The Price of Compassion?

,

A $68.5 million budget measure (allocated over three years) intends to provide HIV treatment to people who are not eligible for Medicare.

Why are Australian taxpayers funding treatment for non-citizens when we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis?

Officials declined to comment on this, stating the policy and funding mechanism were developed strictly by the Department of Health.

I then shifted the discussion to the Significant Cost Threshold (SCT) for visa health requirements, which was raised from $51,000 to $86,000 in July 2024.

How this works is that if a medical officer of the Commonwealth estimates that an applicant’s health condition (such as HIV, a physical disability, or other chronic illnesses) will cost the Australian healthcare system more than $86,000, they fail the health requirement, and the visa is refused (unless a specific waiver is applied).

I asked whether this framework allows Australian citizens a “perfect way” to bring in family members with known health conditions to receive immediate taxpayer-funded care, provided the projected costs fall just under the $86,000 limit.

The Department repeatedly stated they could not answer the “family member” line of questioning.

They reiterated that immigration rules and the $86,000 threshold are applied uniformly to all applicants, independent of separate Department of Health funding measures.

Data on exactly how many people reside in Australia under the updated threshold was taken on notice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get back to the topic I started on this morning. It’s an immigration issue, not a health issue.  

Ms Foster: We’ll just get our chief medical officer up to the table.  

Mr Willard: I can speak broadly about the criteria. There’s a health criteria that applies to all visas. It looks at questions of health protection for Australians. It looks at costs to the health service, and it looks at the access to health treatment for Australians. It’s applied across all our visa types. It’s applied on a risk management basis. It looks at where somebody is coming from, and the sorts of health risks that might be presented. It looks at what the person might be doing in Australia, whether they’re going to go to a medical facility, whether they’re staying for a short time or whether they’re looking for a permanent visa. All of these factors are taken into consideration when the health criteria are assessed. Dr Grant Pegg, our chief medical officer, oversees the system that undertakes medicals. I think there are very large numbers of medicals undertaken each year.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me what the three basic criteria are again?  

Mr Willard: It’s health protection for Australians. It’s cost to the health system, and it’s access to Australian health services.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is primarily with No. 2—cost. The 2026-27 federal budget included $68.5 million, or $69 million, over three years to provide HIV treatment and pre-exposure prophylaxis, which is medication that stops transmission to people in Australia who are not eligible for Medicare. They’re not eligible for Medicare, but we are paying for their treatment anyway so they don’t infect Australians with their HIV. Is that the logic behind this allocation? I know it wasn’t allocated by you.  

Mr Willard: Because it is a measure from the department of health, I really can’t talk to the logic behind the measure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why should Australians allow entry of people with HIV and then pay for their treatment, especially when Australia is under pressure economically and individual Australians are under pressure cost-of-living-wise?  

Ms Foster: Mr Willard is unable to comment, because the measure was developed by the department of health.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that the right place for this is at the community affairs estimates committee next week.  

Senator ROBERTS: But I want to know. Many Australians are calling for noncitizens who have HIV or AIDS to be deported instead of paying for their medical care. We’re letting people in here with a known liability of cost to Australians. What is your response to that criticism of this budget allocation—the criticism, not the budget allocation itself? People are concerned that we’re letting in people who have a disease, and now we’re paying for their treatment.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that is asking the officials at the table for their opinion on a matter that is not within the purview of the questions allowed to be asked at Senate estimates, particularly as it relates to the budget.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on to the next one. Australia raised the significant cost threshold for visa health requirements in July 2024, from $51,000 to $86,000. For those following this thread, I’ll give a quick explanation. The significant cost threshold determines whether a health condition, such as HIV/AIDS or physical disability, is likely to impose significant costs on Australia’s health and community services. Exceeding it typically means failing the health requirements for a visa, although health waivers are available for some visa subclasses, including partner and humanitarian. A person who comes in under your new, higher cap can access medical care and medications for free or for a small co-payment depending upon the state in which they live. How many people are here under this arrangement across all health conditions?  

Mr Pegg: I don’t have the data in that detail, so I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could. Thank you. This is my last question on this topic, Chair.  Isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway? The other part of the question is that the numbers are increasing, which means the Australian taxpayer is paying more.  

Mr Pegg: Perhaps, if I can just offer, that’s the purpose of the operation of the significant cost threshold—to try and avoid significant cost to the Australian healthcare system. That’s why it exists.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain that more?  

Mr Pegg: When someone is identified as having a health condition through the immigration medical examination as part of their visa process, they’re then costed by a medical officer of the Commonwealth who looks at that, on a hypothetical basis for someone with the same condition—the nature of condition and severity— to determine what their costs might be to the Australian healthcare system. That could be lab tests, X-rays, visits to the doctor—those sorts of things. There’s a comprehensive process that is undertaken to do that. When that’s undertaken, a figure is determined, and then, if that figure exceeds the number that you talked about, $86,000, that is considered to be ‘not meeting the health requirement’.  

Senator ROBERTS: The first part of my question was: isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway?  

Ms Sharp: Are you talking about a situation where the health requirement is waived? I guess what we’re saying is that the general rule is that if you fail the health requirement—as in your healthcare costs are coming in above $86,000—you will not be granted the visa; you won’t come to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s initial assessment. Forget about the—well, the payment matters, but I’m not interested in the total amount. What I want to know is: isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into the country and having their health care paid for straightaway? That’s basically what it is. The government’s allocated $69 million over three years to provide treatment and pre-exposure prophylactics just for people with HIV. They’re coming in here with a known condition, and we pay for the treatment.  

CHAIR: Was there a question, Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their health care paid for?  

CHAIR: This is a question that the officials at the table have responded to. It sounds like—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?  

CHAIR: you’re not using the same words to describe the same thing. I think the officials at the table have spoken about what their role is. I think you’re talking about it in a different way, but it’s not necessarily what the officials are—  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about immigration, though.  

CHAIR: I think they’ve responded to your question, which is that there’s a program that exists to essentially weed out, for want of a better term, people who have costs higher than the amount the official said.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. If they’re projected to have a significant cost threshold higher than $86,000, then I understand, but, if it’s less than $86,000, isn’t this a perfect way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway?  

Ms Foster: Senator, I don’t understand the link between the answers we’ve been giving and the family member issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?  

Ms Foster: That’s why we’re struggling to answer you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?  

Ms Foster: We don’t understand the relation of the question to the information we’ve given, and, in a sense, it’s asking us for an opinion: ‘Is this a perfect way to do something?’ That’s not our role. Our role is to provide you with information about how the program operates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll make it easier. Is it a way of getting a family member into Australia and having their care paid for straightaway?  

Ms Sharp: We might finish it where we began which is I think you need to direct this question to the department of health to ask them for the policy reasoning behind the measure—which group of people they were aiming to support.  

Ms Foster: We apply our immigration rules irrespective of whether or not the government has funded a measure such as this through the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of your immigration rules covers a significant cost threshold maximising at $86,000. If you assess an application to migrate here and it’s less than $86,000 then they are welcomed in. Is it a way of getting a family member in here?  

Ms Foster: We don’t understand the relationship between what we’ve told you and the question about a family. I can’t say that any more clearly. I’m not trying to be unhelpful. We just don’t understand the question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could a citizen of Australia use this to bring in someone who is going to cost Australia money and health care immediately?  

Ms Foster: The rule would apply irrespective. We would apply that rule as part of our visa consideration to any visa applicant.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but this is a way for a citizen of Australia to bring in a family member and have their health care paid for by the taxpayer?  

Ms Foster: I’m sorry, but we have nothing further to add.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Productivity is Prosperity

,
… government greed for other people’s money is our biggest threat.

Productivity and prosperity – these are two concepts intimately linked and yet wrongly separated thanks to the over-taxing demands of Treasury.

Productivity is not about taxation.

Taxation is a reward taken by the Treasury from productivity in the private sector.

This has led some ministers to view tax revenue as the chief goal of productivity instead of a reflection of economic success – a catastrophic error that speaks to the financial illiteracy plaguing the Labor government.

The recent Budget saw Labor propose raising taxes on the few remaining productive sectors of the economy. These represent the small corners of investment occupied with people trying to make ends meet in an increasingly unfair system. The result has been … predictable. A flat, weakening investment sector and stagnating housing markets.

Panic has spread. Money has retreated. Productivity has taken a hit it could not afford.

It was only last week that the Treasurer had to be told that his new Capital Gains Taxes threatened future productivity within the business sector and the investment market.

Think about it. When doubling taxes on risky investment returns, the government misses out on the taxes it could have collected when investors transition into home ownership. Which is what most young people say they intend to do with their capital gains… Because of these new taxes, young people will purchase fewer homes. It is just one example of stifling economic growth in favour of short-term tax grabs. And this is without mentioning the reduced productivity of renters already facing price hikes as a result.

Government greed for other people’s money is the biggest threat to productivity.

This government has strongly disincentivised productive risk-takers.

Business owners are punished and over-taxed workers are conditioned to blame their employers for economic hardship. This creates unproductive economic tension.

Instead, the true culprit is the acute failure of government to contain inflation and tighten its own belt. Labor has acquired substantial debts through mismanagement, hubris, panic, and delusion. What did we see in this budget? The Treasurer is still spending money he doesn’t have on things this country doesn’t need.

Meanwhile, businesses are collapsing are record rates. The public sector is growing. Wealth generation is shrinking. This is not productive.

Australia is becoming an incoherent economic mess that rewards a culture of hand-outs – be they corporate or private – instead of offering a hand-up to those who want to succeed.

Here is the truth. We are almost at a trillion dollars in debt, chasing our tail to keep up with interest repayments worth $28 billion per annum. Dead money. The Treasury is in desperate need of productivity while having no idea – whatsoever – about how to nurture productivity in a complex Western democracy full of free people making independent choices about their economic future.

The economy requires incentive, not the punishment.

What is ‘productivity’?

Productivity is cheap, reliable, Australian-sourced energy. It is good roads connecting regional areas with city centres. High speed rail lines and Australian-controlled ports. Refineries guaranteeing fuel supply when the world is in crisis. A competitive construction industry. It is the cutting of petty and unnecessary red tape. It is cutting UN and foreign agency imposed green and blue tape. It is high-speed, reliable internet – everywhere – including along highways and in regional areas. It is the freedom to take risks and earn a reward. It is a reliable nation of stable economic rules to encourage investment.

Productivity means placing trust and respect in businesses – freeing them of unnecessary cost burdens so they can hire staff, reward the hardest workers, and voluntarily pay above minimum wage.

Labor is spending all of its time focused on the minimum wage, because the economy is dying. Low wages are becoming the standard, rather than the baseline, because businesses are giving too much of their capital to the Treasury.

A Treasury that has run out of money and wants to dip into the pockets of Australians who did nothing wrong.

Productivity is not about working harder – it is about working smarter.

The Woke-Left have taken over the economy and built an economic prison rather than a promise.

One Nation wants to free the Australian people so they can be productive – on their own terms – to build a future they want for their children and their children’s children. Also, a nation worth living in for the people alive now, who deserve to enjoy the sacrifices of their ancestors.

To the Prime Minister, I say this, you don’t make the next generation of Australians productive through saddling them with an education debt larger than a housing deposit, selling their jobs to an imported workforce, and then tempting them into home deposit schemes they can never hope to pay off while depreciating the value of their asset. These Australians will never have the financial security to invest their money or take the risk of starting a business that creates productivity. What they are doing is surviving. Not thriving.

One Nation have been presenting policies for productivity for years. Since rising in the polls, these policies have gained traction. The response? Our political opponents are seeking to tear them down. They complain that any drop in revenue is an affront to the status quo of Treasury.

When we offered income splitting to give families a fairer tax policy and the flexibility to raise their own children, we were told this would ‘hurt income tax returns’ and ‘cause women to leave the workforce’. I’m sorry? What about the savings to childcare, which are currently costing the Budget a fortune? What about the humanity of allowing one parent to stay home, if that is what they wish? What about the benefits to the child? The community benefits? The education benefits? One Nation offers economic freedom – and the economists whinge.

When One Nation offered to end bracket creep – Labor, the Coalition, and Greens united to stop us. Then the government tossed a measly $250 at working Australians in compensation. It is … disgusting. It is … dishonest.

When One Nation offered greater freedom to businesses so they can grow and hire more staff, we are told that we are denting corporate tax. One Nation does not want minimum wage to be the anchor dragging down prosperity – we want the private sector to reward merit, pay better wages, and give proper benefits to the hardest workers and brightest staff because the most skilled should rise to the top. Productive societies are merit-driven. Always.

Merit makes money. Hard work makes money. Businesses make money. Government spends money other people have made.

And it should spend that money in a way that encourages productivity – not fantasy obsessions, like a non-existent climate crisis. The green apocalypse made a lot of corporations very rich at the expense of taxpayers. You think we didn’t notice – we did.

Of course, One Nation will retain the minimum award system and seeks to elevate wages above the minimum level through productivity increases.

One Nation understands that productivity has nothing to do with forcing people to work harder. They already work hard. Instead, Australia requires bold changes in regulation to unchain the economy and release its potential.

A smaller government.

This is our message to the Treasurer. If you have to sit around mulling over productivity at a roundtable it means you don’t understand productivity. You have no clue what to do.

Just as you cannot subsidise your way to becoming an energy super-power, you cannot tax your way to productivity.

A One Nation leadership will force – force – the government to tighten its belt, stop wasting money, and cut off parasitic departments and bureaucracies. We will shrink the government to fit the constitution, saving $90 billion a year of waste and duplication, so that we can offer the Australian people lower taxes, less red tape, and more personal flexibility. One Nation wants tax money put to use to build transit lines and infrastructure required to increase productivity – not into wasteful projects that tick a Net Zero box at the UN.

We cannot keep sending billions ($31 billion a year) of dollars offshore and billions more into the hands of domestic fraudsters and criminals.

Cheap, reliable energy. Proper infrastructure. Real wealth. Lower taxes. Less bureaucracy.

That is the formula for productivity.

I will finish with this. And this will hurt. If the Treasury wants productivity, it will have to take a leaf out of the private sector. It will have to take a risk. Take a hit to its balance sheet. Make an investment. It will have to lower taxes and allow the private sector to keep more of it what it earns so that the men and women of Australia can choose what sections of the economy to grow – to pick the best parts to invest in – to cultivate what actually works, not what the government wants to work.

The Australian people have always been financially responsible and economically intelligent. They will dig the government out of this financial hole – only if the government lets them.

/0 Comments/by

The Alarming Reality of ISIS Returnees

,

Australians have a right to answers when it comes to our national security.

During this session with Home Affairs, I asked several questions about the returning ISIS families and frankly, the lack of clarity is alarming.

Deradicalisation programs for these returning children are entirely voluntary. If the mothers do not consent, the states have no authority to force participation.

Basic questions, like whether any of the returning adult partners hold dual citizenship, or even the general age range of the children, were repeatedly put “on notice” due to privacy concerns.

If these children are deemed at risk and taken into state care, it will be the state taxpayers left holding the bill.

Instead of clear answers on security risks and monitoring, we got political deflections from Labor ministers trying to pass the buck.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have one other question, and then I’ll move on. We can go through quickly. Are any of the returning terrorist partners dual citizens?  

Ms Foster: I’d like to take that question on notice. I’m very conscious that, whilst there’s been a lot of public scrutiny of this—  

Senator ROBERTS: And concern.  

Ms Foster: and concern in the community, these are Australian citizens, and I just want to be careful that I’m not breaching any privacy considerations by providing personal details about the cohort. So let me take that on notice and see whether or not that’s information that I’m able to provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: Or if you can provide it in a way that doesn’t breach privacy, by saying, ‘Yes, three of them are, and they’re of this country, this country and this country.’  

Ms Foster: Certainly. I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator Watt: Senator, can I just add one thing here? I don’t know whether you’ve heard this point before, but it’s also worth remembering that, during the coalition’s period in office, there were over 40 actual fighters—as opposed to wives and children—who returned to the country. That’s just for some perspective here as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know what value that adds to this case, but thank you for letting me know.  

Senator Watt: I think it’s just useful background.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I can’t interrogate Senator Duniam.  

Senator DUNIAM: We can swap if you’d like!  

Senator Watt: I’ll pass!  

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Foster, I think we can go through the rest of the questions pretty quickly, because they’re fairly simple, I think. I appreciate your need to protect security. Have the ISIS children already here commenced deradicalisation programs yet?  

Ms Foster: I don’t know the answer to that question. I’m assuming you mean those from the first cohort who came back a few weeks ago.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Foster: Let me see if anyone knows the answer to that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice, please.  

Ms Foster: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the newly arrived children participate in deradicalisation programs?  

Ms Foster: The state and territory authorities will make an assessment on a case-by-case basis about the needs of each child and what is appropriate given each of their circumstances. That’s part of the process that takes place once the families return.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume, then, that you don’t know how many children will do the deradicalisation program.  

Ms Foster: I don’t.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is participation dependent on their agreement or the consent of their mothers?  

Mr Dowling: The programs which are provided by the states and territories as they relate to deradicalisation or counselling are voluntary. My presumption would be that for a minor under a certain age, depending on the rules in that jurisdiction, parental permission would potentially be involved. But I think it would depend on each jurisdiction and how they operate their programs.  

Senator ROBERTS: What will happen if the mothers do not consent? Have the states got the authority to force it?  

Mr Dowling: For those types of counselling programs, I don’t believe there is the power to compel someone to participate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate you answering the questions even though you are not completely certain. I understand why. Are any of the children expected to remain in the care of the state in cases where the children are considered at risk in the care of the mother? In other words, will the state taxpayers get the bill?  

Mr Dowling: That would be a decision for each jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are any of the children considered a risk to the safety of Australians? What’s the oldest child’s age?  

Mr Dowling: There is an age range. I think to provide that detail would probably cross the privacy boundaries of what we’re able to share.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want names—just the range.  

Ms Foster: Let us take that on notice and see if we can provide that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Foster. Are any of the children—just the children—considered a risk to the safety of Australians?  

Mr Dowling: State and territory law enforcement and the Federal Police, as the secretary has outlined, are taking a role in continuing investigations in relation to anyone who’s arrived back home. Any implications for safety or security would be a matter for those authorities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are any of the terrorist widows or brides or partners considered a risk to the safety of Australians?  

Ms Foster: I described before the process that the law enforcement and intelligence agencies will continue to take to assess the risk.  

Senator ROBERTS: And that’s largely state?  

Ms Foster: It’s a combination. In terms of the management of the people in their states, it’s the state law enforcement agencies. But, obviously, ASIO in particular has an intelligence function that crosses Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: And they have been advising you?  

Ms Foster: They would be contributing to the assessments about the risks or threats posed.  

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned that earlier. Will any of the children or the adult partners be monitored?  

Ms Foster: The exact actions that the law enforcement or intelligence agencies take are ones for them. That was the subject before where I was saying that I was uncomfortable discussing what specific activities might be undertaken, because none of us wants to put those activities at risk.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Is one of the returning children the child seen holding up the decapitated head of a murdered man that appeared in the media some years ago?  

Mr Dowling: I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many more of these terrorists’ partners and children will the government be bringing back to the country?  

Ms Foster: Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS: Or allowing back into the country?  

Ms Foster: As we’ve said before, Australian citizens have a right to enter Australia if they hold citizenship, valid passports or valid travel documents. Apart from the one person against whom the government issued a temporary exclusion order, the other adults of the cohort of women and children who were held in the internally displaced persons camp in Syria have returned with their children.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your considered responses. I know it’s a difficult thing.  

Ms Foster: Thank you, Senator.  

/0 Comments/by

Net Zero is Crippling Australia

,

The “global push” for Net Zero by 2050 is a myth. China’s target is 2060, India’s is 2070, and the US has pulled out. Australia is joining a minority club that only accounts for 30% of global “emissions”, in turn crippling our economy while the biggest polluters “keep on polluting.”

Of course, Matt Kean doesn’t agree with this, saying that over 80% of global GDP is committed to Net Zero. He said, if Australia doesn’t jump on the clean energy train, we get left behind by global markets and investors.

Wind and solar are driving power bills through the roof. We went from the cheapest electricity to the most expensive outside of Europe. Coal demand is actually increasing globally.

How does Matt Kean respond to this? He cites Bloomberg data that show new solar and wind are way cheaper than new coal and that renewables are driving prices down.

The climate agenda is built on “dodgy modelling.” Shutting down farmland for carbon credits is killing agriculture, and green jobs aren’t replacing real job losses.

The Labor government is destroying Australia’s industry for a “climate scam.”

A One Nation government will end UN Net Zero, exit the UN Paris Agreement and re-energise Australia with cheap, reliable electricity – putting more money back in your pocket.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing.  

Mr Kean: Nice to see you, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Good to see you again. Mr Kean, last estimates you gave me an update on your statement last year which provided net zero metrics. They were your metrics—specifically, what percentage of the world was covered by net zero mandates. You might remember that.  

Mr Kean: Yes, we talked about it last time.  

Senator ROBERTS: These figures were 78 per cent of global emissions, you said, and 79 per cent of GDP and 87 per cent of the global population. These figures, we’ve found, are flawed. China’s target is not 2050; it’s 2060.  

Mr Kean: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: India’s is 2070. The United States has pulled out altogether. Our target is 2050, at which time Australia will share our misery with countries having just about 30 per cent of emissions, about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. Why pretend net zero by 2050 is the dominant position, when in fact we’re in a minority, based on your metrics?  

Mr Kean: That’s just not true, Senator. You’re obviously entitled to your opinions—  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re not opinions; they’re facts.  

Mr Kean: But you’re not entitled to your own facts. The reality is that 195 countries have signed up to the Paris Agreement. We’ll get you some figures shortly as to how many countries have signed up to net zero by 2050. But you make the point yourself. China and India have signed up to net zero. The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to this global effort to confront global warming. If you’re suggesting that Australia should be left behind from where markets are going, where capital is going, where investment and opportunity are going, then you’re arguing for a poorer country, and that’s not something I want to see.  

Senator ROBERTS: Rather than saying these are my opinions, these are based on hard facts. The facts I told you are truthful.  

Mr Kean: Sorry, what are the facts? A hundred and ninety-five countries have signed up under the Paris Agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that later.  

Mr Kean: The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero—  

Senator ROBERTS: China’s target is not 2050 but 2060. India’s is 2070. The US is out altogether—the second biggest economy in the world. Germany is making signs of reversing. Our target is 2050, at which time just about 30 per cent of emissions will come from net net-zero-by-2050 countries, which are about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. If they’re wrong, show me where.  

Mr Kean: But the majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. The markets that underwrite—  

Senator ROBERTS: Not by 2050.  

Mr Kean: Committed to net zero emissions. The markets that have underwritten our prosperity for generations are changing the type of goods and services they’re looking for, and we’re very well placed to prosper in that low-carbon global economy. I’m not sure why you don’t want Australia to benefit from this global megatrend. Maybe you could explain.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is because I want the cheapest energy possible in Australia.  

Mr Kean: I’m trying to explain to you that the majority of the world’s GDP is heading in this direction. It’s something like 84 per cent. Over 80 per cent of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. That means they’re looking for low-carbon steel, cement, energy, transport—a whole range of things—and we’re really well placed to provide it, so we can do well by doing good. I don’t know why you’ve got a problem with that.  

Senator ROBERTS: The forecasts for coal consumption are increasing dramatically. It’s not decarbonisation.  

Mr Kean: The demand for energy use is increasing dramatically, and the proportion of renewables is increasing dramatically. I think you’ll find that there’s more investment going into renewables than there is any other form of technology. What that means is that Australians can benefit because we can produce renewable energy at a cheaper cost than most other countries. That means that, for energy-intensive industries, we’ll have a competitive advantage, and we should be grabbing that with both hands rather than people like you standing in the way of Australia’s biggest economic opportunity.  

Senator ROBERTS: The cheapest electricity user has a competitive advantage, and right now every country that has adopted a significant proportion of solar and wind has increased its costs and is not competitive. We used to have the cheapest electricity in the world. Now, outside of Europe, we’re the most expensive, and only three countries in Europe are more expensive than us. We’re on the road to bankruptcy.  

Mr Kean: That’s just wrong. You’ve got to be called out for that nonsense. It’s not true.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fact.  

Mr Kean: It’s not fact.  

Senator McDONALD: [Inaudible]  

Mr Kean: Can I address that? Today—  

Senator McDONALD: What about record coal demand—  

Mr Kean: renewable energy is putting downward—  

CHAIR: Let me just pause for a moment. I’m sorry to interrupt you, Mr Kean. Senator MacDonald—  

Senator McDONALD: Sorry. It’s not my questions. I’m sorry.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts has asked the questions. If you’ll address his question. Senator MacDonald, if you’ll allow him to do so, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said you were going to give me some figures?  

Senator Ayres: Well, I’m not sure there’s any value in trying to engage you on this question. You’ve been impervious to facts and argument and the Australian interest the whole time I’ve been engaging with you on this committee about these questions. It’s imported ideology from One Nation. Exporting jobs—that’s your approach. It’s the One Nation-National Party coalition here, and only one part of that is winning that argument. Senator Henderson interjecting— 

Senator Ayres: I can’t help you with this. There’s a set of facts. Mr Kean‘s doing his best to work through them. You’re shouting over the top of him. We’ll do our best.  

CHAIR: Alright, let’s get let’s get back to this because we are late in the evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll ask my second question.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2050, Australia, the UK, Japan, Canada, some South American countries and the EU—basically the 2050 club—will in your world have zero greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s emissions will be down because our economy will be decimated. China, India and the US will hoover up our industry and leave us with no emissions because we will have no industry. Your sessions often talk about modelling. Have you modelled what the Australian economy will look like in 2050 from the perspective of GDP per person and share of national income going to wage and salary earners? These are the key metrics for standard of living. Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: Well, I was trying to answer your question from earlier, though Senator Ayres took up the platform from me. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which is a very recognised analyst of energy matters, looked at the cost of new-build energy. It quotes solar at about US$39 per megawatt-hour. Wind is a bit higher, at $40 to $55 per megawatt-hour. Battery prices fell eight per cent last year to about $108 per kilowatt-hour. Again, in January, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated that levellised cost of electricity for new coal was about A$297 per megawatt-hour without a carbon price. In Australia, new solar was $68 a megawatt-hour; wind, $115 a megawatthour; and then new coal without a carbon price, nearly $300 a megawatt-hour. So you’re arguing nonsense. Clearly, from an expert analyst— 

Senator ROBERTS: Bloomberg has also said we’re going to transition to perfectly good—  

Mr Kean: I’m just trying to say the facts are there, but you’re just quoting nonsense. I’m reading from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. I’m happy to table Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s report.  

Senator ROBERTS: Please do.  

Mr Kean: Maybe you could table your report from the dark recesses of the web.  

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the desperate, the fearful. That’s what you two are doing.  

Mr Kean: Okay, but you can’t table that. I’m reading from—  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t label me. Just use hard facts. I’ll happily table it.  

Mr Kean: I’m happy to table the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report.  

Senator Ayres: He just did, Senator Roberts—honestly.  

Senator ROBERTS: To drill down on this: Australia’s system of carbon credit units encourages productive farmland to be shut down and local native vegetation replanted in return for carbon dioxide credits. This reduces agricultural and grazing land below critical mass for survival. Have you modelled the reduction in agricultural output—food, fibre and red meat—and the increased costs of agriculture?  

Mr Kean: This is a huge economic opportunity for Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: There have been various models done.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: There have been various—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not answering my question.  

Mr Kean: But I’ve said there are various models that the Climate Change Authority relies on for this information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, give us the names of those?  

Mr Kean: We can provide you with the relevant documents.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Ms Rowley: I just note that, in the authority’s advice to the government with respect to the 2035 target, one of the inputs to that, as mentioned earlier, was modelling by CSIRO. It looked at it looked at—  

Senator ROBERTS: The same people that did GenCost.  

Ms Rowley: If I could finish my answer—it looked at emissions reduction opportunities across the economy, including through land based sequestration and in agriculture. It showed what it would look like for the economy. To your point earlier about what it does for GDP and GDP per capita, the GDP growth was unaffected by the decarbonisation of the economy. From memory, the economy continued to grow at 2.7 per cent per annum whilst the economy decarbonised, including through enhanced sequestration across the landscape. CSIRO modelling, as well as other work that the authorities have drawn on and is published by agencies such as ABARES, Ernst & Young and other sources, shows that that can be done whilst agriculture sustains and, indeed, increases its production and increases its output.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide us with the title of that CSIRO study?  

Ms Rowley: The CSIRO report is directly quoted in the authority’s advice to the government on the 2035 target and it’s available on the CSIRO website. We’re very happy to table to table it as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Great. In December estimates, you pointed out that one of Australia’s largest exports, coal, was facing a future of reduced demand from overseas buyers. Korea was mentioned as an example. By 2050, we will have exited our own domestic use of coal for power. That means more reductions in our GDP, more jobs gone and more communities closed down. The future for our economy is bleak because of net zero measures, isn’t it?  

Mr Kean: It doesn’t mean those things at all, and I pointed out earlier why it doesn’t mean those things. As I said, Bloomberg New Energy Finance say that the cost of new coal is about $300 per megawatt hour, compared with the costs of wind and solar and batteries, which continue to fall; they’re much cheaper, and they continue to come down the cost curve. So actually what will see Australia become more prosperous is embracing those new technologies and helping let them use it to underwrite a new era of prosperity for our industry, for our manufacturing sector and for our community, and that’s something we should be grabbing with both hands. That’s something you and I can agree on: we want Australia to be more prosperous. And making decisions based on the facts and the evidence is exactly how we do that.  

Ms Rowley: And perhaps I could add, Senator, noting your interest in modelling—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m vary wary of modelling, believe me! The whole climate scam is based on dodgy modelling.  

Ms Rowley: But you were interested in looking at the sources. In terms of the economic growth opportunities that come with the transition to net zero for Australia, explored in Treasury’s modelling for the government’s net zero plan, it included analysis of the development of new industries, like green metals and other clean fuels—and there are figures in the report if you’d like to look—comparing that with the anticipated decline in Australia’s fossil fuel exports as the world decarbonises. We don’t control global demand for our fossil fuel exports but we do have opportunities to build and grow new clean industries, which, at least according to the Treasury analysis, could account for an even greater share of our economy by 2050.  

Senator ROBERTS: Kumbaya! What a wonderful world! You’re not saying these are net zero jobs, are you?  

Mr Kean: Could I just say, to reiterate what the CEO said, that the CSIRO modelling did show that the economy continues to grow under the decarbonisation pathways we’ve modelled.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the GenCost modelling from CSIRO?  

Mr Kean: Yes, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. You’re aware of the flaws?  

Senator Ayres: Oh, honestly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: employment in Australia went backward in April, didn’t it? The number of people in a job was less at the end of the month than at the start. Green jobs are doing a crap job of making up for job losses in the productive economy. Mr Kean, what will be the employment rate in 2050 under net zero? How many more people will lose their jobs?  

Mr Kean: Well, I must reject the premise of the way you framed that question, and I’ll cite the treasurer of New South Wales, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, who this week said that New South Wales was projected to go into recession had it not been for the renewables investment that was being made into that state. The energy roadmap, of which I was the architect and which we legislated with multipartisan support, has kept the New South Wales economy afloat, and that’s something we should all be proud of, and we should be working to grow our economy and grow our prosperity, not standing in the way of doing so, as you’re trying to do, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Crisafulli LNP government is doing the opposite.  

Mr Kean: Well, I’m talking about the renewables roadmap in New South Wales, which has kept the state out of recession. It’s not me as a Liberal saying that; it’s the new treasurer saying it, based on a Liberal policy. It’s something I’m very proud of, and we should be continuing to campaign on building a stronger, more prosperous nation. And let me tell you how to do that: it’s by building more renewables, not less.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Senator Ayres: Senator, that was a sort of far-right Beat Poet! I’m not quite sure what you were doing over the dinner break. But it’s utter rubbish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Dishonest, incompetent, lazy, fearful—  

CHAIR: Senator Ayres and Senator Roberts. 

/0 Comments/by

Bureaucrats Swallowing Vulnerable Funds

,

Bureaucracy shouldn’t be swallowing up funds meant for our most vulnerable communities.

I recently questioned the NIAA at Senate Estimates on the ongoing failures of the Closing the Gap initiative. Case in point: out of a recent $40M grant for the Alice Springs Camp, roughly half was chewed up by administrative salaries rather than direct aid.

When pushed for a genuine, independent external audit to see where the money is actually going, the NIAA pointed to internal reviews. ANAO does not conduct the deep financial audits required here. This is just the department monitoring itself.

Worse still, when asked if basic welfare payments are enough to survive on in remote areas, the NIAA directed me to the Department of Social Services.

How can we close the gap if the leading agency refuses to look at the actual baseline standard of living?

A One Nation government will demand transparency and independent audits, ensuring that funding goes to people that need it – not middlemen.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you all for appearing again. Good morning, Minister. One of the ongoing tragedies is the failure of the Closing the Gap concept when there are so many people whose vested interests lie in ensuring the gap will never close. Why is so much grant money wasted on enriching middlemen and middlewomen and only a proportion of the grant money ends up with those who the grant was intended to benefit? This is the flaw in the existing grant models where only a fraction is actually spent on the purpose. An example of this relates to grant money allocated to support those Australians living in the Alice Springs camp. Recently, a grant of more than $40 million was made, but half of that was used for salaries, with less than half going to direct assistance. Is this acceptable, Minister?  

Senator McCarthy:  We have gone through the breakdown of the funding for Tangentyere in terms of the town camps, Senator. I will ask Ms Bellenger to go through that again with you.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you.  

Ms Bellenger:  As we outlined earlier in the session, Tangentyere receives 18 activities funded through the NIAA. If all of those activities are successfully delivered, they will receive around $20.3 million. That does depend on the successful delivery of all of those programs.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That didn’t answer my question but let’s move on. Does half the grants going in salaries explain why so much money is spent on Closing the Gap, yet the gap keeps getting bigger? Let’s face it, it gets bigger every year.  

Ms Bellenger:  There is money spent on salaries through the NIAA grants, and they are for the services that are directly provided and are almost entirely filled with First Nations local people. I would argue that a job in the first instance supports—but then the services that are provided to people are also the primary outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. When will a genuine audit of expenditure and outcomes be done on the effectiveness and the value-for-money basis of all Indigenous grants and NIAA programs over the last five years? 

Ms Guivarra:  We have rigorous monitoring of our own grants through internal assessment processes, and this occurs every year. We monitor for the effectiveness and efficiency and value for money, which is required under the PGPA Act, with all of our investments. You would have seen over a number of years now that the NIAA’s funding has been directed more and more to our engagement with community-controlled organisations being responsible for the provision of our services to communities so that there is a greater connection to what it is that is going to be required to make change for those communities, because now essentially many more of our grants are being delivered through community-controlled organisations.  

Senator ROBERTS:  When will we see a third-party independent audit.  

Ms Guivarra:  We have a number of different accountability mechanisms as a Commonwealth executive agency as it is. We have regular performance audits by the Australian National Audit Office that we’re required to do. I will get our group manager for integrity to go through a little of some of the more recent ANAO audits that we have had.  

Mr Worth:  The assurance mechanisms in place for our funding and how it’s spent, and the value delivered, are multilayered. Within the agency itself we have requirements through all of our funding agreements for providers to report against KPIs in terms of their service delivery. Each time those reports are received, they’re reviewed by the teams. It’s checked off against their own experience, checking with community and visiting the providers themselves to sight those services. With the financials themselves, each time an acquittal is required, staff within the NIAA review the acquittal—that is, the funding claim being made by the provider against that—and they check that it’s in line with the contract and that likewise it’s supported by the performance reports. Then, as Ms Guivarra mentioned, the ANAO, in terms of independent audit, conducts audits of our own—  

Senator ROBERTS:  The ANAO told me a couple of times that they don’t do detailed, comprehensive audits. What you’re talking about is monitoring yourself. I want to know when an independent external audit will be done.  

Mr Worth:  The ANAO conducts two types of audits. One is of the actual processes and the way that we operate in order to ensure that the key risks that the Commonwealth is exposed to through our operations are being properly managed through our processes and controls and so on. When it comes to individual audits, the requirement for any audited accounts from providers varies according to the assessed risk for that particular provider. We do require some providers to have their accounts audited independently, and those are checked and received. However, it’s not always the case. As I said before, we do full checks of the acquittal claims made by our own staff. Of course that’s independent from those making the claims who are the providers. So there are a large number of checks and balances in place. There are, where required, given our risk assessments, independent audits required of some providers. On top of that, our own processes and our own approach to risk management is subject to audit by the ANAO.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Do most adult Indigenous people living in remote areas, if not working, receive a fortnightly welfare payment?  

Ms Guivarra:  I would say, Senator, there is an Australian requirement that, after a certain period of time, if you are not working you are entitled to a payment. Yes.   

CHAIR:  That’s all Australians.  

Ms Guivarra:  That’s all Australians, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So I’m guessing you’re saying yes. Is that likely to be the same or more than that received by non-Indigenous recipients?  

Senator THORPE:  We get triple! Didn’t you know that!  

Ms Guivarra:  I would say there’s no difference in treatment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from other Australians.   

Senator ROBERTS:  Is the payment enough to live on?   

Senator WHITEAKER:  Chair, I’m not sure this agency’s responsible for the payments to which the senator is—  

Ms Guivarra:  We are not. Our responsibilities are for the programs and policies that we administer. If it’s in relation to the social security system, then I would suggest you direct those questions to the Department of Social Services.   

CHAIR:  To ensure you get the accurate answers to your questions, Senator Roberts, we would direct you to them. This is your last question before we rotate.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Where does the money go? Is the payment enough to live on? Surely that’s part of your remit. What proportion goes in rent? Why is the attendance at school so low? What is being done to fix it?   

CHAIR:  That’s an awful lot of issues in one sentence, Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS:  I want to know what they’re doing.  

CHAIR:  many of them not related to this department, although that’s not to go to the relevance of your question. But you’re probably going to need to break it down a little for the officers to appropriately respond.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Is the payment enough to live on? Where does the money go, and specifically rent?  

Ms Guivarra:  I think a lot of the issues that you are raising are not within the remit of this agency. As I said, if it’s in relation to social security payments of any sort, it is actually the Department of Social Services who would be able to provide that. My understanding is they are on next Wednesday.   

CHAIR:  Senator Roberts, on that—  

Senator ROBERTS:  I would have thought you would know how these things—  

CHAIR:  Senator Roberts, can I just clarify a piece for you there. ‘Is it enough to live on’—you could ask that about anybody in Australia. You would have to look to the social security people about how it’s assessed. In terms of housing, this agency does not have a breakdown of how people spend any money they may receive in welfare payments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  How do you assess whether or not people are living satisfactorily?   

Senator THORPE:  How do you spend your money?   

CHAIR:  Yes, exactly.   

Senator THORPE:  How do you spend your money, Malcolm?   

Senator ROBERTS:  I’m not being questioned here.   

Senator THORPE:  Well, you should be.   

Ms Guivarra:  It is not our job to monitor the personal payments or spending habits of individuals. Our role is to administer the programs and policies that we are responsible for.   

Senator ROBERTS:  Do you assess the standard of living?  

CHAIR:  Senator Roberts, we are going to rotate the call, so I will give you one final question.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Do you assess standard of living and what’s needed to upgrade—to close the gap?   

Ms Guivarra:  We are in constant contact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities around the country for pressure points for their own cost of living. It is why there is a lot of focus and attention on what is happening in remote communities across the country. You were not present previously when the minister referred to the work that she has been undertaking with the Coalition of the Peaks in regard to the monitoring of the current fuel crisis, where we have, obviously, been in contact with community controlled organisations about the cost of service delivery to remote communities across the country. So those types of issues, in terms of how we understand the impact of the cost of living for remote communities—there are various mechanisms by which we do that all of the time.   

Senator ROBERTS:  Thanks, Chair. 

/0 Comments/by

The Cost of Returned ISIS Wives

,

The Attorney-General’s Department confirmed that they had zero involvement in monitoring returned ISIS terrorist wives, or running deradicalisation programs for the children. This responsibility was passed to the Department of Home Affairs.

When asked what will it cost taxpayers to bring back and monitor these individuals, the answer? They have absolutely no idea. Officials stated that the government didn’t actually facilitate or fund the return of these families. They said they used to handle countering violent extremism, but it was moved to Home Affairs in 2017.

Now, their only real involvement is occasionally giving “general international law advice.”

If no one in the Attorney-General’s Department is tracking the costs or the monitoring, Australians are left asking: who is?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Returning to the ISIS terrorist spouses or whatever you want to call them, did the government seek your advice before returning them to Australia? 

Ms Jones: I think we have previously given evidence to the committee that, over the course of many years, we have from time to time been involved in some discussions and we’ve provided general international law advice but we don’t play a role of providing advice in relation to particular movements of people. 

Senator ROBERTS: Was the Attorney-General’s Department consulted on the program for deradicalisation of these children? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: What is your responsibility for funding of legal aid? 

Ms Jones: We are responsible for overseeing the National Access to Justice Partnership and other legal assistance schemes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you involved in any way in advising on or implementing or monitoring the program for monitoring these terrorists when they return? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not at all? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not even after the High Court decision on the case in the Northern Territory? 

Ms Jones: I’m not sure which case you’re referring to there, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: XYZ—I can’t remember the details. 

Ms Jones: NZYQ? 

Senator ROBERTS: NZYQ; thank you. 

Ms Jones: I would put that in a category very separate to anything relating to the return of Australians from Syria. Over the course of the NZYQ matter, before the High Court and then beyond that, we were involved in that, but that was quite separate from anything relating to returning Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but that case involved monitoring. 

Ms Chidgey: That was also a matter for the Department of Home Affairs and its agencies. 

Senator ROBERTS: Wasn’t it also the Attorney-General giving advice as to whether or not monitoring or ankle bracelets were a form of punishment? Is there any form of punishment that can be ruled here? Is someone going to lodge a claim with the government? 

Ms Chidgey: I think all those questions are matters for Home Affairs. 

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got anything to add to it? 

Ms Chidgey: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you know nothing about monitoring? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Attorney-General’s Department knows nothing about monitoring. Do you have any inkling of the cost involved with bringing these wives back and monitoring them? 

Ms Jones: I’m sorry; no. We don’t have a responsibility, so I couldn’t talk to any costs associated with that. 

Ms Chidgey: It’s probably useful to make clear that for the recent cohorts the government didn’t facilitate their return at all. Any questions about management of that cohort in Australia now that they’ve returned should be directed to Home Affairs, but the government didn’t in any way facilitate or manage their return. 

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know that? 

Ms Chidgey: We’re aware that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issues passports. But the government itself, on the public record, including the Prime Minister, has been clear that the government didn’t otherwise assist or facilitate their return. 

Senator ROBERTS: And you take his word for it? 

Ms Jones: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Was this once or previously a responsibility of your department? 

Ms Jones: There was a time before the creation of the Department of Home Affairs when the AttorneyGeneral’s Department had responsibility for deradicalisation programs and the countering violent extremism program, but that moved across to the Department of Home Affairs in 2017. 

Ms Chidgey: I can confirm that for any of the returns from Syria this department has not taken any leading role. That has been the Department of Home Affairs and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about any subsidiary role? 

Ms Chidgey: As I think the secretary mentioned, we have at times provided some advice on Australia’s international obligations. 

/0 Comments/by

Wind Turbine Asbestos Shock!

,

This exchange is about the Australian Border Force’s (ABF) response to asbestos found in the lift brake pads of imported wind turbines.

Mr Reynolds of the ABF explained that after discovering the issue, the ABF “doubled down” on efforts by implementing a specific screening profile to target at-risk shipments. From 1 December to 1 April, 42 matching consignments were intercepted.

35 were cleared via document-based risk assessment; 4 were referred for laboratory testing (all returned negative results), whilst 3 were held pending further documentation.

While Mr Reynolds could not explain how the original contaminated brake pads slipped past the border, he noted that the ABF relies on a combination of self-assessment by importers, risk-based targeting and severe financial penalties to deter illegal imports.

Fines for deliberately importing asbestos without a permit can reach up to $330,000 for individuals and $1.65 million (or 15 times the value of the goods) for companies.

Resolving the issue for contaminated turbines already operating in Australia falls under state government jurisdiction, not federal.

Mr Reynolds took several questions on notice, promising to look into whether the original importers committed a deliberate or accidental offence, whether any fines or prosecutions have been levied against them, and if any current prosecutions are outstanding regarding the operational turbines.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is about wind turbines that have been imported into Australia containing asbestos. Now that the asbestos in imported wind turbines has been identified, what’s been done to remedy the problem and prevent recurrence? 

Mr Reynolds: The issue was asbestos in the brake pads in lifts inside the wind turbines. What we put in place was what we call a ‘profile’ on the border to look for these products. Between 1 December and 1 April, the Australian Border Force recorded 42 consignments matching against profiles introduced a target asbestos risk because of that wind turbine issue. Of the 42 consignments, 35 were cleared by risk assessment of the documents by ABF officers. The Australian Border Force referred four shipments for laboratory testing. All four returned negative results and were subsequently released. The remaining three consignments are, as of 1 April, held pending provision of further assurance documentation. We’re actively managing that risk on the border. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you actually inspecting the wind turbine brakes when they come in, or is it just done by risk assessment? 

Mr Reynolds: It’s both. We’ll make a determination based on that initial risk assessment, and, where required, where we have concerns, then we will refer those for the testing. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who does the testing? 

Mr Reynolds: I don’t have the name of the laboratory, but it is a nationally recognised laboratory. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your officers go to the site where the turbine brakes are stored, pending clearance, and then, if necessary, notify the testers. 

Mr Reynolds: What we’ll do is we will provide a direction that that consignment is to be tested. Then the consignment will go to the laboratory to conduct the testing. Depending on the results, we may seize that particular consignment or it will be released. 

Senator ROBERTS: How did this problem slip past the Australian Border Force? 

Mr Reynolds: Once we became aware of it, we were absolutely onto it. We’ve been testing for asbestos over a number of years. How these particular brake pads made it into the country, I could not tell you. What I can tell you, however, is that for any individual there is a $330,000 fine or three times the value of the goods and for any companies who are deliberately importing asbestos products without a permit it’s a fine of $1.65 million or 15 times the value of the goods. There are significant penalties under the customs regulations for bringing asbestos into the country without a permit. 

Senator ROBERTS: An importer of wind turbine brakes could just look at that and say to themselves: ‘What’s the risk assessment involved here? What’s the risk of getting caught?’ If it’s tiny, then it’s worth trying to flout the fines because they won’t get fined. They’ll do a risk assessment the other way. 

Mr Reynolds: What I’d offer to you is the fact that we have intervened with 42 consignments which came into the country in that five-month period between 1 December and 1 April. This would indicate that we’re absolutely applying all that we can at the border to look for asbestos coming into the country, including for the wind turbine lift brakes and any other asbestos product. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s subsequent to them coming in without detection and being put into operation. You can’t tell me how that slipped past you. If you can’t tell me how, how do you know that what you’re doing now will get it all? I can understand you can’t possibly inspect every piece of equipment, every good and every item that gets imported by individuals or on major shipments and commercial loads. You have to use some kind of intelligence assessment and a risk assessment. I understand that. Have you changed practices? 

Mr Reynolds: Yes, that’s precisely what we have done. 

Senator ROBERTS: With the 42? 

Mr Reynolds: That’s exactly it. Because we recognised that there clearly were some asbestos products that made it into the country, we doubled down on our efforts to reduce the risk of any asbestos brake pads for wind turbine lifts getting into the country. I think the figures I’ve provided for you demonstrate that we are being effective in getting after it. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m wondering how many other lapses there are, not just wind turbine brakes. Going back to this case: was there an offence committed by the importers or the purchasers by misdescription or omission? 

Mr Reynolds: You’d need the details of the importers for those particular lift brake pads, so I don’t have that for you here. I could take it on notice if that would be of assistance. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you could please. I’d like to know if it was deliberate or if it was sloppiness on the part of the importer. 

Mr Reynolds: Certainly. 

Senator ROBERTS: Have all contaminated wind turbines had the problem alleviated, Minister? 

Senator Watt: I don’t know that I can give you an across the board answer. I’m not sure whether the commissioner has any further information on that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would that be your responsibility? I would have thought— 

Mr Reynolds: It’s a state responsibility to deal with that issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: How can I go about finding that out? 

Senator Watt: Well, you’ve got some MPs in the South Australian parliament; that might be a good place to start. 

Senator ROBERTS: And WA. 

Senator Watt: Oh yes; I forgot about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: And soon New South Wales. 

Senator Watt: I’m not sure they agree with you on fracking and a few other things, but, anyway, that’s another issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’re always listening to constituents, Senator Watt. We don’t just go blanket. 

Senator Watt: ‘Drill, baby, drill’ except in South Australia? 

Senator ROBERTS: Except in one electorate. 

CHAIR: If we could get back to questions, that would be really helpful. 

Senator DUNIAM: This is the entertainment. 

CHAIR: No, I am not here for the entertainment. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going through my questions. The commissioner has answered most of them. What penalties or fines have been assessed for identified breaches? You’ve already told me the heftiness of the fines. Have any been levied on the importers in court? 

Mr Reynolds: To date, all of the consignments that we have reviewed and have referred for testing have been found not to contain asbestos. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about the ones that have been found and were in operation? 

Mr Reynolds: I’ll take that on notice and do my best to answer that question for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: In general, you’re there to apprehend illegal goods coming in illegally? 

Mr Reynolds: That’s right. 

Senator ROBERTS: If they get through the border and are put into operation, who is then responsible for enforcement? Is it someone else or is it you? 

Mr Reynolds: We can still apply the Customs Act for goods that have made it through the border. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any prosecutions outstanding? 

Mr Reynolds: For asbestos related issues? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Reynolds: Not to my awareness. 

Senator ROBERTS: Was anyone prosecuted for the ones that were discovered in operation? 

Mr Reynolds: I think that is something that we can take on notice for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: The self-assessment of components by the importers is appropriate given your limited workforce and the extent of imports coming into Australia—the extent in terms of not only dollar value but the complexity of things today? 

Mr Reynolds: All importers have responsibilities as far as ensuring that they meet the legal requirements for the importation of goods into Australia, but we will conduct compliance checks on any goods over which we have a suspicion that it may be an illicit or prohibited product. 

Senator ROBERTS: So your way of protecting the borders, keeping the borders secure is to do inspections. That can’t cover everything, so you use risk assessments, put responsibility on the importers, and then try to protect that with hefty fines if someone is caught to make the cost of criminal or illegal imports prohibitive. 

Mr Reynolds: That’s a good summary. 

Senator ROBERTS: When I retire I’ll come and get a job with you. 

Senator Watt: There’s a merit process, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll pay that one. You were rejected, were you? 

Senator Watt: I thought you were going to ask me to be a referee. 

CHAIR: We’re full of comedians today. 

/2 Comments/by

Veterans Face New $5,000 Care Restriction

,

These Estimates questions relate to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ proposed $5,000 aggregate cap on allied health services.

Our veterans and doctors are worried – and they have every right to be.

The government claims this cap won’t hurt complex-case veterans, yet they admit the system to apply for funding above the cap hasn’t even been designed yet.

Fix the system, don’t punish everyone! If there’s fraud, target the fraudsters. Do not penalise the vast majority of honest, caring doctors and vulnerable veterans.

Those who sacrificed for our country should never face cost-cutting measures disguised as ‘reforms.’ Our veterans deserve certainty, respect, and our support.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I want to go over some changes to the annual monetary limit— some details that may not have been covered. I’ll do my best to try and avoid questions that were going to be asked but have since been covered. If I miss out, let me know. I’m also passing on a lot of complaints and questions from veterans as well as doctors. Doctors are appalled and resigned, yet, fundamentally, they all care. You have already confirmed that the cap is an aggregate cap across all allied health services, not per discipline. Is that correct?  

Mr Kefford: No, that’s not correct. It does not include optical, dental or hearing services.  

Senator ROBERTS: Apart from them. Physio, physical treatment, mental health—they’re all aggregate?  

Mr Brown: Open Arms counselling services are also not included.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the minister accept that an aggregate cap would force complex-case veterans to ration treatment between conditions formally accepted by the Commonwealth?  

Mr Kefford: Again, no. We gave evidence earlier today about the ability, particularly in complex cases, for there to be additional thresholds. The point of having the $5,000 threshold is to ensure that treatment is effective, and there’s an undertaking in the announcement for there to be consultation on the basis on which that additional funding will be provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the TPI gold card holders with multiple accepted conditions be exempt from any aggregate cap, consistent with existing exemptions for physiotherapy and exercise physiology?  

Mr Brown: No. Exceptions to the cap will be considered on a basis of clinical need. Many of the cohort that you’re referring to would potentially meet that requirement, but that will be subject to a consultation process around the design with the veteran community and provider groups.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s not designed yet?  

Mr Brown: The process for veteran card holders to go above the $5,000 annual monetary limit where there is a clinical need has not been designed yet. This measure commences on 1 July 2027, and we’ve got that lead-in time to do that consultation work.  

Senator ROBERTS: What objective criteria will DVA use to determine when funding above $5,000 will be approved, and how will veterans be informed of their eligibility?  

Mr Kefford: The focus, as we’ve said, will be on clinical need and effectiveness of the treatment, and the announced consultation process, once it has been concluded and the arrangements have been confirmed, will be communicated to veterans so they can understand the operation of the new arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: How will they be communicated?  

Mr Kefford: In our usual mechanisms.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, that’s what bothers a lot of veterans.  

Mr Kefford: We use our Vetaffairs newspaper, our social media and other presences, as well as the formal publication of the outcomes of the consultation process, as we’ve done for other similar ones.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a collection of microservice organisations, as well as the RSL, that you can send it to?  

Mr Kefford: Indeed. We would normally engage with the ex-service community as well—ex-service organisations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of W Edwards Deming?  

Mr Kefford: No, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: He was famous, globally, as a management consultant; he died at the age of 95. He said that 95 per cent of problems are not with individuals but with the system. How have you approached the design of the new policy? My point is that you’ve got a problem. There’s some fraud going on—I accept that; wherever there’s money, there are tendencies for some fraud. But the majority of doctors and the majority of veterans are honest and caring people. Has there been any thought to, rather than punishing everyone or limiting everyone, putting a severe punishment on the few miscreants?  

Ms Frame: As we explained earlier this morning, the measure will benefit most veterans in terms of providing them with clearer, up-to-date insights on who they are seeing and where they are up to with their cap. They will have that on MyService, which is a facility they don’t have now. They will have the benefit of more providers. We anticipate there will be more providers availing themselves of the increased rates that are also part of the measure, and we have designed the consideration around $5,000. The policy objective of that threshold of $5,000 is to ensure the maximal effectiveness of the treatment that veterans are receiving. It provides a way by which we can assure the veteran that the providers who are delivering them services are accountable for genuine improvements in their condition and not just delivering services in perpetuity that aren’t subject to any checks and assurances that they are affecting real improvements in veteran wellbeing. 

Mr Brown: I reiterate the evidence I gave earlier today that, of those veteran cardholders who access allied health services with those veteran cards, the average amount of services they provide, based on historical data, is around $3½ thousand per annum, so the $5,000 cap is adequate to facilitate allied health services for the majority of veterans accessing those services through card arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Averages can be really misleading and deceptive. They can hide things. I’m not accusing you of hiding things, but averages—that’s a fact. What percentage of—  

Senator McAllister: He has the median as well. There are a number of statistical indicators. You may enjoy this.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re partial indicators.  

Mr Brown: We have a number of high-end users that skew that average. The median is $1,900 without those high-end users skewing that average.  

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage of veterans go over $5,000 in a year?  

Mr Brown: It fluctuates, but it’s between eight and 12 per cent, so roughly one in 10 of the eligible population.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a sizeable number nonetheless. That skews. It distorts. Have you built systems— or are you still building systems—to take care of that 10 per cent’s needs?  

Mr Brown: That would be the process that we’ll build off the back of the consultation that will occur over the next 12 months to ensure that we’re meeting the clinical needs of those veteran cardholders who require an amount over the $5,000 threshold.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ve found in my career is that humans are not afraid of change. People misleadingly say that humans are afraid of change. What they’re afraid of is uncertainty. Is there anything you can do to make things less uncertain for veterans who are worried?  

Ms Frame: I announced in my opening statement this morning that we will be doing this consultation. We have conveyed that. We will be consulting on the mechanism, but we have also put a section on our website in the last week that responds to miscommunications, what is coming to us about the veteran community and where they have fears about how the measure will be affected. As we said, it hasn’t started yet, but we are doing our best to proactively engage with that and put up-to-the-minute information that responds directly to where we see misinformation and misapprehension circulating in the veteran community to address that exact uncertainty and provide as much information as we are able to at this point in time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you consulting with any veterans to design the communications before you release the communications? This is not meant disrespectfully. It’s meant with complete respect. Your environment is different from the veterans’ environment. Your language is different. Are you using veterans to guide you in the messaging? That seems to be a big problem.  

Ms Frame: No, not directly with that communication as I understand it at the moment. It is based on direct feedback from veterans, so we’re looking at exactly what they are saying and using their own language and terminology in our responses as much as possible.  

Senator ROBERTS: So veterans will be required to apply for additional funding. What evidence will be required, and how long will approvals take? Is that still being designed?  

Mr Kefford: That’s the nub of the consultation, which will involve a process of both presentations from us and submissions from individuals as well as professional organisations. So that will be worked through, and it will be communicated once it’s been settled.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will there be regular updates and communications?  

Mr Kefford: Indeed.  

Senator ROBERTS: What appeal mechanisms will exist if DVA declines to fund clinically necessary care above the cap? That’s still part of the process being designed, I take it.  

Mr Brown: That will be considered during the design process, but it’s not going to be an administrative decision made under any primary legislation. We’ll consider that issue during consultation, but it’s unlikely—I don’t want to speculate too much—that it will be appealable through our normal administrative decision-making processes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any ideas on how it will be appealable?  

Mr Brown: No. I don’t want to speculate further about what the process might look like ahead of a consultation period.  

Mr Kefford: Mr Brown’s absolutely correct. I would say two things. First of all, the intention here, as the secretary has outlined, is to ensure that allied health is clinically appropriate and effective. And the purpose of having the process that we’re describing is to ensure that, particularly, those veterans who have more complex needs are properly cared for and receive the support and rehabilitation that they need.  

Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has the government made of the risk that a capped funding model will further reduce provider willingness to treat veterans, given existing concerns about low DVA fee schedules? I’ve had a number of doctors say this is insane.  

Mr Kefford: Part of the measure is, directly to that point, to actually increase allied health fees. One hundred and sixty-seven, is it, Luke?  

Mr Brown: It’s 169—$170 million in round numbers.  

Mr Kefford: And that’s intended to encourage more providers to provide services to veterans. That’s been welcomed by a number of bodies, and we tabled a letter from the physiotherapists association—that’s not the proper title—this morning.  

Mr Brown: For example, as part of that measure, for a face-to-face standard room consultation with a physiotherapist, our fee will increase from $75.10 to $110. Those fee increases apply across the board to allied health providers.  

Senator ROBERTS: How does the government reconcile the introduction of a monetary ceiling with the royal commission’s finding that barriers to healthcare access contribute to veteran suicide risk?  

Mr Kefford: A part of the measure is to, below that threshold, actually remove the requirement for the treatment cycles that currently exist and to provide that flexibility, recognising that the threshold’s been set with regard to what is normal usage, but then to have a process to ensure that necessary treatment is available and that treatment that’s provided is clinically appropriate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the government accept that veterans with numerous accepted conditions will exhaust the cap more quickly than those with a single injury, despite both having conditions recognised as service caused?  

Mr Kefford: That would be the logical conclusion, and that’s why we’re having a process of—the $5,000 limit is a threshold at which point there can be further decisions about clinically necessary care that needs to be provided.  

Senator McAllister: I think it’s worth—just in response to your last three or four questions, Senator—putting the whole measure in context. The royal commission did say that the government should take steps to improve access to health care, including by raising the charging or the provisioning for procuring allied health services. This measure does that; it raises the fees. It also seeks to remove some of the administrative hurdles for veterans by removing the treatment cycle, which will remove some of the impediments to people procuring the services that they want for their own needs. And, as Ms Frame said, it also will allow us to invest in some digital systems that will let veterans see what services they’ve already used and what resources might be available to them. So the context for this is actually a broad measure to improve access to allied health across the sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: What safeguards exist to prevent the cap from disproportionately harming veterans with complex, chronic or degenerative conditions?  

Mr Brown: Part of the measure that’s been announced by the government is that, where there’s a clinical need to access allied health services above the $5,000 cap, that will be provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: What transitional provisions will be put in place to ensure veterans do not experience sudden loss of access to essential treatment when the cap begins in July 2027? This is a source of pretty severe mental health pressure. Is there a transitional arrangement?  

Mr Kefford: The detail of, particularly, the mechanism by which veterans will seek additional funding above that first threshold is the nub of the consultation process. I’m sure the concerns that you’re raising will be aired in that context. 

Senator ROBERTS: When will clear, written guidance be issued to veterans and providers explaining how the cap will operate in practice? Do you have a scheduled time or an approximate time?  

Mr Kefford: The undertaking is that the consultations will commence in August. We haven’t set a conclusion or detailed timeline for that yet, but certainly the intention would be to have arrangements clear and able to be communicated well in advance of 1 July.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we understand what you’re trying to do, but I don’t think the message has got out from the department, the DVA, as clearly as possible, because $5,000 is seen by many veterans as pitifully and ridiculously small. It’s an insult. How much of this is a cost-cutting exercise to get your government through the hoops with regard to the waste and hypocrisy that it’s shown—  

Senator McAllister: I indicated to you earlier—  

Senator ROBERTS: across all budget areas.  

Senator McAllister: that our goal is to ensure that veterans have access to the allied health treatment they need in a timely way, and to make sure that the services they’re being provided are clinically effective. One of the consequences of creating a system where very large quantities of services are procured from the private sector by individuals is that we see the emergence of some behaviours in that market that are not in the best interests of veterans. At the worst end of it, it looks like fraud: claiming for services that were never delivered. Stepping a few clicks back from that, sometimes it looks like overservicing: making a set of recommendations for which there is no clinical evidence and from which the individual doesn’t see a material benefit in their own health and wellbeing. We judge that, given what we know about the use of these services by veterans, most veterans are using well under that $5,000 limit. When we see veterans experiencing higher rates, we think it’s appropriate for there to be a threshold to evaluate whether what’s on offer to that person is genuinely going to assist them. We have every intention of ensuring people do get the healthcare services they need, and this reform is about a multipronged approach to make sure that’s true, both for the people whose needs are at lower levels of intensity and for the people whose needs are at the higher level.  

Senator ROBERTS: This government has developed a reputation for wasteful spending and loose spending, and people are concerned about that. It seems to me that there’s a lot of work going on, but the root causes are resignation among the veterans that nothing concrete has been done, and there’s so much fear. I think it’s a matter of not only what you just stipulated as your desire and what your targets are but how it’s being done—the process. Would you agree?  

Senator McAllister: I don’t agree with many of the things you said. Our government in each and every budget have found savings so that we can prioritise the things that we care about and that we know the community cares about. One of those areas of investment has in fact been in DVA, because we came to government knowing that it was significantly underprovisioned and that the lack of staff, in particular, in this organisation had led to unconscionable delays in people being able to access the services that they deserve as veterans. We’ve set about addressing that, and there’s a lot to be proud of in the work that’s been done by the many people who work in this department and the collaborative way that the veterans community has engaged in that work to make sure that we do improve the service level that’s available.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/0 Comments/by

Small Businesses Hit by Hasty Laws

,

During this estimates session, I brought serious concerns from my Queensland constituents regarding disruptions facing the skirmish sports and gel blaster industry. Small businesses and lawful hobbyists are trapped in a web of confusion due to recent amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026.

I highlighted a specific case of a compliant Queensland business owner who has followed every weapon licensing rule, yet had one shipment seized and destroyed by Border Force and another returned to the sender. These people are legitimate business operators, not extremists or terrorists, and they need clarity.

I asked the Minister and Australian Border Force (ABF) officials how these new definitions are being applied in practice.

Acting Deputy Commissioner Smith has agreed to liaise directly with those affected to hopefully resolve their specific import and permit grievances.

ABF officials have also committed to updating and publishing clearer guidance materials online and working closely with industry partners to map out lawful import pathways.

Department Secretary Ms. Foster admitted that due to the “hurried” and “pressured” nature of drafting this legislation following the Bondi attack, no formal economic impact assessment was conducted, and no transitional provisions were included for existing businesses. She took on notice my request to investigate potential transitional support regarding stock and employment management.

Further, she said that the government’s intent is not to ban gel blasters, but rather to regulate them consistently across states. Under the new framework, importers require both a firearm-style licence for the gel blaster and an import permit.

The government confirmed they are establishing a firearms council specifically intended for ongoing consultation with industry, legitimate holders, and affected stakeholders to iron out these regulatory wrinkles.

Australian Border Force (ABF): 131 881 within Australia, or (02) 6196 0196 from outside Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today; good to see you. Minister, these questions are built on an extensive session with constituents in Queensland. One in particular has followed all the rules for importing parts for gel blasters but is still being refused access to necessary gel blaster equipment for his business and personal use. He’s done everything. Border Force confiscated one shipment and destroyed the goods, and the other shipment was returned to the sender. He’s had no problem with Queensland weapons licensing, who approved the purchase. He and many others within the hobby, the hobby industry and small business, believe the industry may be at risk due to the amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026. They’re confused, so I’m hoping to get some clarification.  

Senator Watt: I’m afraid that’s probably a level of detail I’ll need to get the officials to respond to, about the exact prohibitions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was just making you aware of the context before asking the questions. The first one is to you, Minister: can you confirm how skirmish sporting equipment, including gel blasters and paintball markers and their parts, is intended to be treated under the revised import framework?  

Senator Watt: I might get the officials to speak to that.  

Mr Smith: I can speak specifically in terms of the Australian Border Force’s actions at the border, in terms of administering the prohibition. With the level of detail you’re talking about in terms of the actual legislation itself, in terms of the background behind the legislation or what the legislation has brought forward, I might have to take that on notice. Can I just check: is it the actions of the ABF that you’re looking for?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s broader than that; it’s the interpretation. People are confused.  

Mr Smith: In terms of the administration of gel blasters at the border?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. You’ll see the questions that I ask. I’ve got quite a few.  

Mr Smith: I may have to take the specific details on notice. Broadly speaking, from the Australian Border Force perspective, in terms of changes to the legislation, we would work within the parameters that have been defined as to what a prohibited good is. I can only assume that, in the case you’re talking about, the goods themselves would fall within the parameters of being a prohibited item, which is why they’re being seized at the border.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct.  

Mr Smith: On the detail in relation to the legislation itself, as to what it is and what it isn’t, I might have to come back to you on notice, in terms of any complexity with that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please, and maybe add to that the subsequent answers to questions, because I think we’re heading down the same line of questioning. Given these items are defined within the legislation, can the minister or an officer clarify how those definitions are being applied in practice across the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026 and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956?  

Mr Smith: The combating antisemitism, hate and extremism firearms laws act achieved royal assent on 21 January. The act strengthens the firearms import controls. It strengthened the permissions, the limitations and the ministerial discretion in relation to the way those laws are managed at the border. They provide specific detail in terms of the parameters of what falls within and constitutes that legislation. Again, I’ll have to take that on notice specifically in terms of the questions you have around your constituents’ concerns. 

Senator ROBERTS: It might help if we can put the constituents concerned in contact with you.  

Mr Smith: That would be good, thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think I know the answer to this now: what clear practical guidance is being provided to ensure lawful individuals—these people are not far-right extremists or far-left-wing terrorists—and businesses can consistently interpret those definitions and remain compliant under the new framework? Is there guidance?  

Mr Smith: Frameworks from the Australian Border Force perspective are provided through the internet sites in terms of where our webpages would provide details—  

Senator ROBERTS: The Border Force websites?  

Mr Smith: That’s correct. Also, our engagement with industry across a number of different levels—we are working across different industry partners to ensure that any further details are published in Australian notices that go out through our industry partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the intended lawful pathway or steps that businesses and individuals need to take to remain compliant under the new import requirements? Is that laid out anywhere?  

Mr Smith: It would be. It’s fair to say we maintain a strong line of communication with any individuals that may have questions in relation to trade matters. We have specific areas within the Australian Border Force who engage with importers that may be seeking clarification in relation to whether goods have fallen within the parameters of being prohibited. Those mechanisms are available through our intranet sites.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will guidance be issued to clarify how this framework is to operate in practice?  

Mr Smith: Guidance continues in terms of how the Australian Border Force administers that legislation at the border. In terms of the specific legislative framework, that may sit outside of the Australian Border Force— potentially with other agencies such as the Attorney-General’s Department or others that administer the framework.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, does the government accept that lawful operators are currently unable to determine how to comply? There’s a real problem there.  

Senator Watt: As you’ve heard from the acting deputy commissioner, there has been guidance material provided. I’m sure that the officials will take on board what’s been said today. If there are ways that that can be further clarified, I’m sure they’ll do that. Ms Foster: It would be very helpful to put the constituents in touch with Border Force so that they can hear directly from them and try and work with them.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I asked Mr Smith about.  

Mr Reynolds: We’re very happy to put more material online to assist people looking to lawfully bring these items into Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there an approval pathway? Do you stamp approval on goods or on applications, or do you just confiscate them or send them back?  

Mr Smith: There’ll be two streams that are administered at the border. We look at our first response at the border for goods that we identify as part of our examination. Equally, we have streams that look at our preclearance interventions. That’s when we have teams that look at the specific documentation and what’s been declared the appropriate permits to ensure that what is coming through the supply chain has been validated before it arrives in the country. We have teams focused on trying to make sure that, if there are legitimate entry permits in place and the goods sit within the parameters of being a legal item, they are facilitated through the border as quickly as possible. Where there is any confusion in that, if that’s from a pre-clearance perspective such as the documentation isn’t clear and requires clarification, those goods are held pending further information from the importer. Equally, when goods are identified at the border subject to our examination, if they do not have clear documentation to support permit entries, they are held pending further details from the importer.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the constituents said he had all the permits necessary, but one shipment was shipped back and the other shipment was confiscated and destroyed. Does he have to get any clearance from you beforehand?  

Mr Smith: It probably goes to the earlier conversation on the line of questioning you have—they are very specific details. Maybe if we discuss it with the constituent themselves, we can get clarification around that answer. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, did the government consider the needs of stakeholders involved in structured skirmish sports and related activities when developing the current framework? I know the legislation was rushed, for reasons the government made clear.  

Senator Watt: I believe that we did consider that, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you consider the skirmish industry specifically?  

Senator Watt: I wasn’t directly involved in that but I’m sure that that was given consideration.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get on notice not personal names but the names of groups that were consulted?  

Senator Watt: I’m happy to take that on notice and I might just ensure that that answer also reflects what other consideration was given, aside from meetings with stakeholders.  

Senator ROBERTS: I noticed—and this is not being critical; it’s being complimentary—that you said you didn’t know for sure, but you’d get back to me.  

Senator Watt: Yes. I’ll take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. If stakeholder needs were not fully considered, will the government commit to engaging with affected groups to ensure the framework is clear, practical and workable? In other words, will you do a review?  

Ms Foster: I think we probably need to understand what the scope of the problem is, and we will then establish whether or not there is a problem of a nature that needs a review, whether there are things we can streamline or whether in fact the government’s intent is being implemented. This may not be helpful, Senator, but my understanding is that essentially there were different approaches to gel blasters in different states. What the legislation did would essentially mean was that people who wanted to import a gel blaster needed both a licence—like a firearm licence but a licence for the gel blaster—and an import permit. It may be that if we work through with your constituents what is missing in the framework we might be able to remedy it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has any assessment been undertaken of the economic impact of these changes on small businesses and associated employment?  

Ms Foster: When we were developing the legislation, we certainly had discussions, most particularly in Queensland because that’s where most of the gel blaster industry was centred. So there was a consideration of the impacts as we were preparing the legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: The economic impacts?  

Ms Foster: That’s right, and the impacts on the businesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. What impacts were identified?  

Ms Foster: We were aware, as I said, that there was a sort of grouping, particularly in Queensland, of industry that would be affected, so that was one of the things we took into account as we were developing that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you quantify the size of the impact economically?  

Ms Foster: Not to my memory. I’m trying to answer these questions for you, because it was one of the earlier outcomes, very much from memory, not having been personally involved in the work. The level and extent of the work that was done is not something I can recall, but we can get you that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Secretary or Minister, if there is a need for it, will any transitional provisions be considered for existing businesses and lawful participants affected by these changes?  

Senator Watt: I’m sure there’d be someone who could speak to whether there are transitional provisions in the legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Even better.  

Ms Foster: Minister, I don’t believe we did include transitional provisions in the legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think so.  

Ms Foster: I’m also advised that we did provide some analysis on the impact but not a formal impact assessment. You’ll recall that it was a pretty—  

Senator ROBERTS: Hurried.  

Ms Foster: pressured period when we were doing this work. What we were trying to do was to actually understand and highlight the impacts so that government could make an informed decision. 

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your openness and honesty there, Secretary. If current operators need it, can they get clarification or transitional provisions on how to manage stock, employment and ongoing operations? They’re confused.  

Ms Foster: We’ll certainly perhaps include that in the earlier undertakings that my colleagues have made in terms of the import and permit issues. I think it would be helpful if we wrapped this up as a package of advice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Should these constituents go directly to someone or just follow the website?  

Mr Reynolds: They’re welcome to come directly to the Australian Border Force and we will assist them as we can.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any name to refer to within the Border Force?  

Ms Foster: I think Acting Deputy Commissioner Smith would be happy to receive representation.  

Mr Smith: Absolutely.  

CHAIR: I’m looking at the time, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: One last question: Minister, I’m not asking for a mea culpa, but does the government acknowledge the risk of unintended economic and community impact in the absence of transitional guidelines?  

Senator Watt: I guess the government made a decision, especially after the dreadful antisemitic terror attack in Bondi— 

Senator ROBERTS: Agreed.  

Senator Watt: that action needed to be taken urgently on what we described as the motive and the method for that attack. That’s why we brought in legislation that addressed the motive, being antisemitism and hate speech and hate crimes, and we also brought in legislation to address the method, which was those firearms, which I think most people would agree should never have been in the hands of those individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: Agreed.  

Senator Watt: That is why we took the action that we did. I understand that not everyone is pleased about that, but we don’t back away from the need to take that action.  

Senator ROBERTS: With almost all legislation, there’s a risk of unintended consequences. You have consultation before and review afterwards. With the rushed legislation—and I’m not being critical because, as you’ve just explained, there’s a need to balance urgency with the risk of consequences; I acknowledge that fine consideration—there is a risk in the absence of transitional arrangements.  

Ms Foster: Let me take it on notice. Often, as you know, we build into legislation a review. Let me see if there is such a thing or what our intent is. I would note also that we haven’t in the legislation banned gel blasters. They have been regulated in a way that they weren’t previously in some states. So I am hopeful that we can find a way to work with affected parties in that regulatory framework. It would be a different matter, of course, if they had been banned and there were no options for people going forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and I thank you. You’ve hit the nail on the head, I think. People are concerned that either the legislation was an attempt to ban gel blasters or it’s a precursor to banning them. I don’t think that was the case, but—  

Ms Foster: That’s not the case—you’re right—and that’s one thing that you could immediately take back to the constituents. The other thing that might be helpful is that we are setting up a firearms council with the express purpose of consulting. I’m not sure if you were here yesterday when we were working through with Senator McKenzie the very broad range of groups that we have been consulting with. She was obviously concerned to make sure that we were including industry, legitimate firearms holders and people with other legitimate uses. I think this could be very helpful in the context of the regulation of gel blasters as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by

The Aussie Parental Nightmare

,

It’s wrong that Australian parents are forced to pay child support to a parent holding their child in Japan contrary to Australian court orders.

During this session, the department couldn’t tell me how many Aussie parents are trapped in this nightmare, nor how they ensure these funds actually benefit the children.

While I welcome news of updates to Japanese domestic law, we must stop enabling parental abduction.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here again today. My questions should be fairly brief, I think. For those not familiar with this scenario, many Australian children have been taken by one parent to Japan, with that parent refusing to return the Australian child to Australia, contrary to both the wishes of the other custodial parent and an Australian court order. In Japan, the non-Japanese parent is often denied access to their child or to even have contact with that child. Sometimes contact is limited to a small number of written letters or emails per year. This is because of Japanese domestic law. Senator Chisholm, I’ve just heard good news from Senator Wong that Japanese domestic law has been changed. So this may be eased somewhat. This organised child stealing is still happening, to some extent with the financial support of our welfare system here in Australia. Why should an Australian parent be forced to pay child support to a Japanese parent where the child is being held in Japan contrary to the wishes of the Australian parent and other family members and contrary to court orders? Why should that happen?  

Mr Flavel: On child support, there are a number of different agreements that exist between countries in relation to child support, and I don’t really want to get into providing a commentary on their adequacy or the way that they apply in individual cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr Flavel: I am very happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. How does Social Services know that the money being paid to the parent in Japan is used for the benefit of the child?  

Mr Flavel: That, of course, goes to any payment made, if what you’re referring to is child support payments, because you mentioned welfare. Child support isn’t welfare. Child support is a payment from one parent to another. There aren’t requirements for the receiving parent to acquit the payments. Obviously, there would be an expectation, though, that they are being applied for the wellbeing of the children.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does this system of paying child support to an overseas parent encourage the child stealing parent to basically hold the child at ransom by taking the child to Japan?  

Mr Flavel: I think that’s veering dangerously into giving an opinion, so I’m not going to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many Australian based parents are being forced to pay child support to a parent holding a child in Japan?  

Mr Flavel: If you are after numbers of international child support arrangements, we can take that on notice and provide that to you, and, if it’s specifically in relation to Japan, we can come back on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the situation as it is really in the best interests of the child?  

ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, I think you’re going to an opinion. Could you frame your question in the sense of a fact that the officials can respond to.  

Mr Lye: The child support scheme is about making sure that children in separated families are not left in poverty and receive the benefits of the resources of both parents where possible. It’s to address high rates of child poverty. I know the issue that you’re pursuing is a particular one in relation to that, but the reason why the scheme itself is there is to protect the interests of children. There has been a lot of conflict in the scheme over the years because separated parents, almost by definition, don’t agree on things, but very few people would contend that a child shouldn’t benefit from the economic resources of their parents, even where they’re separated.  

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you on that score, Mr Lye, but I’m wondering how we can make sure it’s being effective.  

Mr Lye: We can come back to you on the questions you’ve asked.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by