Coal LSL Under the Microscope – Again

,

During a session with Ms. Darlene Perks from Coal LSL, I inquired about the case of Mr. James Joseph, who is currently in a significant dispute with Coal LSL regarding payment of his long service leave entitlements.

Ms. Perks stated that Coal LSL would not take any action until they received notification from the employer via a levy form. She said that disputes arising from the failure to provide correct information should be directed to the Fair Work Commission for resolution. Ms. Perks explained that employers often make errors on certain forms, which then require adjustment. She added that if an employee is no longer employed, levy payments would cease.

I asked about the risks that were alluded to in a recent ANAO audit and was told that the concerns related to errors in financial statements and the valuation of unlisted trusts, which are quite complex.

When I questioned why the management of billion-dollar government funds is in private hands, I was told it would be taken on notice and answered at a later time.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Perks and everyone from Coal LSL. Mr James Joseph was injured on BHP’s Mount Arthur coal mine on 7 June 2023. Are you familiar with James Joseph?  

Ms Perks: We are familiar with James Joseph, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coal LSL have confirmed with Mr Joseph that they were not informed of his workers comp status, which was approved in May 2024 following a six-month delay. Mr Joseph’s correct workers compensation status seems not to have been reported to Coal LSL by BHP or the insurer, Coal Mines Insurance. The board of directors of Coal Mines Insurance, I understand, has 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors and 50 per cent coal owners.

Ms Perks: I’ll answer the last part. The shareholding of Coal Services, which I think you were just referring to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Coal Mines Insurance.  

Ms Perks: Yes. It is not an organisation we have any relationship with in our jurisdiction, but I can confirm that the shareholding is as you have reflected—the Minerals Council and the CFMEU.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the composition of the board? Fifty-fifty?  

Ms Perks: Our board?  

Senator ROBERTS: The Coal Mines Insurance board.  

Ms Perks: I can confirm that, but I think they do have independent directors.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about your board?  

Ms Perks: The legislative framework hasn’t changed in all the hearings we’ve had. Our board has six directors who are appointed by the responsible minister—three directors nominated by employee companies or bodies and three directors nominated by union organisations. They are minister appointed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for correcting that. It’s fifty-fifty again?  

Ms Perks: Our director composition?  

Senator ROBERTS: Your board composition.  

Ms Perks: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-fifty employers and union—okay. What is being done to rectify this particular case, and is this a common occurrence—that is, an employee is medically terminated whilst on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or their insurer? This seems, by the way, very familiar. It is similar to the mistreatment of Mr Simon Turner by BHP and his employer at the time, the labour hire firm, Chandler Macleod. What’s being done to resolve this, and is it common?  

Ms Perks: The scenario we’re talking of is termination. I tried to explain this in a couple of hearings over the years as well, but I appreciate there are a lot of new members, and I’ll explain the process again. Our GM of Legal, Michael Dowzer might be able to add to the process. The employer will advise us through their monthly levy returns a termination code for the employee. One of the reasons for termination can be ill health. Others would be redundancy or cessation. That process hasn’t changed. That is the legislative arena that we operate within. Nothing has changed from the explanations over the years with regard to how we collect the data, how the employer advises us and how we then verify the data through the relationships and interactions with the employers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was that one of the problems that Coal LSL was encountering—a lack of verification of the data? I’m not saying you didn’t do this here. It’s common then for someone’s employment to be terminated while still being on workers comp?  

Ms Perks: I can’t talk to the commonality of that with regard to the data. As I said, the reason for cessation will be advised to us by the employer.  

Senator ROBERTS: But sometimes the employer won’t notify you.  

Ms Perks: They will notify us of a reason for termination.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, but sometimes they won’t notify you that he has actually been terminated.  

Ms Perks: Would you like to add to that, Michael?  

Mr Dowzer: The notification comes through our levy form, and they identify when employment has ceased and the cessation code which indicates the reason for termination. That is a report from the employer. If subsequently there is an issue in relation to that, we’ll engage with both the employee and the employer to seek to understand that issue, but, ultimately, it’s to be resolved between the employer and the employee.  

Senator ROBERTS: The question was: is it a common occurrence that an employee is medically terminated while on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or the insurer?  

Mr Dowzer: What we are notified of is the cessation of the employment. There’s no requirement to notify us in relation to any other details in the employment relationship.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, in your experience of checking up, it’s not really common that you’re not notified?  

Ms Perks: The way I’d answer that is in relation to complaints. Your question is: is it a common occurrence? No, we don’t have volumes of complaints which would illustrate a systemic issue in the common occurrence of employers advising us of termination codes which an employee doesn’t agree with. I know there are a couple of cases, and, certainly, we’ve had a lot of conversations around those. But I wouldn’t say it’s a systemic issue that has been understood through volumes of complaints for the scenarios that you’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of governance issues at the moment. We sorted them out, hopefully, after the review. What are the implications when this occurs—for example, an impact to levy payments, because the employer is no longer paying, super payments and internal workloads of Coal LSL to investigate and resolve such matters? Does that put a burden on you?  

Ms Perks: In the scenario where it’s found that an employer has advised us of a termination code that an employee disagrees with, certainly the resource from the team would be to engage with the employer, engage with the employee, assess the information et cetera. If that is unresolved, then we would be advising the employee to take it to the Fair Work Commission, because we’d be classifying it as an industrial relations dispute, which is out of our jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: If the companies fail to notify Coal LSL within a reasonable period, what would normally come of it? For example, there was a six-month failure to inform you in Mr Joseph’s case. What happened there when BHP didn’t inform you for six months?  

Ms Perks: I’ll talk about the obligation under the collection act, where the employer has an obligation to submit a monthly levy return. That is a statutory obligation. In regard to correcting or working through a disagreement or a dispute in information that we’ve received, that would be a process which isn’t time bound in our statutory frameworks. But the employer has an obligation to inform us monthly of employees’ service and any other critical information, such as terminations and eligible wages.  

Senator ROBERTS: If this is proved to have occurred through a registered organisation, what intervention, penalty or enforcement would Coal LSL apply under its constitution to deter recurrence? Is there any?  

Mr Dowzer: The key obligation is to submit a monthly levy return with correct information. We are reliant on that information in terms of being able to conduct any further inquiries. If an issue is brought to our attention by an employee, we will engage with the employer and seek to get the employer and the employee to resolve that issue and communicate the outcome to us. We don’t have any power to adjudicate on that dispute.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there are no consequences for the employer?  

Mr Dowzer: If there’s an incorrect levy return then there could be consequences, but that is a factual matter which we would not have evidence of.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please advise why Mr Joseph’s Coal LSL number looks to only exist from September 2022 onwards, as per his Coal LSL commencement letter, recently provided to him under a freedom of information request? What is the specific reason for the delay in creating his Coal LSL member number?  

Ms Perks: I think we’d have to take that one on notice and have a look at the timeframe of his records and provide a response on that review.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph has been provided information under FOI, freedom of information, that shows Coal LSL levies were paid by BHP to Coal LSL in as early as July 2022. However, his welcome member letter was produced in September 2022. Why was that?  

Ms Perks: We’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?  

Mr Dowzer: When the levy return identifies a new employee, we will take that information and effectively create a record for that employee. Our obligation is to keep records— 

Senator ROBERTS: And then you get an identification number out of that?  

Mr Dowzer: There is an identification number which would be created at that point at which the employee is first put on a levy return.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it wouldn’t be possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?  

Mr Dowzer: The first time that a new employee is properly identified on a levy return would be the point at which we would commence a record for that employee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph requested all company audits provided by BHP to Coal LSL for the entire period of his employment, from 2011 to 2024. I don’t think he was continually employed at Mount Arthur for that period; I think he was involved in other divisions of the company, including in Western Australia. Why was he only provided with two years, considering that Coal LSL are reviewing his open recognition of prior service application for periods that fall within this freedom of information date range, 2011 to 2024?  

Ms Perks: Can I take that one on notice as well? I do know the FOI case. I can’t answer without going back to the reasoning as to why that information was provided and some wasn’t.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

Ms Perks: I know that the team work within the jurisdictions of FOI, so we’ll take that one on notice and provide a reasoning.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine, Ms Perks. The December 2023 Coal LSL BHP external audit report indicates potential discrepancies in reimbursement amounts claimed by BHP. Has the investigation into this matter been completed? This is two years later.  

Ms Perks: That’s their audit report? I’d say it’s quite common, through the process of that audit work, for employers to have adjustments in reimbursement claims or levies. It’s through that audit process that the reimbursement, if it’s overclaimed or overpaid, would be rectified, and similarly the levy payment would be rectified. I won’t answer without being able to check with the team that that has been closed out, but I’d be very confident, with an audit report dated December 2023, that an action from the audit report submission would be closed out, as our administrative processes would—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Perhaps you could take this next item on notice, then. Was this, in fact, found to be a confirmed finding—that is, BHP claiming illegitimate reimbursements? If so, how significant were the findings of this discrepancy?  

Ms Perks: ‘Illegitimate’ is a strong word. Again, if I take us back to the process of the employer, it is a selfreporting scheme. The employers, through the submission of monthly levy returns and then the reimbursement claim process, will be calculating based on our guidance of how to calculate levy payments and also how to claim the reimbursement under the reimbursement rules. It is very common that employers get it wrong. It’s a complex administrative process. So it is quite common that, through the external audit function that we rely on for the assurance of the correctness of levies paid and reimbursement claims, there will be a—  

Senator ROBERTS: An adjustment?  

Ms Perks: An adjustment. I wouldn’t typically classify that as illegitimate or deliberate actions. We would typically see that as human error on the employer’s side, and the audit process provides the assurance to then get the adjustments correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is this a disclosable matter? If it is, was it disclosed in the Coal LSL annual report for financial year 2023-24?  

Ms Perks: No, that’s not a disclosable matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is it true that BHP did not pay any Coal LSL monthly levies from any of their owned entities to the Commonwealth Coal LSL fund in the period between November 2015 and November 2016?  

Ms Perks: I will take that on notice, but I would be very surprised to find that they hadn’t paid levies. I would be very confident in saying they have paid the levies, but we will take that on notice to answer your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Something in my mind is reminding me that that might have been proven in the Iron Mountain document. Can you recall that? I can’t.  

Ms Perks: I’m not familiar with that document.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you also tell me what was done about it, please.  

Ms Perks: If it wasn’t paid?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Perks: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was that approach consistent with the Coal LSL constitution at the time, and were any penalties applied? Could you tell us that as well, please.  

Ms Perks: If an employer hasn’t paid a levy in line with their obligations under the collection act, the lever that we have available is to charge an additional levy. It’s an interest calculation. That is the lever that we’d have available to us.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we have got some penalty provisions?  

Ms Perks: We do have some penalty provisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: BHP and Coal Mines Insurance previously refused to acknowledge Mr Joseph as a black coal industry covered employee, challenging him on this as recently as July 2024, yet Coal LSL have received levies from Mr Joseph since July 2022. Can you explain how and why this would occur, from Coal LSL’s perspective. I’ve got my thoughts on it. Ms Perks: Other than taking it on notice—  

Mr Dowzer: My position on that is that, for the purpose of compliance with our scheme, the inclusion of an employee on a levy return is a statement by the employee in relation to eligibility under our scheme. As to matters relating to other issues of employment, we do not have visibility on them and wouldn’t have a view on them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m guessing there’s still probably some confusion. Mr Joseph was on what some people call a staff payroll, which is an admin job, a managerial job or a supervisory job, compared with, say, a coalminer at the front line, who would be on an hourly rate.  

Mr Dowzer: I would make the distinction that coverage under any industrial arrangements is, in some cases, a different assessment to eligibility under our scheme, so it’s really not appropriate for us to be commenting on those interpretation questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just wondering whether that’s where some of the confusion comes from. He wouldn’t have been on the supervisory staff or administrative staff. He wouldn’t have been on the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. He would’ve been on the staff award, for example. Does the Coal LSL levy apply to the accident pay component of employee wages when on workers compensation?  

Mr Dowzer: The issue of an employee on workers compensation is dependent upon the nature of the workers compensation arrangement between the employer and the employee. So, if the employee remains employed by the employer, then that is leviable eligible wages. If employment has ceased, then the obligation under our scheme is on the employer. There is no obligation on an insurer under our scheme. There is no leviable eligible wages if employment has ceased.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, if the insurer is paying workers compensation but the employee has been terminated, there’s no obligation on BHP?  

Mr Dowzer: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: And there’s no obligation on the insurer to pay either. Is that what you’re saying?  

Mr Dowzer: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Should an employee on workers comp in the black coal mining industry who is medically terminated and who remains on workers comp continue to accrue Coal LSL leave if they remain incapacitated due to their injuries and condition whilst they continue receiving workers compensation wages? You’ve just answered that question. This gets complex, doesn’t it?  

CHAIR: How are you going there, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: I probably need another five minutes—maybe less, because we’re going to change topic pretty soon, and then it should go quickly. In previous estimates, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has stated there is a list of around 80 entities who may have been paying levies in error. Has this investigation now concluded?  

Ms Perks: Paying levies in error?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you remember that?  

Ms Perks: Yes. That investigation has concluded. There were 28 employers who were paying levy in error, and 25 of the 28 employers have been refunded that levy amount. The three remaining, for different reasons, still need to be transacted. We’re waiting on the employer to provide information so that we can refund that amount.  

Senator ROBERTS: So they overpaid.  

Ms Perks: They incorrectly paid into the scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: Too much. Were any of the entities coal services or coalmining services? They wouldn’t have been, would they? They don’t employ coalminers.  

Ms Perks: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the list include any BHP owned entities?  

Ms Perks: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will change topics, you’ll be pleased to know. I will move on to the audit. The report of the most recent audit of Coal LSL conducted by the Australian National Audit Office flagged ‘higher risk related to both valuation of investments and the valuation of provision for reimbursements’. What is the real meaning of these two findings of risk in regard to the effective operations of and the integrity of the scheme? What are the risks and who is at risk of exposure?  

Ms Perks: Mr Windever will answer that question.  

Mr Windever: The external audit focuses on areas of high risk on our balance sheet, and these particularly will be in areas of our provision for reimbursements, which is a piece of analysis that is covered by our actuary, but also our investments, as you pointed out. To be specific, they’re higher areas of risk of misstatement of our financial statements. I’ll speak to the first one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not financial risk, just a risk of error in your statements?  

Mr Windever: In the financial statements—that’s correct. If we talk about the first one, the provision for reimbursements, that analysis is conducted by our actuary. It’s considered to be an area of higher risk, rather than a high risk, for the organisation, just by the very nature of the modelling, the estimations, the assumptions and the judgements that go into that. It’s an inherently high-risk area and one that’s a recurring area of higher risk, if you like, in our audit reports in previous times. It’s not a new finding for us. The second finding around investments is around the valuation of our unlisted trusts. Simply, the reason why this continues to be a high-risk area is the nature of those investments. Unlisted trusts are considered to be more complex from a valuation standpoint compared to other forms of assets. Certainly, there’s a portion of our portfolio that is illiquid assets. They are also, from an auditing standpoint, more complex to assess from a valuation standpoint. That’s why the valuation for investments is also considered a high-risk area. Again, it’s something that we’ve seen in previous audits. It’s not a new set of findings for us.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it doesn’t affect the integrity of the scheme; it’s got more to do with assessing the size of the investments, the rates of payout and the rates of income.  

Mr Windever: That’s correct. It’s so that we can stand behind the accuracy of the financial statements. Again, these two areas are focused on our balance sheet in particular.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said there’s no real risk to your entity—Coal LSL.  

Mr Windever: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s not going to be much fallout if the risks crystallize.  

Mr Windever: They’re considered to be high-risk areas, but, each year, as we work through the audits—we had a successful passing again of this audit of our financial statements. We’re satisfied with that outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the next part of this. The funds arrive in the accounts of the scheme from compulsory levies upon the relevant employers, right? The funds held by the fund are now in excess of $2 billion. What happens to the excess income generated from the scheme after leave entitlements are paid out?  

Mr Windever: You’re correct about the size of the fund. It’s $2.6 billion now. We measure the health of that in terms of a fund surplus or a fund coverage ratio. That’s how I would answer that question, if you like. It remains on the balance sheet, but we have some goals that we work towards around the coverage of assets over our liabilities, and we manage to those goals accordingly. That’s how I’d answer that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. Emmett J in the Federal Court in 1998 emphasised that—and I acknowledge that that’s some 27 years ago—there was a lack of control of the corporation by the government and a lack of accountability to the government. Was Coal LSL a government entity at that time?  

Ms Perks: In 1998? Yes. It was in 1992 that the entity was established under the administration act. 

Senator ROBERTS: What change of governance, if any, has occurred within Coal LSL since then to tighten that up?  

Ms Perks: Since 1998? That’s a very big question. I can talk about what we’ve done since I’ve been in the organisations, and we’ve had a lot of conversations around that. I can—  

Senator ROBERTS: Governance was a particularly hot issue.  

Ms Perks: I can talk to that specifically. Since 1998—I wouldn’t answer that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: I hear what you’re saying. Given that the fund was originally set up as a stopgap measure to build up a money chest, if you like, to cover an estimated shortfall of funds to cover long service leave claims, can your office comment on the purpose for which it’s satisfied for the fund to continue generating millions of dollars per year after the original purpose was met a quarter of a century ago. Why is it still continuing?  

Ms Perks: It’s a very good policy question. I can talk with passion about the value of the scheme, and I’m the first one to talk about the value of portable long service leave and what it has done for the industry and employees in the industry. What I would say is—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me for cutting you off. I didn’t mean that. You don’t need to convince me of that portability. That’s fine. What I’m getting to is that my understanding—I think it’s correct—is that there was a fund created because there was a shortfall in funds. Now, you’ve a massive service in funds. Why is the fund still in existence?  

Ms Perks: That would be a question for government. I think you’re referring to the first reading speech or the explanatory memorandum in 1992, which talked about why the fund was being created. The payroll levy was set at five per cent at that point in time to get the fund back into—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m comfortable with all of that.  

Ms Perks: What I would say, though, is that it wasn’t legislated. There was nothing in the legislation in 1992 to legislate a winding up of the fund. Yes, it’s in the first reading speech as—well, is it an intention? I won’t comment. It’s definitely in the first reading speech, but that didn’t translate into the legislation when the fund and the corporation were established.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking about the original coalmine insurance fund. I’m a bit hazy on this, but I understand that there was a stopgap measure of an increase in funds to cover a shortfall due to excessive payouts and not enough revenue coming in. It was probably one of the boom-and-bust years, so they instituted an additional levy as a temporary stopgap. It’s now well past that, and they’ve got a massive $2.6 billion in funds. You don’t need it anymore. Why is it still going?  

Ms Perks: Why is the fund still going?  

Senator ROBERTS: The extra fund.  

Ms Perks: No, the additional payroll levy that you’re talking about was removed in 2008 from memory. The payroll levy was set, and then there was an additional component added, which made it a levy of five per cent. That was in place from 1992 through to—I think it was 2005, from memory. When the fund got back into a neutral position, that’s when that additional levy component was removed. Our levy has been at 2.7 per cent for many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at—not the original fund, the stopgap fund. So that has been removed?  

Ms Perks: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: So this is wrong. Thank you. Minister, a question for you—why is a private company run by the NSW Minerals Council, the Queensland Resources Council and the Mining and Energy Union managing billions of dollars contributed compulsorily by employers on behalf of the federal government?  

Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice, Senator Roberts and see what I can provide you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Before you came into the chair, a lot of the problems in the coal sector came from entities that have 50 per cent Minerals Council or 50 per cent Queensland Resources Council and 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors. There seems to be a very tight cluster of organisations—Coal Mines Insurance, Coal LSL, Coal Services. There’s another entity in there too that I’ve forgotten.  

CHAIR: I think the minister’s taken that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m just trying to give her some background. That’s it; thank you very much. 

/by

Dodgy Degrees, Broken Rules — Where Is Home Affairs?

,

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned Home Affairs on their failure to properly vet the migrants they are letting into Australia.

Education is being used as a backdoor to permanent residency, with work requirements being rorted.

23,000 dodgy qualifications have been cancelled. These individuals abused the opportunity given to them — buying degrees and working instead of studying. $11 billion is sent overseas every year by foreign students. They breached their visa conditions and should be sent home—yet only 4 people were found guilty of immigration offences in 2023–24.

With 4.5 million visa holders, is enforcement even happening?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll defer to that and respect the committee then. Let’s move on to the next question. I want to refer to reporting that the Australian Skills Quality Authority has cancelled 23,000 dodgy qualifications since late 2024. Many of these were in relation to international students, who are here on strict visa conditions. If they’ve been found to be participating in a ghost college or something similar to obtain a dodgy qualification to satisfy their visa, that’s clearly deceptive and a breach of their visa conditions, so they should be deported. Are we deporting international students in that 23,000 dodgy qualifications cohort?

Senator COX: They’re the same questions.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on. I’m going to refer to the federal defendants statistics out of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which say that only four people were found guilty of immigration offences in 2023-24. It seems extraordinarily low, given the 100,000 that we just discussed. How many people did the Department of Home Affairs refer for potential prosecution in 2023-24?

Mr Thomas: It would be across a range of different areas. For example, with the NZYQ affected cohort, we make a number of referrals to law enforcement for breaches of visa conditions. There are other referrals that happen through other parts of the business. We don’t have an aggregate number, but there is a regular flow of referrals through to law enforcement for consideration where we identify a noncitizen that’s in breach.

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t have a total number?

Mr Thomas: Not on me, and I think finding that would be quite difficult.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have the resources to refer everyone who may be committing an immigration offence for prosecution?

Mr Thomas: In terms of referring matters, yes. That’s a fairly straightforward process.

Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me how many have been referred?

Mr Thomas: Not in totality across all of the department.

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m really asking is whether every single person the department becomes aware of who may have committed an immigration offence is referred for potential prosecution—yes or no?

Mr Thomas: Where we come across the situation where we think someone has committed a crime or breached the law, we will refer it to the appropriate authority.

Senator ROBERTS: But you don’t know how many deserve to be referred?

Mr Thomas: I don’t have those figures with me. I can take it on notice to try and find out.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So you can’t guarantee that someone who’s in breach will be referred for potential prosecution?

Mr Thomas: You’re asking me a hypothetical question, but, in general, as I said, when we come across an instance where we think someone is in breach of a law, we will refer it to the appropriate jurisdiction.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that only four guilty verdicts out of 2.5 million temporary visa holders in the country would imply it’s not possible.

Mr Thomas: I don’t have visibility of the statistics you’re referring to, but I’m aware of a range of migration outcomes.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2021 there were three million permanent visa holders. How many permanent visa holders are in the country right now? Is it four million?

Mr Willard: I have a figure. I’ll just flag that I’m not tracking that figure of three million for 2021. There are different types of permanent visas, but the figure I have at 30 June 2025 is 1.8 million. That includes 860,000 resident return visas. That’s a type of permanent visa.

Senator ROBERTS: What are the other classifications in that 1.8 million?

Mr Willard: There’s family, offshore humanitarian, onshore protection, other permanent, skilled and special eligibility, and resident return.

Senator ROBERTS: No other temporary visa holders?

Mr Willard: That’s the permanent visa figure that you mentioned.

Senator ROBERTS: How many temporary?

Mr Willard: The temporary figure’s 2.76 million.

Senator ROBERTS: So we add the 1.8 million to the 2.7 million to get the total noncitizens, temporary and permanent?

Mr Willard: The second figure, the 2.76 million figure, is temporary visa holders, and the first figure is permanent visa holders.

Senator ROBERTS: So visa holders in total are about 4.5 million?

Mr Willard: Approximately.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Chair.

/2 Comments/by

Robert Pether’s Fight to Come Home

,

At Senate Estimates, I raised my ongoing concerns with the Department regarding Mr Robert Pether, an Australian engineer who was unfairly jailed in Iraq and is now being held under a travel ban that prevents him from returning home to Australia. His situation is dire — he is severely unwell, homeless, unable to work, and has very limited resources.

I asked what assistance the Australian Government is providing and was told he is receiving consular support. I was also informed that the Government is actively engaged with Iraqi authorities, and that his plight has been raised by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Australian Ambassador — most recently in September this year.

Let’s hope the Iraqi authorities are listening.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Welcome back. It’s good to see you, Minister Farrell. I know you’re just here briefly. The call is with Senator ROBERTS till two o’clock.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’ve got four topics I’d like to discuss. I’ll go through them one at a time, of course. The first topic is Mr Robert Pether, who was jailed in 2021 on fraud charges in Iraq, which the UN described as an arbitrary detention. I have two very short questions but a long preamble to set the scene and make sure I’m on the right track. Mr Pether is a mechanical engineer. He went to Iraq to rebuild its central bank headquarters in Baghdad. A contract dispute between the bank and his employer, CME Consulting, landed Mr Pether and his Egyptian colleague, Khalid Radwan, in prison after the bank accused the men of stealing money from the project. After being held without charge for almost six months and then subjected to a speedy trial, the two were each given five-year jail sentences and slapped with a joint fine of $17½ million. A 2022 UN report determined that the case contravened international law and that Mr Pether and Mr Radwan had been subjected to ‘abusive and coercive interrogations’. The International Chamber of Commerce’s Court of Arbitration ruled that Iraq’s central bank was at fault in the dispute with CME and ordered it to pay $13 million to the company. Mr Pether was finally released from jail late at night in June. He is fragile, in very poor health and not receiving proper medical treatment. He has limited means and has been homeless in a foreign country. I have two simple questions. Robert Pether is in poor health, is homeless and is being prevented from leaving the country. When will the Australian government bring him home?  

Ms McGregor: Firstly, I want to acknowledge the immense toll that Mr Pether’s detention and travel ban have had on him and his family. We are working tirelessly to secure the lifting of that travel ban that is on him. We very much welcome the release of Mr Pether on bail earlier this year. We will continue to provide consular support to him and his family, including continuing that advocacy for him to be able to leave Iraq.  

Senator ROBERTS: What specific action has the Australian government taken to have Mr Pether returned to Australia and his family, given that his health is now severely compromised?  

Ms McGregor: We remain engaged with Iraqi authorities, as I said, to advocate for Mr Pether to depart Iraq and be reunited with his family. We continue to provide consular assistance. Any ongoing legal matters in relation to that particular travel ban are, of course, a matter for Mr Pether, but I would say that we have consistently advocated for Mr Pether at all levels since his detention in Iraq in 2021. More than 240 representations have been made by Australia, including by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Most recently, on September, the foreign affairs minister raised his case with her Iraqi counterpart in the margins of the UN General Assembly. The Australian ambassador in Iraq has also raised Mr Pether’s case with the appropriate officials in Iraq, including the Prime Minister and the President.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. It’s a disturbing case. What about his health and his welfare?  

Ms McGregor: We continue to provide support for his health and his welfare. I don’t want to go into details of that, out of respect for his privacy, but we are continuing to engage with him regularly to receive updates on his situation 

/by

Children Held in Japan Against International Law

,

Last week, I once again raised the issue of Australian children being abducted by a parent and held in Japan, contrary to international law. I was informed that the Department is currently providing support to 17 parents of 24 abducted children.

Since 2004, there have been 90 cases of children abducted to Japan. I was advised that Japanese legislation is planned for 2026, which may allow for joint custody — but only if both parents agree.

Senator Penny Wong could not answer why an Australian parent would be required to pay child support to the abducting parent in Japan. She did say, however, that she had raised the issue of the abducted children with the Japanese government again on September 25 this year.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I now move to the fact that many Australian children are currently being held by a parent in Japan—not one parent, but several cases, by one of the parents—contrary to Australian and international law, without a remedy for the Australian parent to have their child returned. These are truly stolen children. I’ve brought this up before in Senate estimates. My first question is: how many of these abducted children are in Japan, as reported to the department? Previously it was 89. Some children returned—I think it was 18—and are no longer listed as abducted children. How many are now in Japan, abducted?  

Ms McGregor: Thank you for your question, Senator. I can confirm that DFAT currently provides consular assistance to 17 parents—and that’s in respect of 24 children—on parental abduction and child custody issues in Japan. Since 2004, we have provided assistance to the parents of 90 children in similar cases. Those are the numbers.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a big improvement. What progress has been made to return these children since the last time I raised this in Senate estimates? Numbers, and also action you’ve taken.  

Ms McGregor: There has been some progress recently with the passage of Japan’s legislative reforms, through their legislature, that will allow joint custody from the middle of 2026. We continue to engage with Japan to encourage them to implement that legislation in a way that will allow children to have relationships with both parents where it’s in the best interest of the child to do so. We will continue to advocate with Japan for those reforms. Minister Wong raised child custody with the foreign minister of Japan at a bilateral meeting in the margins of the 2+2 meeting in early September 2025. Minister Wong also raised the issue with then foreign minister Kamikawa in July 2024 in Tokyo, and before that in 2023 in September, and on multiple occasions with Foreign Minister Hayashi as well. We continue to make those representations. There has been other assistance. The Hon. Justice Victoria Bennett of the Federal Circuit and Family Court visited Japan in April last year to share experiences of family law reform with parliamentarians, and her visit helped strengthen Australia’s advocacy. We also supported a six-month visit to Australia by a Japanese Ministry of Justice judicial official to learn about Australia’s family law system. That was from October 2024 to March 2025. Other than that our ambassador to Japan and other officials consistently raise this matter with Japanese ministers and authorities, and we coordinate advocacy with like-minded countries.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, my next question is to you. Thank you for your advocacy on this matter. It’s been successful so far. The upcoming laws in Japan in 2026, though, do not solve the problem because visitation rights with the non-custodial parent are not addressed and joint custody is only made possible if both parents agree. What’s your view on that, and what prospects have we got for resolving it?  

Senator Wong: We have advocated to Japan in the way that officials have outlined. We have encouraged Japan to implement this legislation in a way that allows children to have relationships with both parents where it is in the best interests of the child and it is safe to do so. That has been the position that we, the officials and I, have articulated. Obviously, these are matters for domestic processes in Japan, but I have engaged, as Ms McGregor talked about, with a number of foreign ministers in relation to this. We have had engagement through a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Justice Bennett, which Ms McGregor referred to. We’re trying to put our views and share some of our experiences, but ultimately these are matters that the Japanese system is determining. We are pleased that there has been progress. I understand it’s been very distressing for a number of parents.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume you’re still working on the visitation rights issue?  

Ms McGregor: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this may not be possible for you to answer, but is it possible that a parent without access to their abducted child can be forced to pay Australian child support to the abducting parent while the child is being held in Japan? Senator Wong: I’m not in a position to answer that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. If so—and I’m not trying to be cheeky; I’m trying to understand—by paying child support is the government not becoming complicit in supporting the process and the abduction? Now, I understand; I’ve had dealing with Japanese people. They’re very wonderful and respectful. I just wonder if that’s possibly the case.  

Senator Wong: This is a question: if child support is required, what are the consequences of that?  

Senator ROBERTS: Basically, yes, and does it encourage abduction?  

Senator Wong: We don’t ever want children to be abducted. This portfolio doesn’t deal with child support, and I don’t know what the parameters are around the child support legislation—  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s why I prefaced my question.  

Senator Wong: so I can’t comment any further.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is Japan, which is our supposed ally, saying to support its position of not assisting to resolve this matter with regard to returning abducted children? Do they understand our system? I know you’ve tried to educate them on our system.  

Ms Adams: Perhaps I can offer some comment. I think the reality is that Japan has quite a different, you could say, family law approach overall than our country has. I think we—not just this department but other parts of our system—through our sustained advocacy have had some success in encouraging Japan to nudge their quite culturally specific, as they would see it, system towards one where access to both parents is more normal. But it’s fundamentally a different set—  

Senator ROBERTS: A different culture.  

Ms Adams: of legal and family-oriented decisions that they make.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve negotiated with the Japanese. They’re wonderful people, but it is difficult to get across to a different culture at times. Is the Australian government minister prepared to bring this matter to the United Nations for resolution, in the same way that Australia achieved success globally in halting whaling by raising it at an international level?  

Senator Wong: I don’t think you were in the room, but I responded to Senator McKim by making the point that grandstanding is not necessarily being effective. In fact, it usually is not effective. We have worked in the way that we have, bilaterally and respectfully, recognising that this is a matter for their domestic political processes in Japan, but we have sought to put our view, to express the sensitivity of this issue, the distress of a range of non-custodial parents whom we are aware of and deal with and what effect this has, and respectfully to encourage progress on this matter. I appreciate that there are people who will want more to have been done, but I think we have seen progress and we have seen the willingness of our counterparts to engage on this issue. I think that is a more effective way. The approach we have been taking has been, I think, a more effective way to progress this issue.  

Senator ROBERTS: Out of respect, I would agree with you, because that is the way the Japanese do it, and I think you would be more effective that way anyway.  

Senator Wong: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. I will have more questions, if I can come back

/by

Fire Ant Bureaucrats Ignorant

,

During last week’s Senate Estimates, I questioned Minister Chisholm and Acting Secretary of the Department, Ms Justine Saunders, regarding the ongoing mismanagement of the Fire Ant Eradication Program in South East Queensland.

Despite them saying that the Department has been working closely with Queensland operatives, both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders claimed they were unaware of any issues within the program. They stated that they had seen no evidence of mismanagement by those on the ground in Queensland.

When asked directly about what might constitute a “reasonable excuse” for the program’s failings, they declined to comment—which would suggest that such a determination should be a matter for the courts.

In light of this, I am calling on anyone with evidence of mismanagement or misconduct by program officers to urgently send it to both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Senator the Hon Anthony Chisholm

Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

PO Box 6100

Senate

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Email: senator.chisholm@aph.gov.au

Ms Justine Saunders

Acting Secretary

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

GPO Box 858

Canberra ACT 2601

Email: justine.saunders@aff.gov.au

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move onto fire and a broad overview of the federal government exercising to ensure the states are successful because we’re using federal funds in the National Fire Ant Eradication Program. 

Ms Sawczuk: We’ve been very closely monitoring the delivery of the program as the chair of the national management group, and also as a key party to all of the governance program and the technical committee. We have also been working with Queensland, and the program specifically, by providing compliance and enforcement officers some assistance around communication.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve been providing them to Queensland?  

Ms Sawczuk: Yes, we have.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are their duties? 

Ms Sawczuk: To provide, for example, assistance on a compliance and enforcement framework, noting that there were a number of detections of importance; having a look at the compliance and enforcement activities done around that; and also working with the program to assess the triggers and the risks, if any of them are being met as a result of the detections. We’re also working with them to strengthen communications. We’re looking at the messaging that is getting out, particularly some of the success stories but also some of the targeting of the right messages. And because we are the national management group committee chair, we’re providing some advice on governance and cost-sharing arrangements. We work very closely with them to monitor the program, given that there is a significant investment, but also given that we do have that national coordination role in the governance. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’d like to go with this. We do provide a lot of federal taxpayer money for this Queensland program—it’s largely Queensland. Is this government aware of the overreach and intimidating tactics being used by the states and of breaches of regulations on pesticides, particularly in South-East Queensland? I’m sad to say that they’re forcing their way into properties and causing fear and distress to landowners, upsetting women and terrifying crying children? Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No, we’re not.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s going on; that’s right. Since when is it okay for gates and fences to be broken down with a police presence, threatening those with reasonable excuses who withheld consent to strangers forcing their way onto properties with a view to unlawfully spreading poison when there is not a fire ant within cooee— this is in breach of pesticide regulations. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is exactly what happened recently at Beechmont and Laidley and other places, when property was damaged and officers behaved like criminals in a home invasion while trespassing on private land. The violence came from the officers, not the landowners. I’ve talked with the landowners. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: We’ve got no evidence to suggest unlawful conduct or misconduct by the program in undertaking the compliance activities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I send you evidence?  

Ms Saunders: Of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers if they have a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: Sorry, can you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers—that’s fire ant eradication program officers—if they have a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: To be honest, I don’t know the specifics of the legislation under which the program operates, in terms of the compliance enforcement. They’re state laws, and the question is better directed at the state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Biosecurity Act says that they can have a reasonable excuse and then they cannot go onto the property.  

Ms Saunders: We’re not applying the Commonwealth Biosecurity Act in relation to this program.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, state.  

Ms Saunders: I’m not familiar with their legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think it’s a reasonable excuse to obstruct when a resident has an illness such as asthma or other respiratory ailments confirmed by a medical certificate as likely to be made worse by exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly when being sprayed? 

 Ms Saunders: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on facts that I’m not familiar with and/or are the responsibility of a state jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals present represent a threat to domestic animals—dogs, cats, birds—if they are exposed to the toxic chemicals?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware of those circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals are not being administered according to the safety requirements under the permits issued by the APVMA?  

Senator Chisholm: Again, I’m not aware of any existence of that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your truthfulness. It’s very helpful. I’m not trying to have a ‘gotcha’ moment. This is very serious in Queensland. Why is aerial application of pyriproxyfen occurring on a wide scale on areas where no fire ants have been identified, ever, when the permit number PER87728 clearly states by way of restraint: DO NOT apply as a preventative measure for Red Imported Fire Ant control. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse, Minister, to obstruct when the administering authority has already disastrously polluted a significant waterway in the Samford Valley—you’d be familiar with the beauty of that valley—near Brisbane, killing extensive native marine, reptile and insect species?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case, Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals have already been shown to not discriminate between insects and have already wiped out thousands of native ants and native bees and their hives?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not aware. By the way, I’m not expecting you to be aware. Thank you.  

Ms Saunders: Also, nor do we have any evidence, Senator, that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. I’ll get people to contact you about it. Where is the environmental safety research that has been done to establish the safety of humans and our native birds and small animals when poisoned insects form part of the food chain? Is there any?  

Ms Saunders: I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Who is responsible for determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: That’s a state matter. You’d have to ask the state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Shouldn’t it be up to a court to decide this crucial question?  

Ms Saunders: Once again, that’s a matter for state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and—what’s the other ‘f’?—Forestry step up to pay compensation to those affected by the misapplication of the fire ant eradication program in Queensland thanks to the use of federal funds? Are you responsible?  

Ms Saunders: I’ll repeat my comments. No, they are matters for the state.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your direct answers. I’ll get someone to contact you. 

/4 Comments/by

Tradies Promised – Families Delivered

,

Australia’s migration program is failing to deliver the skilled workers we were promised.

An analysis shows that in 2023-24 only 12% of permanent migration spots went to skilled workers — and 0.09% to tradespeople. Meanwhile, the housing crisis worsens.

The system is broken!

— Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I want to go to an analysis of the migration program—it’s an analysis done by Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald and Professor Alan Gamlen, who are affiliated with the Migration Hub at the ANU—and also a comment on their analysis by Leith van Onselen, the economist, who says of the report:

Australia’s immigration system is unskilled and broken.

They say, ‘In 2023-24, the permanent migration program’—185,000—’delivered just 166 tradespeople, negligible against national needs.’ The report also shows that just 12 per cent of places in the nation’s permanent migration program are going to skilled workers. Instead, many of these place are being allocated to members of skilled workers’ families. Zero point zero nine per cent of new permanent residents are in the trades. Australians have been promised that the migration program is to fill skills shortages to fix the housing crisis, and that’s being used to justify hundreds of thousands of arrivals—millions over the last few years. Yet now we know that just 166 tradies arrived in one year. Why is your department failing to make sure the people who are granted permanent places in Australia are actually skilled?
Senator Watt: Maybe the place to start, Senator, is what figures the department has around—there was a little discussion about this earlier in a session you weren’t here for, but maybe that’s a decent place to start.

Ms Sharp: Certainly. Thanks, Minister. Going very specifically to primary visa applicants who work in the construction sector, in 2024-25 there were 15,524 skilled visas granted to workers in construction.

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me—what was the total migration that year?

Mr Willard: 185,000.

Senator ROBERTS: 185,000?

Ms Sharp: That was the permanent program, Senator, yes. Of that permanent program, 8,741 were skilled workers in the construction sector.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s about four per cent.

Senator Watt: But very different to the numbers you were just quoting, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Depends how they’re classified, Minister.

Senator Watt: Well, I think you gave a figure of 150-something—

Senator ROBERTS: 166.

Senator Watt: Yes, whereas the actual number is over 8,000—so, pretty big difference.

Senator ROBERTS: We can argue about the accuracy because it depends on the classification, but keep going.

Mr Willard: Senator, I’d add that the permanent program—it’s roughly two-thirds allocated to the skilled program. You are correct that the skilled program includes the primary applicants and their immediate family members, and there were 132,148 places delivered in that skilled program in 2024-25.

/by

NDIS Blackhole

,

During this session with officials of the NDIS, I was told that there are currently between 270,000 and 280,000 NDIS providers, with 93% of them being unregistered.

This is a massive number and makes it almost impossible to monitor. Astoundingly, there is no set timeframe for when providers must become registered.

The Minister COULD NOT tell us exactly how much taxpayers were being ripped off by fraudulent operators – however stated that all providers are required to comply with the Code of Conduct. This “compliance” with the Code of Conduct means little to fraudulent operators.

I was not comforted by the responses to this massive waste of money – which is predicted to soon cost more than the entire Australian defence budget.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How many providers are now registered with NDIS?

Ms Glanville: The number changes all of the time very rapidly, but we have around 270,000 to 280,000 providers. About seven to eight per cent of those are registered.

Senator ROBERTS: When will the commission extend mandatory registration to all providers, and how long will it take for all providers to be registered?

Ms Glanville: The issue of registration and regulation is a matter for government. We’re very pleased to be talking to government about these issues and we will await the outcomes from those discussions.

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know yet?

Ms Glanville: No.

Senator ROBERTS: How many sole traders are unregistered?

Ms Glanville: No, we can’t answer that question, but we can take that away and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice? Thank you. How much funding has been claimed by unregistered providers from the NDIS since the scheme began and specifically in the 2024 financial year?

Ms Glanville: That’s a question for Mr McNaughton.

Mr McNaughton: Let me take that on notice and see if I get that during the hearing. To confirm, in what financial year was that?

Senator ROBERTS: How much funding has been claimed by unregistered providers from the NDIS since it began?

Mr McNaughton: I’ll need to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know of any other government funded schemes where regulation or compliance is optional, similar to NDIS provider registration?

Ms Glanville: I think there is a whole range of different regulatory systems across government. That’s probably the most accurate thing I can say. We maintain a position of the importance of regulation and registration in the way in which the scheme works. We note the differences about this scheme than perhaps other regulatory regimes that do exist in the Commonwealth.

Senator ROBERTS: What financial risks does the presence of a large unregulated provider base pose to the NDIS?

Ms Glanville: Our main interest is in the quality and safeguards issue. As a human rights regulator, we are keen to see people with disability receiving very safe and quality services to enable them to live their ordinary lives. Questions about the funding is something perhaps Mr McNaughton could address.

Senator McAllister: The government is very committed to dealing with any questions of fraud or noncompliance in the scheme. The ANAO has made the point that prior to our coming to government there were very limited financial compliance arrangements in place within the NDIA. We’ve made substantial investments to improve that. I can ask Mr McNaughton to talk you through some of those, if that assists you.

Mr McNaughton: It’s also important to talk about the fact the market is a quite diverse market. When we talk about unregistered sole providers, it could be an allied health professional or it could be a clinical psychologist who isn’t registered for the NDIS but is registered in all of their other industry bodies and governed by that process. Sometimes they choose not to register for the NDIS for their own purposes because they have other registration requirements. The market is quite diverse in that range. Through our fraud and integrity work, we are doing a lot of work across government. Mr Dardo can talk to some of the work they’re doing to match everything from ABNs to tax file to pay-as-you-go information so we can see if there are challenges around integrity relating to a provider, whether registered or unregistered. We are agnostic to that in our fraud and our integrity work. We are absolutely committed to preserving this scheme and eradicating fraud. This is something that—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, sir, that was the point I was getting to. The scheme itself is at risk if it’s not brought under control and quickly.

Mr McNaughton: The government has invested significantly. I’ll get Mr Dardo to talk through some of the government investment over the past couple years and some of the great work that’s been underway to put better assurance processes in around the scheme to really tackle those fraudulent providers and make sure all disability funding is going to participants who require it.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the offer, but we heard from Mr Dardo in the previous session of Senate estimates and what he said was compelling. It stunned a lot of people in the room, including me, so I don’t think we need to revisit that again. What percentage of providers are now made up by unregistered providers?

Ms Glanville: I think I answered that earlier. Do you want to give a bit more detail on that, Ms Wade?

Ms Wade: We anticipate that approximately 93 per cent of providers do not elect to register. As at 30 June 2025, we have 22,955 registered providers. It’s important to note that, whether you are registered or unregistered, you are still required to comply with the code of conduct. The regulator can still ban and take compliance and enforcement action against you, which includes bringing matters before the Federal Court, which is an important part of our regulatory approach to ensure we are clear that the NDIS delivers quality and safe services. During today’s hearing, the Federal Court of Australia delivered a judgement with respect to a matter where a registered provider had a participant die in their care. As a result of their failures under the NDIS Act, they have incurred a $2.2 million penalty, which is the highest penalty that the Federal Court has brought to a provider to date. This is an important reflection on the role that registration but also regulation plays for the NDIS market.

Senator ROBERTS: I think the evidence in a previous session was that the Federal Court would be overwhelmed if you dumped it all on the Federal Court. There’s a lot at stake. I understand that.

Ms Glanville: I can also add to Ms Wade’s comments that the result today is very good because of the quantum in that it is the highest amount that’s been awarded. In the regulatory sense, it also acts as a deterrent to others to think very carefully about what they are doing potentially in relation to the services that they provide to people with disability, and to look at the action that will be taken if they’re found to be wanting in that regard.

Senator ROBERTS: I have examples, but I don’t have the time to go through them of carers who provide massive unpaid support who are not receiving their rightful remuneration and of others who deserve care but are not getting that care. There’s quite a lot at stake. Are you aware of the massive overcharging by some people, for example, for cleaners and nurses. A cleaner is charged at $40 an hour normally. We know this from someone in our staff. When they charge out that cleaner to the NDIS it’s $130 an hour—same job.

Senator McAllister: This is mostly a question to the NDIA in relation to pricing, but we touched on this earlier. The board makes decisions about pricing, but one of the things they have been very clear about in their discussions with me is the importance of making sure people with disability do not pay more for services than do other Australians. I’ll pass to Ms McKay and Mr McNaughton to answer your questions.

Mr McNaughton: We issue what we call our pricing guide, and it sets out what are the maximum rates that can be claimed for certain services. We regularly monitor that as part of annual pricing review. We are always trying to benchmark so that you’re not paying more just because you’re an NDIS participant. We want to make sure we’re paying market rates, whether you’re a private citizen, NDIS participant, Department of Veterans’ Affairs or whatever that might be. That’s what we’re continuing to do. Where we do receive a tip-off that a person may be charging higher than that, that will be referred to our integrity and fraud team, who would then be investigating those matters. I can assure you that’s what they do.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that $2 billion is lost annually to NDIS fraud? Is that acceptable to the government? Would it be better that the NDIS, which provides a decent service, be returned to the states for competitive federalism to develop accountability? We’ve just got to look at every way of getting this monster under control.

Senator McAllister: The policy you just referenced now is not something that the government is considering. However, the issue around fraud and integrity in the system is a matter that the government takes very seriously. Since coming to government in 2022, we have essentially needed to build an antifraud and compliance framework almost from scratch. We have made a $500 million investment into the NDIA to support them in building this capability. You heard, as you’ve indicated, from Mr Dardo previously about some of the outcomes of that investment. We will continue to back those processes, because these are not really victimless crimes. Aside from taxpayer impacts, when we see fraud we often see other harms to participants. We certainly see money being spent on things which should be being provided to people with disability. This is a matter that the government takes very seriously and is something which we are backing with investment.

Mr McNaughton: I echo those comments. What we have through our Fraud Fusion Taskforce is at least 25 or 26 Commonwealth agencies involved in looking at and cracking down on fraud and investigating fraud related matters to the NDIS. We all agree that, as I said earlier, this scheme should be protected for people with disability who require it. There are unfortunately some unscrupulous providers trying to access the scheme. We want to come from a participant safeguarding perspective to make sure we’re removing those providers from the scheme and safeguarding participants so they can access the genuine disability related supports from good service providers. I should say 99.9 per cent of service providers are really good providers. But there are some bad actors who are trying to get on the scheme. We have very good systems in place through our integrity and fraud teams doing some great work. As I said, I could get Mr Dardo to talk through the work of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, but in the interests of time—

Senator ROBERTS: I know he’s doing a good job. Fundamentally, Mr McNaughton, how do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time? Can we break it down into states again? The other thing is this was started without bones. There was no skeleton even. When Julia Gillard promised the NDIS it was to win an election. She didn’t win the election. The Liberals came in and they were stunned at what they saw. I’m not defending the Liberals, by the way.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I do need to share the call. I do enjoy the history lesson, but we’re very short on time.

Senator ROBERTS: Should it be sent back to the states where we’ve got competitive federalism which will give us accountability and each state can improve?

Senator McAllister: That’s not a policy that we’re contemplating.

/2 Comments/by

Questioning the Commissioners

,
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny

Australia has a Sex Discrimination Commissioner who isn’t sure what we mean by ‘biological men’ and a Race Discrimination Commissioner who refuses to attribute unprecedented levels of mass migration to the housing crisis and cost-of-living nightmare.

Both these individuals are paid roughly $400,000 + super.

At last week’s Senate Estimates I was able to question these commissioners on their recent dealings as part of my role holding the bureaucracy to account to you, the taxpayer.

What I heard in response was not only frustrating, it begs very serious questions about their standard of work.

‘What do you mean by biological males?’ – Dr Anna Cody, Sex Discrimination Commissioner

Here are some highlights from my questioning of Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the context of the Giggle vs Tickle case and, more generally, the interference of sex-based protections in law through the inclusion of trans individuals.

Roberts: So, what sort of chromosomes does she [transwoman Roxanne Tickle] have – XX or XY?

Cody: I can’t answer that, Senator.

Roberts: You can’t?

Cody: No, I can’t answer that.

Roberts: Wow. [headshake]

Roberts: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle vs Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?

Cody: What would you like me to explain, sorry Senator?

Roberts: What your position is.

Cody: On which issue?

Roberts: The position on biological males in female spaces – could you please explain the Human Rights Commission – your position on that?

Cody: What do you mean by biological males, Senator?

Roberts: Can someone who was born on XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes? A male change to female?

Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist.

Roberts: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex? If born a man they are a man. If they are born with XY chromosomes they’re a man and they stay a man?

Cody: No, I would not a agree.

Roberts: You don’t agree?

Cody: No.

Roberts: You talked about XX / XY you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?

Cody: The issue that I’m saying around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.

Roberts: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Born female is XX.

Cody: Not always, Senator.

Roberts: No?

Cody: No.

Roberts: Someone who was born a man – a boy – has XY chromosomes, cannot change to have XX – is that correct?

Cody: If they are born – if their chromosomes are XY then their chromosomes, I don’t believe they can change, but as I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change.

Roberts: So, you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?

Cody: Um, I’m not taking a side within a court case, our role is as amicus so that is to provide a clarification – help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.

Roberts: So, how can you clarify if you don’t understand?

Cody: The – the – what – I – I – understand the law, what I don’t understand is the science around the XX / XY unless the evidence is before the court.

Astonishing! This is reminiscent of the Department of Health taking on ‘notice’ the definition of a woman.

The situation was not much better with the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman. Previously the former Chair of Multicultural Australia and Member of the Queensland Multicultural Advisory Council, he seemed particularly reluctant to address the economic, social, and cultural impact of mass migration.

Roberts: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?

Sivaraman: In of itself? It doesn’t have to be. No. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.

Roberts: Okay, thank you. Mr Sivaraman, there are currently 4 million people in this country – our country – who aren’t Australian citizens – are not Australian citizens – taking up beds while Australians are homeless. Record homelessness – after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived. That’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospitals, dams, transport, and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist?

Sivaraman: Um, Senator, I think the first issue is to simply to – connect – in a very linear way migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve-

Roberts: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?

Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to like housing, the cost of living – are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with. And it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, Senator, and I think that can be problematic.

Roberts: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants when I am one, and can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?

Sivaraman: Because it is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems.

Roberts: I didn’t say there was only one cause – it’s just a significant factor.

Sivaraman: Even that in itself is a simplification, Senator, that it could be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.

In both cases, the commissioners reject simplicity.

The biological norms which underpin human gender are simple. ‘Progressive politics’ is the first movement in history to regress ideologically to such a point that it struggles with the definition of men and women. This self-inflicted ‘confusion’ has jeopardised the protection of women, made a mockery of women’s sport, and a laughing stock out of what was once the greatest civilisation on Earth.

Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has a lot to answer for on this topic. After all, it was under her watch that the amendments were made to the Act. Consider the irony of a female leader making Australia less safe for women.

Meanwhile, the undeniable reality of mass migration is a simple mathematical principle that creates a complex forest of problems downstream of the initial mistake. These additional issues are being used to talk-around the primary cause even though the average Aussie on the street has a clear view of what went wrong. Ask them. They know.

I have found that simplicity is often rejected because it allows us to identify the policy error at the heart of these tragedies befalling Australian society.

If we know which policy is causing the problem, we know who wrote it, who voted for it, and how to fix it.

In these cases, we have sex discrimination policies that have been erroneously modified to remove accurate biological qualifications of sex to suit the trending ideological movement of the day, rather than upholding the protection of biologically segregated spaces – as was their intention.

For migration, the problem is the Big Australia Ponzi scheme being run by Labor (and the Coalition in the past) to cook the economic books and obscure the per capita backwards economic trend taking place. Doing so would mean admitting that migrants are being used to prop up political parties, bureaucratic structures, and the interests of developers while the immediate needs and rights of Australian citizens are torn to shreds.

Yes, we can still ask questions about these topics – but the quality of the answers we receive speaks volumes about the ingrained nature of the bureaucratic double-speak quagmire we need to dismantle before real change can be made.

Questioning the commissioners by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by

Sunday Changed Australia

,

Sunday stirred something deep in the soul of this nation. It terrified the establishment because it woke the people—and when the people wake, the government should tremble.

Senator Hanson’s motion to protect our national flag was clear and powerful, rooted in unity and pride. Yet Labor and the Greens twisted it, replacing it with a feel-good statement that confuses our national identity. We have one national flag. One. Their amendment is disgraceful distortion – just another attempt to silence the voice of the people.

Australia is dying—not because of the people, but because of the government’s betrayal. It’s time to restore our nation, reclaim our spirit, and remind Canberra that the Constitution belongs to the people. The government serves us—not the other way around.

— March for Australia | 31 August 2025

Transcript

Sunday changed Australia. It stirred the people. The people are waking because Australia is dying. We can feel it. It’s dying at the hands of Labor and the Greens. Sunday terrified you—it absolutely terrified you—because the people woke up. Sunday changed the whole nation. What you have done now is change the whole motion. I will read Senator Hanson’s motion: 

The need for the Senate to take immediate action to make it an offence to wilfully burn or desecrate the Australian National Flag. 

That has been changed under bastardry by the Labor and Greens parties to: 

The need for the Senate to recognise that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views and today is home to the oldest continuous culture on the planet— 

we agree with that— 

and to people from more than 300 ancestries. The Australian National Flag, and the other national flags, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags, represent our shared values and our rich history and any actions to desecrate these flags should be condemned. 

Rubbish! We have one national flag. I will tell you what Google says about the Aboriginal flag—’It was proclaimed as an official flag of Australia but is not the primary national flag.’ It is not a national flag. You don’t even know that. That’s disgraceful. You don’t even know. You said ‘the other national flags’. How is the Aboriginal flag a national flag when it doesn’t cover the whole of the country, when it doesn’t cover the Torres Strait Islands? How is the Torres Strait Islander flag—good people in the Torres Strait; Aboriginals are fine people—a national flag when the flag of the Torres Strait Islands does not cover the whole of the country? These are not national flags. I cannot support this Labor-Greens bastardisation of an amendment. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, I would ask you to withdraw that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw. Look at what they’ve done to Senator Pauline Hanson. They jailed her, they denigrated her, they infiltrated her party and destroyed it in 1988 and now they are gagging her and changing her motions. Why? For the simple sin of saying what she thinks and saying what the people think. She says what the people think, and you guys do not get that. You just don’t get it. She has the spirit of Australia in her heart. She has the spirit of Australia right through every cell of her body. That is what the Australian flag is. It has the spirit of this country, and the spirit is the most important thing of any entity, whether it be a football club, a business, a church, or a country. The spirit is important, and you are killing the spirit of this country. Australia is dying. We need to restore Australia and, instead, of looking at the scarcity that you are inviting on everyone here and the fearmongering and the division, what we need to do is dwell on the abundance. It starts with the government. 

Remember this one thing: the people are in the charge of our Constitution, not the government. The government serves the people; the people do not serve the government. 

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by

What are they Plotting this Time?

,

My latest article in the Spectator Australia.

UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, doesn’t know Anthony Albanese particularly well. It was clear from the outset, despite their embraces on stage.

Opening his Renew Britain speech, Starmer confused the room by saying the Australian Labor Party won ‘a landslide victory earlier this Summer’.

The fact-check: Albanese attracted one of the lowest primary votes in recorded history during an Autumn election.

‘A key part is standing up to the divisive politics of the Right…’

Starmer’s complaint about division loosely translates as ‘anything that divides public opinion from government policy’.

Leaders frightened of public opinion are redefining debate as divisive. If the ghost of Churchill so-much as side-eyes Starmer, he wraps himself in the Online Safety Act like an infant dragging its blanket around.

➡️ Read the full article here: Albanese’s socialist love-in with Starmer

/3 Comments/by