Transparency is vital when it comes to taxpayer funds. During this session, I asked the Department of Climate Change for a comprehensive breakdown of the 2026-27 international travel budget across the climate change and energy portfolios, specifically requesting data on employee numbers and trip durations. In response, officials said they could not provide these details upfront, explaining that travel decisions are handled purely on a case-by-case basis.
Pointing to data from the Minerals Council of Australia, I noted that average decision times for resource projects had blown out to 3.8 years by 2025. I asked the Minister whether these ludicrous delays are intentionally used to discourage applications and penalise proponents millions in holding costs.
I questioned whether the newly introduced artificial intelligence pilot would be utilised for actual decision-making or just data collection, with officials confirming humans will remain the ultimate decision-makers.
I argued that the current environmental laws and sluggish approval processes act as a disaster for economic growth, stifling the mining sector, our number one exporter, and choking off funds needed for essential social and welfare programs.
While the government claims recent reforms aim to speed up approvals, the ongoing red tape continues to threaten breadwinner jobs and our standard of living.
Transcript
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.
$147.8 million has been allocated over three years in the 2026-27 budget under the measure “Standing with our partners in the Pacific,” to support activities related to Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s role as COP31 president.
Officials clarified that the money is not being used to create a new office, but to fund Pacific preparatory meetings in Fiji and Tuvalu, a COP31 pavilion, Pacific delegate travel, climate envoys, and departmental staff travel. Specific costs and delegate numbers for attending COP31 itself have not yet been finalised.
Similar to COP30, which included grants for youth, First Nations, and agricultural stakeholders, funding has been set aside to support external organisations attending COP31, though final parameters are still under review.
I questioned the return on investment for taxpayers and criticised government climate spending, pointing out that international agreements hold no domestic weight unless legislated by Parliament, which can be unwound by a new government with a simple piece of legislation.
Senator Watt defended the expenditure, stating that Australia holding a leadership role secures a “front-row seat” in global negotiations, protects national security interests through partnership with the Pacific, and aligns with the government’s electoral mandate on climate action.
One Nation is committed to abolishing the Department of Climate Change and related agencies, programs, and regulations. These government-funded climate initiatives and international climate agreements are economically damaging and a misuse of taxpayer funds.
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.
During this session with the Office of the eSafety, I requested an updated, detailed breakdown of the Commissioner’s overseas trips, including destination countries, separate trip counts and specific cities and dates for travel to the United States – which was taken on notice.
I then turned to the March 2026 compliance update that states that 4.7 million (now 5 million) accounts have been deactivated, pointing out that these likely included bots, orphaned profiles and inactive accounts rather than active users.
Despite repeated questioning, the eSafety officials admitted they do not know how many of those closed accounts belonged to actively engaged Australian children, relying instead on self-reported figures from tech platforms under compulsory notices without verifying if the accounts were dormant.
Citing public reports and industry feedback, including data showing 70% of children aged 10 to 16 are still on social media and criticism from platforms like Meta, I highlighted that the ban is largely failing to stop workarounds and bypasses.
While the Commissioner defended the figures as a useful baseline for harm reduction and pointed to a 37% overall drop in young people holding accounts, I maintain that “stating” millions of deactivated accounts misleads the public when the eSafety office cannot prove how many active under-16 users were actually removed.
— May | Senate Estimates
Transcript
CHAIR: We will keep going with the eSafety Commissioner. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Moving on to travel, in previous estimates, I asked how many overseas trips the eSafety Commissioner had undertaken and I received reply SQ25-002143. This shows 22 destination countries including Canada, France, Switzerland, Ireland, Japan, United States, Germany, Italy and the list goes on. This answer, though, does not say how many trips to these destinations were made. Please update this reply on notice for recent trips and indicate for all destinations how many separate trips were made to each destination. In the case of the United States, please indicate cities visited and dates.
Ms Inman Grant: Sure. I’m happy to take that on notice, but I try and hit as many places on one flight as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: I note your March 2026 compliance update is still talking about the 4.7 million accounts that were deactivated at the time the under-16 ban started. I would suggest these were accounts that tech firms, preparing for the introduction, were shutting down for being mostly bot and orphaned accounts. Since you’re still claiming the win, let me ask: can you tell me how many of those 4.7 million accounts were confirmed as an active account of an Australian child under 16?
Ms Inman Grant: There have been 300,000 subsequent accounts that have been restricted or deactivated, so a total of five million. If it gives you any comfort, it’s not like I pulled out a piece of scrap paper and wrote down a bunch of numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not suggesting that.
Ms Inman Grant: These numbers are provided by the companies themselves through legally enforceable notices. As I mentioned earlier, we’re sending out subsequent data notices. We are interrogating those numbers to make sure that they accord with what we’re seeing through our various tools. We’ll be asking additional questions. Where our real focus is now—that was really the low-hanging fruit when we deactivated and restricted the known under 16s at that time. What we really need them to focus on is preventing any sort of reregistration or circumvention of the systems that they have in place, and, certainly, we want them over time looking at much stronger sign-up restrictions so that they’re not continuing to attract or trying to attract tweens, in particular, between the ages of eight and 12. One of the platforms said in discovery documents that tweens have a herd mentality. They said, ‘We should try and get them locked in as early as possible, so we have customers for life.’
Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t answer my question. I asked: how many were active accounts of an Australian child under 16? It tells me that you don’t really know because the numbers were what you were told by the tech platforms.
Ms Inman Grant: Right. We’re asking—
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know?
Ms Inman Grant: We’re asking some deeper questions about the nature of those accounts. Is there anything you’d like to add, Ms Snell?
Ms Snell: I think what we can add to that is to say that there were accounts that were registered as being held by an Australian end user under 16. That was the basis on which the platforms took action to restrict access to those. We don’t have a breakdown of how recently those accounts have been used and whether, for example, they were dormant or not. But I think what’s important to understand there is just because an account hadn’t recently been active is not to mean that the owner or user of that account couldn’t start using it again. Part of the intention of this law and all of the regulations that eSafety enforces is it’s a proactive protection. That’s about making sure that kids under 16 don’t start using these harmful services.
Senator ROBERTS: The point is you do not know how many accounts of under 16-year-old children were shut down. Here’s an article from Tech Guide by Stephen Fenech, ‘After 100 days of the Under 16 social media ban the verdict is in—it’s a massive failure’. The article says, ‘Seventy per cent of Australians aged between 10 and 16 are still on social media platforms.’ It goes on to say: Snapchat reported it had closed down more than 415,000 accounts with its own age detection technology but parents, teens and experts are all saying it is easily and routinely bypassed— we’ve heard that a lot too— A poll on X showed 45 per cent of respondents said their child had found a workaround to the ban with a further 34 per cent saying the ban has had no impact at all. In this sample, eight out of 10 parents says there is no effective enforcement of the social media ban. Then it goes on to say: Meta—the platform that owns Instagram and Facebook—also shared its feed back after 100 days of Australia’s social media ban. “Australia had the opportunity to set a single, accurate standard for age assurance across the whole app ecosystem,” Meta said in a statement. “Instead, the Government chose a patchwork approach that’s inconsistent across services and risks pushing young people towards less regulated, less safe corners of the internet— that’s exactly what we said would happen— “If the goal is genuinely safer, age-appropriate experiences, we believe the best option is to raise the bar across the entire ecosystem and give parents a simple, consistent point of control— that’s exactly what we said before it was applied— “App-store level age assurance is the practical path that Australia missed.” Those are some comments.
Ms Inman Grant: Sure. There was a lot there but let me say this is a pretty typical playbook I’ve seen many times before. The platform that doesn’t want to be regulated says that the third-party technology that they’re using isn’t efficacious, even though it’s already been tested, and it’s not getting better, so they blame the policy or they blame the regulatory guidance. They then say it should be somebody else’s responsibility to age-gate our platform. We don’t tolerate that in the real world. This would be like a bar or a pub saying, ‘Carding a child at the door is not our responsibility. We should make the brewery or the wholesale manufacturer be responsible for them getting into the bar.’ You own the risky environment. You need to own that space. Where I agree is there are things that we can and should be doing up and down the stack to help give these platforms more signals, and that’s particularly what Apple’s age range API does. Interestingly, some of the companies have taken it up and some have not. I think it’s also interesting to note you mentioned Meta, and I think they put in their blog that they had deactivated about 554,000 accounts. They were asked in court in New Mexico because they told the New Mexican government they couldn’t deactivate accounts for New Mexicans. The court pointed to the fact that in their own blog they said they were able to do this. I take a little bit of that with a grain of salt. The 70 per cent number that you mentioned came from our public compliance report and that’s accurate. Seventy per cent of kids who were on Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube were still on, and, in many cases, they were never even asked to age verify. That is precisely why we’re taking on and looking more closely at those five particular companies because what we have seen, in terms of our data, is the number of young people holding under-16 accounts on social media has decreased by 37 per cent. If you think about any other public health movement over a three-month period, that’s a very impressive reduction, and this is what we’re going for. We’re not just looking at numbers; we’re looking at realistic harm reduction. That goes alongside the reduction of young people on these platforms. That’s a really important measure, not the initial—obviously it’s impressive that those initial accounts were deactivated, but the test for the companies right now, and whether they’re continuing to improve and live up to the reasonable steps, is whether they’re preventing them from re-entering and reregistering their platforms to let them back on.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, there were parents quoted, surveys quoted and big tech platforms quoted. I remember all of the Apollo moonshots had a quote that was their guiding theme, and one of them was: ‘In God we trust. All others bring data.’ You are giving me no data. You’ve had three chances. You’ve given me no data that tells me anything about the number of active accounts shut down.
Ms Inman Grant: How much does it matter to the ultimate goal of the policy which is to keep children off social media accounts?
Senator ROBERTS: It goes to your statement that 4.7 million accounts were deactivated at the time the ban started.
Ms Inman Grant: Yes, and we stand behind that to the extent—
Senator ROBERTS: But they’re not active.
Ms Inman Grant: Pardon me?
Senator ROBERTS: They’re not active. You don’t know that. You trusted the tech platforms. You said that you didn’t have the data and you don’t know.
Ms Snell: Can I just say, on that, that the data we have and the number of accounts the platforms have advised us—whilst you say we trust the platforms, they provided that information to us under compulsory notices. There was a penalty for them if they didn’t respond to those notices; they all did respond. There was also a criminal offence if they provided false or misleading information. At the moment we have no evidence to suggest the information they provided was false or misleading. But we also accept there are still kids on platforms, and we are concerned with the platforms’ compliance. That’s why we have ongoing investigations where we are interrogating the platforms and the steps they are taking to determine whether they are complying with the law.
Senator ROBERTS: The commissioner told me that the tech platforms have provided the number. There’s no way you can check to see which were active. You don’t know how many active accounts were shut down.
Mr Fleming: The legislation asks platforms to prohibit under-16s from being on that platform. It doesn’t mention active or inactive users. That’s data that is not necessarily needed for the purposes of compliance.
Senator ROBERTS: If you’re talking about 4.7 million accounts being deactivated at the time, the public would take that as 4.7 million under-16-year-old children have had their internet accounts deactivated. That’s not what it means at all.
Ms Inman Grant: It’s important to go back—and we can provide you further information on notice. These numbers weren’t totally plucked out of thin air. We worked with the platforms using our section 20 transparency powers a year prior to this coming into place, to ask them to give us a realistic estimate of how many under-16s they had on their accounts there. We did some of our own youth research, and we triangulated those—it was a multimethod type study. The numbers they provided us are not out of the realm of what we expected, based on that earlier set of research and transparency data. If you look at the regulatory guidance and what we’ve asked the companies to do, the first thing we asked them to do—again, the low-hanging fruit—was, ‘Let’s just start by getting rid of the under-16 accounts you know exist.’ Some of them may have been deactivated, some of them may be live, some of them may have been double. But the important part of taking the reasonable steps is exactly what Mr Fleming said: we’re trying to reduce the number of under-16s that have and hold accounts on social media. That is the measure, and then there is the harms reduction that that affords them by not being exposed to the harmful and deceptive design features on these social media platforms. I don’t want to get caught up on those particular numbers because they give us a baseline, but we’ve moved on in terms of what we’re looking at with respect to compliance and lifting that compliance.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t matter how many times you say it; the 4.7 million accounts that were deactivated at the time were not all active. We know that. You are trusting the tech platforms you say should not be trusted. You also say the person who owns the risky environment should be the one enforcing it—that’s the parents—and they have the tools. But you’ve bypassed the parents.
Ms Inman Grant: No, I’m talking about the platform, the online space. Of course parents have an important role, but they’re not targets of compliance. We’re trying to empower them to do what they can to be engaged in young people’s digital lives. From everything we have seen in terms of the increase in visits to our website and the conversations we’re having, and even the letters we’re getting into the office, it indicates that parents have been hyperengaged—which is great.
Senator ROBERTS: This echoes something I said before the ban came in: “If the goal is genuinely safer, age-appropriate experiences, we believe the best option is to raise the bar across the entire ecosystem and give parents a simple, consistent point of control. “App-store level age assurance is the practical path that Australia missed.” So it’s not all roses.
Ms Inman Grant: Actually, we put some restrictions on the app stores in the context of our age appropriate design code. To me, that’s passing the buck. You’re the social media site that is building these deceptive and harmful design features to keep young people on there and to track them in the first place, and to monetise them. You have no responsibility for being the bouncer at the door to make sure that young, underage people aren’t getting in. I don’t see how any organisation could shirk that responsibility. There should be shared responsibility up and down the stack, but it shouldn’t be, in my view, primarily on the app stores or the devices. We need more protections on both.
Senator ROBERTS: Parents are the best. We’ve undermined parents.
Ms Snell: If I can just add one thing: it’s also important to understand that a number of these services are accessible via the web without the need of having the app. If you had the requirement only on the app stores, young people would still be able to access these services by logging into an account through a web browser—so that would not achieve the result. That’s why it’s important to have it at the level of the service itself.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m saying: give the parents the responsibility back.
Senator Green: Parents are the ones that asked us to introduce the laws.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/qoNOtohlH48/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-24 14:54:302026-09-24 14:54:53The Social Media Ban Illusion
During recent Estimates hearings, I questioned officials from the National Water Grid (NWG) and Minister Murray Watt on critical water infrastructure and supply issues amid Australia’s surging population and rising demand.
I asked for an update on the Paradise Dam works, noting that the Crisafulli government is still evaluating the business case. I also asked questions regarding the Urannah irrigation project, highlighting that the detailed business case was withdrawn by the proponent and the Queensland government in late 2022.
Citing Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data showing a 12.9% rise in water demand (including a 6% increase in household water and a 14% jump for food production), I enquired on how the government plans to meet this massive resource pressure. I pointed out that this surge equals the volume of a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months, asking where the infrastructure is to support record immigration levels.
While Minister Watt argued that the federal government funds regional water infrastructure, efficiency programs and buybacks, he maintained that state governments hold primary responsibility for drinking water supply.
I questioned the actual yield of the $210 million WISER program (Water Infrastructure for Sustainable and Efficient Regions) and asked why cancelled initiatives like the Hughenden irrigation project (HIPCo) remain active on the NWG’s website rather than being moved to a history page. These questions were taken on notice.
— May | Senate Estimates
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: First, could you update us on the Paradise Dam works. When we last spoke, you indicated that the Crisafulli government was still evaluating the business case and had not made a request for funding. Has there been any change to this?
Mr Southwell: No, we don’t have a business case from the Queensland government. I don’t believe the Queensland government has a business case from Sunwater either.
Senator ROBERTS: I also asked about the reason the project sponsor had pulled out of what is a project of national significance, the Urannah irrigation project. Mr Darrough took that on notice. It wasn’t, however, placed on notice. I’m trying to understand why the sponsor pulled out before asking the Crisafulli government why they aren’t proceeding with this project. Can you give me a simple rundown, please?
Mr Darrough: Pardon me, Senator, can you repeat the question about the question on notice. The response was provided.
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Mr Darrough took that on notice’, is what I said.
Mr Darrough: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It wasn’t, however, placed on notice.
Mr Southwell: We did table a response.
Mr Darrough: The Urannah Water Scheme detailed business case is publicly available on the Queensland government website. I provided a link for that as well. On the environmental impact statement material, the Queensland Office of the Coordinator-General published the terms of reference for the EIS on 31 March 2021, and it records that the EIS process was withdrawn in December 2022. This is a matter between the proponent and the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Do any of the projects in your project list include recycling sewage and/or grey water and directing the output into drinking water, including into a storage dam from which drinking water is drawn?
Mr Darrough: I would suggest that the answer is no, but I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d be particularly interested in South-East Queensland.
Mr Darrough: I don’t have the—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m just saying. What is your target for water consumption per person, per day? How much water do you actually have to provide to keep water up to people, stock, station, irrigation, more people, more food and industry. We’ve got record immigration. What’s your target per person, per day?
Mr Darrough: That’s not a question for National Water Grid.
Mr Southwell: We don’t have a specific target from the National Water Grid Fund.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, remember that most of the responsibility for providing water, especially drinking water, if that’s your focus, rests with state and local governments. We have a role in funding some of that infrastructure.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just remind you of this from your website: ‘The National Water Grid Investment Framework ensures funding decisions guide long-term, responsible investment in water infrastructure. It also helps the government plan for future challenges, including climate change, population growth and rising demand for water in farming.’ According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, water demand in Australia rose by 12.9 per cent from 2022-23 to 2023-24. A rapidly increasing population creates demand for more household water, up six per cent in that period. Also, from demand for food, water use is up 14 per cent. In actual terms, that represents another 1,965 gigalitres. In one year, that’s a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months. Where are these Warragamba dams coming from? Where are the plans for more water to meet the needs of the last million new arrivals, let alone the one million more due by 2028?
Senator Watt: I know that it would be your party’s policy to link all of these issues to migration. You just talked about the increasing demand for water for food production. That’s not necessarily about feeding the Australian population. You would remember, I’m sure, that the vast majority of food produced in Australia is exported. The demand for water is also partly about supporting the trade and businesses of farmers who produce the food.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator, I know you want to weasel out of it, but the fact is that immigration is up, food production is up, for whatever reason.
Senator Watt: Immigration is actually coming down under our government.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s up compared to three years ago. It’s up compared to five years ago.
Senator Watt: It’s coming down under our government. I know you don’t accept that, but it’s coming down.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s 750,000 for each of the last three years.
Senator Watt: That’s not correct. We can produce the figures that show—
Senator ROBERTS: Three years ago it was 750—
Senator Watt: This is not really the committee to get into this—
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. Where are the future Warragamba—you’ve got a water crisis cabinet.
Senator Watt: But net overseas migration is falling.
Senator HENDERSON: It’s at a record high.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got a water crisis coming; what are you doing about it?
CHAIR: Senators, I think there’s a bit of talking over each other. We’re getting to the end of the evening. Let’s do this as clinically as possible: question then answer.
Senator Watt: In general terms, from a federal government perspective, what we are doing to meet the demand for water across the country is helping fund certain infrastructure projects.
Senator ROBERTS: Which ones?
Senator Watt: The projects that the National Water Grid has funded, which we’ve said we’ll come back to you on notice about. There are many of them. We are encouraging water efficiency and investing in water efficiency, including on farms. We are funding voluntary water buybacks. There are a range of activities that we are funding. But when it comes to restrictions on water consumption, that is generally determined by state and local governments or the owners of that infrastructure.
Senator ROBERTS: When is the next Warragamba Dam coming? Where is it? We need a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months. Where are they? They’re not there.
Senator Watt: That would generally be a matter for states.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got your WISER program, water infrastructure for sustainable and efficient regions, which sounds nice. Let’s describe it: plugging leaks, building local pipelines and improving recycling facilities—$210 million in total. How much will this water add up to, from the WISER program? Will it be a Warragamba Dam every 18 months?
Mr Darrough: I need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question on this bracket: your website still lists projects that have been killed off by the Albanese government, including the Hughenden irrigation project, HIPCo. Why are cancelled projects not removed or moved to a history page? Is it to give the impression the National Water Grid is actually expanding when it’s not?
Senator Watt: There were no announcements made about that project in the budget.
Senator ROBERTS: Previously?
Senator Watt: Not that I’m aware of.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you check? Take that on notice?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/igHGqVrqIi4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-17 15:58:012026-09-17 15:58:06Where Are the Dams?
I brought up the deeply distressing case of Mr Jae Jang, highlighting striking similarities to the Clarke case. I noted that after years of protracted legal battles, criminal charges against Mr Jang and his employees were dropped because the prosecution had no evidence to offer. I pointed out the devastating human toll — Mr Jang spending time in jail and his sister dying by suicide after her bank accounts were falsely frozen by the ATO— leading me to state that the ATO has blood on its hands, and asking whether these cases reflect a broader pattern of behaviour.
Ms Owen confirmed she had concluded a review of Mr Jang’s case, finding some of his allegations substantiated, and noted she is now conducting a systemic review examining whether historical issues like bias or prejudice in decision-making could still happen under current protocols, with a report due to be published the following month.
I pointed out that systems drive behaviour, noting that unlike in the United States where investigation and prosecution are separated, the ATO handles both, creating an institutional incentive not to drop flawed cases. Ms Owen observed that the ATO does implement some separation of duties between audits and criminal investigations, which her inquiry was also examining.
I then asked if she saw parallels between these cases and the robodebt scandal, specifically regarding the ATO providing unreliable data, though Ms Owen viewed them as separate. While she acknowledged that both the Clarke and Jang cases resulted in major financial, emotional, and business harm, she clarified that her investigation found no direct causal link between the ATO’s actions and Ms Jang’s tragic death, though she strongly criticised the ATO’s failure to acknowledge notification of her passing for five years.
When I asked if the commissioner would give undertakings to compensate Mr Clarke and Mr Jang, Ms Owen stated that compensation is outside her remit and a matter for the commissioner. Finally, I asked whether the Jang and Clarke cases add weight to the Falinski inquiry recommendations, particularly regarding shifting the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the ATO, to which she replied that it was a policy matter outside her remit.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of and familiar with the case of Mr Jae Jang?
Ms Owen: Yes, I am.
Senator ROBERTS: It was reported on A Current Affair on 14 July and again on 15 July 2025. The Jae Jang case has similar patterns to the Clarke case that I just discussed. The ATO caused criminal charges to be brought against Mr Jang. His case dates back as far as 2011. After protracted legal activity, the case against Mr Jang was dropped because ‘the prosecution had no evidence to offer’. Similarly, charges against employees of Mr Jang were dropped because there was no evidence to offer. Yet in this period Mr Jang spent time in jail and his sister suicided after her bank accounts were falsely frozen by the ATO. That means the ATO has blood on its hands. Are these two cases one-off aberrations by the ATO, or do they reflect a broader pattern of behaviour by the ATO?
Ms Owen: What I can say in response to that question is that I think it’s on the public record that I have conducted a review of Mr Jang’s case. He did complain to me about the case that you’ve just described there, and I’ve recently concluded my review of that case. That was, obviously, reported recently in the media. I found some of his allegations to have been substantiated, but not all of them, from the evidence that I’ve reviewed. Mr Jang has my report and my full findings, as does the commissioner of tax. That review is of a particular taxpayer. As you say, it’s an egregious case, particularly in relation to suicide. Every loss of life to suicide is a tragedy, and I have paid my condolences to Mr Jang and his family. But my role is to ensure that this isn’t systemic, and I think your question, generally, is one that ties those two cases together and asks whether there is a systemic issue here in the ATO. Following my review of that individual tax case, I’m now conducting a systemic review that looks at whether those matters, which were historical—as you say, from several years ago—could or would happen now, under current protocols, whether there is a systemic issue within the ATO and what controls they have in place should there be individual instances of bias or prejudice within their decision-making. That report will be published next month.
Senator ROBERTS: Systems drive behaviour. Some systems are the most powerful drivers of behaviour. In the United States, so I’m advised—I might not be perfectly correct on this—the arm that identifies a case of tax cheating or fraud or whatever hands it over to another, separate group to prosecute. This is not so in the ATO; it’s the same group, which would mean, I think, an incentive to not drop a case, even if it was found to be not correct.
Ms Owen: Again, that’s probably more a question for the ATO. But my observation would be that the ATO does put a separation of duties into some of those duties—for example, the difference between an investigation, as in audit, and a criminal investigation. The teams that select the cases for audit are separate from the teams that conduct the audit. So some of that pattern that you’ve described from the USA—I have to say I don’t have that knowledge of the USA system—is in effect in the ATO. And part of my questioning is: is it effective?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and I’m in touch with someone in Australia who’s helped a lot of small businesses where they haven’t had that separation of powers—and their victims wrongly so. Do you see any parallels between these two cases and the behaviour of the ATO in the robodebt scandal? Specifically, the false income assessments by Social Services were based on incomplete and arguably misleading income data provided to it by the ATO, and the ATO knew or should have known their data was unreliable for the robodebt exercise. Are there any parallels?
Ms Owen: I don’t see a parallel between the investigation that I have made in the case of Mr Jang and the systemic review I’m undertaking on how the ATO controls for bias in its decision-making. From what you’ve described in terms of robodebt, I think they are separate.
Senator ROBERTS: They provided sloppy information on robodebt. You’ve already acknowledged that both these cases have incurred or resulted in major financial, emotional and business harm to the people that the ATO had in it’s sights.
Ms Owen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve acknowledged implicitly—correct me if I’m wrong; I’m not trying to put words in your mouth—that Mr Jang’s sister’s suicide is arguably linked to the chasing of his business and employees by the ATO.
Ms Owen: I should put on the record that my findings—as I said, in looking into somebody who has committed suicide, there is a very tragic event in a set of very complex circumstances. In the investigation that I undertook, I found no causal link between the actions of the ATO and the tragic loss of life of Ms Jang.
Senator ROBERTS: What did you say that you found?
Ms Owen: I found no causal relationship between the actions of the ATO and the tragic loss of life of Ms Jang. What I did comment on was how the ATO had treated Ms Jang and, in particular, the very sad consequences of how they failed to acknowledge notification of her death for five years.
Senator ROBERTS: In the case of Clarke and Jang, would the commissioner give undertakings to compensate Clarke and Jang for the harm done to them?
Ms Owen: That’s a matter for the commissioner, I think.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any role in undertaking, for example, a compensation process?
Ms Owen: That’s outside my remit.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the commissioner?
Ms Owen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Now that I have a better understanding of your role, some of these questions don’t apply. In the Jang case, the ATO is apparently cooperating with the tax ombudsman on an investigation into the matter. Will or should the investigation be confined to the specifics of Jang and not draw broader conclusions? What are your broader conclusions?
Ms Owen: Just to be clear: the review that I’ve undertaken is in two parts. The first part is specifically in relation to the taxpayer Mr Jang and his personal circumstances. Because of privacy reasons, that is a report that is now concluded. It’s gone to Mr Jang as the original complainant and it’s gone to the commissioner. That will not be published. I put a short statement on my website to explain what I’ve done in that position on that particular case. Phase 2 of the review is to look at the systemic issues, which, again, I think is where you’re coming from. Is there a pattern of facts here? Is there a theme emerging of things that we should be concerned about in the conduct of the ATO? That review is where I’m looking at whether there are instances of bias or prejudicial decision-making within the ATO and the controls the ATO has in place to prevent that happening, given that it’s a known risk in all tax authorities. That report is the report that we’ll probably publish in July, next month.
Senator ROBERTS: I assume you’re familiar with the Falinski inquiry?
Ms Owen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: That was conducted by the House parliamentary and tax committee and made recommendations for changes to the tax act. I understand that one recommendation was to shift the burden of proof on tax debt allegations from the taxpayer to the ATO. Do you consider that the Jang and Clarke cases add weight to the Falinski report recommendations?
Ms Owen: I think that’s a policy matter and probably outside of my remit.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/o7lOE_MdAPQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-17 09:51:242026-09-17 09:51:30Will the ATO Pay for Its Mistakes?
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.
