Aged Care: Rights, Not Rules

,

In this session, I question the Aged Care Safety & Quality Commissioner on why some Commonwealth-funded aged-care facilities are banning family visitors without a legal or public health mandate. Many constituents are raising this issue, and I wanted to find out what was the lawful basis for these “operational discretions.”

I was pleased to get a direct admission from Ms. Metz that there is no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a provider to unilaterally ban a visitor. In fact, the Act explicitly protects the resident’s right to have visitors.

The ACQSC confirmed that they view an unjustified visitor ban as a serious breach of residents’ rights.

I questioned why funding continues to flow to these providers while they are under investigation for unlawful bans. Ms. Hefren-Webb clarified that while they don’t control the “funding lever” (which sits with the Department), they do have the authority to pursue civil penalties and compliance notices.

It was concerning to hear from Mr. Day that the Department hasn’t issued explicit guidance to providers telling them they can’t use visitor bans as a lazy substitute for proper staff discipline or complaints management.

The Commission could not provide immediate data on visitor ban complaints or subsequent enforcement actions, and took these questions on notice.

We must ensure that our elderly are not isolated from their loved ones just because a provider finds a family member “difficult.”

– Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Ms Hefren-Webb: Hi, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think my questions are fairly straightforward, so we should be able to move through them pretty quickly. On what lawful basis does the ACQSC permit Commonwealth funded aged-care facilities to impose visitor bans where there is no public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Can you just repeat that last bit of your question? Where do we allow them to impose visitor bans where there is no—  

Senator ROBERTS: No public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I think. Is there a specific circumstance you’re referring to?  

Senator ROBERTS: No—I don’t want to bring it up now but constituents are asking us. Does the ACQSC accept that a provider may unilaterally ban a family member as a matter of operational discretion? If so, where is that power derived from in law or regulation?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I might ask Ms Metz to come forward who heads up our Sector Capability and Regulatory Strategy area. I am aware that there are cases where family members are alleged to have caused issues or disruption, and that’s been the subject of the service, maybe, seeking that they don’t attend, but I’m not aware of a ban per se. I’ll just see if Ms Metz has anything to contribute.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like to know is where their power is derived from in law and legislation. 

Mr Metz: Under the Aged Care Act, residents have a right to visitors and people who are important to them. There’s no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a visitor to be banned. In fact, it’s the opposite, that people have the right to have visitors. We often, through our complaints process, will work through some of those difficult issues that Ms Hefren-Webb mentioned, where providers have difficult situations with certain family members. We do work through those, with both the providers and the families, to resolve those issues.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints has ACQSC received, since 1 January, relating to family or visitor bans in residential aged-care facilities?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We would have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Of those complaints, how many resulted in enforcement action, compliance notices or findings of noncompliance with the aged-care quality standards?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Again, we’ll have to take that one on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. Does ACQSC consider the imposition of an unjustified visitor ban to be a serious breach of residents’ rights and if not, why not? I think you’ve already answered that.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, we would consider it to be a serious breach of rights.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is Commonwealth funding continued to providers while they are subject to unresolved complaints regarding unlawful visitor bans?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We have complaints that cover a wide range of matters. Our focus is on working with the provider and the complainant and their family and carers to resolve those matters as quickly as possible, to make necessary restoration, if needed, to undertake mediation or other activities. We have no responsibility for the funding of the facilities. That’s the department. Our enforcement activities go to things like enforceable undertaking, civil penalties et cetera. There’s no direct link between if we consider that a provider has failed to respect someone’s rights and a funding lever. We would be taking action through other means.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have the authority to do that.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department of health issued any guidance to providers clarifying that visitor bans cannot be used as a substitute for proper complaints management or staff discipline processes?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’m not aware whether or not there’s been direct guidance on that matter. We can follow that up for you though.  

Mr Day: We haven’t provided explicit guidance on that specific issue. We have provided guidance on the impact of the statements of rights that came into effect with the new act, including, as Ms Metz indicated, the right to have access to individuals that are important to an aged-care resident.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. In the context of the new Aged Care Act and rights based reforms, what steps are being taken to ensure residents are not isolated from family due to provider convenience, disputes or risk aversion?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We have a number of mechanisms by which we are assessing the extent to which providers are respecting the rights of residents. Obviously, complaints are one source of information that we can follow up on. We also receive reports—  

Senator ROBERTS: Those are complaints direct to you?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, that’s correct, as well as serious incident reports that come through to us. We also, as I mentioned before, undertake audits of all residential care facilities every three years. In that, we will be interviewing a number of residents, family members and staff to make sure that residents’ rights are being upheld and respected. We also receive anonymous complaints, tip-offs and whistleblowing. So there are a range of ways that those matters can come to our attention. If we were made aware that someone’s right to have family or friends or loved ones visit them was being impeded, we would take that extremely seriously.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where do you have offices around the country? If someone in Central Queensland made a complaint, how would you address it? Through the phone?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Initially, we do address matters over the phone. But, if the matter raises significant safety concerns for us, we will send a team, and we can do an unannounced visit of a facility. We have staff who are trained to go and assess what’s happening, find out, investigate. Our staff are based in all the capitals around Australia. In that case, if it were Central Queensland, we’d send a team probably from our Brisbane based staff. 

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I want to put on the record that I rushed my questions because of another deadline, but I want to acknowledge the three respondents. They’ve been very prompt and concise with their answers. Thank you very much.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for using your eight minutes very efficiently for us. That’s very generous of you today.  

/0 Comments/by

The 95% Mortgage Cliff

,

During this session with Housing Australia, I call out the lack of transparency and the questionable math behind the home deposit guarantee schemes.

I asked Mr Langford why it took nine weeks to get an answer to a simple question: how many borrowers have exited the scheme? They finally admitted that of the 185,000 guarantees issued since the scheme was launched, over 45,000 have already been discharged.

I’m highly sceptical of their reported “success” rates. They previously claimed that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000. The actual arrears rate on bank loans is around 1% – 227 times higher than the claimed arrears rate of 0.0044%. Therefore, it’s statistically impossible!

My point is simple: they don’t actually track people once they exit the scheme, so they’re essentially flying blind when it comes to the data.

Despite Minister Ayres’ attempts to paint every exit as a “success story,” the data proves it’s not that simple.

As at the end of December 2025: ❌ 0.3% or 336 of borrowers are 90+ days in arrears, ❌ 0 .8% or 1000 are currently under hardship arrangements and ❌ 347 are in early-stage arrears (30–90 days).

While they boast that many are ahead on payments, I’m concerned about the “cliff” ahead.

When I asked for modelling on what happens to these 95% mortgages if interest rates rise three more times this year, they admitted they have no modelling for that scenario.

Ms Jarman has committed to providing me with a copy of the information guide for first-home buyers. I want to see for myself if it properly warns Australians about the massive risks of a 95% mortgage in a rising-rate environment.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: I’m going to rotate the call. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again today, Mr Langford. You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. That should be a number you have to hand very easily. You haven’t answered it in the nine weeks since the hearing. Why not?  

Mr Langford: I’ll ask my colleague Ms Jarman, who has just come to the table, if we have that information to hand. As to the delays, we apologise. There may have been some delay if we didn’t have that information to hand.  

Ms Jarman: Sorry, Senator—can you repeat exactly what information you’re after?  

Senator ROBERTS: You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two per cent and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. I’d like the number, please.  

Ms Jarman: Yes, we do have the number that have exited. Of the 185,000 guarantees that have been issued since the launch of the scheme, 45,837 of those have discharged.  

Senator ROBERTS: You told me at the last hearing that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000 guarantees issued. The actual arrears rate on banks’ loan books is around one per cent. That’s 227 times higher than your claimed arrears rate of 0.0044 per cent. Do you accept that your number is almost statistically impossible and only appears good because you don’t actually track the people who exit the scheme? Once they’re gone, they’re gone.  

Senator Ayres: Exiting is good.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t track them once they’re gone.  

Senator Ayres: These are people who have bought a home—  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t try and change the topic. I’m asking the question. I want to know—  

Senator Ayres: under the scheme, then sold their home and moved on to their next home. That is the foot on the ladder that the scheme is designed to provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Ayres, at the last hearing, you said—  

Senator Ayres: That’s what it’s for.  

Senator ROBERTS: that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance. Do you know that that’s false?  

Senator Ayres: What do you mean?  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘People who are facing hardship can’t refinance,’ you said. That’s false.  

Senator Ayres: I said that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what you said. 

Senator Ayres: I don’t know what context I said that in. You’re moving—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on—  

Senator Ayres: from one proposition, demonstrably not the case—  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’re changing my proposition. I’m trying to get on with it.  

Senator Ayres: which is that it’s a bad outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you running from this, Minister Ayres?  

Senator Ayres: No. I’m running to this. I’m running to this. This is a good outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: You changed my first proposition.  

Senator Ayres: This is a good outcome. I’m sorry if you’re confused about it. This is a good outcome for young Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re misleading.  

Senator Ayres: Buying a home, selling a home, buying a new one—this is a good outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on your latest percentages for in advance, on schedule, in arrears and hardship?  

Ms Jarman: I can do that. As at the end of December, 0.3 per cent of the portfolio were 90 days plus in arrears, 0.8 per cent were under hardship arrangements, 26 per cent of the portfolio were on schedule with payments and 73 per cent were in advance of their repayment schedule.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you also have the actual numbers each of these percentages represent?  

Ms Jarman: I do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them please?  

Ms Jarman: Sure. We had 33,134 on schedule, 93,104 in advance, 336 ninety days in arrears and 1,000 in hardship. There is another category, for completeness. If you’re adding up to the total number of guarantees, in arrears of 30 to 90 days—so early arrears—there are another 347 customers there.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many total guarantees are those percentages of—is it less than the 250,000?  

Ms Jarman: The 250,000 is the number of Australians supported under the scheme. We’ve only ever issued 185,000 guarantees, but only 127,000 of those are active in the book at the moment. The rest of those have already discharged out of the scheme.  

Mr Rimmer: I gave evidence earlier in the day that the 0.3 per cent 90-day arrears rate is better than the other relevant arrears.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I heard that.  

Senator Ayres: I also should have said, Senator, again for the sake of completeness, that people exit the scheme if they sell their home. They also exit the scheme when they hit the 80 per cent loan-to-value ratio. That is, they come in at five per cent and make repayments that pay the 15 per cent gap over time, and then they’re considered to have exited the scheme. That’s also a good thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many five per cent mortgages that you got first home buyers into do you expect a default if interest rates are raised three times this year?  

Senator Ayres: Your One Nation colleague asked the same questions about an hour and three-quarters ago.  

Senator ROBERTS: He actually said ‘if we are entering a cycle’. I want to know what would happen with three interest rate rises.  

Mr Langford: I don’t believe we have modelling for that proposition that you’re putting forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you, as the administrator of the five per cent deposit guarantee, provide first home buyers with any warnings about the risk of a 95 per cent mortgage?  

Ms Jarman: Yes, we do. As part of the application process, we’ve got an information guide. That guide clearly outlines what the guarantee is and how the guarantee is there to protect the lender and not the borrower. It also outlines the obligations of the borrower in terms of repayment of the mortgage and the circumstances in which the borrower is still liable.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have a copy of that on notice, please? 

/0 Comments/by

Protecting our Coal Miners

,

During this session with the Fair Work Commission, I asked Mr Furlong if he agreed that you cannot use an enterprise agreement to strip away rights provided by the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. He agreed.

During our exchange, I highlighted several concerns:

I reminded Mr. Furlong that the High Court in Rossato was clear — contract terms must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. You can’t take away annual leave or award entitlements if the law says otherwise.

When I asked how losing annual leave and getting lower pay could possibly make a worker “better off,” the Commission hid behind “abstract” assessments. There is nothing abstract about a coal miner losing their leave and being underpaid compared to the Black Coal Award.

The Commission tried to tell me we’ve “traversed” this ground before. My response was simple: I will keep traversing it until these workers get what’s owed to them in full compliance with the law.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, you have previously agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove all applicable award entitlements. You have agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove entitlements provided under the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. Both of them were in November 2022. Do you still hold the same views today?  

Mr Furlong: I do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that these propositions were confirmed by the majority of the High Court in the Rossato decision?  

Mr Furlong: I can’t talk to the High Court decision, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The court went on to say: …where there are express terms of the contract between the parties, they must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: It has been a long time since I’ve looked at that decision. I can’t comment on it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I know what you mean. If an agreement includes terms that would remove statutory rights such as annual leave and other award entitlements, wouldn’t those terms be considered contrary to statute?  

Mr Furlong: It’s difficult to talk in the abstract about such matters. The terms and conditions in an enterprise agreement are that they need to be better off overall. It’s a global assessment in determining whether or not an enterprise agreement will satisfy a member of the commission and subsequently be approved by that member.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This issue was further considered in One Key Workforce v CFMEU. The full bench of the Federal Court held that: It is an error of law to fail to have regard to relevant material in a way that affects the exercise of power. An administrative decision-maker— the Fair Work Commissioner— who makes such an error exceeds his or her authority and acts without jurisdiction. Isn’t this exactly what the commissioner did when approving an enterprise agreement that ignored the Black Coal Award, which was relevant material? 

Mr Furlong: I think that the circumstance of One Key relate to the One Key enterprise agreement. Are we are talking about Chandler Macleod and other agreements about casual coalminers? Senator ROBERTS: If an enterprise agreement takes away annual leave by calling someone a casual, is that going against statute? Mr Furlong: It depends on whether the employee is a casual or a permanent employee. If they are a permanent employee, they would be entitled to annual leave and sick leave and all the other conditions that would be applicable to a permanent employee. There are casual conversion entitlements now for employees that they can exercise if they want to transition from casual employment to an ongoing role. Senator ROBERTS: How does it comply with the National Employment Standards and the Fair Work Act if someone loses annual leave, ends up on lower pay and doesn’t meet award provisions? It goes against statute.  

Mr Furlong: The Fair Work Act provides the framework that members of the commission have to observe before they can approve an enterprise agreement. If there is an aggrieved party to a decision made by a member of the commission, those decisions can be the subject of an appeal. If the agreement has reached its nominal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can make an application to have that agreement terminated.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the express terms of the contract or EA must be given effect unless they are contrary to this statute?  

Mr Furlong: No. What I’m saying is that for a member, in assessing whether or not to approve an enterprise agreement which has been lodged with the commission for approval, a number of statutory tests need to be satisfied. One of them is the better off overall test. Once a member of the commission who has been allocated that file is satisfied that each of those conditions has been met, they are required to approve the agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me how the loss of annual leave, a pay rate that is less and the loss of other award provisions complies with better off overall, because the award prevails? That’s the High Court.  

Mr Coyle: It’s very difficult to talk in the abstract here. It’s a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: The loss of annual leave, a lower pay rate and the loss of other award provisions—that’s not abstract.  

Mr Furlong: We’ve traversed this several times.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will keep traversing it until we get these people their fair due in compliance with statute. 

/0 Comments/by

Bureaucrats vs. Parents

,

I have used Estimates several times to draw attention to the filth being distributed in libraries, material that targets children and is available to them regardless of age. This includes graphic sex-instruction manuals that most adults would find excessive.

We urgently need an intermediate classification for graphic written publications. We have raised this issue for many years; and while the Classification Board seems to agree, there has been no action for almost two years.

During this estimates session, I questioned the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) on the bureaucrats currently running our classification system. We have three different bodies: ACMA, the Classification Board, and the Classification Review Board, all pointing fingers at each other while inappropriate material continues to be freely available to children.

ACMA admitted in their “Stage 2 reforms” submission that we need to rationalise this mess into one single national regulator. It’s common sense: one body, one set of standards, and actual accountability.

I also asked how these obscene publications could possibly meet “community standards.” The answer? They haven’t done any “community standards” research in years. How can they claim to represent the public if they aren’t even talking to them?

The government says they are “awaiting reports,” yet our children can’t wait.

We need a system that reflects your standards, not the standards of Canberra bureaucrats.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Australian Communication and Media Authority review of Australian classification regulation written form closed submissions in May 2025. What’s happened since and when will we
get an outcome?

Ms Field: I believe that is the work of the department, not the ACMA. We have not published a paper.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, then. ACMA made a submission titled Modernising Australia’s national classification scheme: stage 2 reforms. It was dated 6 June 2024. Your submission calls for a national
classification regulator to oversee a reformed classification scheme. Is this in addition to the ACMA, the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board?

Ms O’Loughlin: What we were reflecting on in our submission is that classification is undertaken by a range of different organisations and that there may potentially be benefits of rationalising that, because you have the national Classification Board doing publications and film, you have the Classification Review Board. You also have us who have responsibility for classification and broadcasting. What we were saying is: is there a way of looking at that? Is there any rationalisation that could happen?

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was: that’s a lot of bureaucracy, to have three agencies, which most likely will have the outcome of nobody being responsible. Are you talking about rationalising it from three to
one?

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s our proposal.

Senator ROBERTS: One of the duties you suggest for the rationalised body is to conduct community standards research. Community standards are central to the existing Classification Board decision process. Do you
do community standards research at the moment?

Ms O’Loughlin: We do from time to time in the broadcasting space, but we were indicating that, if there was a combined organisation, if I can use that term, there would be a requirement to make sure there was community research done across all those different mediums—broadcasting, film, literature—to inform the decisions of that new rationalised body.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you currently doing that with broadcasting? You are saying that it needs to continue so that the new rationalised entity does not drop that community standards research?

Ms O’Loughlin: The body is actually testing what the community standards are rather than only relying on its own judgement.

Senator ROBERTS: Seeing as you do community standards research for broadcasting, can you provide on notice the most recent round of research and the cost to the taxpayers for that process?

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly. We haven’t done some for some time, but I’m happy to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could give us the date of when it was done?

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to see how some obscene sex manuals for children could be considered as meeting community standards. I’m horrified/shocked at a publication called Let’s Talk About It. The title probably
should be This is How to Do It. It’s an instruction manual, not an information manual. It’s pornography. I’ve asked many questions in many estimates sessions regarding the failure of the rating system to offer a restricted
classification for printed material, something between the existing unclassified and R18-plus such as we have for violent teenage videogames. What’s ACMA’s position on a legally enforceable, mature-age, 15-plus or similar classification for these graphic sex instruction manuals targeted at children?

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s not part of our responsibilities currently; that is a matter for the Classification Board. I would expect that may be something that will be raised in the stage 2 classification review that’s being undertaken by the department. That would be the place for that to be considered.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the government’s opinion or view?

Senator Green: I’ll answer your question by saying that the chair is correct; we did have officials here who are working on a review. They were here a bit earlier. Unfortunately, they can’t answer those questions for you
now. Obviously, stage 1 was quite successful. We’re working on stage 2 reforms now. The department has engaged a social research centre and Mendelsons to undertake a functional update of the classification guidelines. The minister awaits the final report from this functional update. Unfortunately, I can’t give you any more information without officials here at the table. As the chair indicated to you as well, the Classification Board itself and the Classification Review Board will be appearing later this evening and can answer questions about specific classifications about which you might be concerned.

Senator ROBERTS: We have to get something done about this.

Senator Green: Of course.

/0 Comments/by

Whistleblowers Left Unprotected

,

In Senate Estimates, I questioned ASIC over the case of Roxanne Mysko, a whistleblower who spoke up about major safety failings in the trucking industry, only to be left unprotected.

Why hasn’t ASIC used the Corporations Act to protect her?

Why was the matter referred elsewhere when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?

Will ASIC reopen case CAS-94551 and prosecute for whistleblower retaliation?

ASIC couldn’t, or wouldn’t answer, taking every question on notice. It’s clear that right now, Australian whistleblowers are standing alone. I won’t stop pushing until that changes.

If our regulators won’t act, “protections” are just words on a page. We need real accountability for those who risk everything to keep us safe.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I hope that this session is a bit longer than the previous one. Are you aware of Ms Roxanne Mysko?  

Ms Court: I will try to be. The name is vaguely familiar but—  

Senator ROBERTS: Roxanne Mysko?  

Ms Court: Is there a company that Ms Mysko is associated with that you could help me with?  

Senator ROBERTS: I think she’s a whistleblower. Yes, she’s a whistleblower to you guys.  

Ms Court: If that’s the case, I won’t be able to speak about anything to do with that. But just let me check with Mr Savundra, just to make sure, to see if we have anything that we can assist you with here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ll ask the question. You can decide. Ms Roxanne Mysko is an honest person who discovered that there were significant failings of safety in the trucking industry. She found that international corporations, including Santos and Ensign, had contracted ECS Project Logistics as freight logistics. ECS and approximately 70 contractors operated with zero safety audits, fatigue controls and licence and registration checks done from 2007 to 2020. Why did ASIC fail to enforce the Corporations Act whistleblower protections? 

Ms Court: I don’t have any information about that with me, I’m afraid.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice?  

Ms Court: Of course, I’ll take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did ASIC refer whistleblower matters to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?  

Ms Court: I’ll have to take that on notice as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIC reopen CAS-94551 and prosecute whistleblower retaliation, identified breaches and victimisation by Santos, Ensign and ECS under Part 9.4AAA?  

Ms Court: I’m not familiar with the document you’re referring to, but, again, I’m happy to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: These disclosures by Ms Mysko revealed grave safety failings in the heavy vehicle industry. These safety issues are of significant concern for all road users. Ms Mysko has suffered terribly at the hands of big corporations and those public servants who have not done their jobs. Minister, when will this government get serious about protecting genuine whistleblowers and stop them from being victimised by wrongdoers?  

Senator Ayres: I have no knowledge of the matters that you raise. I understand you’ve asked ASIC questions about how they may or may not have dealt with this, and they’ve taken it on notice. In terms of the extent to which—you could make an argument that their responsibilities touch on this matter. But I have no knowledge of this set of circumstances, and I can’t help you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible for you to comment once we get the answers from ASIC?  

Senator Ayres: If there’s anything that we can help you with, we will.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know when this government will protect whistleblowers. That’s all.  

Senator Ayres: That’s a broader policy question. I’m not sure that ASIC’s in a position to respond to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m asking you for that.  

Senator Ayres: The broad approach that the government’s taken in relation to whistleblower protections is probably a matter for the Attorney-General. I’m here representing the Treasurer, and I’m not sure that I’m in a position to provide you with much information at all about this issue, as important as it is, both broadly and in relation to the person who you’ve referred to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think that’ll give whistleblowers much confidence, but thank you for your answer.  

Senator Ayres: Then you should ask these questions in the Attorney-General’s section if you are genuinely looking for an answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/0 Comments/by

Are There Really 200 Would-Be Terrorists in Australia?

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned Mr Burgess, Director-General of ASIO, about the scale and nature of extremist threats in Australia. I cited figures of 200 potential terrorists and 18,000 people on threat-related watchlists.

Mr Burgess clarified that while “tens of thousands” have been investigated since 2001, not all remain active threats. He stated that the vast majority of individuals investigated since 2001 fall under religiously motivated violent extremism. However, he noted growth in other sectors, specifically – nationalist and racist violent extremists; extreme left-wing groups (anarchists and revolutionists) and broad “issue-motivated” extremists.

Mr Burgess declined to say whether the majority of persons under investigation were Islamist extremists.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of root cause analysis, you’ve reassured me already. Thank you for your statement. I have a few questions. Is it true that there are approximately 200 would-be terrorists living in Australia? Is it true that there are over 18,000 people on the threat related watch list?  

Mr Burgess: What I can say publicly is we have a number of people we have subject to investigations, including a number of people in our priority counterterrorism caseload who obviously get the priority. There are tens of thousands of people who have come to our attention and are no longer being investigated by us. That does not mean tens of thousands of people are potential terrorists, but they’re people we have investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that the majority of these are Islamic sympathisers?  

Mr Burgess: The vast majority of people we’ve investigated since 2001 have come from a religiously motivated violent extremism cohort. But of course we have seen growth in broader issue motivated violent extremists, including nationalists and racist violent extremists and people with a range of other grievances, including on the extreme left, anarchists and revolutionists, which is something recently that we’re getting involved in. The mix is spread.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIO take direct action in the future on strong suspicion of threat even if the action runs the risk of being branded racist or the result of profiling religion or whatever? It seems to be a matter of life and death.  

Mr Burgess: If it’s a matter of life and death, we and the police will be on it. We’ll be doing that together with the police. If it’s an immediate threat to life, you need the police to go through the front door, not the security service. We always investigate threats to security, and that’s what we’re investigating. We’re not racially profiling or doing anything else. We’re looking at people who hold certain ideological views that think politically motivated violence or promotion of communal violence is something that supports them or in their remit. We will act accordingly with the full force of our law. Everything we do and everything we must do has to be legal and proportionate to the threat before us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you label them at the risk of being called names?  

Mr Burgess: It depends what you mean by ‘label’. We assign ideology—  

Senator ROBERTS: Identify their background. 

Mr Burgess: Religiously motivated violent extremists, Sunni violent extremists, Neo-Nazis, nationalist and racist violent extremists—we call them what we need to to explain their ideology and motivation.  

Senator ROBERTS: One last challenge for you, and a very difficult one. Could you teach the minister about root cause analysis, please?  

Mr Burgess: That’s a matter for the minister, if he’s interested. He probably has a very busy day job. 

/0 Comments/by

The Deportation Failure: 102,000 People Lingering

,

I questioned officials from the Department of Home Affairs on the government’s failure to deport over 100,000 individuals who have no legal right to be here.

There are 101,976 individuals who were refused a protection visa and have yet to be deported. Some of these cases date back as far as 1994.

I highlighted a recent case where a South African man was raided and detained at dawn just 24 hours after his visa was cancelled. The government clearly has the capability to enforce our borders and laws. So why, out of over 100,000 people here illegally, did the government only involuntarily deport 5 people in a single month? That’s a 0.005% deportation rate.

When I asked for an honest explanation, Minister Watt did what he always does: he resorted to name-calling and labels to avoid the discussion.

Australians deserve an immigration system that actually enforces the law, not one that picks and chooses when to act while tens of thousands stay here illegally.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to change the topic to deportation. According to your ‘Monthly update: onshore protection (subclass 866) visa processing – October 2025’, the total number of individuals that were not granted a final protection visa that have yet to be deported at the end of the period is 101,976. How many of those 101,976 rejected refugees or unlawful noncitizens are currently seeking merits or judicial review from a court or tribunal?

Ms Foster: We could go through that data for you. I’d just note, for the rest of the committee, that we just had a series of questions and that exact data was provided to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Should I just go through the Hansard? To save time, I’ll go through the Hansard.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Your reporting has a caveat that the 100,000 number includes anyone who has been rejected for a protection visa since 1994. Do you have any data on the distribution in terms of how old some of those applications were? For example, do you have any data on how many people have not been deported after being rejected for a protection visa more than five years ago or more than 10 years ago? How many are still lingering here?

Mr Thomas: We’ll have to take that on notice to get that breakdown for you.

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got that data?

Ms Foster: It’s to get the particular breakdown that you’re asking for and so that we can see if we can do it by year—year groups.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Ms Foster. It would be appreciated if it’s done by year, because some people seem to be lingering forever. Do you have a breakdown of how many of the hundred thousand are included in the temporary visa stock data? I would assume anyone who is in the country illegally without a visa is not included in the 2.9 million, but I’d like a more specific number—on notice?

Mr Willard: On notice. I’d note that, in that temporary visa figure—that includes bridging visas. Many of these would be on bridging visas, but—

Senator ROBERTS: If you could break that down too, please—

Mr Willard: I’ll have to break it down.

Senator ROBERTS: Break that down. This is my last question, Chair. In November, a South African man whose visa was cancelled after attending a Neo-Nazi rally in Sydney was detained by immigration agents in a predawn operation, according to the media, and faces deportation. That was just one day after the visa cancellation by Minister Burke. I highlight that, as it shows that you obviously have the capability to raid houses, detain people in the dark and get them deported. But you don’t appear to be using it. Out of the more than 100,000 people here illegally, your October report says you involuntarily deported fewer than five that month. That’s a 0.005 per cent deportation rate. Why aren’t you raiding these houses and deporting people who have no legal right to be in Australia?

Senator Watt: I thought you said earlier that you don’t associate with Neo-Nazis, but you seem very concerned about the fact that the government decided to deport one.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re hiding from a discussion—an honest discussion—by labelling me?

Senator Watt: No, no. I’m happy—

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, you’re making this a habit.

Senator Watt: I’m happy—

Senator ROBERTS: If you haven’t got the data and you haven’t got the logic behind it, just say so, and we’ll get it on notice.

Senator Watt: I’m happy for the officials to answer your question.

Senator ROBERTS: Good.

Senator Watt: I’m just a bit perplexed about why, on the one hand, you say you don’t associate with Neo Nazis but you seem very concerned about a Neo-Nazi being deported.

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the fearful—

Senator Watt: You called them a Neo-Nazi. You just called them a Neo-Nazi.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s what the media called them. So does that make me a Neo-Nazi because I’m discussing—

Senator Watt: I’m not saying you’re a Neo-Nazi. I’m just questioning—

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re implying it, Senator.

Senator Watt: No, I said earlier that you didn’t seem to be very happy when I said that you associate with Neo-Nazis—

Senator ROBERTS: Because what you said was not correct.

Senator Watt: and other extremists, but here you are, asking about the deportation of a Neo-Nazi.

Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the fearful, the stupid and the gutless.

CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Senator Watt: Thank you for that free character assessment, Senator Roberts.

Senator SCARR: Chair, please return us to some order—questions being asked and answers being given.

CHAIR: Thank you for that very helpful direction, Senator Scarr. If we can proceed in an orderly question and-answer fashion, that would be of much help to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to do that.

Ms Foster: Senator Roberts, we provided some data in response to the previous questioning about the numbers of people who are removed each year. If it would be helpful, we could quickly reprise that data.

Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like, Ms Foster, is to know why one person, regardless of who he or she is, was able to be detained in the middle of the night, their house raided, but the other 102,000 were not.

Senator Watt: What makes you think that no others were treated similarly?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, in the answer to my question, perhaps you could tell me.

Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: My answer is—

CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Senator Watt: Well, you make—

Senator SCARR: Questions are being asked now by the minister of members of the committee. Again, can I ask that we return to orderly—

Senator Watt: Well, okay. There’s a simple reason for that.

Senator SCARR: Sorry, can I finish my point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: These are simple questions, Minister.

Senator SCARR: Can I finish my point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: They’re very simple.

CHAIR: Senator Scarr, yes, you can finish your point.

Senator SCARR: We’re running out of time. Can I just ask, Chair, that we return to the orderly process of questions coming from the committee members and being answered by the representatives at the table.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator Watt: May I make a point of order.

CHAIR: Can I respond.

Senator Watt: Sure.

CHAIR: It’s within the rules for the minister to respond to questions being asked by senators, but I would encourage the minister to answer the question rather than pose one.

Senator Watt: Sure. I’ll frame this not by asking a question. Senator Roberts has just suggested that the government has chosen to deport one person, who participated in a Neo-Nazi rally, and has suggested that the government does not deport—was it 102,000 other people?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why can’t you do the same—

Senator Watt: I’d be interested to know what evidence Senator Roberts has for that suggestion.

Senator ROBERTS: Your answer will be sufficient.

Senator Watt: I’m disputing your suggestion.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, then give me the data. That’s all I’m after, Minister—the data.

Senator Watt: You’re not very good at listening to data when it’s presented to you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the judgement on my questions. It’s now very, very clear what I’m requesting from you.

Senator Watt: Perhaps the officials could advise you with some facts, if you’re ready for that, about whether the government does deport other individuals rather than one neo-Nazi.

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s not my question. That’s not my question, Chair. My question is: why don’t you raid other people’s houses and get them out of the country as well?

Senator Watt: This is the point. You’re suggesting that doesn’t occur. Would you like facts?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I would—the number of people raided.

CHAIR: In a second, I will invite the officials to respond to your question, Senator Roberts, but I am going to call final question for you, before I need to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: That is my final question.

Ms Sharp: Senator, for the first three months of this financial year, 943 people were involuntarily removed from immigration detention. In many instances, they would have been detained from their home prior to being placed in immigration detention and then removed. In the previous financial year, we had 3,457 involuntary removals from immigration detention.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Sharp. Can you tell me the number of houses that were raided and people detained, on notice?

Ms Foster: In many cases, in fact, most cases, those people were in the community, and were detained by Border Force officers, and then taken into detention in order to be removed.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the number, please?

Ms Foster: We can have a look at that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I found that easy in the end, thank you.

Senator Watt: I look forward to you using those facts, Senator Roberts.

/1 Comment/by

Insurance Profits Soar While Australians Struggle

,

During Senate Estimates in October, I raised an issue that’s hurting Australians — insurance costs.

Health Insurance: Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from insurers, yet those same insurers are posting record profits — over $5 billion. Why are hospitals being starved while insurers rake in billions?

The ACCC Chair acknowledged the challenges but said they haven’t actively investigated this. She noted that private hospitals face rising costs and tough negotiations with a small number of insurers — a clear sign of limited competition.

Home and Car Insurance: On paper, there are 11 home insurers, many just brands under the same company. Suncorp owns AAMI and Apia; CGU and NRMA are both IAG. That means only eight real players. Car insurance is even worse — 12 brands, yet only six actual companies. When I asked the ACCC if this lack of competition worried them, they expressed their concern and said that they’re reviewing IAG’s proposed acquisition of RACWA because it could remove an important competitor.

Australians are furious about insurance premiums skyrocketing in areas that have never flooded, and never will, based on speculative climate change claims. Insurers argue that future flooding risk justifies massive hikes, even though extreme weather trends are flat. I asked if the ACCC has looked at how insurers justify these increases in a low-competition market. The answer? No.

All five publicly listed insurance companies share the same major shareholders — BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Norges Bank. These global asset managers hold significant stakes across insurers and banks. I asked if the ACCC considers the impact of these interlocked holdings. They said they’re aware of the investors yet will only act if they see evidence of coordinated conduct.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Insurance is the second most painful item on the consumer’s shopping list after groceries. There’s a lot of pain. I’ll go to the hospital aspect and then to the competition aspect. Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from the health insurers. We’ve been told this by many. Why are private hospitals being starved out of existence when the health insurers have recently recorded record profits of more than $5 billion?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There will be a number of factors there. They’re not questions, I believe, that we have actively looked at. Some relate to the level of competition among private hospitals, but they need to negotiate with a small number of private health insurers. That leads to difficulties for them in that bargaining situation. We’re also aware that the private hospital sector, from recent events, has been facing significantly increased costs at the same time as they are having to undertake complex negotiations in relation to coverage from private health insurers.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ll do is I’ll go to the lack of competition that you talked about with the insurance companies and come back to this and the hospitals. There are 11 companies in Australia offering home insurance. We’re going away from health to home. Of these, Suncorp, AAMI and Apia are the same entity and CGU and NRMA are the same entity, meaning there are only eight companies offering home insurance. Is that what you meant by limited competition in insurance?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There I was particularly talking about health insurance. But you are right that, partly as a result of prior acquisitions, a number of the groups have multiple brands, but it’s actually one insurance company behind it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Similarly, there are 12 insurance companies doing car insurance. IAG owns CGU and NRMA and has underwriting ties to RACV. Separately, Suncorp, AAMI, Apia, Bingle and GIO are all the same entity. This means there are only six companies in the car insurance market hiding behind several different logos. So it’s the same. Are you worried about the lack of competition in the retail insurance market?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are certainly very focused on this. We currently are assessing, under the informal merger assessment regime, a proposed acquisition by IAG of the RACWA, which is the Western Australian Royal Automobile Club. We have put out for public response a statement of issues concerned about the removal of the Royal Automobile Club. Our preliminary view set out in that statement of issues is that they provide a very important competitive constraint.  

Senator ROBERTS: We know that, in the home insurance market, insurance companies are putting up premiums on homes and businesses in areas that are supposedly affected by flooding despite never having flooded. In fact it will never flood. The argument is that, owing to climate change, which we’re told is coming sometime in the future, your property is now likely to flood, so premiums are going up, and they’re going up exponentially. I wonder if you use flags like these. Suncorp is making so much money out of insurance that it sold its bank in order to grow its insurance business. That tells you how profitable it is. Have you looked at the basis on which insurance companies are increasing premiums in a low-competition environment using specious claims of global warming when extreme weather events have not changed? There’s been no trend. It’s just flat.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We haven’t looked at that specific issue, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: The answer for people is not to change insurance companies—they can’t, because they’re all the same. They’ve got similar policies, similar conditions and the same shareholders. Specifically, all five publicly listed insurance companies in Australia have the same shareholders. I’m not trying to verbal you, but I think I asked you if you had heard of BlackRock, and you said no. Was it you?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have heard of BlackRock.  

Senator ROBERTS: Maybe I misunderstood. That’s why I checked; I don’t want to verbal you. The most notable common shareholders across all five entities based on top 10 holdings are BlackRock, a global asset manager which owns five to eight per cent of insurance companies. With State Street, it’s the same deal. They’re a global adviser with six to 16 per cent. That’s even more. Vanguard Group is the same type of entity, with five to six per cent. Norges Bank Investment Management has only two per cent, but they have a combined controlling interest, and these funds apparently are interlocked. Are you aware of these significant holdings that basically control our insurance companies?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: What you are describing in terms of global funds managers and global funds does not surprise me in relation to who would look to invest in insurance companies. As to your comment that they’re interlocked, a number of those will be operated and will be advised and managed independently. It’s possible what you’re referring to is that they have either financing or shareholding agreements relating to the particular investment. Those elements are not ones that we would be aware of.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have many more questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: I can put some on notice.  

CHAIR: That would be great.  

Senator ROBERTS: I just have a couple more questions. Are you aware that the banks are similar to the insurance companies—Westpac, NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth? Basically we’ve got one bank, it seems, owned by the same controlling shareholders, the same entities that I just mentioned. We have four banks that hide behind four logos, but they have similar policies, similar conditions, similar products and similar strategies. They’re effectively controlled by BlackRock, Vanguard et cetera.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: In relation to the four banks, I’m also aware that there are both individual Australian shareholders and Australian super fund investors in them as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration given to investigating BlackRock’s behaviour, for example, or State Street’s, Vanguard’s or Norges’s and their connections with each other?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Where there are situations where the ACCC sees both common shareholdings and interlocking directorships, we take that into account if we see conduct that we think indicates concerted action, but we would need to see conduct that we considered indicated concerted action between the relevant companies.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put five questions on notice.

/1 Comment/by

Ongoing Investigation Into Taipan Helicopter Tragedy

,

During Estimates in October, I asked Comcare about its investigation into the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays — a tragedy that claimed four lives. I wanted clarity on the scope and depth of their work.

Comcare confirmed the investigation is still open, with active lines of inquiry. They explained that a specialised investigation team was assigned, supported by subject matter experts for technical aspects. I asked about the range of expertise and the number of interviews conducted and agreed to provide those details on notice.

The investigation focused on obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act. Comcare gathered evidence from witnesses, documents, and technical specialists. I referred to Senate-ordered documents showing potential Category 1 and Category 2 offences and asked what those mean. Their legal officer explained that Category 1 involves reckless breaches of safety duties while Category 2 involves breaches without recklessness.

I noted Defence’s reputation for strict procedures and asked if they violated their own standards. Comcare said that wasn’t the primary focus, though they may have considered it as part of broader safety controls.

Finally, I asked if they were disappointed the prosecutor decided not to lay charges despite evidence of serious breaches. Mr Duke admitted he was personally disappointed but said Comcare accepted the decision and remains focused on achieving safety outcomes. He stressed the investigation was thorough and comprehensive, and they were satisfied they did everything within their powers to prepare the brief.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

/0 Comments/by

A Masterclass in Buck-Passing

,

This is my Senate Estimate session in December with the CEO of Snowy 2.0 and Minister Watt, where we witnessed a masterclass in buck-passing and dodging, when asked about the future of the Tomago aluminium smelter.

Tomago employs thousands of people both directly and indirectly. It relies on cheap coal power from the Eraring Power Station to reduce its production costs to compete with cheap Chinese aluminium.

With Eraring scheduled to close in 2028, Tomago has advised that the renewable power currently available for order is substantially more expensive, making the plant not economically viable.

The Albanese Government has held several press conferences in the Hunter region in the last few months, assuring locals that the government “has their backs” and that the power will come from firmed renewables from Snowy Hydro. Specifically, this extra power is intended to come from Snowy 2.0 upon its completion and from the new gas plant in Kurri Kurri. However, this solution will not work.

Tomago uses 8,400 GWh of power annually. Snowy Hydro will contribute 375 GWh, and the new Kurri Kurri gas plant 2,500 GWh, bringing Snowy Hydro’s total generation to 5,800 GWh. Even if all existing customers sourced their power elsewhere and Snowy sold Tomago every watt of power they had, it would still fall short of the required amount needed. Given that Eraring generates 14,000 GWh, the solution is obvious: Eraring must remain open.

When questioned on this, Snowy Hydro CEO Mr. Barnes did his best not to upset Minister Watt by deferring to the Department. The Department advised that these discussions “sensitive” and declined to provide further information.

Most alarming was the admission that Snowy 2.0 isn’t an energy provider, it’s more of an “insurance company,” designed to run only 10% of the time, with their power being used to backup the grid in case of an emergency.

If Snowy Hydro sold its entire power to keep Tomago operational, the grid will not have that emergency source of power, inevitably resulting in blackouts. This highlights the lie that Snowy Hydro can “save” Tomago.

The government claims to care about jobs in the Hunter Valley, yet when asked what the plan was to replace the baseload power being lost, they had nothing to say other than they were at the “sensitive stage of discussions.”

The net-zero transition is a disaster that is wrecking breadwinner jobs. One Nation will extend the life of Eraring until new baseload coal power can be built at Bayswater, followed by a refit of Eraring to ensure further operation.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’ve got simple questions about Snowy. First, with reference to media reports on 24 November this year regarding a role for Snowy Hydro in saving the Tomago
aluminium smelter, the report states that Snowy Hydro will provide Tomago with electricity subsidised by the taxpayer from 2028. Are those plans advancing? How much power will be supplied, and how much will the subsidy cost taxpayers?

Mr Barnes: It’s always flattering to have the role of Snowy recognised, but that’s a question for the department. We’re not acting on that right now.

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t tell me about Tomago’s advancing?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What about your role in that?

Mr Barnes: We’ve provided some limited advice to the department.

Mr Duggan: I answered this question earlier. The stage of discussions at the moment is sensitive from the point of view of commercial negotiations, so, in the interests of that, we’re not providing any more information at this stage around the process.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The next question is about reviewing Snowy Hydro’s generation capacity. I would have thought you were selling all the power you generate. How much spare capacity does Snowy Hydro have currently?

Mr Barnes: We currently have 5,500 megawatts of generation capacity.

Senator ROBERTS: That is 5.5 gigawatts.

Mr Barnes: Yes. We’re obviously building 2.86 gigawatts with Kurri Kurri and Snowy 2.0. We sell to multiple channels, whether it’s residential customers from our retail brands, large industrial customers or the
wholesale market more generally—our competitors and anyone who participates in that market. The contract duration varies, so we don’t necessarily have a 10-year home for all of our capacity, so our spare capacity does vary, but we are, of course, currently in the process of building 2.86 gigawatts, which we haven’t sold.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In fiscal year 2024, Snowy Hydro generated 3,937 gigawatt-hours in total. Even if your gas plant, the Hunter power project, is fully online by 2028, that’s only another 2,900 gigawatt-hours. Snowy Hydro 2.0 is only another 375 gigawatt hours. They won’t be available in 2028; you just said that’s going to be finished at the end of 2028. Can you give me an honest assessment of how much power you will have available for Tomago in 2028?

Mr Barnes: I won’t reference it to Tomago, but—

Senator ROBERTS: How much is available?

Mr Barnes: To describe how Snowy Hydro works: we’re a provider of what you might call last-resort capacity. Our average capacity factor, or the amount of time our plant runs relative to its capacity, is only 10 per
cent of the time. We expect, for example, Kurri Kurri to run for less than 10 per cent of the time. So we’re not really an energy provider; the energy provision is from the solar and wind that we enable. We have now contracted more solar and wind than we will produce from the Snowy 1 hydro scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: You mean receive it?

Mr Barnes: That is to receive it and be able to sell to customers packaged as a firm supply. We’re not really an energy provider; we are the provider who’s there when, currently, a coal plant fails, the wind is not blowing or the sun’s not shining. Energy provision isn’t really our game. Being there when another plant isn’t available is really our game. We enable energy to come to market.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being honest with me. Very few people will actually admit would you just admitted—that Snowy 2.0 is not an energy provider.

Mr Barnes: No, we act more like an insurance company.

Senator ROBERTS: Or a battery.

Mr Barnes: We back that insurance with physical assets.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You have the generation capacity in the Snowy scheme, but you’re limited by water, and of course we need to balance water with real environmentalism—environmental needs for water as well. Minister, as coal comes out of the grid, will the government be forced to change the rules to allow more water for hydro and less for the environment?

Senator Watt: I don’t really think that’s a question in this outcome. I’ve only just arrived here, but I presume all those sorts of issues were canvassed with the department earlier in the day. If you’ve got questions for Snowy Hydro, now is probably the time to ask those, but those are much broader policy issues that the relevant officials aren’t here for.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Barnes, your water need is one of the vulnerabilities of Snowy 2.0. The catchment area for the upper reservoir is very small. I know you’re going to recycle water, but nonetheless that surely must be a concern. I think someone identified it in the past as a concern that you will need to take water from other places, which means either farming or the environment.

Mr Barnes: Snowy Hydro is obviously subject to water regulation. We don’t make those rules, so we comply with those rules. The purpose of the Snowy scheme is to capture, store and release water to provide reliable
irrigation flows and support the electricity market. As you know, Snowy 2.0 is a recycling plan, so it doesn’t actually rely on those inflows. As I say, there are a couple of current reviews underway on the balance of environmental flows versus flows for irrigation and the electricity market, but we don’t make those. We are subject to water license compliance, which is the instrument that governs us 100 per cent each year.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that you don’t govern the water requirements and that you’re governed by regulation, but you foresee any need for increases?

Mr Barnes: Again, it is not really a question for Snowy Hydro. We will be subject to whatever regulation is put in place.

Senator ROBERTS: That would tend to indicate that maybe Snowy 2.0 is not terribly secure.

Mr Barnes: Like I say, Snowy 2.0 is a recycling plant, so it doesn’t really rely on any changes to inflows or outflows from the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the proposal to use Snowy Hydro to keep Tomago open complete nonsense?

Senator Watt: As you may be aware, I’ve been a little bit focused on some other matters over the last few days, involving EPBC reforms!

Senator DEAN SMITH: I thought that was last week!

Senator Watt: It was. I was on the job again on that today in Tasmania, as you may have seen. So I will ask Mr Barnes to say what he can about that matter. You might get better information out of him than you might out of me, but I’m not sure what he’s at liberty to discuss.

Mr Barnes: What is the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Is the proposal to use Snowy Hydro to keep Tomago open complete nonsense?

Mr Barnes: Again, it is not one for me to comment on. I think it’s a process for the department and the
government.

Senator ROBERTS: So Snowy Hydro can’t comment and the minister can’t comment?

Mr Duggan: I will repeat what I said earlier, which is that in earlier evidence we indicated that discussions with Tomago are ongoing. They’re through the industry department, not through this portfolio. We’re supporting them, but they are at a sensitive stage of discussions and therefore I wouldn’t feel at liberty to provide further information on the process, as that may upset those commercial discussions.

Senator ROBERTS: I will reiterate that Snowy Hydro 2.0 is only 375 gigawatt-hours and Snowy Hydro’s gas is almost half of Snowy Hydro’s generated power, so there seems to be not much room for error there.

Mr Duggan: This is, again, probably a question more for the industry department about those discussions with Tomago.

Senator Watt: We would love to have a chat with you about that later in the week.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The Eraring Power Station produced 14,000 gigawatt-hours in fiscal year 2023. Minister, will you take over Eraring, extend the life of Eraring and keep Tomago smelter open to save the thousands of jobs it supports at the smelter and in the Hunter?

Senator Watt: I’m not aware of any of those discussions, but, again, we’re here to answer questions about Snowy Hydro in this part of the program. I’m sure Minister Bowen will have more to say about that in coming—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very concerned about the jobs in the Hunter though.

Senator Watt: As are we. You will be aware of the work that this Labor government has done to protect those jobs, as has the New South Wales Labor government.

Senator ROBERTS: And threatening coal.

Senator Watt: Well, it is a coal-fired power station that is coming to the end of its life whether we like it or
not.

Senator ROBERTS: It was brought forward, and now it’s been shoved back again. On the night of the election win in New South Wales state election in 2023, the incoming energy minister dropped a very big hint that they wanted to prolong the life of Eraring, and now they aren’t doing that.

Senator Watt: You’re talking about decisions of the New South Wales government. I couldn’t comment on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Your Labor government. Thank you.

/1 Comment/by