Green Ideology, Empty Plates

I strongly supported Senator Colbeck’s motion regarding the sale of Rushy Lagoon, Tasmania’s largest agricultural property.

The Albanese Labor government, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, used $69 million of YOUR money (nearly half of the $142 million purchase price) alongside foreign investment firms to price local farmers out of the market. The new owners, Tasmania Natural Asset Trust (TNAT), plan to destroy 9,000 hectares of prime dairy and beef land to plant 12 million pine trees for “carbon credits”.

Rushy Lagoon was a thriving property with a rich history of agricultural production, including the Ringarooma River irrigation pipeline, supporting 30,000 head of livestock, dairy operations, and grain and potato storage.

The government provided an additional $8.8 million grant to help turn prime food-producing land into a timber plantation, all to generate carbon dioxide credits and woodchips.

This project sacrifices regional communities and food security for city-centric climate ideology. The promised jobs are mostly short-term, while real breadwinner jobs are 25 to 30 years away.

Australia already has 1.6 million hectares of timber plantations. The real crisis in the timber industry is driven by soaring energy bills caused by net-zero policies, red tape and intrusive bureaucracy.

This purchase is part of a broader ideological war on red meat, dairy and farming, compounded by water policies destroying agricultural productivity.

With 99% of the local community opposing the sale, One Nation will do everything in its power to unwind this deal and ensure Australia’s best farmland is returned to food production.

One Nation will bring this “green” agenda to a halt on day one of our government.

Transcript

I thank Senator Colbeck for his motion, which One Nation strongly supports. Rushy Lagoon is Tasmania’s largest agricultural property, covering 21,745 hectares in the north-east of Tassie. The property sold recently for $142 million, with settlement due last week. The new owner is a special-purpose vehicle called Tasmania Natural Asset Trust, TNAT, with three shareholders. The federal government, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, contributed $69 million—almost half. This is taxpayer money, not government money. The remaining $73 million came from UK investment companies Gresham House and Aviva Investors. The latter has BlackRock as its largest shareholder.  

The previous owners were New Zealand’s Pye family, who held the property for 30 years. In that time, the Pye family built the Ringarooma River irrigation pipeline, which, with dams and 11 centre pivots, provided irrigated cropping across 1,100 hectares. What an amazing achievement. This supported a massive dairy operation, with two automated milking parlours and substantial storage vats. The shearing sheds and stockyards supported 30,000 head of livestock. Improvements included grain and potato storage sheds to feed the world. The property has a main homestead and workers cottages. In short, until the Albanese Labor government got its dirty hands on Rushy station, the property was actively involved in growing food to feed Australia and the world with foresight and ingenuity. 

This sale is a perfect example of the Albanese government hollowing out the bush, including by covering prime farmland with industrial solar and wind installations, transmission lines and, in this case, pine plantations. For those who don’t know—I learned this recently—nothing native grows under pine. Over the next five years, the new owners plan to plant roughly 12 million radiata pine seedlings across 9,000 hectares of the farm to generate an estimated 3.2 million carbon dioxide credit units—try eating them!—each production cycle. 

There it is. This ideology driven, delusional, dishonest Labor government is turning Tasmania’s largest agricultural producer into a subsidised farm for carbon dioxide credits. In case the government wants to pretend this was nothing to do with them, the Albanese government provided an $8.8 million grant under the Support Plantation Establishment program before the land sale had been approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board. It was a taxpayer funded grant. Turning productive farmland into a timber plantation was planned and financed through deliberate Albanese government policy. Taxpayer money is being used to destroy productive farmland. It is a measure in part justified through the timber production, which will eventually be used for housing, so they say, which could happen in 25 to 30 years time when the trees are ready for harvest. That’s not going to help the people sleeping in cars, sleeping under bridges, sleeping in tents and sleeping in caravans right around Australia because of this government’s policies. Given the miserable performance of this Albanese government in providing for the housing industry, we might still need the timber in 30 years time. 

By the way, those jobs Labor is claiming will be created are largely short-term jobs ripping out 100 years of farm improvements and then planting seedlings. That’s it. The real, breadwinner jobs will occur during harvesting, and those jobs will be 25 to 30 years away. The local community will not survive until then, but Labor and the Greens don’t care about that. This agenda is about sacrificing the bush to win votes in the city. It’s about sacrificing the regions, which feed Australia, which are crucial for the income of this country, to satisfy the city. Until the trees are mature, all the Tasmania Natural Asset Trust will produce is woodchips, most likely to be burnt for electricity to earn Albanese government issued large-scale generation certificates. 

Let’s review it so far. The Labor government spent $69.9 million to force the price of Tasmania’s largest agricultural producer so high that local farmers could not afford to buy it. It knocked them out of the market. Then they spent another $8.8 million to encourage the new owners to grow timber, not food. Then they will spend more taxpayer money giving certificates for woodchipping those trees and in turn burning them for power. This is insane. Under this arrangement, the government is giving money to itself and destroying our best farmland and productivity in the process. 

The truth is that Australia does not need this timber. According to ABARES, there are already 271,000 hectares of timber plantation in Tassie alone, part of 1.6 million hectares of timber plantation right around Australia. Nine thousand hectares of timber going into the national estate of 1.6 million hectares is not going to make any difference to timber supply. This is a lie. If the government were serious about increasing our plantation area, it would look to the 800,000 hectares of native plantation forests that have recently been locked up to prevent logging, despite there being seven million hectares of suitable forests. It just gets worse and worse. 

Logging has never taken a large percentage of the national timber estate—just 10 per cent—and logging does not destroy those forests. They remain habitat for native fauna and flora because they’re selective. Of course, this does not include old-growth forests, which One Nation would protect. I note the Greens and the Labor Party are actively clear-felling old-growth forests for industrial wind and solar installations and the related access roads and transmission lines, yet non-destructive logging is the problem, so they say. The real reason Australia’s timber supply is falling is that timber mills can’t pay their power and energy bills. Net zero power costs and intrusive bureaucracy are killing our precious timber industry. One Nation will lower power prices—we’ve given you the policies—remove the red tape, remove the green tape and remove the blue UN tape and encourage the Australian timber industry and the jobs it creates. We want jobs now, not in 30 years. 

Rushy Lagoon is about hollowing out the bush and hollowing out the regions. It’s about this Albanese government’s ideological war on red meat and dairy in the name of saving the planet from nature’s harmless trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide. Importantly, the war on cows is based on supposed science that is fundamentally wrong. The methane cycle has no impact on the environment. It’s a closed loop. A more important question is this: what are people going to eat if this Labor government continually destroys Australia’s agricultural capability? Only last week, SunRice laid off 78 workers in the Deniliquin and Leeton food processing plants because this government is knowingly, deliberately, deceitfully taking irrigation water off farmers and sending it out to sea. Listen to this: last year, over 4,000 gigalitres of water were sent out to sea against a basin plan target of 2,000 gigalitres—double the target wasted into the ocean. Why? It was so irrigators could not use the water to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. Go for it, Labor! You’re destroying farming in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. 

Labor is just one part of the uniparty. The other part of the uniparty, the Liberal-Nationals coalition, introduced the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in their 2007 Water Act, which has a list of aims for the act, one of which is to enforce international agreements. What the hell is that doing in our water act? Farming industry body TasFarmers strongly condemned the buyout of Rushy Lagoon, calling it a ‘disgraceful outcome’ that locks up prime dairy and beef country into a ‘monoculture pine plantation’. They nailed it on both. It is just so they can ‘tick a carbon abatement box’. A TasFarmers survey revealed that 99 per cent of local community respondents oppose the sale—99 per cent. For this reason, the new owners are now talking about undertaking ecotourism and community projects to moderate the fallout, and the state Liberal government is now holding an inquiry into its own stupid decision to allow the purchase. I mean, this is farcical. One Nation will do everything in its power to unwind this deal and ensure Australia’s best farmland is devoted to food production—to food. 

Australia’s farmers have had enough of the Liberal-Labor-Greens war on the bush in the name of saving the environment, killing the environment in the name of saving the planet. One Nation will bring this agenda to a halt on day one of our government. 

/0 Comments/by

History Remembers the Builders

Following my questions to Minister Farrell regarding the Great Australian Infrastructure project (GAIN) and despite giving him advance notice of the topic, the Minister was still unable to provide an update on its progress.

To be clear, I wasn’t asking for project approval; I simply wanted a commitment to advancing it expeditiously. For a minister who claims that advance notice helps him check status, he clearly ignored it entirely.

Infrastructure should be bipartisan. These are Australia’s projects, not One Nation’s, and history remembers who builds, not who plays politics.

I urge the Labor government to take the win, advance this work and grow our productive capacity to deliver wealth and opportunity for all Australians.

And the best part? These projects require no significant taxpayer investment.

International banks want to fund Australian infrastructure, but trust has been broken by major government project failures like Inland Rail, Snowy Hydro 2.0, and Adani.

While construction money is ready, funding for business cases is stuck. Project backers only want a small amount of government financial commitment in the middle stages to prove the government is serious, especially since private investors already paid for the early stages.

With our population surging, our GDP is being sliced thinner and thinner and Australians are feeling it. A responsible government’s duty is to grow the pie through essential infrastructure like roads, rail, ports, pipelines, processing of our minerals into steel for domestic use and export, creating strong breadwinner jobs.

Update: Following this question, Minister Farrell followed up with NAIF. They contacted the project sponsor and the project is now moving forward. Thank you, Minister Farrell!

Transcript

Despite me providing the minister with not only a notice of my question last Thursday but also the actual question, he was unable to provide an update on the progress of the project. I was not asking for the project to be approved. I was merely asking for the minister to commit to ensuring the project was advanced expeditiously. Despite the minister saying advance notice gave him time to determine the status of the project, he clearly had not done so. 

I’m stunned. Infrastructure should be bipartisan. One Nation is not trying to take credit for the 12 projects we’re working on with proponents. They’re not our projects; they’re Australia’s projects. History will not remember the politics of the project; it will remember which government built it. To the Prime Minister I say: take the win, advance the project, grow Australia’s productive capacity and deliver wealth and opportunity to all Australians—those who were here first and those who have come since. 

These projects do not require any significant taxpayer investment. International merchant banks have seen through the net zero scam and are now desperate to finance actual, proper productive infrastructure. Australia is a prime destination for international capital, which has realised successive Liberal and Labor governments have neglected infrastructure for so long. There is a plethora of opportunities here. 

While the financing is available for construction, it’s not available for business cases. There’s a simple reason for that: international capital does not trust the Australian government any longer. After fiascos like Inland Rail, Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the Adani mine, who would trust us? Proponents want to see government skin in the game before committing their own money. This may be as little as millions for middle-stage development. All of these projects have already had private funding for early-stage development. 

Australia is bringing in so many people our GDP is being sliced into smaller and smaller slices, and the public are feeling it. Any responsible government has a duty to grow the pie and increase GDP to maintain our standard of living. The way to do that is roads, rail, port, pipelines and internet backbones. It includes tertiary processing of Australian minerals, coal and iron ore into steel for domestic use and export, taking advantage of our resources to undercut foreign steel and create breadwinner jobs—union jobs. I look forward to Minister Farrell updating himself on this project before we return in September. (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s Tax Take Is Hitting Home

Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher – why does your government refuse to support indexation of tax brackets. High inflation under Labor has completely negated past adjustments, leaving Australians no better off than they were in 2022 and paying 17.7% of the average wage in tax. Any upcoming pay rises will only trigger bracket creep and make workers worse off.

Minister Gallagher avoided the issue of bracket creep indexation and instead accused One Nation and I of voting against various government cost-of-living measures, housing investments and tax cuts. The Minister claimed the government is addressing bracket creep over time through various tax cuts and offsets, while pointing to investments in Medicare and cheaper medicines.

Since 2022, real wages have gone backwards by 2.2%. With underlying inflation running at 3.6% (now 3.5%), any national wage increases fail to make up for ground lost under Labor, leaving workers perpetually playing catch-up. I asked if she would accept that the only true way to restore workers’ incomes is to cut taxes.

Labor is now raking in more tax revenue than when they came to power, rising from 29.7% to 30.2% of GDP, fuelled heavily by corporate profits. Tax bracket creep is tightening its grip and increasing the fuel excise is hurting families.

Why is Labor turning their back on workers?

Once again, Minister Gallagher dodged the issue about total tax take and corporate profits, joking about the political relevance of the Liberals instead.

And then claimed the government works tirelessly 24/7 to ease household pressures, which is delusional given all the data showing workers are going backwards under this government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Last week, I moved an amendment that would have introduced indexation of tax brackets to protect against bracket creep, which is where inflation-driven pay rises push workers into the higher tax bracket and they wind up paying more tax on their pay packet. While this government adjusted tax brackets several years ago, the high inflation under your government has since negated the benefit. Australians are now no better off than they were in 2022, paying 17.7 per cent of the average wage in tax. The pay rises coming through next week will be the start of bracket creep, making people worse off than in 2022. Minister, why won’t this government support indexation of tax brackets? Are you happy to see workers paying more tax than when you came to power? 

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the minister, I remind the chamber that Senator Roberts has the right to ask his questions in silence. 

Senator GALLAGHER (Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. Senator Roberts, you and your party last week voted against tax cuts for working people. I would be more generous if your voting record didn’t show you consistently voted against working people. You voted against penalty rates reform. You voted against energy bill relief. You voted against housing investment, against programs like Help to Buy that are actually helping low-income Australians into housing. The reality of the way the right-wing parties vote and then the concerns they raise—the disconnect between the concerns they raise in question time and the way they vote is astounding. You voted against tax cuts just last week. From memory, you voted against the stage 3 tax cuts as well, where we ensured— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. 

Senator Bragg interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Bragg, I’ve called order about four times. That does include you. Now either listen in silence or I’ll invite you to leave the chamber. Minister, please continue. 

Senator GALLAGHER: Every time we have sought to provide tax relief in this chamber, One Nation and the conservative right-wing parties in Australia voted against it. 

We are absolutely enthusiastic about cutting bracket creep. I have heard the Treasurer say this a number of times about returning bracket creep: we’ll do it when we can, in a responsible way and we can afford to do so. We’re cutting taxes five times in three different ways. We’ve got the tax cuts starting on Wednesday. We’ve got another tax cut starting 1 July the year after. We’ve got our instant tax deduction. We have the tax cuts that came on in 2024. We have the working Australians tax offset. These are all ways that we are making the tax system work better for working Australians. In addition to that, we’ve got all our investments in Medicare and cheaper medicines that we continue to roll out to help people with cost-of-living pressures. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Since 2022, real wages have gone backwards 2.2 per cent. With underlying inflation running at 3.6 per cent, and rising, next week’s national wage increase will not make up for what workers have lost since Labor came to power. Workers are forever playing catch-up, never getting ahead. Minister, will you accept the only way to properly restore workers incomes is to cut taxes and put more money back in people’s pockets? 

Senator GALLAGHER: That’s exactly what the government are doing. We are cutting taxes to put more money in people’s pockets. We are supporting wage increases, and have done so consistently since coming to government. Real wage outcomes are growing and they have had a three in front of them, for the first time in a decade, since we came to government, because we on this side of the chamber understand how important wage increases every year are to make sure you can balance the household budget. 

Now, inflation is higher than we would like—we can see that in the budget papers—and wages haven’t grown as fast as we would like. That’s why we have been so supportive of the annual wage claims and why we’ve consistently done everything we can, including in aged care and early education and care, to give those workers the pay rises that they deserve—something that had been ignored for the decade before we came to government. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: This government is raking in more tax than when you came to power, from 29.7 per cent of GDP to 30.2 per cent, with tax on increased corporate profits in the lead. As tax bracket creep cuts in, from 1 July workers will be getting taxed more. Today you’re increasing the fuel excise, which will hurt everyday Australians, particularly families. Minister, why did Labor turn your backs on workers to become the party of big business, and was this a cunning plan to make the Liberals look irrelevant? 

Senator GALLAGHER: They don’t need any help in looking irrelevant right now, Senator Roberts. Even if we were wanting to help them, they’re doing a pretty good job on their own. In relation to fuel excise, we did have a temporary relaxing of or halving of the fuel excise to help when the conflict in the Middle East had such a significant impact on petrol prices. That has come down quite a bit, but we think it is sensible to continue it at a lower level for a shorter period of time to help households adjust. At the same time, we continue to roll out all our cost-of-living help, whether it be tax cuts, whether it be our tripling of the bulk-billing rate or our lowering of the price of medicines. All of these areas are targeted to make sure that people can deal with some of those household pressures that we know they have to manage. What they know is that this government works 24 hours a day, seven days a week to work through all of the ways that we can help households with those cost-of-living pressures, and we will continue to do so. 

/0 Comments/by

Misinformed or Playing Politics?

,

Critics like Senator Hume and Minister Watt are either misinformed or playing politics with One Nation’s seven-page immigration policy. To be clear: our policy keeps intake numbers completely unchanged for backpackers, PALM workers and the tourism sector.

Citing from the Treasury’s FIONA model, young, working-age migrants aged 25–35 contribute positively to the economy while older migrants, family reunion programs and non-working arrivals create a net financial cost.

Our policy aims to prioritise productive workers while screening out non-producers.

Canada is proof that immigration cuts ease rental pressures and benefits local workers. We will still permits genuinely skilled workers in critical areas like construction, nursing, aged care and rural industries.

Businesses should stop relying on imported labour rather than training the 690,000 unemployed and 1.65 million underemployed Australians. Our policy will end the “cheap-labour gravy train” and boost domestic living standards.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Liberal Senator Hume described One Nation’s immigration policy as ‘a headline number and a few slogans’. I have the policy here. It’s seven pages of details and facts. It took months of research to source the numbers and formulate the measures, which are comprehensive, detailed, consistent and will fix so many of the problems Australia is facing in housing, household wealth, service delivery, social cohesion and the current per capita recession in which Australians are suffering. It’s clear that people criticising the policy have never read it or are lying out of political self-interest. For clarity, there’s no change in backpackers, no change in PALM workers, no change in tourism numbers. All three can increase if the market can sustain more. Labor Minister Watt made this criticism: ‘One Nation policy will destroy the economy and drive the economy into recession.’ The minister is not alone in this deceit. Some Liberal-aligned business leaders and Labor-aligned media have repeated this unfounded fabrication, contrary to the facts.  

The Treasury’s Fiscal Impact of New Australians model, FIONA, looks at the lifetime contribution of a new immigrant—the cost and the benefit. A young migrant in the sweet spot of 25 to 35 years of age—someone who assimilates, works his or her whole life and stays out of trouble—will add $198,000 to the economy in their lifetime, increasing GDP and wealth for all, which is why we are not reducing that cohort; we are increasing it. This is our immigration target demographic.  

FIONA shows each person arriving under the family program, though, costs the Australian economy $126,000 across their lifetime. FIONA shows a migrant arriving after the age of 50 will never pay back the taxpayers either. In addition, their lifetime value is negative. The current mix of this government’s new arrivals is heavily weighted towards older migrants, family reunions and nonworkers, and there are hundreds of thousands of fake students working in the gig economy, cheating on their tax and sending home as much money as possible. Children of new arrivals or family reunions have a huge lifetime economic cost. The younger the child, the more likely it is that they will have a negative lifetime economic impact. This is why FIONA only puts the average lifetime contribution of all migrants that this government is letting in at $41,000. The more committed, young, educated or skilled workers we let in, the more nonproducers we can screen out. It only takes 20 per cent of all arrivals to be our target young demographic for the total value of arrivals to hit the $41,000 figure. So what do other arrivals contribute? They don’t. They add costs to Australians. Do the maths.  

Prime Minister Carney grew Canada’s economy with the same approach One Nation is proposing. He grew it. Canada’s largest banks report that Canadian immigration cuts were easing rental pressures and supporting employment. In Canadian provinces where the immigration cuts were most significant, rents are falling fastest. The banks concluded the immigration slowdown has been great news for Canada’s battlers.  

Speaking last night on—of course—the ABC, George Megalogenis said our cut would cause the worst depression since the 1890s. Talk about seeing what you want to see! What utter nonsense—a lie. The data I have just presented shows the reverse will be true. Canada proved the reverse will be true.  

As for a supposed labour shortage, One Nation is not changing backpacker numbers. We’re offering skilled visas to genuinely skilled workers in areas we need them, including construction; the care economy, such as nursing and aged care; and rural industry. Let’s be clear; only one per cent of skilled arrivals last year under this government were construction workers, half a per cent were aged-care workers and one per cent were nurses. Our numbers leave plenty of room for more skilled and educated workers where we need them.  

Our policy looks after those who are already here. Right now, there are 690,000 Australians out of work—690,000. There are another 1.65 million Australians looking for extra work. Business lobbies should start there—with Australians who want a job. It’s industry’s fault that workforce planning was sacrificed on the altar of high profits and lazy management. The workers are here in Australia. It’s time for industry to get back in the business of training the new generation of apprentices and staff, instead of lazily importing them. 

Under One Nation, the cheap-labour gravy train will be over, and Australians can begin to restore Australian productivity and living standards. Together we Australians can restore Australia.  

/0 Comments/by

The Trust Deficit in NDIS Reform

A late government amendment (IC116) was dropped on our office proposing broad new immunities from producing documents or information for key NDIS figures, including the CEO, board members, commissioners, actuaries, and agency officers.

When I first reviewed the amendment, it looked like a sweeping shield that could let wrongdoers off the hook, shut down accountability, block Senate estimates from getting answers, and potentially cover up fraud. I asked the Minister on whether fraud was even on their radar and questioned if it was part of a deal with the LNP.

Minister McAllister assured me that the core purpose of the amendment is actually to stop dodgy providers from exploiting existing privacy clauses to dodge fraud investigations, workplace health and safety checks, and anti-corruption oversight (such as the NACC and ACIC).

The Minister clarified that these strict immunities only apply to protecting sensitive, personal information belonging to NDIS participants. She maintained that standard redaction isn’t always enough to safely handle participant privacy, though agency staff remain fully accountable to bodies like the NACC.

While I completely agree that participants’ personal details must remain private and out of the public eye, I’m concerned this would block senators from accessing documents with personal details redacted. The Minister said that officers would have to evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis depending on the exact nature of the protected information involved.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, government amendment IC116 revised has just been received by our office—it’s been presented just this evening—wanting to insert into the bill part 7, titled ‘Immunity from producing documents or information’: 

(1) A person is not required to produce a document, or disclose any information, matter or thing, to a court, tribunal, authority 

or other person or entity having the power to make such a requirement, if: 

(a) the person is, or has been, a person mentioned in subsection (2)—which I’ll get to in a minute; it’s all encompassing— 

(b) the document, information, matter or thing has come to the knowledge, or into the possession, or to the notice, of the person because of: 

(i) the performance or exercise of the person’s duties, functions … 

The following positions are listed: 

(a) the CEO; 

(b) a Board member; 

(c) the Commissioner; 

(d) a member of the Advisory Council; 

(e) the scheme actuary; 

(f) the reviewing actuary; 

(g) an Agency officer; 

(h) a Commission officer; 

(i) a consultant engaged under section 171 or 181V; 

(j) a person performing services: 

(i) for the Agency under a contract with the Agency; or 

(ii) for the Commission under a contract with the Commission. 

If someone does something wrong while in one of these positions, or having been in one of these positions, apparently they do not have to disclose documents or information. How can that lead to accountability? I thought this was all about care. We’re concerned about the care given to disabled people, we’re concerned about the taxpayer on the hook and we’re concerned about Public Service accountability. The way we read it, it means Senate estimates cannot seek information or documents from these people. The first question is: isn’t fraud on your radar? The second question is: was this part of your deal with the LNP? 

Senator McALLISTER (Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme): Senator Roberts, it might assist you if I talk through the background for this amendment that the government has brought forward. At the moment, the legislation that governs the NDIS provides very broad immunities, including for the categories of persons that you just alluded to in your question, and that’s for a very good reason. It’s because the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the NDIA hold deeply personal information about people with disability. To ensure that that information, which is personal in nature, is protected and that disabled people who participate in the scheme can be confident that their information is protected, there are very strict privacy provisions about what can be shared about an individual person. On occasion, you may have heard me or another minister being asked about a particular person or a particular case and we declined to answer because, appropriately, a person’s individual circumstances held by a government agency may not be disclosed except under very limited circumstances. However, the challenge that we’ve been observing is that some providers have been arguing that that immunity extends to them. So when a fraud investigation or some other form of investigation is underway, providers have argued that they are not required or compelled to produce those documents because of this immunity. This amendment essentially seeks to ensure that regulators can compel providers to provide documentation for the purpose of performing their regulatory functions. It would also enable agencies such as the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission or the National Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate serious and organised crime operating in the NDIS. It will prevent NDIS providers from claiming immunity from the production of documents under 67G of the act. So NDIS providers and their employees would not be able to use this provision of the act to refuse to provide information to a court, a tribunal or other law enforcement agency with the power to seek this information. For example, to date, providers have attempted to rely on this immunity to refuse to provide information during workplace health and safety investigations. Immunity would henceforth only apply to officers of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. There would be exceptions where disclosure was necessary for the purposes of the NDIS Act, the Royal Commissions Act, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act and the Australian Crime Commission Act. 

Senator ROBERTS: Couldn’t it simply, in the interests of openness, require redaction of personal details? 

Senator McALLISTER: The amendment before us seeks to make sure that the privacy provisions are being used as intended, and, in doing so, it seeks to make it clear that they are not intended to be relied upon by providers who have in recent times sought to use these immunities to prevent them from being accountable for some of their obligations. As I indicated in my earlier answer to you, the immunities that apply to officers of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission are subject to exceptions where disclosure is necessary, and I listed those. There are some purposes under the NDIS Act that enable or compel disclosure. The Royal Commissions Act is relevant; the National Anti- Corruption Commission Act is relevant, and the Australian Crime Commission Act is relevant. 

Senator ROBERTS: Couldn’t normal redaction processes cover the personal confidential details? 

Senator McALLISTER: I think the advice we have is no and that the protections that are in place that protect the personal details of disabled people who are participants in this scheme are an important feature of the operations of the scheme. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not alluding to any people in their current position, but, in the future, if a CEO, board member, commissioner, member of the advisory council or scheme actuary were to do anything wrong, they wouldn’t have to disclose that information; is that correct? 

Senator McALLISTER: The advice that I have is that, if an employee of the NDIA or of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission does something wrong, they are accountable in all of the ordinary ways, including, of course, to the National Anti- Corruption Commission. These protections apply only to the disclosure of personal information about participants. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me check my understanding: it’s only to personal details, personal disclosure? 

Senator McALLISTER: The act defines protected information, Senator, and I’m paraphrasing here, but, in general and non-legal terms, protected information generally refers to personal information about participants. 

Senator ROBERTS: As a senator, I ask questions in Senate estimates. I’m not interested in personal details. I wouldn’t like to see that come out in public, so I agree with that, but does this impact, in any way, a senator’s right to gain access to information or documents in Senate estimates or orders for production of documents? 

Senator McALLISTER: Not unless it contains that protected information that we were speaking about earlier. Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: What if I asked for with that with the personal details redacted? I’m not interested in personal details. 

Senator McALLISTER: I think it would depend on the circumstances, Senator. The prohibition is on the release of protected information, and, if you made a request of that kind, the officer at Senate estimates would have to consider their legal obligations and make a decision which was specific to the document that you were requesting. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/0 Comments/by