondi terrorist attack? No, Senator. So, you weren't asked to give any advice. You weren't consulted. The attorney general's department was consulted on some draft letters patent once the decision had been taken to establish our royal commission but we had not provided advice previously.
>> So I think those two answers what I've said and what secretary Jones said are entirely consistent with one another.
>> Well then I'll read out the next question because it become become my question as well. Okay. So just to get that on the record and then I can close out this line of questioning. the Attorney General's Department. No. No one within the Attorney General's Department, including the branch dealing with the Royal Commissions, which has the particular expertise of the Commonwealth in relation to Royal Commissions, the conduct of Royal Commissions. No one in that branch of the Attorney General's Department with particular experience with respect to Royal Commissions was asked to give advice to the Prime Minister when he made the statement that actual experts and current experts had been advised against a current Royal Commission. Is that correct? And this is the response or the answer should I say that's correct just to be very precise up until recently or actually that can stop there actually it's a different answer just to be that's just what I'm trying to confirm. Can you then take on notice for me [snorts] um was the attorney general's department ever consulted in relation to the establishment of a royal commission following the Bondi terrorist attack?
And can I take it? You mean prior to the consultation in relation to the letters
>> Correct. Because >> two separate issues, the letters statement and wanting the consultation in relation to the establishment of a royal commission.
>> So Senator, the the point I'm trying to make is letters patent are they're legislation, but they're made by the governor general. So they are the mechanism that creates a royal commission. So when we are consulting on letters patient we are consulting on the creation of a royal commission.
>> Correct. And I'm not trying to be cute.
>> No no no. So I understand that before that you're asking whether >> I will take that.
>> And then on what day were the attorney general's department shown the letters patent as drafted as at the
5th of July? So again on on that so it was the attorney general's department who issued the drafting instructions for the drafting of the letters patent uh in you know we we worked together on those instructions and as I've just said those instructions were provided to OPC on the 7th of
>> on the 7th not the 6th on the 7th of January
>> on the 7th of January but we were talking to them from if I recall correctly the 6th of January and then the instructions to OPC were issued on
>> Um on the 30th of December 2025, um the prime minister cited actual experts and current experts to advise against at that stage the establishment of the Royal Commission. Um Minister, who were those experts?
>> Sorry, this is a press a press statement comment. The prime
minister stood up and stated in answer to a question that actual experts and experts had advised him not at that stage to establish a Royal Commission. He's been asked on several occasions since who those experts are and he has not yet named them or said where they're from. So this is now our opportunity to find out where they're from.
well I I'd have to take that on notice, Senator. I don't recall the press interview that you're referencing.
>> Do you know if any experts advise the prime minister not to call a royal a royal commission or to establish a royal commission?
I I'll take that on notice. I think it's actually a version of the the question I've already taken on notice. What I would say is obviously and the the prime minister is being upfront about it. Our our initial and immediate focus was um on try on assuring uh the safety of Australians uh and the progress of the investigation. uh uh and the prime minister and the the government was focused on immediate action which was why uh the Richardson uh the engagement of Mr. Richardson was undertaken promptly. Um this is goes to asssuring the security of Australians and I'd note that the time frame for that engagement uh the prime minister has made clear uh he did engage with members of uh the community about the royal commission and that resulted ultimately in the government making the announcements that
It's uh the transcript of a press conference uh in Canberra on Tuesday the 30th of December 2025. Uh it's at AFP headquarters in Canberra. Um and it's obviously on the um prime minister's uh website and it states here yesterday a couple of the reasons you and Mr. Burke gave for not holding a royal commission was to platform uh was to platform anti-semitic views and was not the best format for national security issues. Victors and Jewish Jewish leaders are saying that they want these views put out there. They want a light shone on this and national security experts are dismissing that it wouldn't have been appropriate for national security. So what's your explanation to continuing to refuse to go down this track? Are you gaslighting victims? And uh the response or part of the response the prime minister gives which has been played out publicly on several occasions. So our position is not out of convenience. It is out of conviction that this is the right direction to go in and the actual experts who are the current experts have all recommended this course of action. The prime minister has time and time again being asked very simple question prime minister when you say the actual experts who are the current experts have all recommended this course of action. Who are you referring to? And to date, the public have yet to get an answer. So again, Mr. Walter, do you know who the actual experts who are the current experts are who recommended this course
>> Uh I think the minister's taken that on notice and I don't have anything to add.
>> Okay. All because the minister took it on notice doesn't mean that you can't answer the question if it's in your remit. Do you know who these people are?
He's entitled to take the question on notice.
>> Not if he knows the answer, Senator Wong. >> He is actually entitled to take not
because he can take on notice to consult >> um across government. You don't it's not just he's entitled to take the question on on notice. But can I just go back Uh obviously this is uh this was a you know a shocking and horrific attack. Uh uh and as the prime minister has said the you know the aftermath of the attack the first priority of the government was to establish the facts and to keep Australians safe and there were real and pressing security questions that had to be explored and answered. Um, you know, and you would know them, Senator. Yeah. Uh, was this a lone attack or not? Uh, was there any other risk to Australians? Were there any other threats? And obviously, um, those were the the most pressing matters the government was um, focused on. uh within days the government announced the Richardson review which was about uh trying to get immed uh prompt advice about any gaps in security architecture. Um uh you would also remember that New South Wales had already announced a royal commission although I don't think they'd made anything public about any arrangements for that and the prime minister had already made clear at this federal government cooperation with that Royal Commission. Now, I appreciate um there's a political point that you're seeking to make. Um that the prime minister first engaged with members of the Jewish community, engaged with family members of those who had lost loved ones. um uh and ultimately uh also the New South Wales government about the federal um going announcing a royal commission and New South Wales not proceeding with so so that is what has occurred and I note that it is a rural commission that has been welcomed uh by many members and organizations in Australia including uh Jewish organizations and leaders. >> Yes, I was just being helpful.
>> Thank you. Um it still doesn't answer my question and as I said it's a question that journalist after journalist after journalist has actually asked. Uh this has been put to the prime minister on more than one occasions. he makes a statement in response to this is on the 30th of December why the government despite the overwhelming uh calls across Australia for a royal commission uh into this terrorist incident to be established uh and his very clear words are and the actual experts who are the current experts have all recommended this course of action. People just want to do they exist? Can we can we establish that perhaps? Minister Wong, do these people actually exist?
>> Well, I I Senator, I've taken that question on notice. Um, but I've also laid out for you the sequence here um, broadly uh, of what occurred. Yes, the government uh, did um, make a decision. The prime minister was upfront about um making a decision after consulting uh uh within and outside government and he was upfront about
>> Do we need to check whether or not these experts actually exist?
>> Senator, you've asked a question. I've taken it on notice.
I appreciate that. However, as I said, this is a statement made now on the 30th of December. One would think that if these experts do exist, the prime minister would happily tell the Australian people who I think are entitled to know given their calls for the establishment of a royal commission who these experts were that were to quote the prime minister advising against the establishment of a royal commission. Is there a reason that the prime minister has been unable to provide Australians with who these people actually are?
I assume you'd also say the Australian people are entitled to know why you didn't turn up to vote for legislation uh that was around about combating anti-semitism.
>> Well, if you'd like to swap places, I'm more than happy to go. So, you're going
to do that?
>> I'm more than happy to go. I'm interested in the fact that the Nationals have paid a price for not voting for the shadow cabinet position, but not probably get a lot further. Uh again,
>> I'll give you the opportunity to take the floor and explain to the Australian
people why you didn't vote for this legislation question
in the Senate.
>> The prime minister has made statements about why he didn't call a royal commission as at the 30th of December. He's on the record as saying and the actual experts who are the current experts. It's a simple question. Who are they Mr. Walters? Are they within the department of prime minister and cabinet?
>> Why why didn't you vote Senator Cash?
>> Again, Senator Wong, it's going to be a very long day if we >> It's interesting like the coalition has
split although now reunited over three nationals not voting the shadow cabinet position. You didn't vote the cabinet >> but you're still leader of the opposition in the Senate. >> So, how does that work?
>> Um, Senator Wong, again, this is actually a very serious issue. >> Yeah. So, is this this is legislation that is about hate hate crimes and hate
speech
>> after this is about direct were slaughtered whilst you are in
>> I Yes. And and this is legislation that
is a direct response. Let me respond here today and say whether or not the letters patent even allow the royal commissioner to look into the actual decision. Senator Cash that is enough. >> Let's start with >> Senator Cash that is
>> so 15 Australians were killed. You called for us to come back to enact stronger provisions around hate crimes and hate speech. All right. Uh in accordance with the anti uh the anti-semitism envoys report. Uh then you rocked up to parliament and you refused to vote for them. You refused to vote for what? Legislation that arose directly out of the anti-semitism envoice report. You refused to vote for legislation that the executive council of Australian jury asked you to vote for. And you as a leader refused to vote for legislation that had been endorsed by the shadow cabinet. And I think if you want to talk about accountability, perhaps you ought to demonstrate some yourself. And we are
now going to rotate the call and I will go to Senator Roberts.