During this session, I raised critical questions with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator regarding the life-and-death matter of rising heavy vehicle road fatalities, noting recent increases in New South Wales and Queensland.
I questioned Ms Rosie about anecdotal insights regarding the source of these high-risk drivers.
Speaking objectively as a migrant myself, I passed on widespread reports I’ve received from Western Australian and Queensland truckies suggesting a high number of Indian immigrants are obtaining licenses too easily or operating without them.
While Ms Rosie maintained that their compliance and reporting systems are strictly risk-based and agnostic to ethnicity, I wanted these serious, on-the-ground concerns from our truck drivers formally put on the record.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Rosie. This is a life-and-death matter. It’s killing people. Which are the states where there has been an increase in heavy vehicle road fatalities?
Ms Rosie: New South Wales has had a slight increase, and so has Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: What about Western Australia?
Ms Rosie: WA I can’t give you because we don’t regulate WA. At a high level, I understand WA is pretty flat.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve heard a few stories, and that’s all they are; you’ve got the official figures. Anecdotally, are you hearing anything from drivers with experience on the road as to what sort of groups are the source of the new unlicensed drivers, new untrained drivers or inadequately trained drivers?
Ms Rosie: We’re always hearing insights. We’ve got a line that people can call if they want to give us information on illegal or other dangerous activity within the trucking sector. We do get insights on sham contracting and arrangements that are deemed to be illegal or unsafe, and we do track that. One of the things that we’re doing—I would say to the committee this is one of the things that we’re very keen on—is getting the industry to call that line and to give us as much information as possible if they are worried about those concerns. If your constituents are worried about those concerns, please call in. We are using that data very actively to track risk profile of operators and drivers. We have a risk profile of every operator and every driver, and if there are increased calls about particular operators or particular drivers, we will be regulating them more strongly.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any groups that appear more often anecdotally or in the data—nationalities, ethnicities?
Ms Rosie: By operator? We know the operators who are appearing more in the data, and I wouldn’t say that there was any particular profile other than the way they operate.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’ve heard—I was born in India. I’m a migrant. I look at data objectively. That’s why I’m asking. I’ve heard so many stories from WA truckies and Queensland truckies that a lot of Indians are getting licences very easily—or not getting licences. I don’t know if anyone else has heard that. The chair has.
CHAIR: All of us in the industry know it.
Senator ROBERTS: You all know. I’m not accusing you of anything, by the way.
Ms Rosie: I know. All I can say to you is we take a risk based approach. Irrespective of ethnicity, we will be looking at all operators and all drivers and we will be taking a consistent approach across all of those drivers. If there are groups that are higher risk, you can be assured we will be acting on those groups. We’re doing it right now; we’re acting on a number of groups that we consider high risk and we will take action. Whether that’s stopping accreditation, whether that’s prohibiting their vehicles or whether that’s removing them from the system, we will be doing that. We are agnostic about that. Irrespective of their ethnicity or their backgrounds, we will be taking action against all operators who are operating outside or are high risk.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’m just passing on anecdotal information from WA truckies and Queensland truckies, and the chair has verified it.
Ms Rosie: Understood.
CHAIR: I’m just wondering when we let the rabbit-proof fence down and let you into WA, Malcolm. When did that happen? You snuck in!
This is my interaction with federal agencies at the Illicit Tobacco hearing in Canberra on 18 May 2026.
Tobacco excise tax losses range from $7.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually (ITEC report).
The agencies confirmed that illicit tobacco is a massive, highly sophisticated, and growing threat tied directly to organised crime.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) stated that intergang violence, property destruction and loss of lives can be directly linked to this illegal black-market trade.
I pointed out that the real safety issue facing everyday Australians involves fire bombings, gang violence, and murder on our streets, not just general health advice.
The agencies pointed to successful operations, such as the AFP citing specific busts netting millions of illegal cigarettes and $93 million in evaded excise. However, when I pressed them on concrete metrics to show whether they are actually making a dent in the trade or if these seizures are just a “drop in the ocean,” they struggled to give a clear percentage or ratio against the total market.
Success isn’t just about slowing down market growth or rattling off isolated seizure statistics. The Australian public deserves to know the exact scale of the impact being made.
We shouldn’t be merely managing or stopping this illegal trade from “growing,” we should be eliminating it entirely.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing. Let’s explore your understanding. I’m going to give you free rein to show the people of Australia and the parliament of Australia what you know and are doing. Perhaps you could answer these questions in turn, please, starting on the left. Do you accept that there is a significant problem with illicit tobacco? If so, why? If not, why not? How do these problems manifest? Could you be specific about the impacts on human life and also the dollar cost.
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, I’m not sure whether we’re best qualified to provide an answer. We’re prosecuting offences, but we’re certainly very much engaged in relation to prosecutions arising from the illicit tobacco trade.
Ms Sirec: As we said in our submission, any criminality is a concern for the Australian Federal Police. Illicit tobacco is an illicit commodity and we will target that. We do know that it’s having an impact. As we’ve heard from our ACIC colleagues, it’s impacting our communities, it’s impacting health and it’s obviously causing some violence and harm in the community. So, certainly, we work very strongly with our partners on being able to impact and disrupt the criminal environment in connection with illicit tobacco. I have forgotten the second part of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: How do these problems manifest—if you could be specific—in terms of the cost to human life and the dollar cost?
Ms Sirec: As for how it manifests, we know that competition is happening across organised crime gangs, so we see intergang violence. We see property destruction occurring in our jurisdictions, which our state and territory partners also have to target. We’ve heard from the ACIC regarding the loss of three lives, and I think the ACIC are on the record already about the dollar value of illicit tobacco being in the billions, in terms of impacting community.
Mr Meyer: Building on what has been said already, I think the other element, from our perspective, is the recycling of the profits that are made through illicit tobacco into a range of other organised crime activity, as I mentioned, whether it be drugs or a range of other activities which flow on to a range of harms within the community. Just in terms of metrics and numbers, I know that the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s report estimates the total amount of excise evaded in 2024-25 to be between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that the total economic and social cost of illicit tobacco in 2023-24 was approximately $4 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: The other group, AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: In response to your first question, in 2024 AUSTRAC developed the national risk assessment on money laundering. At the time, it assessed the illicit tobacco market as posing a medium and increasing threat of money laundering. That same product forecast that, over the next three years, the illicit tobacco threat was likely to increase. We have recently published an update to that national risk assessment which shows that illicit tobacco has increased in volume and we’re seeing that criminal groups are becoming more sophisticated and diverse in the ways in which they’re laundering that money. That’s really driven by high market demand and profitability. I think, to your second question, just referencing the ITEC annual report 2024-25, ITEC estimated that in 2024-25 the illicit tobacco market was worth up to $6.9 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: Again, each in turn, what are the three most important points that you would like to make to this committee?
Mr de Crespigny: From the CDPP’s point of view, there are two things that we are seeing about the place. Firstly, of the prosecutions that we’re doing, more of them involve multiple defendants, indicating large, organised crime groups. The other thing that we’ve seen about the place is a rise in state prosecutions, so the states are very much taking it on. In both New South Wales and Victoria, they’ve increased the penalties for relevant offences, such as the sale of illicit tobacco. It’s not something which is just being done by the Commonwealth; it’s also being done by the state authorities.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a third point?
Mr de Crespigny: I do think that there’s possibly a need to understand its impact upon the community, both in loss of revenue and in the health impact that it has. That’s something that we try to get across in our sentencing matters, because part of the point of the exercise is to, in actual fact, lower Australia’s smoking rates.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the safety of people?
Mr de Crespigny: People are safer if they don’t smoke.
Senator ROBERTS: I meant in terms of firebombings and murders.
Mr de Crespigny: That’s something that, certainly, I observe because I have heard it at the committee and read it in the newspapers, but it’s not something which falls within the CDPP’s speciality.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AFP?
Ms Sirec: The AFP knows that the threat is dynamic, interconnected, tech enabled and resilient. There are three points that I would like you to take away. Firstly, our approach, with our partners, is that we target supply chains, enablers and trusted insiders. Secondly, we exploit and dismantle criminal communication systems. Thirdly, we identify, restrain and seize criminal assets and financial facilitators to take the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you be more specific, please. How do you do these things? What do you need? What actions do you actually take?
Ms Sirec: As for actions, we target the supply chains. For instance, in New South Wales, we partner with New South Wales police and the Crime Commission to target trusted insiders—that is, those individuals who allow the illicit flow of tobacco to come through the borders. We exploit and dismantle the criminal comms systems, through understanding our capabilities around encrypted communications, and being able to infiltrate and use our powers to be able to identify organised crime. Through the additional funding that the government has provided regarding our Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, we can identify, restrain and seize the criminal assets, and we’ve done that successfully. We’ve seized directly over $39 million worth of property since 26 June 2025.
Mr Meyer: As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, serious and organised crime see there being lower barriers to entry and lower penalties associated with illicit tobacco and the market. A bill is going through parliament at the moment, and I know that, across our state and territory counterparts, they’re also looking to have greater consistency, in terms of their own regulatory and legislative approach. Firstly, being able to level out and make it harder for serious and organised crime to operate, and increase the penalties, obviously will help to deter some of those actors. Secondly, targeting the efforts the whole way through the supply chain, as Deputy Commissioner Seric said, not just here in Australia but at the border and internationally with our partners, will be incredibly important, and we continue to do that. Thirdly, in addition to the commodity itself, it’s being able to dismantle the actual groups behind it. Those groups are involved in a range of other illicit activity as well. By effectively deterring and dismantling those groups, we’re actually going to have a significant effect across a range of threat types.
Senator ROBERTS: AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: Coming to this from the perspective of an intelligence agency, the first point that I’d make is about partnering with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies that we work with. AUSTRAC is a member of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, we support the national disruption group and we work with the ITEC. It’s really through those partnerships, and their ability to leverage our data, that ensures there is financial intelligence that gives a good picture of the activities there—the supply chains, and how profits are generated and moved. It gives those investigative agencies greater insights, in order to target these groups. The second point I’d make is that it’s essential for AUSTRAC, as both an intelligence agency and the financial regulator, to work very closely with our industry partners—the banking sector, the remittance sector and the digital payments sector—so that we can not only continue to get those insights from them but also work with them on increasing their risk controls, their transaction monitoring and their understanding of the nature of the threat and the way it’s evolving, in order to help them detect that activity. The third point that I’d make goes to a real investment in our crypto-tracing capability. With the impact that government is having, we’re starting to see that increase in online sales and more movement of these proceeds through digital currencies. It’s important for us to keep up with that and continue to be able to have the tools and the capability to follow those fund flows through those digital transactions that are made as well.
Senator ROBERTS: How do each of you measure your effectiveness? Is the taxpayer getting value? And, if so, how do we know? We’ve pretty much all agreed that this problem is worth billions of dollars, it is costing lives and it has health impacts. What are you doing to reassure the taxpayer?
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, our effectiveness is measured by the prosecutions that we undertake; we think we’re undertaking those effectively and we’re getting quite reasonable results. The offence provisions are quite complex. These offence provisions—say, the Customs Act provisions—aren’t just focused on the actual importation of the tobacco; it’s a requirement that the person also had an intention or was reckless in defrauding the revenue. They’re not the most straightforward offence provisions. Our effectiveness is in working with our referring agencies and pursuing prosecutions.
Ms Sirec: From the AFP’s perspective, we would measure our effectiveness by our ability to partner, disrupt and dismantle organised criminal groups. Only months ago, Commissioner Barrett identified her No. 1 target, who was involved not only in a myriad of other crimes but also in illicit tobacco. Through our partnerships with our offshore law enforcement agencies, we’ve been able to disrupt his ability, to directly impact. There’s a success measure there. Of course, the number of prosecutions and seizures of illicit tobacco and our ability to understand the criminal networks are another measure of success. Finally, as I said before, with the investment that the government has made in terms of our asset restraint, we’ve been able to restrain more than $39 million since June 2025 and taken the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me some quantified specific effect that you’re having with each of those measures? What indicates success, and what indicates how far we have yet to go?
Ms Sirec: Sure. I can give you a couple of case studies. As per our submission, for instance, with Operation Collinsville, late last year, with the Australian Border Force and Victoria Police, we arrested six senior syndicate members and charged them with various charges. There were 14 search warrants across various factories and premises. We seized over 24 million cigarettes, six million kilos worth of looseleaf tobacco and 51,000 vapes, while also being able to seize various other items and instruments of the commission of the crime—mobile phones, cash machines et cetera. That’s just one investigation. In another investigation, in 2024, Operation Centinel-South-Tyres, over 10 million cigarettes were seized and a number of the syndicate members were arrested. This syndicate was responsible for the importation of more than 77 million cigarettes, so we disrupted that syndicate, which equated to $93 million in excise tax. In 2025, we also successfully obtained restraining orders for over $800,000 in property.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a big problem. How big is it? Is this a drop in the ocean, or has this had a significant impact on their illegal business?
Ms Sirec: Every criminal group that we can disrupt creates an impact.
Senator ROBERTS: In your answer, you’re not giving me anything specific, in terms of indicating your understanding of how big the problem is financially.
Ms Sirec: We’ve heard already from our colleagues here about the dollar value, in terms of the cost of this criminality, and also—
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, I want to know what your understanding of it is.
Ms Sirec: As we’ve heard, it’s a $7 billion harm to the community.
Senator ROBERTS: Is what you’ve done, in the cases that you’ve just rattled off, five per cent or 50 per cent of the trade?
Ms Sirec: I can’t give you a quantum of the percentage of the trade, but they are only two examples—they’re in our submission—of multiple examples that I could provide of the impact that we’re having.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s good to see that success, but is that five per cent, 50 per cent or 90 per cent? How much further do we have to go?
Ms Sirec: I won’t speculate on the percentage; I believe that sits there. Certainly, the fact that we are sitting here today means that we’ve obviously got more to go. But we have the right capabilities and the right people involved in this to do everything that we can to disrupt this.
Senator ROBERTS: How do the people and the parliament know from your answers—you’re not being very specific—in terms of the overall figure? Are you making a dent in it; again, is it five per cent?
Senator COLBECK: It’s $93 million worth of excise seizure versus a $12 billion loss in excise; it’s a drop in the ocean.
CHAIR: Perhaps I can assist, Senator Roberts. We’re all here to try to stop this market growing, and it’s great to have numbers of cigarettes, like 10 million, being confiscated at the border and so forth. But it would be really helpful if you could provide to the committee, on notice, in percentage terms, the amount of disruption that you are making with what is being confiscated versus the size of the illicit market. I can appreciate that you may not have that in front of you, and this is not to take away from any of the great work that you are doing, but I think it is an important piece of evidence for the committee, so that we are able to look at just the pure scale of what is coming into the country.
Ms Sirec: I’ll have to take that on notice.
CHAIR: Thank you; that would be very helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to make the point that we’re not just interested in stopping the business growing; we’re interested in stopping the business altogether.
During this Senate estimates, I confronted officials over their “dodge” of my earlier question regarding M1 motorway works between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Instead of a brief summary, they dumped a staggering 1,535 pages of unindexed data on my office, effectively telling my staff, who have already been halved by resourcing cuts, to dig through it themselves while conveniently handing spreadsheets directly to other senators.
Minister Chisholm tried to defend this bureaucratic brush-off as “too much information,” however I pointed out that “burying answers is not transparency”.
I went on to request a real, functional summary of all federal funding for M1 roadworks and the officials finally put the data on the record. Mr Brummitt walked through a comprehensive list of projects spanning current commitments, planning phases, and completed upgrades.
In total, the Australian government’s commitment is $2.2 billion to M1 projects since 2019. While I’m glad we finally got the numbers, it shouldn’t take a grilling in estimates just to get a straightforward summary. Transparency matters!
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here again. It seems like only yesterday, doesn’t it?
CHAIR: It’s their pleasure.
Senator ROBERTS: In February estimates, I asked a question regarding the extent of works on the M1 motorway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Mr Bourne replied that there were a lot of projects on the M1 and offered to take the question on notice. Your answer on notice, SQ-26, said that the information on M1 projects can be found in documents tabled by the secretary on 9 February 2026. These are the first few pages of the documents. There are 1,535 pages, covering all of your projects, some of them going back to grants awarded in 2014—12 years ago. I interpret this answer to be you telling my staff to find the answer themselves amongst the 1,535 pages of data. You provided another senator with a spreadsheet electronically. Do you dispute my interpretation?
Mr Bourne: Senator, that document holds all the information in relation to the question that you asked.
Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister & Cabinet document on the correct behaviour of estimates witnesses and the privileges committee rulings over the years all require a witness to provide a full and accurate answer. Minister, how is this any sort of answer, let alone a full and accurate one? I asked for a summary.
Senator Chisholm: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think Mr Bourne said it was full and accurate information. It might have been more information than you needed; that is the suggestion. I feel as though it’s a bit critical to be disappointed at receiving too much information.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, you’ve cut our staff in half. We have only limited staff. We can’t go through 1,535 pages. It’s organised by state, not by project. We wanted the M1 project. The M1 project is not even named. You gave Senator Canavan a spreadsheet but not us. Burying the answer in 1,535 pages is not an answer, not a summary. So, I repeat my question. You can take it on notice. Please provide a summary of all roadworks funded at any point in their project life cycle, in whole or part, by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts on the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.
Mr Bourne: I’ll just ask my colleague Mr Brummitt to take you through that.
Mr Brummitt: I’ll run through the projects in order. The M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, is in progress, with an Australian government commitment of $50 million.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that 50 or 15?
Mr Brummitt: Fifty.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Mr Brummitt: The M1 Pacific Motorway exit 45 north is in planning. That’s a $10 million commitment. That was a budget commitment, a new project. The construction funding for the M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, exit 45, is a $10 million commitment, with a total project cost of $20 million. For the construction funding for the M1 Pacific Motorway, Daisy Hill to Logan motorway, which has not commenced construction yet, there is an Australian government commitment of $450 million, with a total project cost of $900 million. The M1 Pacific Motorway Varsity Lakes to Tugun was completed in 2025, with an Australian government commitment of $750 million and a total project cost of $1.5 billion. For the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, exits 41 and 49, completed in 2025, there was an Australian government commitment of $117 million, with a total project cost of $234 million. For the M1 Pacific Motorway Eight Mile Plains to Daisy Hill, completed in 2025, there was a $510 million Australian government commitment and a $750 million total project cost. The M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, exit 45, completed in 2022, had a $7.3 million Australian government commitment, with a $14.6 million total project cost. The M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade program, Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes upgrade, was closed and the project was completed in 2020. We’re going back a little bit there, but I wanted to be as comprehensive as I could for you, Senator. That was a $194 million Australian government commitment, with a $217 million total project cost. Another one completed a while ago, in 2020, was the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade, the Gateway Motorway/Pacific Motorway merge, with a $111.5 million Australian government commitment and a $189 million total project cost. Also, under the SEQ growth/Brisbane 2032 business case development program there are three planning projects in progress. That’s planning for the Pacific Motorway Worongary interchange improvement, which is a $1 million Australian government commitment, with a total project cost of $2.9 million. This is the project I mentioned earlier, and I’ll explain. For the Pacific Motorway exit 45 north business case, there was a $750 million contribution from the Australian government and a total project cost of $1.5 million. Then what was announced at budget was $10 million, which was additional funding for detailed design and pre-construction work to get that project really shovel ready and well prepared. The final one under that program is the Pacific Motorway, Logan motorway to Nerang, planning for smart motorways, also still in progress, and that was a $700,000 Australian government commitment and a total project cost of $1.5 million. Since 2019, that’s a total Australian government commitment to projects on the M1 of $2.2 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Was that available last time?
Mr Bourne: I think I did offer to go through those with you last time, but you asked us to take that on notice.
I questioned Minister Murray Watt and departmental officials to get straight answers on how much taxpayer money is being spent on United Nations climate events and whether the government’s policies are hurting economic growth.
I asked the department questions on taxpayer spending regarding Minister Chris Bowen’s role as president of negotiations for COP31 in Türkiye. They confirmed that $147.8 million over three years was allocated under a budget measure titled “Standing with our partners in the Pacific”.
While Dr Box explained this covers events, Pacific delegates, pavilions and staff travel, I asked what the real return on investment for everyday Australian taxpayers was. Furthermore, officials admitted that the total budget for attending COP31 itself and whether grants will again be handed out to climate activists as was done for COP30, has not yet been finalised.
I requested a complete breakdown of international travel costs within the climate change and energy portfolios for the 2026–27 financial year. The Department could not provide specific figures on wages, airfares, or days spent abroad, stating decisions are made on a “case-by-case basis.”
I asked Minister Watt why Australia should have international climate agreements imposed on us, pointing out that sovereign nations like the United States have withdrawn from these arrangements and that the UN cannot enforce anything unless Parliament legislates it.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Good morning, Minister.
Senator Watt: Good to see you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re looking chirpy.
Senator Watt: Always chirpy, just like yourself.
Senator ROBERTS: The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, is the president of negotiations for COP31—the Conference of the Parties—in Turkiye taking place in November this year. Has the department incurred any expense in respect of that role for travel, expense for extra staffing or expense in any other related purpose, and, if so, how much?
Mr Kaiser: Yes. We covered some of that ground in answer to questions from Senator Henderson just moments ago.
Senator ROBERTS: The specific amounts for staffing, travel and related weren’t covered, though, were they?
Mr Kaiser: I think what we said was that a number of staff did travel with Minister Bowen, most recently, as part of his responsibilities but that those figures had not been reconciled yet because, I think, the staff literally arrived home on Saturday.
Senator ROBERTS: Does he have any additional staff as a result of his duties, not just travel?
Mr Kaiser: In terms of his ministerial staff?
Senator ROBERTS: In terms of his position as president of negotiations, does he have any additional staff in his—
Mr Kaiser: In his ministerial office?
Senator ROBERTS: Are the taxpayers paying for anything for the United Nations role?
Mr Kaiser: There was a specific budget measure which provided funding to the department to assist him with that role.
Senator ROBERTS: What is that amount?
Mr Kaiser: My colleagues will be able to help you with that.
Dr Box: I’ll take that, Senator. The amount allocated for the budget measure ‘Standing with our partners in the Pacific’ in the 2026-27 budget was $147.8 million over three years.
Senator ROBERTS: $147 million over three years?
Dr Box: That’s right.
Senator Watt: Just to be clear—because what that money is for shouldn’t be misrepresented—it might be helpful to have Dr Box set out what that money is going to. It’s not to create an office, for example.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m all ears.
Dr Box: The money is for a range of activities: the delivery of the pre-COP, the preparatory meeting in the Pacific, in Fiji, and with the leaders element in Tuvalu; things like sponsored travel for Pacific delegates; additional events in the Pacific; and to support a pavilion at COP31. It also includes some funding for the presidency youth champion and to support our Pacific climate envoys, and of course it also includes some funding for staff and travel.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Was there an amount—I may have missed it—for the cost of attending COP31 itself?
Dr Box: For COP31? No.
Senator ROBERTS: So that is yet to be added?
Dr Box: That budget measure will support attendance at COP31, but the delegation for COP31 and associated costs hasn’t yet been determined.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are the Australian taxpayers, Minister, paying to raise Minister Bowen’s international profile? Where’s the benefit to taxpayers? Where’s the return on investment? What is the return?
Senator Watt: Well, you won’t be surprised to hear me say that that funding is not about raising Minister Bowen’s profile. It’s about ensuring that Australia has a leading role in international negotiations regarding climate change and energy. I know you and I, Senator Roberts, have a pretty different view about whether climate change is real and what we should be doing about it, but the reality is that countries all around the world are negotiating and reaching agreements about this, and our government’s view is that it’s a very good idea and it’s in Australia’s national interests to be helping to lead those negotiations. We’ve got a view that you’d rather be involved in negotiations than have outcomes imposed on you by the rest of the world, and, through Minister Bowen, occupying that role gives Australia a front-row seat in those negotiations. The other reason for us doing this is that it’s an opportunity for greater partnership with our Pacific neighbours. I’m sure, Senator Roberts, one thing you and I could agree on is that the Pacific is a region where there are a lot of national security interests for the Australian people and there is an opportunity for Australia to work in partnership with the Pacific on an issue, being climate change, that they consider to be arguably the biggest challenge they’re facing. That is a good thing for Australia, and dealing with those national security interests as well.
Senator ROBERTS: I think the better way to go about dealing with our neighbours, who are very important to us strategically, is to tell them the truth. That’s much more important for me. You said ‘costs imposed’ or ‘agreements imposed’. The UN cannot impose an agreement on us. The only way it can be imposed is if parliamentarians in this place legislate it.
Senator Watt: Well, again, you and I might disagree on this, Senator Roberts, but our government, and I personally, believe that it is useful to Australia and the Australian people to be part of international agreements about how we manage a range of challenges facing the world. There are some governments around the world that have withdrawn from those sorts of agreements—
Senator ROBERTS: The United States of America, for example.
Senator Watt: For example.
Senator ROBERTS: Keir Starmer calling it now the ending of climate catastrophes— Senator Watt: I don’t think the UK has withdrawn from those agreements, and we think it would be a negative for the Australian people if we were to withdraw from those agreements. I know One Nation’s got a different view. You’re entitled to your view, but we think it’s better to be at the table, in this case in a leadership role, leading the world to negotiate outcomes that are in Australia’s interests.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you aware that 65 per cent of the voters in the recent Farrer by-election voted for a party that wants to end net zero?
Senator Watt: Are you adding the Liberal and National Party votes to your—
Senator ROBERTS: No. We’re not.
Senator Watt: I didn’t think you got 65 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: No, we didn’t. We got about 40 per cent.
Senator Watt: That’s what I’m wondering—how you got from 40 to 65.
Senator ROBERTS: The other minor parties. Have a look.
Senator Watt: I recognise that there are different views about this in Australia. I think this government has been pretty clear, going into the last two elections, that we support action on climate change and that that is not only a good outcome for our environment but good for our economy and jobs as well. We’ve gone to the election with that policy. We’ve won the last two elections. We’re now implementing that policy. But you’re entitled to a different view.
Senator ROBERTS: I may have missed something here, Mr Kaiser or Dr Box, but COP30 in Brazil was extremely expensive at $1.6 million in taxpayer money. What’s the budget for the actual attendance at COP31?
Dr Box: We don’t have a specific budget for attendance at COP31 yet, because we haven’t determined how many people will go to COP31. The travel to COP31 will be taken from that $147 million that I mentioned that’s in the budget.
Senator ROBERTS: In COP30 you gave away $395,612 in grants to bring along climate change activists and so-called stakeholders. Will you be doing that again in COP31? If yes, why? What is in it for the taxpayer? Mr Rudd took, as Prime Minister, to Copenhagen 114 people, including his hairdresser. Will that same graciousness be extended to Mr Bowen?
Dr Box: You’re correct that we did have a grants program for COP30 that supported a range of organisations to attend COP30 in Belem in Brazil, including youth organisations, First Nations organisations and organisations from a range of sectors, including the agricultural sector. There is funding in the budget to support organisations to attend COP31 in Antalya in Turkiye, but the parameters of that haven’t yet been decided.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers. This next question comes up frequently, so I assume you have the data on hand. What is your budget for international travel within the climate change and energy portfolios—that’s wages, airfare and accommodation—in the 2026-27 financial year? Could you include a breakdown of how much over how many days for how many employees?
Ms Munro: These decisions, in terms of what the required travel is, are always taken on a case-by-case basis. A lot of the work that we do is done virtually, and it’s really by exception that there will be that international travel, but it is necessary to build the relationships and to negotiate outcomes. That’s the responsibility that the government has given us. We don’t have the detail that you are asking for, given that we need to plan through what are going to be the priorities for this year, and, as I said, we make those decisions almost on a case-by-case basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me a broad idea of the categories of considerations that will go into that or could go into it.
Ms Munro: Go into travel?
Senator ROBERTS: Selecting travelling companions.
Ms Munro: Yes, we’re happy to.
Dr Box: There are a range of factors that we consider. Value for money is obviously a very big consideration. Another is whether the intended meeting outcomes are of significant benefit for Australia’s climate, energy, environment and water agenda. We also consider whether virtual or alternative representation options aren’t suitable, and, of course, all approved travel requests include a contingency. We look at the intended meeting outcomes and whether virtual participation is available and, of course, value for money as an overarching consideration in coordination with the PGPA Act.
Senator ROBERTS: Value for money is a pretty subjective thing. It depends on the goals of your party going there. Coming back to the EPBC Act, your website page for the new national environmental standards under the EPBC Act does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says that the circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April, and it wasn’t. When will the new standard be made available to senators?
Senator Watt: I’m not sure when that research was done, but, in the last month, we have begun a second round of consultation on two of those national environmental standards. In outcome 2, we’ll be able to talk to you at length about that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. As things stand, the EPBC Act is, in our opinion—we differ on this, no doubt—a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia said, and I quote: Average decision times for resources projects have increased by 60 per cent, from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025 … What steps are you taking to increase your throughput?
Senator Watt: Again, we could have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but that was exactly one of the key reasons for the reforms that we passed in the parliament last year. I know you voted against them, but one of the key objectives of those reforms was to speed up decision-making on projects after that blowout of timeframes that you referred to, and we’re confident that will happen.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that the budget—and you’ve answered a related question from Senator Waters— includes a measure for introducing AI. Will that help in data collection and analysis or will that be actually making decisions?
Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about this in more detail in outcome 2, but the primary purpose of that AI pilot and tool is essentially to help proponents in preparing their applications. There are people who know a lot more about it than me who will be available to talk to you about it in outcome 2.
Mr Kaiser: I’ll just add to the minister’s answer an important principle in the application of AI in the public sector generally, and including in this department, is that humans remain the decision-makers.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you using ludicrously long delays in approvals for minerals projects to discourage application for minerals projects?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project, the holding cost of the project across a 3.8-year development application cycle will cost the proponents $25 million per year—almost $100 million total across 3.8 years to four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by a procedural failure in your department?
Senator Watt: Again, we can have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but a key objective behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up assessments and approvals of projects.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get a benchmark going. How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects?
Senator Watt: There will be officials available to answer those sorts of questions in outcome 2.
Senator ROBERTS: What is your expectation for reductions in this figure of 3.8 years? When will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth and the breadwinner jobs that go with minerals projects?
Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about that in more detail in outcome 2.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we talk about mining being a driver of the economy, of standard of living, and the six-to-one jobs multiplier in coalmines?
Senator Watt: In my opening statement, Senator Roberts—and I realise you weren’t here for that—I referred to the fact that, along with greater protections for the environment, one of the key objectives behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up decisions around housing, energy and critical minerals projects.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the things that’s become clear with new Labor is that it appeals to activists to get more votes.
Senator Watt: That’s your view.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the government aware, Minister, that obstructing resource projects stifles funds for social and welfare programs for caring for people?
Senator Watt: I would agree with the general proposition that economic development delivers economic wealth for the country that can be used for those sorts of social services.
Senator ROBERTS: And mining is a key to developing economic—
Senator Watt: It’s a big industry. I recognise that.
I questioned the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) CEO Ms. Spence regarding the authority’s heavy-handed treatment, regulatory delays and conflicts of interest directed at Mr Barker and his company, UAS Pacific.
When pressed about why Mr. Lewis — a former UAS Pacific employee whose credibility, motives, and personal “axe to grind” were flagged in Fair Work Commission materials —was allowed to be involved in matters concerning Mr Barker, Ms Spence insisted that Mr Lewis has had no involvement since 2019. However, she agreed to take on notice requests for conflict declarations, management plans and access records.
CASA was also questioned over its use of disputed claims to justify severe enforcement actions, licence restrictions and prolonged delays that choked UAS Pacific’s business. Although Ms. Spence claimed a third party verified an initial 2018 issue, she agreed to provide summaries of completed jobs and confirm that neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Duffy were involved in them.
Regarding Fair Work Commission proceedings and the undertakings put in place, Ms Spence maintained there were no formal FWC orders or findings of bullying against CASA officers, though she conceded the transcript reflected a preliminary view that a CASA officer indeed had a personal “axe to grind” against Mr Barker.
Despite admitting failures in implementing conflict-of-interest policies regarding Mr Lewis, Ms Spence refused to commit to an independent review and as for the false or unsupported accusations kept on file, she noted that access to specific 2019 records has been restricted and annotated and agreed to provide details of that approach on notice.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Spence, at the last Senate estimates I put to you that CASA relied on Mr Mark Lewis, a former UAS Pacific employee, to essentially destroy his former employer, Mr Barker, and UAS Pacific, Mr Barker’s company. The Fair Work Commission material raised serious concerns about Mr Lewis’s conflict, motive and credibility. CASA now relies on a full prohibition of access to criticisms of Mr Barker from January 2021. Isn’t the real question why Mr Lewis was allowed any involvement before or after that date?
Ms Spence: Without going over the ground that we’ve gone over before, I don’t agree with the way you’ve described the situation. We did point out previously that there were issues with the way in which, initially, the conflict of interest was managed in relation to Mr Lewis. That was addressed some time ago—I think around 2019. So he has no involvement whatsoever with UAS Pacific now.
Senator ROBERTS: We know that he doesn’t have any involvement now. Will you please provide all conflict declarations, conflict management plans, access records and decision records concerning Mr Lewis and UAS Pacific.
Ms Spence: I’ll take on notice what we can provide.
Senator ROBERTS: You told this committee that CASA was looking into whether evidence given to the Fair Work Commission was misleading. CASA’s written answer now says that a broad review began on 8 October 2025. It gives no terms of reference, reviewer identity, scope, affected officers, documents being reviewed, external referral or completion date. Isn’t it true, Ms Spence, that CASA has still not provided enough information to show whether this is a genuine integrity review or merely another internal containment process?
Ms Spence: I think that was referring to some material that Mr Barker has provided to the board. Over the period from September through until as recently as April, we had about 790 pages of documentation provided to us. Every couple of months it’s being sent through. We are taking it seriously. We’re working through the material that Mr Barker has sent through to us, but, obviously, the time for us to be able to conclude the review is dependent on us actually getting Mr Barker to say there’s no more information for him to provide to us. So we are working towards having advice to provide to our board on the serious allegations that Mr Barker has raised about CASA’s behaviour. We have also been very clear that—should Mr Barker wish to take this up with the AFP, the NACC or anyone else—we would obviously support any investigation that anyone else wanted to raise. We are working through the information that’s been provided to us, and we’ll be reporting to the board at their next meeting later next month, subject to Mr Barker not providing any more information that we would then need to review and assess.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s an invitation for Mr Barker to tell you two things: provide further information and notify you when the end has come.
Ms Spence: My strong hope is that Mr Barker has provided us with every piece of information that he thinks the board needs to have in order for us to be able to complete an assessment of whether there was inappropriate behaviour within the organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, provide the terms of reference for your inquiry.
Ms Spence: There are no terms of reference to the inquiry. We’re reviewing the material that Mr Barker has provided to us, which, as I’ve said, has come through over a number of emails—from September until April this year.
Senator ROBERTS: Any external referral?
Ms Spence: We have said that, if he wishes to make an external referral, we would be happy to support that. But we have not seen any evidence, and we are acting on information as we review to see if there is anything else we need to do rather than wait till the end point. We haven’t seen anything to suggest we should be making referrals, but, if Mr Barker wishes to make a referral, we would be very happy to support any investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you just provide me, on notice, with material that proves this is a genuine inquiry. Tell us what you’re doing.
Ms Spence: I’ve just told you what I’m doing. I’m not sure what else—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s pretty loose.
Ms Spence: We’re reviewing the information. It’s based on the request that Mr Barker has sent to us saying, ‘Here is a list of my concerns about the way CASA has behaved, and here is the documentation that supports it.’ We are forensically reviewing the information that Mr Barker has provided us, to determine whether there is evidence to support the allegations and assertions that he’s made.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you conduct a forensic review?
Ms Spence: The Industry Complaints Commissioner is reviewing all the material that is being provided and will provide advice to the board on the matters that he’s identified as part of that review process.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve previously put to you that CASA relied on disputed and allegedly false claims to pursue heavy-handed enforcement, including criminal allegations and jail threats, which effectively shut down Mr Barker’s business and put staff out of work. Given CASA now admits it is reviewing potentially false and misleading evidence, has CASA reviewed every enforcement action, show cause process, licence restriction, downgrade, refusal, delay or adverse assessment involving Mr Barker or UAS Pacific?
Ms Spence: The first point that I would make—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sorry, just the restrictions that may have relied on Mr Lewis, Mr Duffy or the disputed material.
Ms Spence: To start off with, while I don’t want to go into the details of what the original issue was, we have third-party independent verification that the initial issue that occurred back in 2018 was verified. It was a serious issue that was identified, and we took appropriate action as a result of that identification. What we’re doing now— as I said, we have found no evidence to suggest that the first issue that was identified was incorrect on our part. We do have someone external to CASA who has confirmed that the issue identified was correct. So if we can just keep in mind that the regulator has to take appropriate action when a serious issue is identified, and that’s what we did. We have been reviewing all the jobs that Mr Barker has worked on with CASA, and we are working through to make sure that there’s no evidence to say that we have unduly delayed things. He sent some information as recently as yesterday, identifying two other examples where he suggested that we were being unduly slow or making life difficult for him. We’re reviewing those at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Are either Mr Duffy or Mr Lewis part of the reviewing team?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Will CASA now table a positive involvement schedule stating for each UAS Pacific matter whether Mr Lewis or Mr Duffy had direct or indirect briefing, file access, referral, drafting, review, approval or no involvement?
Ms Spence: I’m sorry, Senator, I don’t understand the question.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you now table a positive involvement schedule? In other words, were Mr Duffy or Mr Lewis involved in any direct or indirect briefing, file access, referral, drafting, review, approval or no involvement at all with UAS Pacific?
Ms Spence: I can’t remember the actual date, but I know that neither Mr Duffy nor Mr Lewis have had any involvement in relation to UAS Pacific, certainly for the last four years that I can recall. I don’t know how I can put a statement together which says, ‘Here are all the approvals and here’s confirming that Mr Lewis and Mr Duffy weren’t involved.’ I am telling you they have not been involved. That’s my positive assurance that they have—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s in the last four years. What about prior to that?
Ms Spence: I would have to check to see the last time that Mr Lewis was involved, but I think it would have been about 2019.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you take that on notice and give me the circumstances around his involvement and what the topic was.
Ms Spence: Certainly.
Senator ROBERTS: I also put to you that CASA removed or downgraded UAS Pacific’s privileges and delayed routine approvals for months or years, choking what was left of their business, destroying goodwill and driving away clients. The 2021 independent remotely piloted aircraft system—you guys go for acronyms, don’t you?
Ms Spence: Yes, we do. Usually they’re three-letter acronyms, so RPAS is special.
Senator ROBERTS: The 2021 independent remotely piloted aircraft system review records industry concerns about substantial business losses caused by CASA delays, inspector inconsistency and over-prescriptive risk management. Could you please provide a full schedule of every UAS Pacific approval, variation, downgrade, refusal, delay or regulatory service request since 2017—that’s nearly a decade—showing the decision-maker, the reason, the timeframe and whether it was reviewed in light of the RPAS review?
Ms Spence: As I said, we are looking at the applications that UAS Pacific has made. We will provide on notice a summary of the jobs that have been completed and just who has been involved in them, confirming that neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Duffy have been involved in them, and whether they met our normal service level standards in terms of how long they took to process.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want a summary. I want more than a summary. I want to see the regulatory oversight since 2017, showing the decision-maker, the reason and the timeframe.
Ms Spence: We will provide as much information as—I’m just trying to work through how our system will actually provide the information that you’re asking for. So, if you can allow us to take that on notice—I understand what you’re asking for—I will provide you with as much information as is available to give you a level—
Senator ROBERTS: And where you can’t provide it, provide the reason why you can’t.
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You suggested the Fair Work outcome did not amount to findings against CASA. But isn’t it true that the bullying matters were not dismissed because CASA’s conduct was found acceptable, but only after substantial undertakings and restrictions were put in place to prevent future bullying conduct? Isn’t that true?
Ms Spence: No. There was no finding that was made because of the undertakings that were provided, which was not a response by CASA to say that we were concerned about bullying or harassment; they were simply—in light of the issues that Mr Barker continued to raise, it was an undertaking to say that we would keep those relevant staff members away from UAS Pacific. It was never a reflection of our concern about the behaviour of those two officers.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the bullying?
Ms Spence: There was no suggestion that there was any bullying or harassment by those two officers.
Senator ROBERTS: No, by anyone.
Ms Spence: By anyone.
Senator ROBERTS: There was no Fair Work Commission decision referring to bullying?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Will CASA now table the bullying investigations that you did, and any undertakings, restrictions, monitoring arrangements and any internal assessment of whether CASA fully complied with any or all of the Fair Work Commission orders?
Ms Spence: There were no Fair Work Commission orders.
Senator ROBERTS: None at all.
Ms Spence: None. No, there were no Fair Work Commission orders.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the Fair Work Commission’s involvement?
Ms Spence: They reviewed the issues to determine whether they had jurisdiction, and they also tried to understand the basis on which Mr Barker and Mr Nowak were making their allegations. In both instances, there was no finding against CASA. In the first instance, there was nothing for them to look at because of the commitment to not engage with Mr Duffy and Mr Lewis and Mr Barker; and, in the second one, there was no evidence to support the assertions that had been made. It was found to be outside their jurisdiction.
Senator ROBERTS: When I put to you that the Fair Work Commission had found a personal vendetta or axe to grind—quote—by Mr Lewis against Mr Barker, you said you’d need to check the transcript. Have you now checked it?
Ms Spence: Yes, and I provided written advice to the committee, which was to say that the transcript did not use the word ‘vendetta’. It did indicate a preliminary view that the CASA officer had an ‘axe to grind’ with respect to Mr Baker, but that was not a finding or an order or any kind of action that the Fair Work Commission was telling CASA to take action on.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you now accept that the Fair Work material raised serious adverse credibility and motive issues concerning Mr Lewis?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: You told this committee that there were lessons to be learned about conflict of interest management, yet CASA’s written answer to questions on notice says, ‘CASA has not reviewed or amended its conflict of interest policies.’ How can you claim to have learned lessons while admitting you haven’t reviewed or amended the relevant policy framework?
Ms Spence: It was around the way in which we applied the policy to Mr Lewis, and that was the lesson that we learned, and—
Senator ROBERTS: Could you be specific.
Ms Spence: We identified that the language in the conflict of interest could be stronger. But the policy itself was not the issue; it was more how we implemented it.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you now commit to an independent conflict of interest review and table the outcome?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Ms Spence: We review our policies on, I think, an annual basis. I’d have to take that on notice. But I’ve got no evidence to suggest that, as a result of one incident where we did not implement the policy as effectively as we should have, there’s a fundamental issue with our conflict of interest policy.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the only breach—one?
Ms Spence: That’s the only one that I’m aware of.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether CASA has left false or unsupported accusations on file about Mr Barker, UAS Pacific and their staff. You answered by referring to one person and one withdrawn allegation and by saying that records simply cannot be destroyed. But isn’t it true that Mr Barker is not asking for unlawful destruction of records but for CASA to meet its legal obligations to correct, annotate, withdraw, restrict and prevent false or unsupported allegations from being used in future CASA decisions?
Ms Spence: We have updated the approach that we used for Mr Nowak in relation to a specific event, which occurred in 2019 at a licensed aerodrome in Queensland, where we have increased—or reduced the number of people who can access it, I think, down to myself, and I’m not sure—very limited people can access it. We’ve also put an annotation on it so that anyone, if they do get to see it, would know that this notice was overtaken by events. But that was in relation to one specific event; that was not in relation to every issue that Mr Barker has with us.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you table a complete record correction?
Ms Spence: I can certainly table the approach that we have taken, or I can provide on notice the approach that we have taken, in relation to that specific event about ensuring that the information is not available to anyone in the organisation who shouldn’t have access to it. Anyone, if they did find access to it, would see very clearly that it was overtaken by subsequent events.
Senator ROBERTS: CASA confirmed that CASA did not fully accept all recommendations of the 2021 independent RPAS review and that CASA focused on the recommendations rather than the review’s analysis commentary. The review records series concerns about regulatory overreach, retribution, passive-aggressive delays, vindictive enforcement, procedural unfairness, personal animosities and conflicts not properly mitigated. Will you now table the full unredacted review, the 6 May 2024 CEO DAS approval package and the recommendation by recommendation—
Ms Spence: Senator, that was included in the questions on notice that we tabled. The only redactions, I think, were to remove a few names, consistent with our normal practices. That’s been tabled.
Senator ROBERTS: My apologies for that one. Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair.
In my questioning of NACC Commissioner Brereton, we reviewed the commission’s performance and legislative framework since July 2023.
Commissioner Brereton confirmed that the NACC has received 7,624 referrals, of which 7,026 have gone through the assessment process. Out of these, 54 investigations have been commenced alongside 22 inherited from ACLEI; 35 have been completed and 34 remain active.
The NACC said they do not institute prosecutions directly but refers prosecutable matters to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Since commencement, 11 convictions have been secured, with four active prosecutions currently before the courts.
When I asked whether the definition and requirements for an investigation are too narrow or require widening, Brereton argued against expanding the scope. He noted that broadening the definition of “corrupt conduct” risks categorising ordinary conduct as corruption, which carries serious reputational implications.
Brereton noted a couple of minor legislative adjustments that could assist the NACC, such as the ability to appoint temporary assistant or acting deputy commissioners to manage conflict-of-interest situations and shifting terminology from “corruption issue” to “referral” to simplify the process for lay people.
As his term concludes, I addressed the public complaints regarding his perceived conflicts of interest, to which he replied that he did not take on the role to be popular.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Commissioner Brereton, for appearing. Thank you all for appearing. When were you appointed? What was the date when you were appointed to the NACC?
Mr Brereton: The appointment took effect on 1 July 2023, if that is what you intend. The instrument of appointment was sent to me, I think, on 30 May.
Senator ROBERTS: How many successful prosecutions have been commenced and completed since the NACC was established, not including inherited cases?
Mr Brereton: The NACC doesn’t commence prosecutions. We refer matters where we think there is a prosecutable case to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who decides whether or not to prosecute them. I know that, since we commenced, 11 convictions have been secured. Some of them are in matters which derive from ACLEI investigations and some in matters which were investigated purely by the NACC. I think three prosecutions have been instituted on referrals from us since 1 July 2023, but I stand to be corrected on that figure. There are currently four prosecutions before various courts in respect of matters referred by us or continued by us since inception. We have published seven investigation reports over that period, four relating to matters which had been commenced by ACLEI and which we completed, and three in matters exclusively commenced by us.
Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints have been accepted and investigated since inception?
Mr Brereton: The chief executive officer will dig out the precise figures, but we’ve received a total of something like 7,200 referrals, I think, over that period. Of them—I’m sorry; I’m corrected. It’s 7,624 referrals from 1 July 2023 to date. Of them, 7,026, or 92 per cent, have gone through the assessment process. I think 54 investigations have been commenced since 1 July 2023 in addition to 22 that we inherited from ACLEI. Of those investigations, I can tell you that we have completed 35 and there are 34 currently on foot.
Senator ROBERTS: How many active investigations are currently underway?
Mr Brereton: Thirty-four.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Why does the NACC have such a poor reputation?
Mr Brereton: I don’t accept the premise of the question.
CHAIR: It sounds a lot like you’re asking for an opinion, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Are the requirements to achieve an investigation by the NACC too stringent or narrow to assist those who make a referral?
Mr Brereton: I’m sorry; I didn’t quite get that.
Senator ROBERTS: Are the requirements to achieve an investigation by the NACC too restricted or too narrow?
Mr Brereton: We investigate corrupt conduct. ‘Corrupt conduct’ is defined in the act. What is the appropriate test for that? It’s a matter for the parliament. We apply what the law is.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t think the NACC was stifled in any way or needs to be widened in its requirements?
Mr Brereton: No, I don’t think it is stifled, and I think there are real problems in widening it because, first, the concept of what ‘corrupt conduct’ is broadly reflects that in the state and territory legislation. It’s not a perfect consistency but an approximate consistency around the country. Second, to say that something is corrupt is a serious statement to make about a person and their conduct. To broaden the definition of what a corruption commission investigates would risk bringing into the rubric of ‘corrupt conduct’ conduct that most people would not regard as corrupt. So I would not advocate a widening of scope.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you need any legislative changes made to the NACC?
Mr Brereton: There are some that I might be able to think of if I went away and thought about it, and we have identified a few. The ability to appoint an assistant commissioner or an acting deputy commissioner would be a useful addition, mainly to deal with conflict-type situations.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘conflict-type’?
Mr Brereton: When there is a necessity to find someone unaffected by conflict to conduct an investigation, the ability to bring an additional person in would be a useful one to have. Personally, I think the focus of the legislation on the term ‘corruption issue’ rather than on a referral makes the process a bit complex and difficult for some to understand, and—
Senator ROBERTS: The focus on—what did you say? I missed it.
Mr Brereton: The term ‘corruption issue’ is used through the legislation as the subject matter of a decision whether to investigate or not. I think it would be better if it referred to a referral rather than a corruption issue in that context, because what we are really doing is assessing a referral and deciding whether to investigate that referral or not.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re worried about it being assumed to be corrupt rather than—
Mr Brereton: No, no. It’s really a technical concern that just introduces some legal complexities. I’m not concerned about corruption being assumed. I think it is a refinement that could be made to the act to make things a bit easier, particularly for laypeople to work their way through. I’m sure there are some others that I could think of, but they’re the ones that spring to mind.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you be doing a debrief with anyone—an exit interview, so to speak?
Mr Brereton: I will be there for the next six weeks, and I will pass on whatever I can during those six weeks. And, yes, I certainly intend, at some convenient stage, to provide suggestions about the legislation to the appropriate officials.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t intend to touch on your conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest and the accusations that have followed you. That’s been done by others. You were controversial.
Mr Brereton: It appears that, in some quarters, I have created controversy. I said, when I came to the job, that you don’t do it to be popular, and I didn’t do it to be popular.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, Commissioner Brereton, the people—and there are quite a few—who are complaining about your behaviour or your conflicts or perceived conflicts I wouldn’t see as natural enemies of you.
Mr Brereton: Well, you may not know who my natural enemies are.
Are the chemicals used in the fire ant eradication program truly “not toxic”? I raised this question with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) during the last senate estimates.
Pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene are targeted insect growth regulators. Said to be safe for soil microbes and non-accumulative in the food chain, they are toxic to insects (including bees and native ants), fish, and aquatic invertebrates.
Regarding frogs and water bodies, it was acknowledged that specific protection statements apply near water.
Following reports from constituents in southeast Queensland regarding devastated beehives and contaminated watercourses, the APVMA admitted to receiving several adverse experience reports, which are typically referred to the QLD government for investigation.
The APVMA has agreed to provide redacted public reports and redacted adverse experience files along with QLD government responses.
We must ensure that proper oversight and the environmental safety of our local communities and ecosystems are front and centre when using chemicals.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got some questions on pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene. A member of the Queensland based Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program told me recently that the chemicals used in the program, being pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene, are not toxic. What are your findings?
Mr Hansen: They’re certainly toxic if you’re an insect, because they’re targeted insect growth regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I thought.
Mr Hansen: They’re identified as having low toxicity for terrestrial vertebrates and non-target terrestrial plants and have no adverse impacts on soil microorganisms. If you’re a soil microorganism, you’re pretty well safe and that statement would hold true. If you’re an insect, then they’re an insect growth regulator and they’re pretty toxic.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Fire ants are insects.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Are your findings based on independent research in Australian conditions?
Mr Hansen: That’s publicly available research from around the globe about these chemicals in terms of the assessment of their toxicity and the hazards that they provide. They’re globally recognised definitions in terms of their categories.
Senator ROBERTS: All insects including bees and Australian native ants?
Mr Hansen: It’s targeted to insects, but it’s not targeted, so ants and other susceptible insects that are stopped from maturing into breeding adults are all captured under that.
Senator ROBERTS: And bees; bees are insects?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What about frogs? Are they affected? Have any studies been done? Mr Hansen: It’s toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. That’s why we’ve got some protection statements on use of these products where they’re registered for use in terms of aquatic environments and water bodies.
Senator ROBERTS: Frogs are aquatic?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What about other animals within the food chain, including bird life and chickens?
Mr Hansen: It’s not a secondary impact; it’s not as though it accumulates through that food chain.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘secondary impact’?
Mr Hansen: An impacted ant being consumed by a bird is not going to be impacted by the ant having been treated.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the chemical itself, because it’s sometimes put with—
Mr Hansen: That comes down to this balance between the hazard and then the exposure. For bees, whilst it is hazardous, the impacts are generally not considered to be significant because of the lack of significant exposure pathways, particularly where it’s a granular formulation being used. It is this balance between both the inherent hazard and the exposure that creates the risk.
Senator ROBERTS: What about chickens eating the meal that’s got chemicals in it?
Mr Hansen: Again, it is really a targeted insect growth regulator. It has low toxicity to terrestrial vertebrates, but I’m not sure how much meal you’d want to feed a chook.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a question mark?
Mr Hansen: We don’t have it on the label that it’s able to be used that way. The safest thing on this one is if you’re following the label instructions or the permit instructions it should be safe to everything except for the target species that it’s aimed at.
Senator ROBERTS: Constituents have told me that the use of either of the chemicals has been fatal to these examples in their experience, the ones I’ve just asked you about, including the devastation of many beehives and the contamination of watercourses. They’re probably accurate?
Mr Hansen: We’ve certainly had a number of adverse experience reports lodged with us with regard to the use of the products. In all those cases, we’ve referred them to the control of use authority up in Queensland to investigate. Is it the use of the product or is it how it was used that has created the risk? That’s something that the Queensland government’s been looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Are we able to get on notice a list of reports that you have from the public that don’t reveal their identity, especially from southeast Queensland?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Does APVMA have a monitoring role in assuring that pesticides that you approve are used appropriately and safely for the environment?
Mr Hansen: We do so far as when we receive adverse experience reports or we see reports we ask the question: is this something to do with an unanticipated behaviour of the chemical? For example, florfenicol might be picked up in non-target species a long way away. We have a role in stepping in and asking, ‘How is this working? Why did this happen? What can we do to mitigate the risk?’, in which case we suspend the permit. For the vast majority, however, it is the control of use. That falls to the states and territories, which have the responsibility for controlling and ensuring people comply with the label or the permit instructions.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you respond to those complaints? Do you either deal with them or investigate yourself?
Mr Hansen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: The first category?
Mr Hansen: Yes. In the first category where it gets brought up to us, typically we put the onus back on the applicant to say, ‘This is the concern that we have. Can you provide us with information that satisfies us that your product, used the way it’s supposed to be used as per the label or the permit, isn’t having an adverse impact?’ They come back to us with information or data that either satisfies us or not. If they can’t satisfy us—again using florfenicol as the example—that they can mitigate that risk, then we no longer are satisfied that permit meets the statutory criteria in the legislation and we suspend or cancel the permit.
Senator ROBERTS: In the other category, you just sent instructions to the state saying, ‘What are you doing?’
Mr Hansen: We’ll send them the report and say, ‘We’ve received an adverse experience report. This is the report. Can you look into the potential use pattern and work out whether this is a control-of-use issue, that is, it’s been used inappropriately or it’s been used incorrectly, or whether it’s been used appropriately and we’re getting an adverse outcome that we wouldn’t anticipate and wouldn’t expect.’
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a copy, again with names redacted, of the reports you’ve sent to Queensland and the responses that Queensland has given to you?
Mr Hansen: I don’t see any problem with that.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to commend the witness for direct, succinct and reasonable answers.
I questioned the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission on the severe problems within the aged Home Care Package system, highlighting the specific case of the Smith family (with their permission).
The Smiths had $3,000 taken from their package and paid to a contractor for incomplete tree trimming. The Commission dismissed their complaint without explanation, leaving them out of pocket, which severely impacted their health and forced them to cancel necessary medical appointments.
Despite assurances from the minister’s staff that the issue would be resolved and funds reimbursed within five months, no contact was made with the family. Minister Chisholm and departmental officials agreed to follow up and contact my office regarding this breakdown.
I raised concerns that upcoming co-payment policies, with service costs potentially exceeding $100 an hour, would make essential care unaffordable for aged pensioners.
Departmental representatives responded that co-contributions will be a small percentage for pensioners (5% to 17.5% depending on the service category), and that the government is cracking down on unreasonable pricing while funding major care shifts.
The problem appears to be finally resolving but only after repeated interventions from my officers. This is not how it should work for the thousands of recipients being ripped off.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Mr Comley. My questions are for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission on problems with the aged Home Care Package, please. Late last year in Senate estimates, before this committee, I raised the case of the Smith family. Under their package, they’re entitled to some assistance in minor property maintenance. They needed some minor trimming of half a tree and a few branches of another on their property, which was not completed, yet they found that $3,000 had been taken out of their package and given to the contractor without discussion between the Smiths and the service administrator of the package. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission closed off their complaint and refused to even discuss it with the Smiths, with no explanation given. Isn’t this elder abuse by a government agency that is supposed to help older Australians, not abuse them? What’s the cover up, and why was $3,000 paid for next to nothing?
ACTING CHAIR: I’m not sure about the appropriateness of responding to individual complaints or issues. I think characterising them is one thing, but referring to individual cases is quite different.
Senator ROBERTS: We have permission from the Smiths.
ACTING CHAIR: We don’t have that, and the department don’t have that.
Senator ROBERTS: How typical is this?
Ms Hefren-Webb: Let me try and respond to you. Sometimes these cases are very complex. There is often miscommunication. There are different versions of events from providers versus older people. I appreciate—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you’re right.
Ms Hefren-Webb: Sorry? What did you say?
ACTING CHAIR: Let the official speak.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just backing her up. I’m sure you’re right; it would be complex.
Ms Hefren-Webb: And so we do our best to understand the circumstances—what’s happened, what’s gone wrong—and look at what we can do to restore people to make up for what’s happened to them and find an equitable solution. We do our best efforts. Obviously, I won’t speak about the individual case, because I don’t have permission from those people to speak. But cases like this, where people are quoted different amounts for different pieces of work and then may misapprehend what was going to be done, what’s happened with their package et cetera, are not unusual cases. And we do try and reach a sensible resolution. All our complaints are subject to review and appeal, so if people aren’t happy with where we’ve resolved a matter, they do have an opportunity to first ask for an internal review and to then seek external review if they’re still not comfortable.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. And I’m not pretending some of these cases are simple, but it’s badly affected the health of the two innocent senior citizens, who deserve an answer and for money to be put back into their package. A staff member of the minister contacted my office and assured us that the issue would be resolved and that money would be reimbursed quickly. The result, though, was that nothing happened, not even contact with the family. Five months have passed since the promise was made. Because of the depleted funds, the Smiths had to cancel some medical appointments that they could no longer afford.
ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, the department is not going to be able to respond to this individual case in this setting.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, if I’m told by the minister’s staff that they’ve contacted the Smiths and they haven’t—
Ms Hefren-Webb: I’m not aware of what the minister’s staff may have said, but I’m happy to go away and provide you with what advice I can about what engagement there has been in this particular case.
Senator Chisholm: Just to add to that, we don’t want to be dismissive of the issue, and I’m happy to follow up with the minister’s office to see what’s gone on there. But I think we’re just uncomfortable responding to a couple’s circumstance in this forum. But I assure you that we’ll do what we can to follow up appropriately and ensure that we can do what we can, where possible, to resolve it. But that’s knowing that some of these cases can be difficult.
Senator ROBERTS: That’d be great, Minister. Thank you. Could you contact my office?
Senator Chisholm: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The concept of co-payments is to be instituted into the aged-care packages. That will mean the cancellation of many services needed by package holders, because they’ll become unaffordable. The proposal is that many services will need to be paid for at more than $100 an hour—often more than twice the market labour rate. An aged pensioner cannot afford that. What are you doing about this situation?
Ms Hefren-Webb: The department might wish to speak about the policy on contributions. But we are undertaking extensive work around unreasonable pricing. We’ve been in contact with a number of providers where we have concerns that their pricing is unreasonable and we’ve asked them to provide us with an explanation for how they’ve reached their prices. In some cases, they’ve agreed to adjust their price and have even provided refunds. So, certainly, we’re dealing with those cases on an individual basis, but the question of contributions is a policy question, so I don’t know—
Ms Stewart: I’m happy to start. Thank you, Ms Hefren-Webb. In terms of the policy on co-contribution, that was a recommendation that was made by a taskforce to set co-contribution rates at a level where people who could afford to contribute would contribute to their aged care. We work very closely with Ms Hefren-Webb, and under the new legislation providers are required to be transparent in their prices, as well as reasonable. Older people can go and compare prices, and when they feel that they are not reasonable they can come to us. The last thing I’ll say before handing to my other colleagues is that the government has recently made an announcement for about $1 billion of funding to enable a change in the policy settings so that government will now pay for a category of service, which includes showering and assistance with dressing and continence. That’s been a significant announcement. I’ll hand over to Ms Trainor to talk in more detail.
Ms Trainor: The other observation there is that there is a difference between the service price—so when you talked about the $100 per hour—and the co-contribution, which is the proportion of that service price that the participant rather than the government pays. So, when you talk about a pensioner, for a full-rate pensioner, those rates are five per cent of services that are in the independence service list category, and then 17.5 per cent of everyday living, which are our cleaning- and gardening-type services. So whilst you may have a service price of $100 an hour what a person pays out of pocket is a very small share of that actual amount.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that. Thank you for your patience. I look forward to you calling our office.
I questioned Ms Owen – the Inspector-General of Taxation – about the alarming Supreme Court of Queensland judgment in The King v Clarke, a 2017 case where the ATO pursued a fraudulent criminal prosecution regarding an R & D application.
I pointed out how the court ultimately threw the matter out and found that ATO officers had deliberately altered expense statements, provided misleading affidavits to secure search warrants, lied to the Queensland Bar, withheld emails, and ignored legitimate R&D spending.
I emphasised the sheer imbalance of power in this persecution: an innocent defendant forced to self-represent for over four years against a massive legal team comprising up to 12 people, including multiple barristers, the ATO and the Attorney-General, alongside numerous ATO staff.
I highlighted the fact that the court explicitly ruled the ATO undermined the defendant’s right to silence, engaged in systemic oppression, and brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
When I asked Ms Owen if we could reasonably conclude there is something deeply wrong within the ATO given these lengths of persecution, she admitted that the language in the judgment concerns her greatly and touched on the core integrity of the tax system.
However, she declined to comment further, noting that an appeal is currently underway.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the judgement of the Supreme Court of Queensland in the case The King v Clarke?
Ms Owen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: This is a case dating back to 2017, which is well before your time, admittedly, in which the ATO alleged fraud in a research and development application, and the ATO referred the matter for criminal prosecution. The Queensland court found there was no criminal case to answer on the initial allegation, but the ATO persisted. On the recent court decision, the final matter was again thrown out and the court found that the ATO officers concerned deliberately altered expenses statements. The ATO officer concerned was involved in the preparation of false statements, provided misleading information in affidavits to obtain search warrants, lied in a briefing note to the Queensland Bar, failed to disclose emails and ignored the fact that R&D funds were spent on legitimate expenses. The court also found the ATO undermined the fundamental right of the defendant to remain silent, the conduct of the ATO amounted to oppression of the defendant and the conduct of the ATO has brought the administration of justice into disrepute and has the tendency of undermining the integrity of the court. The defendant self-represented for more than four years. I understand that on some days the CDPP, the ATO and the Attorney-General had some 12 people on the combined legal team, including three to four barristers plus numerous ATO staff in attendance. Would you agree, Ms Owen, that, on the basis of this case alone and the court decision, senators could readily form the view that there is something seriously wrong, maybe even sick, within the ATO for it to go to such lengths in persecuting an innocent person?
Ms Owen: The quote that you’ve just read out from the ruling of that judgement—that language concerns me greatly. The way the conduct of tax officers was described in that judgement is exactly what we need to look at in terms of the integrity of the tax system. I am awaiting the appeal on that case before I consider—
Senator ROBERTS: The ATO’s going to appeal, is it?
Ms Owen: I think the Attorney-General’s office, the CDPP, has appealed. So, at the moment, I can’t comment further on that case while that appeal is outstanding.
I questioned officials to clarify the implications of UN General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65, which Australia supported on 20 May 2026, regarding the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2025 advisory opinion on state climate obligations.
I noted that the ICJ’s opinion is purely advisory and non-binding. Department official Mr McCarthy confirmed the court cannot take direct action against a nation on its own accord; any dispute must be brought by another state. I raised whether any nation has ever successfully sued another over greenhouse gas emissions due to the impossibility of proving direct economic harm, a point Mr McCarthy took on notice.
I expressed the point that international agreements like the Paris Agreement are not self-executing. Mr McCarthy confirmed that treaty commitments do not automatically take effect in Australia without parliament passing legislation, in other words meaning we retain the sovereign ability to repeal those laws or withdraw, just as the US has.
I questioned whether the resolution, which gained support from 141 of 193 UN member states, is simply a political attempt to maintain the narrative on man-made climate change, which I contend is driven by natural cycles and inherent natural variation.
Of course, Foreign Minister Penny Wong dismissed this, noting that 141 states represent an overwhelming majority and that my views on climate change are not shared by most of the world.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, good morning and thank you for appearing.
Senator Wong: I have to be here, Senator Roberts, but thank you for thanking me.
CHAIR: It’s a Senate order.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like clarity on the United Nations resolution from last week on climate change, which was General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65, titled ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change’ and adopted 20 May 2026. Australia strongly supported the resolution. The resolution welcomes and gives political weight to the International Court of Justice opinion from 2025 affirming states’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system from greenhouse gases, prevent significant harm, cooperate globally and address consequences, including potential reparation. It emphasises following through on the Paris Agreement commitments. Is that correct so far? Thank you. The International Court of Justice ruling was an advisory, meaning it carried no compulsion. Is that correct? I can see your head nodding. That’s fine. Direct answers are appreciated. Isn’t it true that any action taken by the International Court of Justice against a nation like Australia must be brought by another country and only when that country can prove they have suffered economic harm caused by the respondent country they are seeking restitution from? Is that correct?
Mr McCarthy: The International Court of Justice is a judicial body. As such, it doesn’t take action against a state. It makes judgements which—in this case, it was an advisory opinion, so it’s not binding—are statements of law. Whether there was an action to be taken would be a decision for one state against another state. It’s not a relevant prerogative of the court itself.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that no nation has ever sued another, and is it true that this is because proving greenhouse gas emissions are causing another country damage is not possible?
Mr McCarthy: Apologies, the first part of your question was that no nation has ever—
Senator ROBERTS: Sued another country on this topic, sorry.
Mr McCarthy: You’re adding the qualifier ‘on this topic’. I’d have to take that on notice. I suspect the answer is no, but I’d have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The International Court of Justice has never taken action against a country over their greenhouse gas emissions using a proxy such as access to the international settlement bank, which is controlled by the UN, because they are an advisory body only, which you’ve confirmed.
Mr McCarthy: We’re conflating, I think, two concepts here. They’re a judicial body; they’re not an advisory body. In terms of the question of the international court taking action or not taking action, it’s not in its prerogative or its remit to take action or to not take action. It makes decisions. Sometimes they’re in the resolution of disputes between individual states, and sometimes it is in—as it was in this case—an advisory opinion.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. Turning to the Paris Agreement itself, the reason for this resolution from the International Court of Justice—the Paris Agreement is only binding because we passed legislation to implement it, and that can be repealed. The agreement itself is not binding on Australia if we withdraw, as the USA has done. Is that correct?
Mr McCarthy: Treaties are not—the term is ‘self-executing’ in Australian law. When Australia signs a treaty, it is a binding commitment under international law, but that commitment is only given effect through the passage of legislation through the Australian parliament. In other words, our treaty commitments don’t self-execute. They don’t take effect within Australia without the passage of Australian laws.
Senator ROBERTS: I was correct—despite not being a diplomat or a lawyer.
Senator Wong: The parliament has to approve through the JSCOT process, which occurred with the Paris Agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying it didn’t occur.
Senator Wong: No, I wasn’t pushing.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I conclude that UN resolution A/80/L.65 was only supported by 141 out of 193 member states to make it look like the world still believes man-made climate change is real, when it’s nothing more than natural cycles and inherent natural variation?
Senator Wong: I think that’s a political statement. ‘Only’ meaning the overwhelming majority—that’s the first point I’d made. The second point I’d make is that your views about climate change are well known. They are not shared by most of the world.
