The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is the culmination of two years of consultation aimed at fixing a long-standing issue with orphan works, expanding online education exemptions, and making minor technical updates.
Division 2AAA in the Copyright Act 1968 limits remedies against those using copyrighted works when the owner can’t be found after a “reasonably diligent” search. While we still need clearer industry guidance on what qualifies as “reasonably diligent,” modern tools like TinEye, web searches, and AI make checking copyright straightforward.
This bill introduces requirements for copyright owners to issue a takedown notice before seeking a charge. Crucially, any claim must now be reasonable. I’ve seen copyright trolls demand over $1,000 for minor, low-traffic uses of dormant works. This new requirement gives small businesses leverage to negotiate and provides courts with clear guidance to lower litigation costs.
This is a major win for our galleries, libraries, museums, and educational institutions. With up to 70% of some collections categorised as orphaned, this bill grants them the freedom to finally share these works.
However, this bill completely misses the elephant in the room: AI training and data scraping.
Under current law, using copyrighted material to train AI generally requires a license, and reproducing substantial parts of works in AI outputs is an infringement. The real danger is how search engines and AI platforms (ChatGPT being a primary offender) scrape copyrighted websites to generate direct answers. By doing so, they eliminate the need for users to visit the original creator’s site, effectively appropriating their work. This critical issue must be addressed in the very near future.
Although One Nation supported this bill, we will be watching closely to see how it performs in practice. If small businesses acting in good faith aren’t adequately protected from predatory claims, we will push for further measures.
Transcript
The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is the result of consultation over two years to solve a problem that’s existed around orphan works. Schedule 1 of the bill creates a statutory framework that enables lawful use of orphan works when the copyright owner cannot be identified or located despite a reasonably diligent approach. Schedule 2 makes clear that copyright exemptions for learning institutions teaching in person extend to lessons taught online. Schedule 3 makes minor technical changes and updates.
The orphan works scheme creates division 2AAA in the Copyright Act 1968 to limit remedies for copyright infringement where the owner cannot be found despite a reasonably diligent approach. It would be good to have that further guidance on what ‘reasonably diligent’ means. I do expect there will be guidance from industry and media around that definition when the bill commences. Using internet search and websites like TinEye or asking AI if something is copyrighted is not hard to do; it’s quite easy. The act already limits backdated claims to six years; where the use predates that, only the last six years can be claimed as copyright infringement.
The bill requires a copyright owner who has detected use of their material to give the offending use a notice to take down the material. If they do, a charge does not result. It’s the copyright owner’s discretion. Any charge they do claim must be reasonable—there’s that word again. There’s a real issue with copyright trolls, who buy up dormant copyrights, look to see who has used that writing, photo or art then send a copyright claim. I’ve seen many examples of copyright trolls making claims above $1,000 for insignificant use such as a photo on a website that attracts little to no traffic. This legislation does introduce words like ‘reasonable’ to describe the charge. That is new, and it should help in these cases, because it gives a small business a chance to negotiate the charge. It may stop claims being made for minor use when no quantifiable benefit has resulted. The legislation provides the courts with clear rules and guidance that will reduce the cost of litigation for both parties.
One Nation will watch how this legislation works in practice. If small businesses are not being properly protected for in-good-faith breaches, further measures may be necessary. The good news is that this bill will allow galleries, libraries, museums and education institutions greater freedom to use works they have on hand. With an estimated 70 per cent of some collections being orphaned, this is a significant step forward.
The bill does not address the major concern about copyright law, which is using copyright material to train AI. Under the Copyright Act 1968, teaching and AI on copyrighted works generally requires permission or a licence from the copyright owner. Reproducing producing substantial parts of copyrighted works in an AI’s output, such as quoting long excerpts or reproducing poems or images is usually an infringement. The exception is a narrow fair-use exception for academic and news purposes. Where this becomes a problem is in areas of search where the old ten blue links in Google’s page of search results have been replaced with an AI answer, which uses information from a copyrighted website, generally removing the need to visit the site. Many artificial intelligence sites—ChatGPT being a major offender—will use data from a copyrighted site to answer a user question and even make recommendations for which website to use based on the data from a different site. The issue of AI appropriating copyrighted works or copyrighted webpages is an issue that will need to be addressed in the near future. One Nation will support this bill.
Let’s talk about the EU-Australia Free Trade Agreement. One Nation supports fair trade, not free trade. This agreement is a sellout driven by globalists in Labor, the Greens, and the Teals.
This Agreement “sneaks” in powers over climate, gender, and social policy, bypassing our Constitution and giving foreign, “woke” NGOs (like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations) power to monitor Australian businesses.
It wipes out $1.5 billion in Australian tariffs, lets foreign companies bid on equal terms for government contracts and bans our producers from using traditional names like “feta.”
It also targets essential diesel fuel refunds for farmers and miners, mislabelling them as “subsidies.”
While Labor keeps the public in the dark about the details of this deal, One Nation’s stance is clear: Australians must decide our own future.
We need to exit foreign agreements like UN Net Zero and the Paris Accord, cut the fuel excise in half, impose a royalty on gas exports and protect our local industries.
Transcript
We’re living rent free in the Labor Party’s head. All you can hear from the Labor Party is, ‘One Nation this, One Nation that,’ because they lost voters to One Nation in the South Australian election.
Getting back to the topic, the EU has published the European side of the free trade agreement between Europe and Australia. One Nation does not support free trade; we support fair trade. Past agreements make us right because they’re hurting Australia. This agreement still must go before the joint standing committee on trade and tariffs and then the parliament. Given Labor, teals and Greens are full of globalists, I’m certain it will pass after a period of theatre to pretend it’s being scrutinised when it is not. Scrutiny is important.
This agreement creates a raft of new measures around sustainable development, gender equality—what’s that got to do with a trade agreement? We get woke, they get cheap products—environmental and climate matters, and responsible business conduct. Including these in this agreement means the federal government is giving itself powers it has never had before and which are effectively an end run around our Constitution. They want to get around our Constitution. The agreement also offers civil society organisation an active role to monitor the implementation of the entire agreement, opening up scrutiny of the Australian government and Australian companies to people like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Wow.
The agreement will remove almost all Australian tariffs on European Union products, at a cost of $1.5 billion. In return, the EU is scrapping tariffs on some Australian goods, value unknown. We hear the Labor party extolling the virtues of this agreement, yet they won’t tell us the details. Australia will allow European Union companies to tender on an equal footing with local companies for contracts with 60 government entities. Equal footing with Australian companies? Come on! To Labor, an Australian does not deserve any special treatment over a European. Good to know.
The agreement regulates Australian producers’ ability to use the real names of 300 products, including feta cheese, which can still be called feta if the Australian producer has been calling it feta for five years; otherwise they have to change the name. The public are going to be so confused. Some feta will be feta; other feta won’t be feta.
From the agreement:
The EU and Australia recognise that certain subsidies may distort the proper functioning of markets and to that end agreed that in principle no subsidies that negatively affect competition or trade should be granted.
They’re talking about the refund farmers and miners get on the road tax components of their diesel machines where these machines are not used driving on roads; they are used outside of that. This includes tractors, cool rooms, milking machines and so on. These are not subsidies; they’re refunds.
This agreement gives the government huge new powers, sells out the bush, allows woke organisations powers over the Australian government and corporations and creates a whole new world of woke governance. Will it make the lives of everyday Australians better? No, of course not. The Labor party do not cover for you; they govern for woke foreign agendas.
I want to make a few more points. The European Union commissioner was here to sell the free trade agreement just two days ago. She’s here to sell it, but we still don’t know the details, because the Labor Party is excluding them from public reach. Why? Because the government won’t release the detail.
By the way, people may not know that the same minister for Labor pushing this free trade agreement is pushing something else. He’s pushing an extra 45 federal politicians at taxpayer expense. Expand the Senate, expand the House of Representatives. We’re opposing that too. We don’t need any more politicians; we need fewer politicians in Canberra. They’re pushing that for their own benefit.
One Nation’s position is clear. Australians decide what we do, not unelected Brussels bureaucrats. We need to abolish UN net zero. We need to get out of the UN Paris Agreement and the UN Kyoto protocol. We support fair trade, not free trade. European Union and American farmers are subsidised heavily. We need to protect our farmers from exposure to free trade because it’s not free except in one way, and that’s hurting Australia. One Nation will cut the fuel excise in half and impose a royalty on export gas at last.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): The time for the discussion has expired.
This is my interaction with federal agencies at the Illicit Tobacco hearing in Canberra on 18 May 2026.
Tobacco excise tax losses range from $7.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually (ITEC report).
The agencies confirmed that illicit tobacco is a massive, highly sophisticated, and growing threat tied directly to organised crime.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) stated that intergang violence, property destruction and loss of lives can be directly linked to this illegal black-market trade.
I pointed out that the real safety issue facing everyday Australians involves fire bombings, gang violence, and murder on our streets, not just general health advice.
The agencies pointed to successful operations, such as the AFP citing specific busts netting millions of illegal cigarettes and $93 million in evaded excise. However, when I pressed them on concrete metrics to show whether they are actually making a dent in the trade or if these seizures are just a “drop in the ocean,” they struggled to give a clear percentage or ratio against the total market.
Success isn’t just about slowing down market growth or rattling off isolated seizure statistics. The Australian public deserves to know the exact scale of the impact being made.
We shouldn’t be merely managing or stopping this illegal trade from “growing,” we should be eliminating it entirely.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing. Let’s explore your understanding. I’m going to give you free rein to show the people of Australia and the parliament of Australia what you know and are doing. Perhaps you could answer these questions in turn, please, starting on the left. Do you accept that there is a significant problem with illicit tobacco? If so, why? If not, why not? How do these problems manifest? Could you be specific about the impacts on human life and also the dollar cost.
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, I’m not sure whether we’re best qualified to provide an answer. We’re prosecuting offences, but we’re certainly very much engaged in relation to prosecutions arising from the illicit tobacco trade.
Ms Sirec: As we said in our submission, any criminality is a concern for the Australian Federal Police. Illicit tobacco is an illicit commodity and we will target that. We do know that it’s having an impact. As we’ve heard from our ACIC colleagues, it’s impacting our communities, it’s impacting health and it’s obviously causing some violence and harm in the community. So, certainly, we work very strongly with our partners on being able to impact and disrupt the criminal environment in connection with illicit tobacco. I have forgotten the second part of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: How do these problems manifest—if you could be specific—in terms of the cost to human life and the dollar cost?
Ms Sirec: As for how it manifests, we know that competition is happening across organised crime gangs, so we see intergang violence. We see property destruction occurring in our jurisdictions, which our state and territory partners also have to target. We’ve heard from the ACIC regarding the loss of three lives, and I think the ACIC are on the record already about the dollar value of illicit tobacco being in the billions, in terms of impacting community.
Mr Meyer: Building on what has been said already, I think the other element, from our perspective, is the recycling of the profits that are made through illicit tobacco into a range of other organised crime activity, as I mentioned, whether it be drugs or a range of other activities which flow on to a range of harms within the community. Just in terms of metrics and numbers, I know that the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s report estimates the total amount of excise evaded in 2024-25 to be between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that the total economic and social cost of illicit tobacco in 2023-24 was approximately $4 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: The other group, AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: In response to your first question, in 2024 AUSTRAC developed the national risk assessment on money laundering. At the time, it assessed the illicit tobacco market as posing a medium and increasing threat of money laundering. That same product forecast that, over the next three years, the illicit tobacco threat was likely to increase. We have recently published an update to that national risk assessment which shows that illicit tobacco has increased in volume and we’re seeing that criminal groups are becoming more sophisticated and diverse in the ways in which they’re laundering that money. That’s really driven by high market demand and profitability. I think, to your second question, just referencing the ITEC annual report 2024-25, ITEC estimated that in 2024-25 the illicit tobacco market was worth up to $6.9 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: Again, each in turn, what are the three most important points that you would like to make to this committee?
Mr de Crespigny: From the CDPP’s point of view, there are two things that we are seeing about the place. Firstly, of the prosecutions that we’re doing, more of them involve multiple defendants, indicating large, organised crime groups. The other thing that we’ve seen about the place is a rise in state prosecutions, so the states are very much taking it on. In both New South Wales and Victoria, they’ve increased the penalties for relevant offences, such as the sale of illicit tobacco. It’s not something which is just being done by the Commonwealth; it’s also being done by the state authorities.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a third point?
Mr de Crespigny: I do think that there’s possibly a need to understand its impact upon the community, both in loss of revenue and in the health impact that it has. That’s something that we try to get across in our sentencing matters, because part of the point of the exercise is to, in actual fact, lower Australia’s smoking rates.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the safety of people?
Mr de Crespigny: People are safer if they don’t smoke.
Senator ROBERTS: I meant in terms of firebombings and murders.
Mr de Crespigny: That’s something that, certainly, I observe because I have heard it at the committee and read it in the newspapers, but it’s not something which falls within the CDPP’s speciality.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AFP?
Ms Sirec: The AFP knows that the threat is dynamic, interconnected, tech enabled and resilient. There are three points that I would like you to take away. Firstly, our approach, with our partners, is that we target supply chains, enablers and trusted insiders. Secondly, we exploit and dismantle criminal communication systems. Thirdly, we identify, restrain and seize criminal assets and financial facilitators to take the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you be more specific, please. How do you do these things? What do you need? What actions do you actually take?
Ms Sirec: As for actions, we target the supply chains. For instance, in New South Wales, we partner with New South Wales police and the Crime Commission to target trusted insiders—that is, those individuals who allow the illicit flow of tobacco to come through the borders. We exploit and dismantle the criminal comms systems, through understanding our capabilities around encrypted communications, and being able to infiltrate and use our powers to be able to identify organised crime. Through the additional funding that the government has provided regarding our Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, we can identify, restrain and seize the criminal assets, and we’ve done that successfully. We’ve seized directly over $39 million worth of property since 26 June 2025.
Mr Meyer: As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, serious and organised crime see there being lower barriers to entry and lower penalties associated with illicit tobacco and the market. A bill is going through parliament at the moment, and I know that, across our state and territory counterparts, they’re also looking to have greater consistency, in terms of their own regulatory and legislative approach. Firstly, being able to level out and make it harder for serious and organised crime to operate, and increase the penalties, obviously will help to deter some of those actors. Secondly, targeting the efforts the whole way through the supply chain, as Deputy Commissioner Seric said, not just here in Australia but at the border and internationally with our partners, will be incredibly important, and we continue to do that. Thirdly, in addition to the commodity itself, it’s being able to dismantle the actual groups behind it. Those groups are involved in a range of other illicit activity as well. By effectively deterring and dismantling those groups, we’re actually going to have a significant effect across a range of threat types.
Senator ROBERTS: AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: Coming to this from the perspective of an intelligence agency, the first point that I’d make is about partnering with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies that we work with. AUSTRAC is a member of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, we support the national disruption group and we work with the ITEC. It’s really through those partnerships, and their ability to leverage our data, that ensures there is financial intelligence that gives a good picture of the activities there—the supply chains, and how profits are generated and moved. It gives those investigative agencies greater insights, in order to target these groups. The second point I’d make is that it’s essential for AUSTRAC, as both an intelligence agency and the financial regulator, to work very closely with our industry partners—the banking sector, the remittance sector and the digital payments sector—so that we can not only continue to get those insights from them but also work with them on increasing their risk controls, their transaction monitoring and their understanding of the nature of the threat and the way it’s evolving, in order to help them detect that activity. The third point that I’d make goes to a real investment in our crypto-tracing capability. With the impact that government is having, we’re starting to see that increase in online sales and more movement of these proceeds through digital currencies. It’s important for us to keep up with that and continue to be able to have the tools and the capability to follow those fund flows through those digital transactions that are made as well.
Senator ROBERTS: How do each of you measure your effectiveness? Is the taxpayer getting value? And, if so, how do we know? We’ve pretty much all agreed that this problem is worth billions of dollars, it is costing lives and it has health impacts. What are you doing to reassure the taxpayer?
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, our effectiveness is measured by the prosecutions that we undertake; we think we’re undertaking those effectively and we’re getting quite reasonable results. The offence provisions are quite complex. These offence provisions—say, the Customs Act provisions—aren’t just focused on the actual importation of the tobacco; it’s a requirement that the person also had an intention or was reckless in defrauding the revenue. They’re not the most straightforward offence provisions. Our effectiveness is in working with our referring agencies and pursuing prosecutions.
Ms Sirec: From the AFP’s perspective, we would measure our effectiveness by our ability to partner, disrupt and dismantle organised criminal groups. Only months ago, Commissioner Barrett identified her No. 1 target, who was involved not only in a myriad of other crimes but also in illicit tobacco. Through our partnerships with our offshore law enforcement agencies, we’ve been able to disrupt his ability, to directly impact. There’s a success measure there. Of course, the number of prosecutions and seizures of illicit tobacco and our ability to understand the criminal networks are another measure of success. Finally, as I said before, with the investment that the government has made in terms of our asset restraint, we’ve been able to restrain more than $39 million since June 2025 and taken the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me some quantified specific effect that you’re having with each of those measures? What indicates success, and what indicates how far we have yet to go?
Ms Sirec: Sure. I can give you a couple of case studies. As per our submission, for instance, with Operation Collinsville, late last year, with the Australian Border Force and Victoria Police, we arrested six senior syndicate members and charged them with various charges. There were 14 search warrants across various factories and premises. We seized over 24 million cigarettes, six million kilos worth of looseleaf tobacco and 51,000 vapes, while also being able to seize various other items and instruments of the commission of the crime—mobile phones, cash machines et cetera. That’s just one investigation. In another investigation, in 2024, Operation Centinel-South-Tyres, over 10 million cigarettes were seized and a number of the syndicate members were arrested. This syndicate was responsible for the importation of more than 77 million cigarettes, so we disrupted that syndicate, which equated to $93 million in excise tax. In 2025, we also successfully obtained restraining orders for over $800,000 in property.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a big problem. How big is it? Is this a drop in the ocean, or has this had a significant impact on their illegal business?
Ms Sirec: Every criminal group that we can disrupt creates an impact.
Senator ROBERTS: In your answer, you’re not giving me anything specific, in terms of indicating your understanding of how big the problem is financially.
Ms Sirec: We’ve heard already from our colleagues here about the dollar value, in terms of the cost of this criminality, and also—
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, I want to know what your understanding of it is.
Ms Sirec: As we’ve heard, it’s a $7 billion harm to the community.
Senator ROBERTS: Is what you’ve done, in the cases that you’ve just rattled off, five per cent or 50 per cent of the trade?
Ms Sirec: I can’t give you a quantum of the percentage of the trade, but they are only two examples—they’re in our submission—of multiple examples that I could provide of the impact that we’re having.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s good to see that success, but is that five per cent, 50 per cent or 90 per cent? How much further do we have to go?
Ms Sirec: I won’t speculate on the percentage; I believe that sits there. Certainly, the fact that we are sitting here today means that we’ve obviously got more to go. But we have the right capabilities and the right people involved in this to do everything that we can to disrupt this.
Senator ROBERTS: How do the people and the parliament know from your answers—you’re not being very specific—in terms of the overall figure? Are you making a dent in it; again, is it five per cent?
Senator COLBECK: It’s $93 million worth of excise seizure versus a $12 billion loss in excise; it’s a drop in the ocean.
CHAIR: Perhaps I can assist, Senator Roberts. We’re all here to try to stop this market growing, and it’s great to have numbers of cigarettes, like 10 million, being confiscated at the border and so forth. But it would be really helpful if you could provide to the committee, on notice, in percentage terms, the amount of disruption that you are making with what is being confiscated versus the size of the illicit market. I can appreciate that you may not have that in front of you, and this is not to take away from any of the great work that you are doing, but I think it is an important piece of evidence for the committee, so that we are able to look at just the pure scale of what is coming into the country.
Ms Sirec: I’ll have to take that on notice.
CHAIR: Thank you; that would be very helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to make the point that we’re not just interested in stopping the business growing; we’re interested in stopping the business altogether.
When harvest fuel bills double and take weeks to recoup from supermarkets, family farms simply can’t finance the food on our tables.
If Canberra keeps treating our fuel sovereignty like someone else’s problem, store shelves will empty fast.
Our food producers are already feeling the heat.
Government needs to step up and start looking after Australia.
Transcript
Yesterday, I met with Johanna Brighenti from NSW Farmers and member organisations across horticultural and meat industries. They raised issues caused by the Albanese government’s fuel crisis that are terrifying. The cost to get produce to market is going up by between 25 per cent and 75 per cent because of increased fuel costs.
Farmers and truckers using diesel are only getting 30 per cent of their fuel order. This is making Australian produce unaffordable. After the drought years, family farmers have nothing left to get through this.
It’s even worse for farmers in the middle of a harvest. One farmer saw their harvest fuel costs double, from $15,000 to $30,000 a week. Fuel bills have to be settled in 14 days. Supermarkets pay two months. Farmers can no longer afford to finance their harvest, and food will not get to supermarkets.
If the Canberra bubble think that this is someone else’s problem and that they need do nothing about it, I can assure you it’s going to get very real very quickly. For food producers it is already real.
During this Senate estimates, I confronted officials over their “dodge” of my earlier question regarding M1 motorway works between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Instead of a brief summary, they dumped a staggering 1,535 pages of unindexed data on my office, effectively telling my staff, who have already been halved by resourcing cuts, to dig through it themselves while conveniently handing spreadsheets directly to other senators.
Minister Chisholm tried to defend this bureaucratic brush-off as “too much information,” however I pointed out that “burying answers is not transparency”.
I went on to request a real, functional summary of all federal funding for M1 roadworks and the officials finally put the data on the record. Mr Brummitt walked through a comprehensive list of projects spanning current commitments, planning phases, and completed upgrades.
In total, the Australian government’s commitment is $2.2 billion to M1 projects since 2019. While I’m glad we finally got the numbers, it shouldn’t take a grilling in estimates just to get a straightforward summary. Transparency matters!
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here again. It seems like only yesterday, doesn’t it?
CHAIR: It’s their pleasure.
Senator ROBERTS: In February estimates, I asked a question regarding the extent of works on the M1 motorway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Mr Bourne replied that there were a lot of projects on the M1 and offered to take the question on notice. Your answer on notice, SQ-26, said that the information on M1 projects can be found in documents tabled by the secretary on 9 February 2026. These are the first few pages of the documents. There are 1,535 pages, covering all of your projects, some of them going back to grants awarded in 2014—12 years ago. I interpret this answer to be you telling my staff to find the answer themselves amongst the 1,535 pages of data. You provided another senator with a spreadsheet electronically. Do you dispute my interpretation?
Mr Bourne: Senator, that document holds all the information in relation to the question that you asked.
Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister & Cabinet document on the correct behaviour of estimates witnesses and the privileges committee rulings over the years all require a witness to provide a full and accurate answer. Minister, how is this any sort of answer, let alone a full and accurate one? I asked for a summary.
Senator Chisholm: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think Mr Bourne said it was full and accurate information. It might have been more information than you needed; that is the suggestion. I feel as though it’s a bit critical to be disappointed at receiving too much information.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, you’ve cut our staff in half. We have only limited staff. We can’t go through 1,535 pages. It’s organised by state, not by project. We wanted the M1 project. The M1 project is not even named. You gave Senator Canavan a spreadsheet but not us. Burying the answer in 1,535 pages is not an answer, not a summary. So, I repeat my question. You can take it on notice. Please provide a summary of all roadworks funded at any point in their project life cycle, in whole or part, by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts on the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.
Mr Bourne: I’ll just ask my colleague Mr Brummitt to take you through that.
Mr Brummitt: I’ll run through the projects in order. The M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, is in progress, with an Australian government commitment of $50 million.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that 50 or 15?
Mr Brummitt: Fifty.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Mr Brummitt: The M1 Pacific Motorway exit 45 north is in planning. That’s a $10 million commitment. That was a budget commitment, a new project. The construction funding for the M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, exit 45, is a $10 million commitment, with a total project cost of $20 million. For the construction funding for the M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, which has not commenced construction yet, there is an Australian government commitment of $450 million, with a total project cost of $900 million. The M1 Pacific Motorway Varsity Lakes to Tugun was completed in 2025, with an Australian government commitment of $750 million and a total project cost of $1.5 billion. For the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, exits 41 and 49, completed in 2025, there was an Australian government commitment of $117 million, with a total project cost of $234 million. For the M1 Pacific Motorway Eight Mile Plains to Daisy Hill, completed in 2025, there was a $510 million Australian government commitment and a $750 million total project cost. The M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, exit 45, completed in 2022, had a $7.3 million Australian government commitment, with a $14.6 million total project cost. The M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes upgrade, was closed and the project was completed in 2020. We’re going back a little bit there, but I wanted to be as comprehensive as I could for you, Senator. That was a $194 million Australian government commitment, with a $217 million total project cost. Another one completed a while ago, in 2020, was the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade, the Gateway Motorway/Pacific Motorway merge, with a $111.5 million Australian government commitment and a $189 million total project cost. Also, under the SEQ growth/Brisbane 2032 business case development program there are three planning projects in progress. That’s planning for the Pacific Motorway Worongary interchange improvement, which is a $1 million Australian government commitment, with a total project cost of $2.9 million. This is the project I mentioned earlier, and I’ll explain. For the Pacific Motorway exit 45 north business case, there was a $750 million contribution from the Australian government and a total project cost of $1.5 million. Then what was announced at budget was $10 million, which was additional funding for detailed design and pre-construction work to get that project really shovel ready and well prepared. The final one under that program is the Pacific Motorway, Logan motorway to Nerang, planning for smart motorways, also still in progress, and that was a $700,000 Australian government commitment and a total project cost of $1.5 million. Since 2019, that’s a total Australian government commitment to projects on the M1 of $2.2 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Was that available last time?
Mr Bourne: I think I did offer to go through those with you last time, but you asked us to take that on notice.
I questioned Minister Murray Watt and departmental officials to get straight answers on how much taxpayer money is being spent on United Nations climate events and whether the government’s policies are hurting economic growth.
I asked the department questions on taxpayer spending regarding Minister Chris Bowen’s role as president of negotiations for COP31 in Türkiye. They confirmed that $147.8 million over three years was allocated under a budget measure titled “Standing with our partners in the Pacific”.
While Dr Box explained this covers events, Pacific delegates, pavilions and staff travel, I asked what the real return on investment for everyday Australian taxpayers was. Furthermore, officials admitted that the total budget for attending COP31 itself and whether grants will again be handed out to climate activists as was done for COP30, has not yet been finalised.
I requested a complete breakdown of international travel costs within the climate change and energy portfolios for the 2026–27 financial year. The Department could not provide specific figures on wages, airfares, or days spent abroad, stating decisions are made on a “case-by-case basis.”
I asked Minister Watt why Australia should have international climate agreements imposed on us, pointing out that sovereign nations like the United States have withdrawn from these arrangements and that the UN cannot enforce anything unless Parliament legislates it.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Good morning, Minister.
Senator Watt: Good to see you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re looking chirpy.
Senator Watt: Always chirpy, just like yourself.
Senator ROBERTS: The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, is the president of negotiations for COP31—the Conference of the Parties—in Turkiye taking place in November this year. Has the department incurred any expense in respect of that role for travel, expense for extra staffing or expense in any other related purpose, and, if so, how much?
Mr Kaiser: Yes. We covered some of that ground in answer to questions from Senator Henderson just moments ago.
Senator ROBERTS: The specific amounts for staffing, travel and related weren’t covered, though, were they?
Mr Kaiser: I think what we said was that a number of staff did travel with Minister Bowen, most recently, as part of his responsibilities but that those figures had not been reconciled yet because, I think, the staff literally arrived home on Saturday.
Senator ROBERTS: Does he have any additional staff as a result of his duties, not just travel?
Mr Kaiser: In terms of his ministerial staff?
Senator ROBERTS: In terms of his position as president of negotiations, does he have any additional staff in his—
Mr Kaiser: In his ministerial office?
Senator ROBERTS: Are the taxpayers paying for anything for the United Nations role?
Mr Kaiser: There was a specific budget measure which provided funding to the department to assist him with that role.
Senator ROBERTS: What is that amount?
Mr Kaiser: My colleagues will be able to help you with that.
Dr Box: I’ll take that, Senator. The amount allocated for the budget measure ‘Standing with our partners in the Pacific’ in the 2026-27 budget was $147.8 million over three years.
Senator ROBERTS: $147 million over three years?
Dr Box: That’s right.
Senator Watt: Just to be clear—because what that money is for shouldn’t be misrepresented—it might be helpful to have Dr Box set out what that money is going to. It’s not to create an office, for example.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m all ears.
Dr Box: The money is for a range of activities: the delivery of the pre-COP, the preparatory meeting in the Pacific, in Fiji, and with the leaders element in Tuvalu; things like sponsored travel for Pacific delegates; additional events in the Pacific; and to support a pavilion at COP31. It also includes some funding for the presidency youth champion and to support our Pacific climate envoys, and of course it also includes some funding for staff and travel.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Was there an amount—I may have missed it—for the cost of attending COP31 itself?
Dr Box: For COP31? No.
Senator ROBERTS: So that is yet to be added?
Dr Box: That budget measure will support attendance at COP31, but the delegation for COP31 and associated costs hasn’t yet been determined.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are the Australian taxpayers, Minister, paying to raise Minister Bowen’s international profile? Where’s the benefit to taxpayers? Where’s the return on investment? What is the return?
Senator Watt: Well, you won’t be surprised to hear me say that that funding is not about raising Minister Bowen’s profile. It’s about ensuring that Australia has a leading role in international negotiations regarding climate change and energy. I know you and I, Senator Roberts, have a pretty different view about whether climate change is real and what we should be doing about it, but the reality is that countries all around the world are negotiating and reaching agreements about this, and our government’s view is that it’s a very good idea and it’s in Australia’s national interests to be helping to lead those negotiations. We’ve got a view that you’d rather be involved in negotiations than have outcomes imposed on you by the rest of the world, and, through Minister Bowen, occupying that role gives Australia a front-row seat in those negotiations. The other reason for us doing this is that it’s an opportunity for greater partnership with our Pacific neighbours. I’m sure, Senator Roberts, one thing you and I could agree on is that the Pacific is a region where there are a lot of national security interests for the Australian people and there is an opportunity for Australia to work in partnership with the Pacific on an issue, being climate change, that they consider to be arguably the biggest challenge they’re facing. That is a good thing for Australia, and dealing with those national security interests as well.
Senator ROBERTS: I think the better way to go about dealing with our neighbours, who are very important to us strategically, is to tell them the truth. That’s much more important for me. You said ‘costs imposed’ or ‘agreements imposed’. The UN cannot impose an agreement on us. The only way it can be imposed is if parliamentarians in this place legislate it.
Senator Watt: Well, again, you and I might disagree on this, Senator Roberts, but our government, and I personally, believe that it is useful to Australia and the Australian people to be part of international agreements about how we manage a range of challenges facing the world. There are some governments around the world that have withdrawn from those sorts of agreements—
Senator ROBERTS: The United States of America, for example.
Senator Watt: For example.
Senator ROBERTS: Keir Starmer calling it now the ending of climate catastrophes— Senator Watt: I don’t think the UK has withdrawn from those agreements, and we think it would be a negative for the Australian people if we were to withdraw from those agreements. I know One Nation’s got a different view. You’re entitled to your view, but we think it’s better to be at the table, in this case in a leadership role, leading the world to negotiate outcomes that are in Australia’s interests.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you aware that 65 per cent of the voters in the recent Farrer by-election voted for a party that wants to end net zero?
Senator Watt: Are you adding the Liberal and National Party votes to your—
Senator ROBERTS: No. We’re not.
Senator Watt: I didn’t think you got 65 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: No, we didn’t. We got about 40 per cent.
Senator Watt: That’s what I’m wondering—how you got from 40 to 65.
Senator ROBERTS: The other minor parties. Have a look.
Senator Watt: I recognise that there are different views about this in Australia. I think this government has been pretty clear, going into the last two elections, that we support action on climate change and that that is not only a good outcome for our environment but good for our economy and jobs as well. We’ve gone to the election with that policy. We’ve won the last two elections. We’re now implementing that policy. But you’re entitled to a different view.
Senator ROBERTS: I may have missed something here, Mr Kaiser or Dr Box, but COP30 in Brazil was extremely expensive at $1.6 million in taxpayer money. What’s the budget for the actual attendance at COP31?
Dr Box: We don’t have a specific budget for attendance at COP31 yet, because we haven’t determined how many people will go to COP31. The travel to COP31 will be taken from that $147 million that I mentioned that’s in the budget.
Senator ROBERTS: In COP30 you gave away $395,612 in grants to bring along climate change activists and so-called stakeholders. Will you be doing that again in COP31? If yes, why? What is in it for the taxpayer? Mr Rudd took, as Prime Minister, to Copenhagen 114 people, including his hairdresser. Will that same graciousness be extended to Mr Bowen?
Dr Box: You’re correct that we did have a grants program for COP30 that supported a range of organisations to attend COP30 in Belem in Brazil, including youth organisations, First Nations organisations and organisations from a range of sectors, including the agricultural sector. There is funding in the budget to support organisations to attend COP31 in Antalya in Turkiye, but the parameters of that haven’t yet been decided.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers. This next question comes up frequently, so I assume you have the data on hand. What is your budget for international travel within the climate change and energy portfolios—that’s wages, airfare and accommodation—in the 2026-27 financial year? Could you include a breakdown of how much over how many days for how many employees?
Ms Munro: These decisions, in terms of what the required travel is, are always taken on a case-by-case basis. A lot of the work that we do is done virtually, and it’s really by exception that there will be that international travel, but it is necessary to build the relationships and to negotiate outcomes. That’s the responsibility that the government has given us. We don’t have the detail that you are asking for, given that we need to plan through what are going to be the priorities for this year, and, as I said, we make those decisions almost on a case-by-case basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me a broad idea of the categories of considerations that will go into that or could go into it.
Ms Munro: Go into travel?
Senator ROBERTS: Selecting travelling companions.
Ms Munro: Yes, we’re happy to.
Dr Box: There are a range of factors that we consider. Value for money is obviously a very big consideration. Another is whether the intended meeting outcomes are of significant benefit for Australia’s climate, energy, environment and water agenda. We also consider whether virtual or alternative representation options aren’t suitable, and, of course, all approved travel requests include a contingency. We look at the intended meeting outcomes and whether virtual participation is available and, of course, value for money as an overarching consideration in coordination with the PGPA Act.
Senator ROBERTS: Value for money is a pretty subjective thing. It depends on the goals of your party going there. Coming back to the EPBC Act, your website page for the new national environmental standards under the EPBC Act does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says that the circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April, and it wasn’t. When will the new standard be made available to senators?
Senator Watt: I’m not sure when that research was done, but, in the last month, we have begun a second round of consultation on two of those national environmental standards. In outcome 2, we’ll be able to talk to you at length about that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. As things stand, the EPBC Act is, in our opinion—we differ on this, no doubt—a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia said, and I quote: Average decision times for resources projects have increased by 60 per cent, from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025 … What steps are you taking to increase your throughput?
Senator Watt: Again, we could have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but that was exactly one of the key reasons for the reforms that we passed in the parliament last year. I know you voted against them, but one of the key objectives of those reforms was to speed up decision-making on projects after that blowout of timeframes that you referred to, and we’re confident that will happen.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that the budget—and you’ve answered a related question from Senator Waters— includes a measure for introducing AI. Will that help in data collection and analysis or will that be actually making decisions?
Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about this in more detail in outcome 2, but the primary purpose of that AI pilot and tool is essentially to help proponents in preparing their applications. There are people who know a lot more about it than me who will be available to talk to you about it in outcome 2.
Mr Kaiser: I’ll just add to the minister’s answer an important principle in the application of AI in the public sector generally, and including in this department, is that humans remain the decision-makers.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you using ludicrously long delays in approvals for minerals projects to discourage application for minerals projects?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project, the holding cost of the project across a 3.8-year development application cycle will cost the proponents $25 million per year—almost $100 million total across 3.8 years to four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by a procedural failure in your department?
Senator Watt: Again, we can have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but a key objective behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up assessments and approvals of projects.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get a benchmark going. How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects?
Senator Watt: There will be officials available to answer those sorts of questions in outcome 2.
Senator ROBERTS: What is your expectation for reductions in this figure of 3.8 years? When will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth and the breadwinner jobs that go with minerals projects?
Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about that in more detail in outcome 2.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we talk about mining being a driver of the economy, of standard of living, and the six-to-one jobs multiplier in coalmines?
Senator Watt: In my opening statement, Senator Roberts—and I realise you weren’t here for that—I referred to the fact that, along with greater protections for the environment, one of the key objectives behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up decisions around housing, energy and critical minerals projects.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the things that’s become clear with new Labor is that it appeals to activists to get more votes.
Senator Watt: That’s your view.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the government aware, Minister, that obstructing resource projects stifles funds for social and welfare programs for caring for people?
Senator Watt: I would agree with the general proposition that economic development delivers economic wealth for the country that can be used for those sorts of social services.
Senator ROBERTS: And mining is a key to developing economic—
Senator Watt: It’s a big industry. I recognise that.
I questioned the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Cody, regarding the Australian Human Rights Commission’s intervention as an amicus curiae in the Tickle v Giggle case.
I asked Dr Cody whether the Commission could genuinely claim neutrality when participating in the legal action.
I also raised concerns regarding the official report Equal Identities, questioning whether the Commission’s position treats the exclusion of trans females from sex-based spaces as unlawful discrimination under section 5B of the Sex Discrimination Act, and why the office has not actively advised teams and individuals about relevant sport exemptions under section 42.
Additionally, I queried the broader policy approach of recommending the repeal or narrowing of religious and sex-based exemptions, questioning how such positions align with an objective advisory role to the court as amicus curiae or friend of the court.
Finally, I brought up the definition of “gender identity” under the Sex Discrimination Act, specifically the wording regarding a person’s characteristics with or without regard to their designated sex at birth, highlighting my concerns about how these legal definitions operate in practice.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. Dr Cody, my first question seeks to clear up your role in Tickle v Giggle. You did not prosecute the case and you did not fund the case, yet you presented a legal opinion in an amicus curiae, a friend of the court, submission. Is that correct?
Dr Cody: That is correct that our role was as amicus curiae to assist the court to understand aspects of the Sex Discrimination Act.
Senator ROBERTS: For clarity, your submission set out the law under the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, passed under Prime Minister Gillard. It changed the definition of ‘woman’, which can now be a person’s self-described gender identity, including appearance, mannerisms or other gender related characteristics with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth. You argued Tickle was a transgender woman with female legal recognition and presentation, and therefore the treatment from Giggle was properly characterised as gender identity discrimination. Other sections around special measures to promote gender equity, including section 7D, were subordinate to the overarching definition of gender in the act. In simple terms, is that your advice to the court?
Dr Cody: No, it wasn’t. We did not make any submissions on whether or not Ms Tickle had been discriminated against. Our role was to assist the court to understand the constitutionality of the 2013 amendments and to discuss meanings of sex and gender identity within the act, as well as the meaning of ‘special measures’ and how they would apply and any role for exemptions.
Senator ROBERTS: Amicus curiae—pardon my Latin—is a neutral or advisory role to help clarify legal questions. Are you neutral in the Tickle v Giggle case?
Dr Cody: Our submissions were to assist the court to understand and to interpret the Sex Discrimination Act. So, yes, that was our role as an intervener to assist the court.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you neutral?
Dr Cody: Our role was to assist the court to understand the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you neutral?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the commissioner has answered the question.
Senator ROBERTS: How can you be neutral when you marched into court at the head of the scrum of people on the Tickle side of it? You were making a clear statement in that action of support of one side of this case—a personal show of support not appropriate to an amicus curiae role—were you not?
Dr Cody: No, Senator. We took seats in the only space that was available in the courtroom. That’s why we were sitting on the right-hand side of the courtroom.
Senator ROBERTS: I saw your comments in the publication OUTinPerth in April 2024, where you said: We stand with trans communities and will continue to advocate for their rights and the rights of women. You are making a very clear distinction here between the rights of women and the rights of transgender women. Do you agree your comments amount to a statement that trans women are not women?
Dr Cody: I’m sorry, Senator, could you repeat that question?
Senator ROBERTS: You talk about trans women, and you talk about women. Doesn’t that show that they’re different?
Dr Cody: Transgender women are a subset of the broader category of women. ‘Women’ includes First Nations women, women with disability, older women, younger women, women from culturally and racially marginalised backgrounds, trans women, lesbians—non-binary would sometimes be included in that as well.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that. Moving on, this report titled Equal identities plus a long subtitle was published under your name as Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Can I confirm your official position, as contained in this report, is that trans female exclusion from sex based spaces of services—for example, women-only apps, shelters, sports and bathrooms—is unlawful gender identity discrimination under section 5B of the Sex Discrimination Act. Is that correct?
Dr Cody: No, that’s not correct.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s not correct.
Dr Cody: That’s not what the report refers to and that’s not my position.
Senator ROBERTS: Section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act provides an exemption specifically allowing sporting organisations to exclude someone, including a trans woman, from a competitive category of strength, stamina or physique matters in a sport. I haven’t heard your office mention this exemption, which is directly relevant to controversies around, for instance, the Flying Bats Football Club. If you do in fact provide independent advice, as you claim to do in the Tickle case, why haven’t you advised the opposing teams that keep getting injured that there is an exemption to protect them in the act?
Dr Cody: It’s not our role to provide advice to individual parties. We conciliate complaints if someone makes a complaint of unlawful discrimination, and we advocate for the human rights of all people within society, recognising that all people have a right to equality, respect and dignity. That is human rights law as it applies in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you want section 42—sport exemption—removed from the act?
Dr Cody: No, Senator. It has a legitimate place to play where strength, stamina and physique are relevant to a sporting activity.
Senator ROBERTS: Why strength, stamina and physique—that distinction between male and female?
Dr Cody: The words are ‘strength’, ‘stamina’ and ‘physique’. Different sports have different requirements around each of those, so that’s an important exemption that, when the parliament passed the Sex Discrimination Act, it included, to ensure that sport enabled people to participate fully within it.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Your report recommends repealing or narrowing exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act—such as section 43A—that allow sex based or faith based exclusions. Broad religious exemptions are criticised as creating uncertainty and legitimising exclusion. What right do you have to present an amicus curiae brief when you are already clearly heavily biased in favour of Tickle and opposed to religious freedom?
Dr Cody: Our role within the Australian Human Rights Commission is to advocate for the human rights of everybody within our community. That is a part of our role as a national human rights institution. Our role as amicus curiae is a different role. We’re not advocating in that situation but rather providing clarification to the court on the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that the Gillard government legislation that caused this ludicrous outcome passed on the voices, with former senator Birmingham—then-head of the Liberal Party in the Senate—on behalf of the coalition calling the bill ‘a very welcome piece of legislation’ and specifically supporting the absurd and illogical gender identity provisions. I’m just clarifying the record. Dr Cody, what is the difference between gender identity and gender? In your answers to Senator Cash you implied there was a clear difference between gender identity and gender. What is the difference?
Dr Cody: I was referring, in my answer to Senator Cash, to how sex is understood within law and in terms of the protections provided in discrimination law. Sex looks at three aspects. Those are biology and physical characteristics as well as how someone presents themselves as well as their social recognition. Those are the three aspects that relate to how sex is understood under the Sex Discrimination Act and within discrimination law more broadly.
Senator ROBERTS: What about with regard to the differences between gender identity, or people who identify as a gender, and real gender? Does it apply there?
Dr Cody: Within the Sex Discrimination Act, I can refer you to the provision for gender identity, but I don’t have it to hand right at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: So gender identity is a construct of the law. Is that correct?
Dr Cody: Gender identity is protected as a protected attribute within the Sex Discrimination Act. It’s not only an aspect of the law.
Senator ROBERTS: If someone introduces a bill that says men are the same as women, and it gets through the Senate and the House, that’s the law. Is that correct?
Dr Cody: It’s up to the parliament to pass its own laws, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Right. So the parliament can say, ‘Men are the same as women’—end of story, that’s it. Is that right? Thank you. What is the meaning of ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender’?
Dr Cody: Gender identity—if you’d like me to refer to the Sex Discrimination Act?
Senator ROBERTS: Could you read it out, please.
Dr Cody: Yes, certainly.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to share the call after this.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have another set later.
CHAIR: I’ll allow Commissioner Cody to answer your question and then I’m going to share the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you come back to me later?
CHAIR: Yes.
Dr Cody: Gender identity, within the Sex Discrimination Act, means ‘the gender related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender related characteristics of a person—whether by way of medical intervention or not—with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth’.
Senator ROBERTS: The keyword would seem to be ‘or’. I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a judge, but that would seem to be the keyword, and it’s used twice in the definition, separating the three characteristics. So you don’t have to have a gender; you can be whatever you want to be if you identify as such or if you dress as such. Thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WwprLae_vcI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-08 17:26:452026-09-08 17:56:28Is the Human Rights Commission Neutral?
I questioned the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) CEO Ms. Spence regarding the authority’s heavy-handed treatment, regulatory delays and conflicts of interest directed at Mr Barker and his company, UAS Pacific.
When pressed about why Mr. Lewis — a former UAS Pacific employee whose credibility, motives, and personal “axe to grind” were flagged in Fair Work Commission materials —was allowed to be involved in matters concerning Mr Barker, Ms Spence insisted that Mr Lewis has had no involvement since 2019. However, she agreed to take on notice requests for conflict declarations, management plans and access records.
CASA was also questioned over its use of disputed claims to justify severe enforcement actions, licence restrictions and prolonged delays that choked UAS Pacific’s business. Although Ms. Spence claimed a third party verified an initial 2018 issue, she agreed to provide summaries of completed jobs and confirm that neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Duffy were involved in them.
Regarding Fair Work Commission proceedings and the undertakings put in place, Ms Spence maintained there were no formal FWC orders or findings of bullying against CASA officers, though she conceded the transcript reflected a preliminary view that a CASA officer indeed had a personal “axe to grind” against Mr Barker.
Despite admitting failures in implementing conflict-of-interest policies regarding Mr Lewis, Ms Spence refused to commit to an independent review and as for the false or unsupported accusations kept on file, she noted that access to specific 2019 records has been restricted and annotated and agreed to provide details of that approach on notice.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Spence, at the last Senate estimates I put to you that CASA relied on Mr Mark Lewis, a former UAS Pacific employee, to essentially destroy his former employer, Mr Barker, and UAS Pacific, Mr Barker’s company. The Fair Work Commission material raised serious concerns about Mr Lewis’s conflict, motive and credibility. CASA now relies on a full prohibition of access to criticisms of Mr Barker from January 2021. Isn’t the real question why Mr Lewis was allowed any involvement before or after that date?
Ms Spence: Without going over the ground that we’ve gone over before, I don’t agree with the way you’ve described the situation. We did point out previously that there were issues with the way in which, initially, the conflict of interest was managed in relation to Mr Lewis. That was addressed some time ago—I think around 2019. So he has no involvement whatsoever with UAS Pacific now.
Senator ROBERTS: We know that he doesn’t have any involvement now. Will you please provide all conflict declarations, conflict management plans, access records and decision records concerning Mr Lewis and UAS Pacific.
Ms Spence: I’ll take on notice what we can provide.
Senator ROBERTS: You told this committee that CASA was looking into whether evidence given to the Fair Work Commission was misleading. CASA’s written answer now says that a broad review began on 8 October 2025. It gives no terms of reference, reviewer identity, scope, affected officers, documents being reviewed, external referral or completion date. Isn’t it true, Ms Spence, that CASA has still not provided enough information to show whether this is a genuine integrity review or merely another internal containment process?
Ms Spence: I think that was referring to some material that Mr Barker has provided to the board. Over the period from September through until as recently as April, we had about 790 pages of documentation provided to us. Every couple of months it’s being sent through. We are taking it seriously. We’re working through the material that Mr Barker has sent through to us, but, obviously, the time for us to be able to conclude the review is dependent on us actually getting Mr Barker to say there’s no more information for him to provide to us. So we are working towards having advice to provide to our board on the serious allegations that Mr Barker has raised about CASA’s behaviour. We have also been very clear that—should Mr Barker wish to take this up with the AFP, the NACC or anyone else—we would obviously support any investigation that anyone else wanted to raise. We are working through the information that’s been provided to us, and we’ll be reporting to the board at their next meeting later next month, subject to Mr Barker not providing any more information that we would then need to review and assess.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s an invitation for Mr Barker to tell you two things: provide further information and notify you when the end has come.
Ms Spence: My strong hope is that Mr Barker has provided us with every piece of information that he thinks the board needs to have in order for us to be able to complete an assessment of whether there was inappropriate behaviour within the organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, provide the terms of reference for your inquiry.
Ms Spence: There are no terms of reference to the inquiry. We’re reviewing the material that Mr Barker has provided to us, which, as I’ve said, has come through over a number of emails—from September until April this year.
Senator ROBERTS: Any external referral?
Ms Spence: We have said that, if he wishes to make an external referral, we would be happy to support that. But we have not seen any evidence, and we are acting on information as we review to see if there is anything else we need to do rather than wait till the end point. We haven’t seen anything to suggest we should be making referrals, but, if Mr Barker wishes to make a referral, we would be very happy to support any investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you just provide me, on notice, with material that proves this is a genuine inquiry. Tell us what you’re doing.
Ms Spence: I’ve just told you what I’m doing. I’m not sure what else—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s pretty loose.
Ms Spence: We’re reviewing the information. It’s based on the request that Mr Barker has sent to us saying, ‘Here is a list of my concerns about the way CASA has behaved, and here is the documentation that supports it.’ We are forensically reviewing the information that Mr Barker has provided us, to determine whether there is evidence to support the allegations and assertions that he’s made.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you conduct a forensic review?
Ms Spence: The Industry Complaints Commissioner is reviewing all the material that is being provided and will provide advice to the board on the matters that he’s identified as part of that review process.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve previously put to you that CASA relied on disputed and allegedly false claims to pursue heavy-handed enforcement, including criminal allegations and jail threats, which effectively shut down Mr Barker’s business and put staff out of work. Given CASA now admits it is reviewing potentially false and misleading evidence, has CASA reviewed every enforcement action, show cause process, licence restriction, downgrade, refusal, delay or adverse assessment involving Mr Barker or UAS Pacific?
Ms Spence: The first point that I would make—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sorry, just the restrictions that may have relied on Mr Lewis, Mr Duffy or the disputed material.
Ms Spence: To start off with, while I don’t want to go into the details of what the original issue was, we have third-party independent verification that the initial issue that occurred back in 2018 was verified. It was a serious issue that was identified, and we took appropriate action as a result of that identification. What we’re doing now— as I said, we have found no evidence to suggest that the first issue that was identified was incorrect on our part. We do have someone external to CASA who has confirmed that the issue identified was correct. So if we can just keep in mind that the regulator has to take appropriate action when a serious issue is identified, and that’s what we did. We have been reviewing all the jobs that Mr Barker has worked on with CASA, and we are working through to make sure that there’s no evidence to say that we have unduly delayed things. He sent some information as recently as yesterday, identifying two other examples where he suggested that we were being unduly slow or making life difficult for him. We’re reviewing those at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Are either Mr Duffy or Mr Lewis part of the reviewing team?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Will CASA now table a positive involvement schedule stating for each UAS Pacific matter whether Mr Lewis or Mr Duffy had direct or indirect briefing, file access, referral, drafting, review, approval or no involvement?
Ms Spence: I’m sorry, Senator, I don’t understand the question.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you now table a positive involvement schedule? In other words, were Mr Duffy or Mr Lewis involved in any direct or indirect briefing, file access, referral, drafting, review, approval or no involvement at all with UAS Pacific?
Ms Spence: I can’t remember the actual date, but I know that neither Mr Duffy nor Mr Lewis have had any involvement in relation to UAS Pacific, certainly for the last four years that I can recall. I don’t know how I can put a statement together which says, ‘Here are all the approvals and here’s confirming that Mr Lewis and Mr Duffy weren’t involved.’ I am telling you they have not been involved. That’s my positive assurance that they have—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s in the last four years. What about prior to that?
Ms Spence: I would have to check to see the last time that Mr Lewis was involved, but I think it would have been about 2019.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you take that on notice and give me the circumstances around his involvement and what the topic was.
Ms Spence: Certainly.
Senator ROBERTS: I also put to you that CASA removed or downgraded UAS Pacific’s privileges and delayed routine approvals for months or years, choking what was left of their business, destroying goodwill and driving away clients. The 2021 independent remotely piloted aircraft system—you guys go for acronyms, don’t you?
Ms Spence: Yes, we do. Usually they’re three-letter acronyms, so RPAS is special.
Senator ROBERTS: The 2021 independent remotely piloted aircraft system review records industry concerns about substantial business losses caused by CASA delays, inspector inconsistency and over-prescriptive risk management. Could you please provide a full schedule of every UAS Pacific approval, variation, downgrade, refusal, delay or regulatory service request since 2017—that’s nearly a decade—showing the decision-maker, the reason, the timeframe and whether it was reviewed in light of the RPAS review?
Ms Spence: As I said, we are looking at the applications that UAS Pacific has made. We will provide on notice a summary of the jobs that have been completed and just who has been involved in them, confirming that neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Duffy have been involved in them, and whether they met our normal service level standards in terms of how long they took to process.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want a summary. I want more than a summary. I want to see the regulatory oversight since 2017, showing the decision-maker, the reason and the timeframe.
Ms Spence: We will provide as much information as—I’m just trying to work through how our system will actually provide the information that you’re asking for. So, if you can allow us to take that on notice—I understand what you’re asking for—I will provide you with as much information as is available to give you a level—
Senator ROBERTS: And where you can’t provide it, provide the reason why you can’t.
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You suggested the Fair Work outcome did not amount to findings against CASA. But isn’t it true that the bullying matters were not dismissed because CASA’s conduct was found acceptable, but only after substantial undertakings and restrictions were put in place to prevent future bullying conduct? Isn’t that true?
Ms Spence: No. There was no finding that was made because of the undertakings that were provided, which was not a response by CASA to say that we were concerned about bullying or harassment; they were simply—in light of the issues that Mr Barker continued to raise, it was an undertaking to say that we would keep those relevant staff members away from UAS Pacific. It was never a reflection of our concern about the behaviour of those two officers.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the bullying?
Ms Spence: There was no suggestion that there was any bullying or harassment by those two officers.
Senator ROBERTS: No, by anyone.
Ms Spence: By anyone.
Senator ROBERTS: There was no Fair Work Commission decision referring to bullying?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Will CASA now table the bullying investigations that you did, and any undertakings, restrictions, monitoring arrangements and any internal assessment of whether CASA fully complied with any or all of the Fair Work Commission orders?
Ms Spence: There were no Fair Work Commission orders.
Senator ROBERTS: None at all.
Ms Spence: None. No, there were no Fair Work Commission orders.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the Fair Work Commission’s involvement?
Ms Spence: They reviewed the issues to determine whether they had jurisdiction, and they also tried to understand the basis on which Mr Barker and Mr Nowak were making their allegations. In both instances, there was no finding against CASA. In the first instance, there was nothing for them to look at because of the commitment to not engage with Mr Duffy and Mr Lewis and Mr Barker; and, in the second one, there was no evidence to support the assertions that had been made. It was found to be outside their jurisdiction.
Senator ROBERTS: When I put to you that the Fair Work Commission had found a personal vendetta or axe to grind—quote—by Mr Lewis against Mr Barker, you said you’d need to check the transcript. Have you now checked it?
Ms Spence: Yes, and I provided written advice to the committee, which was to say that the transcript did not use the word ‘vendetta’. It did indicate a preliminary view that the CASA officer had an ‘axe to grind’ with respect to Mr Baker, but that was not a finding or an order or any kind of action that the Fair Work Commission was telling CASA to take action on.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you now accept that the Fair Work material raised serious adverse credibility and motive issues concerning Mr Lewis?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: You told this committee that there were lessons to be learned about conflict of interest management, yet CASA’s written answer to questions on notice says, ‘CASA has not reviewed or amended its conflict of interest policies.’ How can you claim to have learned lessons while admitting you haven’t reviewed or amended the relevant policy framework?
Ms Spence: It was around the way in which we applied the policy to Mr Lewis, and that was the lesson that we learned, and—
Senator ROBERTS: Could you be specific.
Ms Spence: We identified that the language in the conflict of interest could be stronger. But the policy itself was not the issue; it was more how we implemented it.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you now commit to an independent conflict of interest review and table the outcome?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Ms Spence: We review our policies on, I think, an annual basis. I’d have to take that on notice. But I’ve got no evidence to suggest that, as a result of one incident where we did not implement the policy as effectively as we should have, there’s a fundamental issue with our conflict of interest policy.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the only breach—one?
Ms Spence: That’s the only one that I’m aware of.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether CASA has left false or unsupported accusations on file about Mr Barker, UAS Pacific and their staff. You answered by referring to one person and one withdrawn allegation and by saying that records simply cannot be destroyed. But isn’t it true that Mr Barker is not asking for unlawful destruction of records but for CASA to meet its legal obligations to correct, annotate, withdraw, restrict and prevent false or unsupported allegations from being used in future CASA decisions?
Ms Spence: We have updated the approach that we used for Mr Nowak in relation to a specific event, which occurred in 2019 at a licensed aerodrome in Queensland, where we have increased—or reduced the number of people who can access it, I think, down to myself, and I’m not sure—very limited people can access it. We’ve also put an annotation on it so that anyone, if they do get to see it, would know that this notice was overtaken by events. But that was in relation to one specific event; that was not in relation to every issue that Mr Barker has with us.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you table a complete record correction?
Ms Spence: I can certainly table the approach that we have taken, or I can provide on notice the approach that we have taken, in relation to that specific event about ensuring that the information is not available to anyone in the organisation who shouldn’t have access to it. Anyone, if they did find access to it, would see very clearly that it was overtaken by subsequent events.
Senator ROBERTS: CASA confirmed that CASA did not fully accept all recommendations of the 2021 independent RPAS review and that CASA focused on the recommendations rather than the review’s analysis commentary. The review records series concerns about regulatory overreach, retribution, passive-aggressive delays, vindictive enforcement, procedural unfairness, personal animosities and conflicts not properly mitigated. Will you now table the full unredacted review, the 6 May 2024 CEO DAS approval package and the recommendation by recommendation—
Ms Spence: Senator, that was included in the questions on notice that we tabled. The only redactions, I think, were to remove a few names, consistent with our normal practices. That’s been tabled.
Senator ROBERTS: My apologies for that one. Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair.
In my questioning of NACC Commissioner Brereton, we reviewed the commission’s performance and legislative framework since July 2023.
Commissioner Brereton confirmed that the NACC has received 7,624 referrals, of which 7,026 have gone through the assessment process. Out of these, 54 investigations have been commenced alongside 22 inherited from ACLEI; 35 have been completed and 34 remain active.
The NACC said they do not institute prosecutions directly but refers prosecutable matters to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Since commencement, 11 convictions have been secured, with four active prosecutions currently before the courts.
When I asked whether the definition and requirements for an investigation are too narrow or require widening, Brereton argued against expanding the scope. He noted that broadening the definition of “corrupt conduct” risks categorising ordinary conduct as corruption, which carries serious reputational implications.
Brereton noted a couple of minor legislative adjustments that could assist the NACC, such as the ability to appoint temporary assistant or acting deputy commissioners to manage conflict-of-interest situations and shifting terminology from “corruption issue” to “referral” to simplify the process for lay people.
As his term concludes, I addressed the public complaints regarding his perceived conflicts of interest, to which he replied that he did not take on the role to be popular.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Commissioner Brereton, for appearing. Thank you all for appearing. When were you appointed? What was the date when you were appointed to the NACC?
Mr Brereton: The appointment took effect on 1 July 2023, if that is what you intend. The instrument of appointment was sent to me, I think, on 30 May.
Senator ROBERTS: How many successful prosecutions have been commenced and completed since the NACC was established, not including inherited cases?
Mr Brereton: The NACC doesn’t commence prosecutions. We refer matters where we think there is a prosecutable case to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who decides whether or not to prosecute them. I know that, since we commenced, 11 convictions have been secured. Some of them are in matters which derive from ACLEI investigations and some in matters which were investigated purely by the NACC. I think three prosecutions have been instituted on referrals from us since 1 July 2023, but I stand to be corrected on that figure. There are currently four prosecutions before various courts in respect of matters referred by us or continued by us since inception. We have published seven investigation reports over that period, four relating to matters which had been commenced by ACLEI and which we completed, and three in matters exclusively commenced by us.
Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints have been accepted and investigated since inception?
Mr Brereton: The chief executive officer will dig out the precise figures, but we’ve received a total of something like 7,200 referrals, I think, over that period. Of them—I’m sorry; I’m corrected. It’s 7,624 referrals from 1 July 2023 to date. Of them, 7,026, or 92 per cent, have gone through the assessment process. I think 54 investigations have been commenced since 1 July 2023 in addition to 22 that we inherited from ACLEI. Of those investigations, I can tell you that we have completed 35 and there are 34 currently on foot.
Senator ROBERTS: How many active investigations are currently underway?
Mr Brereton: Thirty-four.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Why does the NACC have such a poor reputation?
Mr Brereton: I don’t accept the premise of the question.
CHAIR: It sounds a lot like you’re asking for an opinion, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Are the requirements to achieve an investigation by the NACC too stringent or narrow to assist those who make a referral?
Mr Brereton: I’m sorry; I didn’t quite get that.
Senator ROBERTS: Are the requirements to achieve an investigation by the NACC too restricted or too narrow?
Mr Brereton: We investigate corrupt conduct. ‘Corrupt conduct’ is defined in the act. What is the appropriate test for that? It’s a matter for the parliament. We apply what the law is.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t think the NACC was stifled in any way or needs to be widened in its requirements?
Mr Brereton: No, I don’t think it is stifled, and I think there are real problems in widening it because, first, the concept of what ‘corrupt conduct’ is broadly reflects that in the state and territory legislation. It’s not a perfect consistency but an approximate consistency around the country. Second, to say that something is corrupt is a serious statement to make about a person and their conduct. To broaden the definition of what a corruption commission investigates would risk bringing into the rubric of ‘corrupt conduct’ conduct that most people would not regard as corrupt. So I would not advocate a widening of scope.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you need any legislative changes made to the NACC?
Mr Brereton: There are some that I might be able to think of if I went away and thought about it, and we have identified a few. The ability to appoint an assistant commissioner or an acting deputy commissioner would be a useful addition, mainly to deal with conflict-type situations.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘conflict-type’?
Mr Brereton: When there is a necessity to find someone unaffected by conflict to conduct an investigation, the ability to bring an additional person in would be a useful one to have. Personally, I think the focus of the legislation on the term ‘corruption issue’ rather than on a referral makes the process a bit complex and difficult for some to understand, and—
Senator ROBERTS: The focus on—what did you say? I missed it.
Mr Brereton: The term ‘corruption issue’ is used through the legislation as the subject matter of a decision whether to investigate or not. I think it would be better if it referred to a referral rather than a corruption issue in that context, because what we are really doing is assessing a referral and deciding whether to investigate that referral or not.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re worried about it being assumed to be corrupt rather than—
Mr Brereton: No, no. It’s really a technical concern that just introduces some legal complexities. I’m not concerned about corruption being assumed. I think it is a refinement that could be made to the act to make things a bit easier, particularly for laypeople to work their way through. I’m sure there are some others that I could think of, but they’re the ones that spring to mind.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you be doing a debrief with anyone—an exit interview, so to speak?
Mr Brereton: I will be there for the next six weeks, and I will pass on whatever I can during those six weeks. And, yes, I certainly intend, at some convenient stage, to provide suggestions about the legislation to the appropriate officials.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t intend to touch on your conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest and the accusations that have followed you. That’s been done by others. You were controversial.
Mr Brereton: It appears that, in some quarters, I have created controversy. I said, when I came to the job, that you don’t do it to be popular, and I didn’t do it to be popular.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, Commissioner Brereton, the people—and there are quite a few—who are complaining about your behaviour or your conflicts or perceived conflicts I wouldn’t see as natural enemies of you.
Mr Brereton: Well, you may not know who my natural enemies are.
Are the chemicals used in the fire ant eradication program truly “not toxic”? I raised this question with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) during the last senate estimates.
Pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene are targeted insect growth regulators. Said to be safe for soil microbes and non-accumulative in the food chain, they are toxic to insects (including bees and native ants), fish, and aquatic invertebrates.
Regarding frogs and water bodies, it was acknowledged that specific protection statements apply near water.
Following reports from constituents in southeast Queensland regarding devastated beehives and contaminated watercourses, the APVMA admitted to receiving several adverse experience reports, which are typically referred to the QLD government for investigation.
The APVMA has agreed to provide redacted public reports and redacted adverse experience files along with QLD government responses.
We must ensure that proper oversight and the environmental safety of our local communities and ecosystems are front and centre when using chemicals.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got some questions on pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene. A member of the Queensland based Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program told me recently that the chemicals used in the program, being pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene, are not toxic. What are your findings?
Mr Hansen: They’re certainly toxic if you’re an insect, because they’re targeted insect growth regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I thought.
Mr Hansen: They’re identified as having low toxicity for terrestrial vertebrates and non-target terrestrial plants and have no adverse impacts on soil microorganisms. If you’re a soil microorganism, you’re pretty well safe and that statement would hold true. If you’re an insect, then they’re an insect growth regulator and they’re pretty toxic.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Fire ants are insects.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Are your findings based on independent research in Australian conditions?
Mr Hansen: That’s publicly available research from around the globe about these chemicals in terms of the assessment of their toxicity and the hazards that they provide. They’re globally recognised definitions in terms of their categories.
Senator ROBERTS: All insects including bees and Australian native ants?
Mr Hansen: It’s targeted to insects, but it’s not targeted, so ants and other susceptible insects that are stopped from maturing into breeding adults are all captured under that.
Senator ROBERTS: And bees; bees are insects?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What about frogs? Are they affected? Have any studies been done? Mr Hansen: It’s toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. That’s why we’ve got some protection statements on use of these products where they’re registered for use in terms of aquatic environments and water bodies.
Senator ROBERTS: Frogs are aquatic?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What about other animals within the food chain, including bird life and chickens?
Mr Hansen: It’s not a secondary impact; it’s not as though it accumulates through that food chain.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘secondary impact’?
Mr Hansen: An impacted ant being consumed by a bird is not going to be impacted by the ant having been treated.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the chemical itself, because it’s sometimes put with—
Mr Hansen: That comes down to this balance between the hazard and then the exposure. For bees, whilst it is hazardous, the impacts are generally not considered to be significant because of the lack of significant exposure pathways, particularly where it’s a granular formulation being used. It is this balance between both the inherent hazard and the exposure that creates the risk.
Senator ROBERTS: What about chickens eating the meal that’s got chemicals in it?
Mr Hansen: Again, it is really a targeted insect growth regulator. It has low toxicity to terrestrial vertebrates, but I’m not sure how much meal you’d want to feed a chook.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a question mark?
Mr Hansen: We don’t have it on the label that it’s able to be used that way. The safest thing on this one is if you’re following the label instructions or the permit instructions it should be safe to everything except for the target species that it’s aimed at.
Senator ROBERTS: Constituents have told me that the use of either of the chemicals has been fatal to these examples in their experience, the ones I’ve just asked you about, including the devastation of many beehives and the contamination of watercourses. They’re probably accurate?
Mr Hansen: We’ve certainly had a number of adverse experience reports lodged with us with regard to the use of the products. In all those cases, we’ve referred them to the control of use authority up in Queensland to investigate. Is it the use of the product or is it how it was used that has created the risk? That’s something that the Queensland government’s been looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Are we able to get on notice a list of reports that you have from the public that don’t reveal their identity, especially from southeast Queensland?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Does APVMA have a monitoring role in assuring that pesticides that you approve are used appropriately and safely for the environment?
Mr Hansen: We do so far as when we receive adverse experience reports or we see reports we ask the question: is this something to do with an unanticipated behaviour of the chemical? For example, florfenicol might be picked up in non-target species a long way away. We have a role in stepping in and asking, ‘How is this working? Why did this happen? What can we do to mitigate the risk?’, in which case we suspend the permit. For the vast majority, however, it is the control of use. That falls to the states and territories, which have the responsibility for controlling and ensuring people comply with the label or the permit instructions.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you respond to those complaints? Do you either deal with them or investigate yourself?
Mr Hansen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: The first category?
Mr Hansen: Yes. In the first category where it gets brought up to us, typically we put the onus back on the applicant to say, ‘This is the concern that we have. Can you provide us with information that satisfies us that your product, used the way it’s supposed to be used as per the label or the permit, isn’t having an adverse impact?’ They come back to us with information or data that either satisfies us or not. If they can’t satisfy us—again using florfenicol as the example—that they can mitigate that risk, then we no longer are satisfied that permit meets the statutory criteria in the legislation and we suspend or cancel the permit.
Senator ROBERTS: In the other category, you just sent instructions to the state saying, ‘What are you doing?’
Mr Hansen: We’ll send them the report and say, ‘We’ve received an adverse experience report. This is the report. Can you look into the potential use pattern and work out whether this is a control-of-use issue, that is, it’s been used inappropriately or it’s been used incorrectly, or whether it’s been used appropriately and we’re getting an adverse outcome that we wouldn’t anticipate and wouldn’t expect.’
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a copy, again with names redacted, of the reports you’ve sent to Queensland and the responses that Queensland has given to you?
Mr Hansen: I don’t see any problem with that.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to commend the witness for direct, succinct and reasonable answers.
