This exchange during Senate Estimates with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) sums up just how bad Estimates has become under the Albanese Labor Government.
The TGA is well aware that Senators only have a few minutes to ask questions, and they understand that the more they can stall, the less likely it is they’ll have to say anything that could cause problems for their Minister—regardless of the truth. Because of this, the Minister will not require the “witness” to answer the question, nor will the Committee Chair—both of whom are Labor Senators.
My first question was a genuine attempt to clarify misinformation circulating online about aluminium intake. The answer was a simple “yes.” Keep that in mind when you watch the video. Instead of confirming the obvious and allowing us to move on to another question about aluminium in vaccines, the opportunity was taken to stall for time by debating whether the question should even be asked at all. Dr. Lawler, Deputy Secretary of the Health Products Regulation Group within the Department of Health, oversees the agencies and committees the Government uses to spread responsibility, avoiding accountability. He was exactly the right person to direct these questions to.
The data I presented was straightforward: the level of aluminium in vaccines is unsafe for infants by an order of magnitude. Yet the TGA spent a great deal of time on their pre-prepared responses insisting that vaccines are safe. They refuse to accept any data showing that this level of exposure is causing health issues in infants. I then asked whether our vaccines had been subject to gold standard testing—a term used on many occasions by “witnesses” attending Estimates to defend COVID vaccines – yet suddenly, the gold standard is no longer relevant to … vaccines! Suddenly, testing a product against a double-blind placebo (saline) is now considered “unsafe,” despite this being the standard for a century?
In reality, what Big Pharma has been doing for years—and what the TGA has allowed them to do in Australia—is to compare new vaccines (or medications for that matter) against existing ones, rather than saline. If the harm detected is the same as that already being caused by the “placebo” medication, it’s deemed safe. This is not how things should be.
I will continue this line of questioning until we get a proper inquiry into the level of heavy metal contamination in infant vaccines.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again, especially Professor Lawler. Before I start, can we deal with a statement I hear on the internet all the time—that you get more aluminium in your food than you do in vaccines. Aluminium in food is ingested at 0.3 per cent. In vaccines, it’s ingested at 100 per cent. Individual results may vary. Is this a fair statement?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure where you’re seeing that. I don’t have the information you’re referencing in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you whether it’s accurate.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that is necessarily a question for the TGA to respond to. We can provide you with information on the process that we undertake in terms of the evaluation and authorisation of therapeutic goods, including vaccines. Is this a claim that the TGA has made?
Senator ROBERTS: No. That’s my understanding. What is the TGA’s recommended maximum daily intake of aluminium for a child aged six months, please?
Prof. Lawler: By mouth as a recommended daily intake?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe that the TGA sets a recommended daily ingestion of aluminium, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the daily maximum for a child of six months that can ingest aluminium in food?
Prof. Lawler: I would suggest that those are probably questions best posed to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The US Food and Drug Administration recommends exposure of five micrograms per kilogram in infants. At six months, the average weight of an infant is seven kilograms, making the maximum daily exposure 35 micrograms. The Infanrix hexa vaccine contains 825 micrograms of aluminium per dose, which is 24 times its safe daily limit. Do you accept injecting children at 23 times the safe level? Do you accept that this unsafe aluminium exposure is a contributing factor to aluminium derived autism?
Prof. Lawler: I will throw to Dr Dascombe in a moment. I will answer a couple of the things there in reverse order, if I may. The first is that, in answer to your second question, no. I don’t believe that there is a recognised regulator—I’m happy to be corrected—that does.
Senator ROBERTS: Rather than relying on someone else, do you have any data or research?
Prof. Lawler: I’m just trying to answer your question. I don’t believe that there is another regulator. I’m just using that as back-up. We have seen no credible safety signal that aluminium load either in single or scheduled immunisation delivery is a contributor to autism. The second thing I would say is that I am not sure this is the forum, nor do we have the time, to clarify the distinction between injected and ingested aluminium. They are quite different biomechanical processes. I don’t think the two are comparable. I will ask Dr Dascombe to add to that answer.
Dr Dascombe: I echo the comments of Professor Lawler. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed any safety signals relating to any vaccine and autism. This is also supported by the weight of scientific evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the TGA guidance for the injection of multiple vaccines into a six-month-old at the same time causing amplified aluminium? Each of those doses has aluminium adjuvant, a preservative, so each of them is 24 times the daily safe limit.
Prof. Lawler: My apologies for breaking in, Senator. There are a couple of points on that. It is not the practice or the role of the TGA to make recommendations on immunisation schedules. That sits within the province of ATAGI, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. I would also highlight that we have frequently responded to questions around the aluminium load in the vaccination schedule and their consequences. Most recently, but perhaps more recently, is a Senate question on notice 24-003075. We have discussed it in this place a number of times.
Senator ROBERTS: You see the problem. Just one vaccine can be 24 times over the safe daily limit. You are recommending injecting multiple of them at the same time. These infants could be getting over 100 times the safe limit and you just keep on injecting them right in there and then claim aluminium poisoning isn’t the reason they come down with autism in some cases the very next day. How can you justify this?
Prof. Lawler: I will answer those questions in reverse order, if I may. I will answer the second. There is no indication that the vaccination schedule is linked to autism. Indeed, it has been highlighted not just today but previously. There’s no credible evidence that there is a linkage between vaccination and autism. As I just indicated in my previous answer, it is not the role of the TGA to recommend vaccinations. We assess them for safety, quality and efficacy. It’s the role of ATAGI to recommend the vaccination schedules.
Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you tell the pharma companies to reduce the aluminium preservatives down to safe levels so you can get parents to trust your vaccine again and the parents can trust your advice again?
Prof. Lawler: There are a couple of elements in your question. We evaluate the submissions from sponsors and evaluate the process of manufacture and quality control to ensure that the balance of risk versus benefit is appropriate. That is a determination that we make not only in the authorisation but also in the post-market monitoring through our pharmacovigilance of any therapeutic good with the inclusion of vaccines. In terms of trust, we recognise that there is an active campaign to undermine the trust of regulators, the TGA particularly. We undertake to restore or bolster the trust of the public, which I have to say was during the pandemic and is still, despite some narratives, at a high level. We seek to do that through education and guidance. We do that through being very clear and transparent about what we do and by addressing dis- and misinformation when and if it occurs.
Senator ROBERTS: How many vaccines in the Australian schedule have been subject to a gold standard trial, meaning specifically a randomised double blind placebo control study where the placebo is saline and not another vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: I recognise that you weren’t here before lunch. We had a conversation with Senator Antic regarding the use of the term ‘gold standard’. We recognise that the use of a placebo control randomised double control trial—there are a number of different terminologies used—is of a very high standard and presents robust and dependable evidence. The challenge, of course, is whether something constitutes a gold standard in the way that you have used it. It actually very much depends on context. We use controlled or blinded trials or placebo trials when we are interested in determining the difference between a control arm and an intervention arm. This is really effective when we’re looking at incremental improvements in therapies or when we’re looking at the introduction of new therapies. The challenge we have, of course, is that when there is an established therapy that has been shown over decades using both documented and real-world evidence to be both safe and effective, it is ethically questionable—and, in some instances, ethically indefensible—to use a placebo in that non-intervention arm. I will give you two examples, if I may. We have vaccine preventable diseases, and we have a very clear demonstration of reduction in not only mortality but morbidity in those diseases. Let’s choose polio and small pox, diseases that have had a specific impact for many decades and have led to untold suffering. One of them has been eradicated by the use of vaccines and one of them has been virtually eradicated. If we were to introduce placebo controlled trials for those drugs, that would be horrendously unethical. We would be essentially and knowingly infecting children with a disease that could kill, paralyse or maim when we know that there is a way of preventing that. That’s not ethically defensible.
Senator ROBERTS: What you are saying is that there has been no double blind placebo control study where the placebo was saline and not another vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: No. What I am saying is that would not be an appropriate approach to be taking today with the vaccines we use.
Senator ROBERTS: Has it been taken in the past?
Prof. Lawler: I also would highlight that the introduction of vaccines occurred some time ago. And also—
Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done?
Prof. Lawler: I will let you finish.
Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done, then, the tests?
Prof. Lawler: Whether these—
Senator ROBERTS: A double blind trial?
Prof. Lawler: Well, we’ve actually already taken on notice to provide concrete evidence on which of those vaccines has been subjected previously to blinded control trials.
Senator ROBERTS: How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?
Prof. Lawler: Dr Anna Peatt from the national immunisation division will respond to that.
CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.
Dr Peatt: Senator, could you please repeat the question? I didn’t quite hear it.
Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?
Dr Peatt: Senator, I would have to take that question on notice. I don’t have that available with me today.
Senator ROBERTS: Was close to 35 per cent of the multibillion-dollar COVID vaccine supply binned or trashed?
Dr Peatt: I would have to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you specifically to tell us whether or not it was 35 per cent.
Dr Peatt: I don’t have that figure in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you to just say what the figures are. Can you confirm that is 35 per cent of what we bought?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/uj4SbhAiGMU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-22 18:08:302025-10-22 18:08:37A Case Study in Avoidance
During Senate Estimates, I asked the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) about the issue of late reporting by Aboriginal corporations. I was told that of the 3,312 Aboriginal corporations registered with ORIC, 2,940 were late in submitting their required reports and 1,162 reports for the 2024 financial year had not yet been lodged.
Of the reports not yet submitted, 84% were from small corporations with an income of less than $100,000. ORIC advised that out of the approximately 3,300 corporations, 60 had been listed for prosecution, with 27 already prosecuted. Penalties imposed ranged from deregistration and winding up to personal litigation against directors.
The most common reason cited for non-submission of financial reports was apathy. As part of their response to this issue, ORIC is now offering training for all relevant parties to help improve compliance.
– Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to ORIC, the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. Thank you for being here. It has been widely reported that many Indigenous corporations have not submitted reports required under statute. How many Indigenous incorporations are in breach of requirements to submit their required reports for this period?
Ms Stroud: As at 6 October, I can confirm that, of the 3,312 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, 2,940 are required to lodge one or more annual reports—some have exemptions. Of those 2,940 corporations required to lodge one or more reports, I can confirm that 1,162, or 39½ per cent, have not yet lodged their 2024 reports, which would’ve been due in December 2024, noting that the 2025 reports are not due till the end of this year. For context, though, I would add that, of those 1,162 corporations that have failed to lodge last year’s reports, 84 per cent are small corporations. They are corporations that have a consolidated growth income revenue of under $100,000 each year and are only required to lodge a general report. Corporations that are large and, rightly so, are those that should be subject to greater public scrutiny and funding body scrutiny, represent two per cent of those corporations that have not yet lodged their reports.
Senator ROBERTS: My rough mental arithmetic is about 250 that are not small corporations have failed to lodge a report.
Ms Stroud: I’ll give you that number—it’s 241.
Senator ROBERTS: I was pretty close. That’s a lot. It might only be two per cent, but it’s actually about eight per cent of the total of corporations. How many board members, on average, are on a corporation board?
Ms Stroud: I don’t have that figure on hand. I can take that on notice. I can tell you that, across the 3,000 odd corporations, there are 17,649, in total, director positions. That doesn’t account for that some directors might sit on multiple corporations. Under the legislation, corporations can have up to 12 directors and over 12 requires an exemption to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: Say that again about the exemption, please.
Ms Stroud: To have fewer than three or over 12 directors on a board requires an exemption.
Senator ROBERTS: How many Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are overseen, helped or serviced by these boards?
Ms Stroud: Sorry, I wouldn’t be in a position to answer that question. I can tell you that, of the just over 3,000 corporations, they are made up of just shy of 245,000 members, again, that’s not accounting for that some members might be members of multiple corporations.
Senator ROBERTS: What was that number again?
Ms Stroud: It is 245,594, to be exact. Those 3,300 corporations, as I mentioned before, can be very small corporations with under $100,000 in assets or $100,000 in income through to large corporations. They do everything from cultural heritage protection to land and water management, schools, health services and other vital social services. I wouldn’t be in a position to even estimate the total reach of those services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and beneficiaries.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve mentioned that 2,940 are required to report, and 3,300 is the total number. So about 360 are not required to report.
Ms Stroud: Eighty-eight per cent of corporations are required to lodge some form of annual report.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your concise and direct answers. Thank you for that. Why have these breaches occurred? I know for small corporations it’s probably lack of—well, you tell me.
Ms Stroud: There are a number of reasons why corporations don’t lodge their annual reports. We encourage corporations, wherever possible, to reach out to us and let us know to help us understand the reason for it. It can be turnover in boards, difficulties of getting the services of auditors, disruptions in corporations or it can be just apathy and negligence of directors’ duties. Why we encourage corporations to reach out and let us know—and be on almost an update plan with us so that we can keep on top of when we can expect reports—is that we take that into consideration with our prosecution work. We have referred 60 corporations to CDPP for prosecution for failing to lodge reports. Twenty-seven corporations have been prosecuted. They are medium and large corporations, so, again, they’re corporations with over $100,000 annual revenue and those from which the public would rightfully expect a higher degree of accountability to their members and to their regulator and also to their funders. That’s why medium and large corporations are those which we refer for prosecution where they persistently fail to lodge reports for a couple of years. We now deregister corporations.
Senator ROBERTS: What happens when they’re deregistered?
Ms Stroud: If a corporation is deregistered, it no longer exists. There are challenges with deregistering corporations, particularly those that hold assets. There might be a corporation that holds assets but is ordinarily not conducting business and continually failing to lodge its reports. We’ve recently sought legal advice on alternative measures for those corporations, including winding up. We’ve also flagged to the public that, where a corporation continually fails to lodge its reports and has been subject to prosecution and still refuses, we will consider civil prosecution against individual directors.
Senator ROBERTS: So the directors can be liable?
Ms Stroud: It’s a lengthy and expensive exercise for ORIC to peruse civil litigation against directors that continually fail, hence why we flagged it in our recent regulatory posture. It’s done so because, where a corporation is prosecuted for failing to lodge its reports, it’s an offence of the corporation, and the corporation is what pays the fine if the court imposes one. Our intention now is that, where directors sit behind that, we will civilly pursue individual directors. I’ve also got with me Deputy Register Andrew Huey, who can help answer your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any suggestion of fraud being involved or incompetence being involved, or is it just apathy? You mentioned apathy. What would be the defining characteristics?
Ms Stroud: For the small corporations—again, that’s 84 per cent of corporations not lodging reports—I would say it is a capacity and capability issue, or challenge, and a degree of apathy around reporting. We have no evidence that there is an immediate and direct correlation between medium and large corporations failing to lodge their financial reports and evidence of fraud, noting that, when corporations do lodge their annual reports, a quality check by us has been done, directors have signed off on it and directors have done their declaration to accept responsibility for it. That is one way of identifying where there might be red flags. But, in the main, evidence of corruption, fraud, mismanagement or negligence of director duties or abuse of director duties comes through other avenues—through referrals, reports of concerns and complaints.
Senator ROBERTS: Finally, apart from keeping track of it, what changes in oversight will you introduce to ensure the integrity of the management of these Indigenous corporations? Have you got an overall plan for raising the standards?
Ms Stroud: We have refreshed our two-day guidance training. It’s for directors sitting. Current directors are given priority. Members and relevant staff can also attend the training, and we’ve also introduced a new one-day ‘understanding your finance’ training, which is designed for directors to understand how to read financials and have greater confidence in asking questions, knowing what to look for and holding their management staff accountable for financial reporting to them.
Senator ROBERTS: Building understanding to build confidence?
The Fair Work Ombudsman, when considering 33 cases involving claims of underpayment among coal miners, stated that it was using an Enterprise Agreement (EA) as the base document. This EA is being challenged as invalid and void due to alleged fundamental deficiencies and fraud. The EA pays less than what comparable workers receive under the Award.
I challenged the Ombudsman’s office for betraying workers who were clearly being exploited by their employers, in collusion with the CFMEU. This exploitation was enabled by a highly questionable decision made by a Commissioner, who appeared not to have fully considered the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) before approving the proposed, inadequate EA.
It appears the Commission can approve an EA “on the papers” when the union and employer are aligned, without a thorough examination of the agreement’s impact on workers.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Great. Thank you very much. We’ll open with questions, then, and I’ll start the call with Senator ROBERTS.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. We’re getting pretty familiar, Ms Booth.
Ms Booth: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are pretty simple tonight. What is the total number of matters being investigated in the coal sector? I’m particularly interested in those matters that came out of the One Nation analysis, in which labour hire payments to coal workers were and are below what would be an award casualised rate, if such a thing existed—it doesn’t, but if it did. Can you confirm for me again how many matters are in that category? My recollection is that there were around 14 individuals.
Ms Booth: As of 26 September this year, we had 33 cases under investigation and had finalised an additional 13 cases in the black coalmining industry. That is in Mr Campbell’s jurisdiction, so I will pass to him.
Mr Campbell: I’ll obviously assist you with questioning on this subject. We have Steven Ronson here to assist with details as well, given the nature of your questions. We are happy to go into any detail you like.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll let you get on with resolving the cases and the complaints.
Mr Campbell: That works for me.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Can you give me a rundown on the number and types of entities that have been consulted in relation to those matters—specifically the labour hire companies and the mine owners, perhaps—and what sort of feedback and cooperation you have received?
Mr Ronson: Of those 33 cases that Ms Booth referred to, there are 25 employing entities. There are 25 different companies, if you like, that are being investigated.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Booth, can I come back to you: what was the total number you said?
Ms Booth: There are 33 currently under investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Thirty-three? I thought you said three! Thank you. I know that the analysis we published states that there are large underpayments, based on a comparison to what would or should be a casualised award rate. But there’s a trick, because the coal award does not have casualised rates, as we’ve discussed at length. That being the case, are you investigating the matters and assessing whether underpayments have occurred compared to what would be a casual award rate if such a rate existed?
Ms Volzke: As I think we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, these issues and some of the complexities arise in relation to the absence of casual operation rules under the award. What we’ve done is proceed on the basis of the information before us in determining what, if any, underpayments might be payable in relation to each of those matters that we’re investigating.
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the base rates, so to speak, because you’re talking about casual?
Ms Volzke: If there’s an enterprise agreement in operation in relation to a particular employee, then it would be the enterprise agreement that, notionally, we would be looking at. Obviously, if there weren’t one, there might be contracts of employment et cetera as well. It’s obviously going to depend on the particular circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’m getting to is this: would you compare it with the base rate of permanent employees doing the same job and add 25 per cent to take into account a lack of other conditions of employment?
Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about before, because the award doesn’t provide for that for those employees— who, I think, in that cohort, mostly had enterprise agreements relevant to their employment. That would be the document that we would look to test against any potential underpayments.
Senator ROBERTS: So the enterprise agreement, which we think was not fair, would still be the base rate that you would compare it to?
Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about previously, as the independent regulator, we apply the law as it stands. Where agreements have been made and approved by the Fair Work Commission as valid enterprise agreements, then those are the industrial instruments that we will use to determine any underpayments.
Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission has approved an enterprise agreement that is grossly underpaid compared to the award, you would go with the enterprise agreement.
Ms Volzke: I can’t comment on the fairness or otherwise, but what I would say is that, where it has been lawfully made and is in operation for the particular period of time that might be in question for a particular employee. That’s the instrument that we test those underpayments against.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you identified instances where labour hire casual employees have been paid below the full-time award rate? If so, that would clearly constitute underpayment.
Mr Ronson: I’m not aware that that’s the case so far, but I’m happy to take that on notice just to double-check.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ongoing underpayments is the next topic. Minister, we have been following the same job, same pay applications in the coal sector, which, on our observation is a very slow process. By the way, I led the development of same job, same pay in the Senate. Given that there are a significant number of coal operations not yet subject to the same job, same pay regime, One Nation would assess that there are still large numbers of casual labour hire coalminers that continue to be underpaid when compared with the casualised award rate. Would you concur with that assessment? I guess you would not.
Mr Ronson: I think the best way of answering that question would be that what we’ve tried to do in the course of this investigation is heighten awareness of our investigation. We have a dedicated email address specifically for these cases alone, so that anyone who’s working in the sector, or has worked in the sector, can request our assistance. Yet, as we’ve explained, I suppose each case will fall on its own merits. We investigate each case as to what we find. We follow the evidence in that particular case.
Senator ROBERTS: At the nub of this issue, from the very start, has been the claim by many casual coalminers—and I agree with them entirely; so do some experts in industrial relations—that the enterprise agreements under which they’re working are dodgy. They’re grossly under the award rates. But what you’re saying is that’s become the new benchmark. That’s what I got out of Ms Volzke and you.
Mr Ronson: What we’re saying, as Ms Volzke put, is that we’ll apply the law as it is. If the enterprise agreement is in place for that particular worker, that’s what we apply.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t look at the roots of the enterprise agreement—that it’s below the award rate with a lack of the casual premium.
Mr Ronson: We will look to see whether the enterprise agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission. If it has, and if it’s a valid industrial instrument and it’s operative, we will apply it.
Senator ROBERTS: So you won’t look into whether or not it passes the BOOT test?
Mr Ronson: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that the 33 matters we’re focused on, and that you’re investigating, are of coalminers who have worked across a range of labour hire companies in a range of mines, would it be fair to say that the numbers of labour hire coalminers who have potentially been underpaid is probably very significant—that is, that large numbers of coalminers worked, and are continuing to work, under exactly the industrial instruments of the individuals you are investigating? Our estimate is that the number would easily exceed 5,000, possibly 10,000. Would that be a reasonable guess?
Ms Volzke: The premise of that question is something that we wouldn’t agree with, for the reasons that we’ve spoken about. Where there are enterprise agreements that applied and were validly approved by the commission, that is the document or instrument that we use to determine whether or not there have been underpayments. The other thing, and I know we’ve spoken about this previously, is that it’s not necessarily the case that, because the award doesn’t provide for operational casual roles, it means that a particular employee would therefore be full time. It might, for example, be that they are award free, in which case their entitlements are by reference to the national minimum wage, for example. Another outcome might be a technical breach of the award that doesn’t necessarily carry consequences. As we spoke about previously as well, the original 15A definition of casual employment that was inserted back in 2021, I think, applied with retrospective application, which was close to a designation approach to casual. It would capture many of the historical complainants in this particular cohort that we’re talking about.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems to me that miners are not getting justice for a trick that was pulled on them by the mine owner, by the labour hire firm, which includes in one case an Australian offshoot of the world’s largest labour hire firm, Recruit Holdings from Japan, and by the mining division of the CFMEU, which is now back to being the Mining and Energy Union. You’re going to endorse it because they came up with a Fair Work Commission approved document.
Ms Volzke: We’ve also spoken previously about who has standing to determine or challenge whether or not an agreement has been validly approved. It’s somebody who’s aggrieved by that, and that doesn’t extend to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Certainly it would be open to another party if they so wish to challenge that.
Senator ROBERTS: Good luck getting a law case cheaply in this country. We’re aware that, in your investigations, the Fair Work Ombudsman has a six-year time restriction on being able to litigate to require compensation for underpayment. You’ve indicated, Ms Booth, in prior Senate estimates hearings that you have not restricted your investigations to the six-year limit but have gone back much further. Is that correct?
Ms Booth: That is my recollection of the evidence we gave.
Mr Campbell: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ve discussed in these hearings in the past that the underpayments that we have assessed occurred because of the absence of a casualised rate in the coal award. We’ve discussed that to some extent. I’d like to look at it from another angle. If your investigation finds the practical evidence that supports our analysis in the 33 matters that you are investigating, I assume that there may be legal difficulties in successfully prosecuting for compensation because of this legal trick, which is what I’m hearing now. It may be legally complex to have the courts agree that underpayments were illegal. Is it that underpaid casual labour hire coalminers are victims of a legal trick? Could that be a reasonable point of view?
Mr Campbell: I don’t think that we’d come to that view. We wouldn’t make a decision around the enforcement outcome we’d seek to impose in a certain circumstance until the conclusion of the investigation. The statute of limitations we’ve talked about previously goes to enforcement by way of litigation, for example, but there are other ways that we can seek to resolve a historical matter, which is also something we’ve discussed before, where we’ve found evidence of that contravention or an enforceable entitlement. We haven’t got to that point in these matters, so it remains open to us to consider how we will resolve them.
Senator ROBERTS: Would the Fair Work Ombudsman’s task of seeking compensation be more straightforward if legislation existed that resolved the legal trick? We refer to clarifying that casualised labour hire coalminers should be and should have been paid 25 per cent more than the full-time rate under the coal award. Yes or no—would legislation make it easier?
Mr Campbell: I don’t think we’ve got an opinion on that.
Ms Booth: I think you’re asking us, if the law were different, would we apply the different law?
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask the minister. Minister, we congratulate the government on eventually requesting the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate gross underpayments of casual labour hire coalminers. It’s taken about 6½ years. The investigations from the Fair Work Ombudsman to date appear to be heading in the direction where the underpayments that we assessed were occurring may be confirmed on the evidence of the cases being investigated by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Further it is likely, we believe, that any potential compensation may be legally difficult to enforce, which is what I’m hearing, because of a trick using enterprise agreements to get around the fact that the black coal mining industry award does not allow for a casual rate for comparative purposes. It’s our view that the most likely way to obtain justice for casualised labour hire coalminers would be to have legislation that resolves the legal trick we referred to, clarifying that casualised labour hire coalminers should be and should have been paid at least 25 per cent more than the full-time rate under the award. Assuming that the evidence from the Fair Work Ombudsman that supports the underpayment analysis is forthcoming, would the government be interested in considering such legislation for wage justice for these coalminers? If so, One Nation would be very keen to work with the government on such legislation and to lend our full support. Would the government consider that?
Senator Walsh: The government has passed a suite of reforms to our workplace laws to get wages moving in this country, including the closing the loopholes legislation that established the same job, same pay principles and the secure jobs, better pay legislation. We’ve improved rights for casuals, we’ve reinvigorated bargaining, we’ve done a lot of work to close the gender pay gap and we’re really focused on improving the rights of Australians to be paid fairly for the work that they do. You’re referring to matters that I think are best addressed by the team that’s at the bench in terms of matters that the Fair Work Ombudsman has apparently been investigating.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re not allowed to talk about policy and legislation. That’s what I’m asking.
Senator Walsh: You referred, I think, in your question to a report that may be coming. Is that correct?
Ms Booth: We haven’t concluded the investigation at this time.
Senator ROBERTS: You talk about rights, Minister. When you look at the people on a dodgy enterprise agreement compared with those on the black coal mining industry award base rate plus 25 per cent casual loading, you see that this is clearly Australia’s largest wage theft case, and that means that workers have been betrayed. This has been signed off on by the Mining and Energy Union, or the CFMEU mining division, by the labour hire companies, including the largest in the world, by mine owners and by the Fair Work Commission. Workers have got no protection whatsoever. If this goes through, workers have got no protection. There are thousands of them in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. It’s blatant exploitation. Will the government step in, subject to the report?
Senator Walsh: From a government perspective, it seems appropriate to wait for the report of the Fair Work Ombudsman and give it due consideration when the report’s concluded.
During a session with Ms. Darlene Perks from Coal LSL, I inquired about the case of Mr. James Joseph, who is currently in a significant dispute with Coal LSL regarding payment of his long service leave entitlements.
Ms. Perks stated that Coal LSL would not take any action until they received notification from the employer via a levy form. She said that disputes arising from the failure to provide correct information should be directed to the Fair Work Commission for resolution. Ms. Perks explained that employers often make errors on certain forms, which then require adjustment. She added that if an employee is no longer employed, levy payments would cease.
I asked about the risks that were alluded to in a recent ANAO audit and was told that the concerns related to errors in financial statements and the valuation of unlisted trusts, which are quite complex.
When I questioned why the management of billion-dollar government funds is in private hands, I was told it would be taken on notice and answered at a later time.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Perks and everyone from Coal LSL. Mr James Joseph was injured on BHP’s Mount Arthur coal mine on 7 June 2023. Are you familiar with James Joseph?
Ms Perks: We are familiar with James Joseph, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Coal LSL have confirmed with Mr Joseph that they were not informed of his workers comp status, which was approved in May 2024 following a six-month delay. Mr Joseph’s correct workers compensation status seems not to have been reported to Coal LSL by BHP or the insurer, Coal Mines Insurance. The board of directors of Coal Mines Insurance, I understand, has 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors and 50 per cent coal owners.
Ms Perks: I’ll answer the last part. The shareholding of Coal Services, which I think you were just referring to—
Senator ROBERTS: Coal Mines Insurance.
Ms Perks: Yes. It is not an organisation we have any relationship with in our jurisdiction, but I can confirm that the shareholding is as you have reflected—the Minerals Council and the CFMEU.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the composition of the board? Fifty-fifty?
Ms Perks: Our board?
Senator ROBERTS: The Coal Mines Insurance board.
Ms Perks: I can confirm that, but I think they do have independent directors.
Senator ROBERTS: What about your board?
Ms Perks: The legislative framework hasn’t changed in all the hearings we’ve had. Our board has six directors who are appointed by the responsible minister—three directors nominated by employee companies or bodies and three directors nominated by union organisations. They are minister appointed.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for correcting that. It’s fifty-fifty again?
Ms Perks: Our director composition?
Senator ROBERTS: Your board composition.
Ms Perks: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-fifty employers and union—okay. What is being done to rectify this particular case, and is this a common occurrence—that is, an employee is medically terminated whilst on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or their insurer? This seems, by the way, very familiar. It is similar to the mistreatment of Mr Simon Turner by BHP and his employer at the time, the labour hire firm, Chandler Macleod. What’s being done to resolve this, and is it common?
Ms Perks: The scenario we’re talking of is termination. I tried to explain this in a couple of hearings over the years as well, but I appreciate there are a lot of new members, and I’ll explain the process again. Our GM of Legal, Michael Dowzer might be able to add to the process. The employer will advise us through their monthly levy returns a termination code for the employee. One of the reasons for termination can be ill health. Others would be redundancy or cessation. That process hasn’t changed. That is the legislative arena that we operate within. Nothing has changed from the explanations over the years with regard to how we collect the data, how the employer advises us and how we then verify the data through the relationships and interactions with the employers.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that one of the problems that Coal LSL was encountering—a lack of verification of the data? I’m not saying you didn’t do this here. It’s common then for someone’s employment to be terminated while still being on workers comp?
Ms Perks: I can’t talk to the commonality of that with regard to the data. As I said, the reason for cessation will be advised to us by the employer.
Senator ROBERTS: But sometimes the employer won’t notify you.
Ms Perks: They will notify us of a reason for termination.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, but sometimes they won’t notify you that he has actually been terminated.
Ms Perks: Would you like to add to that, Michael?
Mr Dowzer: The notification comes through our levy form, and they identify when employment has ceased and the cessation code which indicates the reason for termination. That is a report from the employer. If subsequently there is an issue in relation to that, we’ll engage with both the employee and the employer to seek to understand that issue, but, ultimately, it’s to be resolved between the employer and the employee.
Senator ROBERTS: The question was: is it a common occurrence that an employee is medically terminated while on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or the insurer?
Mr Dowzer: What we are notified of is the cessation of the employment. There’s no requirement to notify us in relation to any other details in the employment relationship.
Senator ROBERTS: So, in your experience of checking up, it’s not really common that you’re not notified?
Ms Perks: The way I’d answer that is in relation to complaints. Your question is: is it a common occurrence? No, we don’t have volumes of complaints which would illustrate a systemic issue in the common occurrence of employers advising us of termination codes which an employee doesn’t agree with. I know there are a couple of cases, and, certainly, we’ve had a lot of conversations around those. But I wouldn’t say it’s a systemic issue that has been understood through volumes of complaints for the scenarios that you’re talking about.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of governance issues at the moment. We sorted them out, hopefully, after the review. What are the implications when this occurs—for example, an impact to levy payments, because the employer is no longer paying, super payments and internal workloads of Coal LSL to investigate and resolve such matters? Does that put a burden on you?
Ms Perks: In the scenario where it’s found that an employer has advised us of a termination code that an employee disagrees with, certainly the resource from the team would be to engage with the employer, engage with the employee, assess the information et cetera. If that is unresolved, then we would be advising the employee to take it to the Fair Work Commission, because we’d be classifying it as an industrial relations dispute, which is out of our jurisdiction.
Senator ROBERTS: If the companies fail to notify Coal LSL within a reasonable period, what would normally come of it? For example, there was a six-month failure to inform you in Mr Joseph’s case. What happened there when BHP didn’t inform you for six months?
Ms Perks: I’ll talk about the obligation under the collection act, where the employer has an obligation to submit a monthly levy return. That is a statutory obligation. In regard to correcting or working through a disagreement or a dispute in information that we’ve received, that would be a process which isn’t time bound in our statutory frameworks. But the employer has an obligation to inform us monthly of employees’ service and any other critical information, such as terminations and eligible wages.
Senator ROBERTS: If this is proved to have occurred through a registered organisation, what intervention, penalty or enforcement would Coal LSL apply under its constitution to deter recurrence? Is there any?
Mr Dowzer: The key obligation is to submit a monthly levy return with correct information. We are reliant on that information in terms of being able to conduct any further inquiries. If an issue is brought to our attention by an employee, we will engage with the employer and seek to get the employer and the employee to resolve that issue and communicate the outcome to us. We don’t have any power to adjudicate on that dispute.
Senator ROBERTS: So there are no consequences for the employer?
Mr Dowzer: If there’s an incorrect levy return then there could be consequences, but that is a factual matter which we would not have evidence of.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please advise why Mr Joseph’s Coal LSL number looks to only exist from September 2022 onwards, as per his Coal LSL commencement letter, recently provided to him under a freedom of information request? What is the specific reason for the delay in creating his Coal LSL member number?
Ms Perks: I think we’d have to take that one on notice and have a look at the timeframe of his records and provide a response on that review.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph has been provided information under FOI, freedom of information, that shows Coal LSL levies were paid by BHP to Coal LSL in as early as July 2022. However, his welcome member letter was produced in September 2022. Why was that?
Ms Perks: We’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?
Mr Dowzer: When the levy return identifies a new employee, we will take that information and effectively create a record for that employee. Our obligation is to keep records—
Senator ROBERTS: And then you get an identification number out of that?
Mr Dowzer: There is an identification number which would be created at that point at which the employee is first put on a levy return.
Senator ROBERTS: So it wouldn’t be possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?
Mr Dowzer: The first time that a new employee is properly identified on a levy return would be the point at which we would commence a record for that employee.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph requested all company audits provided by BHP to Coal LSL for the entire period of his employment, from 2011 to 2024. I don’t think he was continually employed at Mount Arthur for that period; I think he was involved in other divisions of the company, including in Western Australia. Why was he only provided with two years, considering that Coal LSL are reviewing his open recognition of prior service application for periods that fall within this freedom of information date range, 2011 to 2024?
Ms Perks: Can I take that one on notice as well? I do know the FOI case. I can’t answer without going back to the reasoning as to why that information was provided and some wasn’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms Perks: I know that the team work within the jurisdictions of FOI, so we’ll take that one on notice and provide a reasoning.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine, Ms Perks. The December 2023 Coal LSL BHP external audit report indicates potential discrepancies in reimbursement amounts claimed by BHP. Has the investigation into this matter been completed? This is two years later.
Ms Perks: That’s their audit report? I’d say it’s quite common, through the process of that audit work, for employers to have adjustments in reimbursement claims or levies. It’s through that audit process that the reimbursement, if it’s overclaimed or overpaid, would be rectified, and similarly the levy payment would be rectified. I won’t answer without being able to check with the team that that has been closed out, but I’d be very confident, with an audit report dated December 2023, that an action from the audit report submission would be closed out, as our administrative processes would—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Perhaps you could take this next item on notice, then. Was this, in fact, found to be a confirmed finding—that is, BHP claiming illegitimate reimbursements? If so, how significant were the findings of this discrepancy?
Ms Perks: ‘Illegitimate’ is a strong word. Again, if I take us back to the process of the employer, it is a selfreporting scheme. The employers, through the submission of monthly levy returns and then the reimbursement claim process, will be calculating based on our guidance of how to calculate levy payments and also how to claim the reimbursement under the reimbursement rules. It is very common that employers get it wrong. It’s a complex administrative process. So it is quite common that, through the external audit function that we rely on for the assurance of the correctness of levies paid and reimbursement claims, there will be a—
Senator ROBERTS: An adjustment?
Ms Perks: An adjustment. I wouldn’t typically classify that as illegitimate or deliberate actions. We would typically see that as human error on the employer’s side, and the audit process provides the assurance to then get the adjustments correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is this a disclosable matter? If it is, was it disclosed in the Coal LSL annual report for financial year 2023-24?
Ms Perks: No, that’s not a disclosable matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is it true that BHP did not pay any Coal LSL monthly levies from any of their owned entities to the Commonwealth Coal LSL fund in the period between November 2015 and November 2016?
Ms Perks: I will take that on notice, but I would be very surprised to find that they hadn’t paid levies. I would be very confident in saying they have paid the levies, but we will take that on notice to answer your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Something in my mind is reminding me that that might have been proven in the Iron Mountain document. Can you recall that? I can’t.
Ms Perks: I’m not familiar with that document.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you also tell me what was done about it, please.
Ms Perks: If it wasn’t paid?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Ms Perks: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that approach consistent with the Coal LSL constitution at the time, and were any penalties applied? Could you tell us that as well, please.
Ms Perks: If an employer hasn’t paid a levy in line with their obligations under the collection act, the lever that we have available is to charge an additional levy. It’s an interest calculation. That is the lever that we’d have available to us.
Senator ROBERTS: So we have got some penalty provisions?
Ms Perks: We do have some penalty provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: BHP and Coal Mines Insurance previously refused to acknowledge Mr Joseph as a black coal industry covered employee, challenging him on this as recently as July 2024, yet Coal LSL have received levies from Mr Joseph since July 2022. Can you explain how and why this would occur, from Coal LSL’s perspective. I’ve got my thoughts on it. Ms Perks: Other than taking it on notice—
Mr Dowzer: My position on that is that, for the purpose of compliance with our scheme, the inclusion of an employee on a levy return is a statement by the employee in relation to eligibility under our scheme. As to matters relating to other issues of employment, we do not have visibility on them and wouldn’t have a view on them.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m guessing there’s still probably some confusion. Mr Joseph was on what some people call a staff payroll, which is an admin job, a managerial job or a supervisory job, compared with, say, a coalminer at the front line, who would be on an hourly rate.
Mr Dowzer: I would make the distinction that coverage under any industrial arrangements is, in some cases, a different assessment to eligibility under our scheme, so it’s really not appropriate for us to be commenting on those interpretation questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just wondering whether that’s where some of the confusion comes from. He wouldn’t have been on the supervisory staff or administrative staff. He wouldn’t have been on the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. He would’ve been on the staff award, for example. Does the Coal LSL levy apply to the accident pay component of employee wages when on workers compensation?
Mr Dowzer: The issue of an employee on workers compensation is dependent upon the nature of the workers compensation arrangement between the employer and the employee. So, if the employee remains employed by the employer, then that is leviable eligible wages. If employment has ceased, then the obligation under our scheme is on the employer. There is no obligation on an insurer under our scheme. There is no leviable eligible wages if employment has ceased.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if the insurer is paying workers compensation but the employee has been terminated, there’s no obligation on BHP?
Mr Dowzer: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: And there’s no obligation on the insurer to pay either. Is that what you’re saying?
Mr Dowzer: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Should an employee on workers comp in the black coal mining industry who is medically terminated and who remains on workers comp continue to accrue Coal LSL leave if they remain incapacitated due to their injuries and condition whilst they continue receiving workers compensation wages? You’ve just answered that question. This gets complex, doesn’t it?
CHAIR: How are you going there, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: I probably need another five minutes—maybe less, because we’re going to change topic pretty soon, and then it should go quickly. In previous estimates, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has stated there is a list of around 80 entities who may have been paying levies in error. Has this investigation now concluded?
Ms Perks: Paying levies in error?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you remember that?
Ms Perks: Yes. That investigation has concluded. There were 28 employers who were paying levy in error, and 25 of the 28 employers have been refunded that levy amount. The three remaining, for different reasons, still need to be transacted. We’re waiting on the employer to provide information so that we can refund that amount.
Senator ROBERTS: So they overpaid.
Ms Perks: They incorrectly paid into the scheme.
Senator ROBERTS: Too much. Were any of the entities coal services or coalmining services? They wouldn’t have been, would they? They don’t employ coalminers.
Ms Perks: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the list include any BHP owned entities?
Ms Perks: No.
Senator ROBERTS: I will change topics, you’ll be pleased to know. I will move on to the audit. The report of the most recent audit of Coal LSL conducted by the Australian National Audit Office flagged ‘higher risk related to both valuation of investments and the valuation of provision for reimbursements’. What is the real meaning of these two findings of risk in regard to the effective operations of and the integrity of the scheme? What are the risks and who is at risk of exposure?
Ms Perks: Mr Windever will answer that question.
Mr Windever: The external audit focuses on areas of high risk on our balance sheet, and these particularly will be in areas of our provision for reimbursements, which is a piece of analysis that is covered by our actuary, but also our investments, as you pointed out. To be specific, they’re higher areas of risk of misstatement of our financial statements. I’ll speak to the first one.
Senator ROBERTS: Not financial risk, just a risk of error in your statements?
Mr Windever: In the financial statements—that’s correct. If we talk about the first one, the provision for reimbursements, that analysis is conducted by our actuary. It’s considered to be an area of higher risk, rather than a high risk, for the organisation, just by the very nature of the modelling, the estimations, the assumptions and the judgements that go into that. It’s an inherently high-risk area and one that’s a recurring area of higher risk, if you like, in our audit reports in previous times. It’s not a new finding for us. The second finding around investments is around the valuation of our unlisted trusts. Simply, the reason why this continues to be a high-risk area is the nature of those investments. Unlisted trusts are considered to be more complex from a valuation standpoint compared to other forms of assets. Certainly, there’s a portion of our portfolio that is illiquid assets. They are also, from an auditing standpoint, more complex to assess from a valuation standpoint. That’s why the valuation for investments is also considered a high-risk area. Again, it’s something that we’ve seen in previous audits. It’s not a new set of findings for us.
Senator ROBERTS: So it doesn’t affect the integrity of the scheme; it’s got more to do with assessing the size of the investments, the rates of payout and the rates of income.
Mr Windever: That’s correct. It’s so that we can stand behind the accuracy of the financial statements. Again, these two areas are focused on our balance sheet in particular.
Senator ROBERTS: You said there’s no real risk to your entity—Coal LSL.
Mr Windever: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s not going to be much fallout if the risks crystallize.
Mr Windever: They’re considered to be high-risk areas, but, each year, as we work through the audits—we had a successful passing again of this audit of our financial statements. We’re satisfied with that outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the next part of this. The funds arrive in the accounts of the scheme from compulsory levies upon the relevant employers, right? The funds held by the fund are now in excess of $2 billion. What happens to the excess income generated from the scheme after leave entitlements are paid out?
Mr Windever: You’re correct about the size of the fund. It’s $2.6 billion now. We measure the health of that in terms of a fund surplus or a fund coverage ratio. That’s how I would answer that question, if you like. It remains on the balance sheet, but we have some goals that we work towards around the coverage of assets over our liabilities, and we manage to those goals accordingly. That’s how I’d answer that one.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. Emmett J in the Federal Court in 1998 emphasised that—and I acknowledge that that’s some 27 years ago—there was a lack of control of the corporation by the government and a lack of accountability to the government. Was Coal LSL a government entity at that time?
Ms Perks: In 1998? Yes. It was in 1992 that the entity was established under the administration act.
Senator ROBERTS: What change of governance, if any, has occurred within Coal LSL since then to tighten that up?
Ms Perks: Since 1998? That’s a very big question. I can talk about what we’ve done since I’ve been in the organisations, and we’ve had a lot of conversations around that. I can—
Senator ROBERTS: Governance was a particularly hot issue.
Ms Perks: I can talk to that specifically. Since 1998—I wouldn’t answer that question.
Senator ROBERTS: I hear what you’re saying. Given that the fund was originally set up as a stopgap measure to build up a money chest, if you like, to cover an estimated shortfall of funds to cover long service leave claims, can your office comment on the purpose for which it’s satisfied for the fund to continue generating millions of dollars per year after the original purpose was met a quarter of a century ago. Why is it still continuing?
Ms Perks: It’s a very good policy question. I can talk with passion about the value of the scheme, and I’m the first one to talk about the value of portable long service leave and what it has done for the industry and employees in the industry. What I would say is—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me for cutting you off. I didn’t mean that. You don’t need to convince me of that portability. That’s fine. What I’m getting to is that my understanding—I think it’s correct—is that there was a fund created because there was a shortfall in funds. Now, you’ve a massive service in funds. Why is the fund still in existence?
Ms Perks: That would be a question for government. I think you’re referring to the first reading speech or the explanatory memorandum in 1992, which talked about why the fund was being created. The payroll levy was set at five per cent at that point in time to get the fund back into—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m comfortable with all of that.
Ms Perks: What I would say, though, is that it wasn’t legislated. There was nothing in the legislation in 1992 to legislate a winding up of the fund. Yes, it’s in the first reading speech as—well, is it an intention? I won’t comment. It’s definitely in the first reading speech, but that didn’t translate into the legislation when the fund and the corporation were established.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking about the original coalmine insurance fund. I’m a bit hazy on this, but I understand that there was a stopgap measure of an increase in funds to cover a shortfall due to excessive payouts and not enough revenue coming in. It was probably one of the boom-and-bust years, so they instituted an additional levy as a temporary stopgap. It’s now well past that, and they’ve got a massive $2.6 billion in funds. You don’t need it anymore. Why is it still going?
Ms Perks: Why is the fund still going?
Senator ROBERTS: The extra fund.
Ms Perks: No, the additional payroll levy that you’re talking about was removed in 2008 from memory. The payroll levy was set, and then there was an additional component added, which made it a levy of five per cent. That was in place from 1992 through to—I think it was 2005, from memory. When the fund got back into a neutral position, that’s when that additional levy component was removed. Our levy has been at 2.7 per cent for many years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at—not the original fund, the stopgap fund. So that has been removed?
Ms Perks: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So this is wrong. Thank you. Minister, a question for you—why is a private company run by the NSW Minerals Council, the Queensland Resources Council and the Mining and Energy Union managing billions of dollars contributed compulsorily by employers on behalf of the federal government?
Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice, Senator Roberts and see what I can provide you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Before you came into the chair, a lot of the problems in the coal sector came from entities that have 50 per cent Minerals Council or 50 per cent Queensland Resources Council and 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors. There seems to be a very tight cluster of organisations—Coal Mines Insurance, Coal LSL, Coal Services. There’s another entity in there too that I’ve forgotten.
CHAIR: I think the minister’s taken that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m just trying to give her some background. That’s it; thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/0FmTFIoGWGg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-21 11:59:582025-10-21 12:00:07Coal LSL Under the Microscope – Again
During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned Home Affairs on their failure to properly vet the migrants they are letting into Australia.
Education is being used as a backdoor to permanent residency, with work requirements being rorted.
23,000 dodgy qualifications have been cancelled. These individuals abused the opportunity given to them — buying degrees and working instead of studying. $11 billion is sent overseas every year by foreign students. They breached their visa conditions and should be sent home—yet only 4 people were found guilty of immigration offences in 2023–24.
With 4.5 million visa holders, is enforcement even happening?
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll defer to that and respect the committee then. Let’s move on to the next question. I want to refer to reporting that the Australian Skills Quality Authority has cancelled 23,000 dodgy qualifications since late 2024. Many of these were in relation to international students, who are here on strict visa conditions. If they’ve been found to be participating in a ghost college or something similar to obtain a dodgy qualification to satisfy their visa, that’s clearly deceptive and a breach of their visa conditions, so they should be deported. Are we deporting international students in that 23,000 dodgy qualifications cohort?
Senator COX: They’re the same questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on. I’m going to refer to the federal defendants statistics out of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which say that only four people were found guilty of immigration offences in 2023-24. It seems extraordinarily low, given the 100,000 that we just discussed. How many people did the Department of Home Affairs refer for potential prosecution in 2023-24?
Mr Thomas: It would be across a range of different areas. For example, with the NZYQ affected cohort, we make a number of referrals to law enforcement for breaches of visa conditions. There are other referrals that happen through other parts of the business. We don’t have an aggregate number, but there is a regular flow of referrals through to law enforcement for consideration where we identify a noncitizen that’s in breach.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t have a total number?
Mr Thomas: Not on me, and I think finding that would be quite difficult.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have the resources to refer everyone who may be committing an immigration offence for prosecution?
Mr Thomas: In terms of referring matters, yes. That’s a fairly straightforward process.
Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me how many have been referred?
Mr Thomas: Not in totality across all of the department.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’m really asking is whether every single person the department becomes aware of who may have committed an immigration offence is referred for potential prosecution—yes or no?
Mr Thomas: Where we come across the situation where we think someone has committed a crime or breached the law, we will refer it to the appropriate authority.
Senator ROBERTS: But you don’t know how many deserve to be referred?
Mr Thomas: I don’t have those figures with me. I can take it on notice to try and find out.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So you can’t guarantee that someone who’s in breach will be referred for potential prosecution?
Mr Thomas: You’re asking me a hypothetical question, but, in general, as I said, when we come across an instance where we think someone is in breach of a law, we will refer it to the appropriate jurisdiction.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that only four guilty verdicts out of 2.5 million temporary visa holders in the country would imply it’s not possible.
Mr Thomas: I don’t have visibility of the statistics you’re referring to, but I’m aware of a range of migration outcomes.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2021 there were three million permanent visa holders. How many permanent visa holders are in the country right now? Is it four million?
Mr Willard: I have a figure. I’ll just flag that I’m not tracking that figure of three million for 2021. There are different types of permanent visas, but the figure I have at 30 June 2025 is 1.8 million. That includes 860,000 resident return visas. That’s a type of permanent visa.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the other classifications in that 1.8 million?
Mr Willard: There’s family, offshore humanitarian, onshore protection, other permanent, skilled and special eligibility, and resident return.
Senator ROBERTS: No other temporary visa holders?
Mr Willard: That’s the permanent visa figure that you mentioned.
Senator ROBERTS: How many temporary?
Mr Willard: The temporary figure’s 2.76 million.
Senator ROBERTS: So we add the 1.8 million to the 2.7 million to get the total noncitizens, temporary and permanent?
Mr Willard: The second figure, the 2.76 million figure, is temporary visa holders, and the first figure is permanent visa holders.
Senator ROBERTS: So visa holders in total are about 4.5 million?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/pmllIL7q_Ho/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-20 15:37:212025-10-20 15:37:35Dodgy Degrees, Broken Rules — Where Is Home Affairs?
At Senate Estimates, I raised my ongoing concerns with the Department regarding Mr Robert Pether, an Australian engineer who was unfairly jailed in Iraq and is now being held under a travel ban that prevents him from returning home to Australia. His situation is dire — he is severely unwell, homeless, unable to work, and has very limited resources.
I asked what assistance the Australian Government is providing and was told he is receiving consular support. I was also informed that the Government is actively engaged with Iraqi authorities, and that his plight has been raised by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Australian Ambassador — most recently in September this year.
Let’s hope the Iraqi authorities are listening.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Welcome back. It’s good to see you, Minister Farrell. I know you’re just here briefly. The call is with Senator ROBERTS till two o’clock.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’ve got four topics I’d like to discuss. I’ll go through them one at a time, of course. The first topic is Mr Robert Pether, who was jailed in 2021 on fraud charges in Iraq, which the UN described as an arbitrary detention. I have two very short questions but a long preamble to set the scene and make sure I’m on the right track. Mr Pether is a mechanical engineer. He went to Iraq to rebuild its central bank headquarters in Baghdad. A contract dispute between the bank and his employer, CME Consulting, landed Mr Pether and his Egyptian colleague, Khalid Radwan, in prison after the bank accused the men of stealing money from the project. After being held without charge for almost six months and then subjected to a speedy trial, the two were each given five-year jail sentences and slapped with a joint fine of $17½ million. A 2022 UN report determined that the case contravened international law and that Mr Pether and Mr Radwan had been subjected to ‘abusive and coercive interrogations’. The International Chamber of Commerce’s Court of Arbitration ruled that Iraq’s central bank was at fault in the dispute with CME and ordered it to pay $13 million to the company. Mr Pether was finally released from jail late at night in June. He is fragile, in very poor health and not receiving proper medical treatment. He has limited means and has been homeless in a foreign country. I have two simple questions. Robert Pether is in poor health, is homeless and is being prevented from leaving the country. When will the Australian government bring him home?
Ms McGregor: Firstly, I want to acknowledge the immense toll that Mr Pether’s detention and travel ban have had on him and his family. We are working tirelessly to secure the lifting of that travel ban that is on him. We very much welcome the release of Mr Pether on bail earlier this year. We will continue to provide consular support to him and his family, including continuing that advocacy for him to be able to leave Iraq.
Senator ROBERTS: What specific action has the Australian government taken to have Mr Pether returned to Australia and his family, given that his health is now severely compromised?
Ms McGregor: We remain engaged with Iraqi authorities, as I said, to advocate for Mr Pether to depart Iraq and be reunited with his family. We continue to provide consular assistance. Any ongoing legal matters in relation to that particular travel ban are, of course, a matter for Mr Pether, but I would say that we have consistently advocated for Mr Pether at all levels since his detention in Iraq in 2021. More than 240 representations have been made by Australia, including by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Most recently, on September, the foreign affairs minister raised his case with her Iraqi counterpart in the margins of the UN General Assembly. The Australian ambassador in Iraq has also raised Mr Pether’s case with the appropriate officials in Iraq, including the Prime Minister and the President.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. It’s a disturbing case. What about his health and his welfare?
Ms McGregor: We continue to provide support for his health and his welfare. I don’t want to go into details of that, out of respect for his privacy, but we are continuing to engage with him regularly to receive updates on his situation
https://img.youtube.com/vi/N3z3fH3tyD8/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-20 12:32:032025-10-20 12:32:11Robert Pether’s Fight to Come Home
Last week, I once again raised the issue of Australian children being abducted by a parent and held in Japan, contrary to international law. I was informed that the Department is currently providing support to 17 parents of 24 abducted children.
Since 2004, there have been 90 cases of children abducted to Japan. I was advised that Japanese legislation is planned for 2026, which may allow for joint custody — but only if both parents agree.
Senator Penny Wong could not answer why an Australian parent would be required to pay child support to the abducting parent in Japan. She did say, however, that she had raised the issue of the abducted children with the Japanese government again on September 25 this year.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I now move to the fact that many Australian children are currently being held by a parent in Japan—not one parent, but several cases, by one of the parents—contrary to Australian and international law, without a remedy for the Australian parent to have their child returned. These are truly stolen children. I’ve brought this up before in Senate estimates. My first question is: how many of these abducted children are in Japan, as reported to the department? Previously it was 89. Some children returned—I think it was 18—and are no longer listed as abducted children. How many are now in Japan, abducted?
Ms McGregor: Thank you for your question, Senator. I can confirm that DFAT currently provides consular assistance to 17 parents—and that’s in respect of 24 children—on parental abduction and child custody issues in Japan. Since 2004, we have provided assistance to the parents of 90 children in similar cases. Those are the numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a big improvement. What progress has been made to return these children since the last time I raised this in Senate estimates? Numbers, and also action you’ve taken.
Ms McGregor: There has been some progress recently with the passage of Japan’s legislative reforms, through their legislature, that will allow joint custody from the middle of 2026. We continue to engage with Japan to encourage them to implement that legislation in a way that will allow children to have relationships with both parents where it’s in the best interest of the child to do so. We will continue to advocate with Japan for those reforms. Minister Wong raised child custody with the foreign minister of Japan at a bilateral meeting in the margins of the 2+2 meeting in early September 2025. Minister Wong also raised the issue with then foreign minister Kamikawa in July 2024 in Tokyo, and before that in 2023 in September, and on multiple occasions with Foreign Minister Hayashi as well. We continue to make those representations. There has been other assistance. The Hon. Justice Victoria Bennett of the Federal Circuit and Family Court visited Japan in April last year to share experiences of family law reform with parliamentarians, and her visit helped strengthen Australia’s advocacy. We also supported a six-month visit to Australia by a Japanese Ministry of Justice judicial official to learn about Australia’s family law system. That was from October 2024 to March 2025. Other than that our ambassador to Japan and other officials consistently raise this matter with Japanese ministers and authorities, and we coordinate advocacy with like-minded countries.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, my next question is to you. Thank you for your advocacy on this matter. It’s been successful so far. The upcoming laws in Japan in 2026, though, do not solve the problem because visitation rights with the non-custodial parent are not addressed and joint custody is only made possible if both parents agree. What’s your view on that, and what prospects have we got for resolving it?
Senator Wong: We have advocated to Japan in the way that officials have outlined. We have encouraged Japan to implement this legislation in a way that allows children to have relationships with both parents where it is in the best interests of the child and it is safe to do so. That has been the position that we, the officials and I, have articulated. Obviously, these are matters for domestic processes in Japan, but I have engaged, as Ms McGregor talked about, with a number of foreign ministers in relation to this. We have had engagement through a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Justice Bennett, which Ms McGregor referred to. We’re trying to put our views and share some of our experiences, but ultimately these are matters that the Japanese system is determining. We are pleased that there has been progress. I understand it’s been very distressing for a number of parents.
Senator ROBERTS: I assume you’re still working on the visitation rights issue?
Ms McGregor: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this may not be possible for you to answer, but is it possible that a parent without access to their abducted child can be forced to pay Australian child support to the abducting parent while the child is being held in Japan? Senator Wong: I’m not in a position to answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. If so—and I’m not trying to be cheeky; I’m trying to understand—by paying child support is the government not becoming complicit in supporting the process and the abduction? Now, I understand; I’ve had dealing with Japanese people. They’re very wonderful and respectful. I just wonder if that’s possibly the case.
Senator Wong: This is a question: if child support is required, what are the consequences of that?
Senator ROBERTS: Basically, yes, and does it encourage abduction?
Senator Wong: We don’t ever want children to be abducted. This portfolio doesn’t deal with child support, and I don’t know what the parameters are around the child support legislation—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s why I prefaced my question.
Senator Wong: so I can’t comment any further.
Senator ROBERTS: What is Japan, which is our supposed ally, saying to support its position of not assisting to resolve this matter with regard to returning abducted children? Do they understand our system? I know you’ve tried to educate them on our system.
Ms Adams: Perhaps I can offer some comment. I think the reality is that Japan has quite a different, you could say, family law approach overall than our country has. I think we—not just this department but other parts of our system—through our sustained advocacy have had some success in encouraging Japan to nudge their quite culturally specific, as they would see it, system towards one where access to both parents is more normal. But it’s fundamentally a different set—
Senator ROBERTS: A different culture.
Ms Adams: of legal and family-oriented decisions that they make.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve negotiated with the Japanese. They’re wonderful people, but it is difficult to get across to a different culture at times. Is the Australian government minister prepared to bring this matter to the United Nations for resolution, in the same way that Australia achieved success globally in halting whaling by raising it at an international level?
Senator Wong: I don’t think you were in the room, but I responded to Senator McKim by making the point that grandstanding is not necessarily being effective. In fact, it usually is not effective. We have worked in the way that we have, bilaterally and respectfully, recognising that this is a matter for their domestic political processes in Japan, but we have sought to put our view, to express the sensitivity of this issue, the distress of a range of non-custodial parents whom we are aware of and deal with and what effect this has, and respectfully to encourage progress on this matter. I appreciate that there are people who will want more to have been done, but I think we have seen progress and we have seen the willingness of our counterparts to engage on this issue. I think that is a more effective way. The approach we have been taking has been, I think, a more effective way to progress this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Out of respect, I would agree with you, because that is the way the Japanese do it, and I think you would be more effective that way anyway.
Senator Wong: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. I will have more questions, if I can come back
https://img.youtube.com/vi/yIPRa2rl8qw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-20 12:24:192025-10-20 12:24:28Children Held in Japan Against International Law
During last week’s Senate Estimates, I questioned Minister Chisholm and Acting Secretary of the Department, Ms Justine Saunders, regarding the ongoing mismanagement of the Fire Ant Eradication Program in South East Queensland.
Despite them saying that the Department has been working closely with Queensland operatives, both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders claimed they were unaware of any issues within the program. They stated that they had seen no evidence of mismanagement by those on the ground in Queensland.
When asked directly about what might constitute a “reasonable excuse” for the program’s failings, they declined to comment—which would suggest that such a determination should be a matter for the courts.
In light of this, I am calling on anyone with evidence of mismanagement or misconduct by program officers to urgently send it to both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Senator the Hon Anthony Chisholm
Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Email: senator.chisholm@aph.gov.au
Ms Justine Saunders
Acting Secretary
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
GPO Box 858
Canberra ACT 2601
Email: justine.saunders@aff.gov.au
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move onto fire and a broad overview of the federal government exercising to ensure the states are successful because we’re using federal funds in the National Fire Ant Eradication Program.
Ms Sawczuk: We’ve been very closely monitoring the delivery of the program as the chair of the national management group, and also as a key party to all of the governance program and the technical committee. We have also been working with Queensland, and the program specifically, by providing compliance and enforcement officers some assistance around communication.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve been providing them to Queensland?
Ms Sawczuk: Yes, we have.
Senator ROBERTS: What are their duties?
Ms Sawczuk: To provide, for example, assistance on a compliance and enforcement framework, noting that there were a number of detections of importance; having a look at the compliance and enforcement activities done around that; and also working with the program to assess the triggers and the risks, if any of them are being met as a result of the detections. We’re also working with them to strengthen communications. We’re looking at the messaging that is getting out, particularly some of the success stories but also some of the targeting of the right messages. And because we are the national management group committee chair, we’re providing some advice on governance and cost-sharing arrangements. We work very closely with them to monitor the program, given that there is a significant investment, but also given that we do have that national coordination role in the governance.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’d like to go with this. We do provide a lot of federal taxpayer money for this Queensland program—it’s largely Queensland. Is this government aware of the overreach and intimidating tactics being used by the states and of breaches of regulations on pesticides, particularly in South-East Queensland? I’m sad to say that they’re forcing their way into properties and causing fear and distress to landowners, upsetting women and terrifying crying children? Are you aware of that?
Ms Saunders: No, we’re not.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s going on; that’s right. Since when is it okay for gates and fences to be broken down with a police presence, threatening those with reasonable excuses who withheld consent to strangers forcing their way onto properties with a view to unlawfully spreading poison when there is not a fire ant within cooee— this is in breach of pesticide regulations. Are you aware of that?
Ms Saunders: No.
Senator ROBERTS: This is exactly what happened recently at Beechmont and Laidley and other places, when property was damaged and officers behaved like criminals in a home invasion while trespassing on private land. The violence came from the officers, not the landowners. I’ve talked with the landowners. Are you aware of that?
Ms Saunders: We’ve got no evidence to suggest unlawful conduct or misconduct by the program in undertaking the compliance activities.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I send you evidence?
Ms Saunders: Of course.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers if they have a reasonable excuse?
Ms Saunders: Sorry, can you repeat the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers—that’s fire ant eradication program officers—if they have a reasonable excuse?
Ms Saunders: To be honest, I don’t know the specifics of the legislation under which the program operates, in terms of the compliance enforcement. They’re state laws, and the question is better directed at the state government.
Senator ROBERTS: The Biosecurity Act says that they can have a reasonable excuse and then they cannot go onto the property.
Ms Saunders: We’re not applying the Commonwealth Biosecurity Act in relation to this program.
Senator ROBERTS: No, state.
Ms Saunders: I’m not familiar with their legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you think it’s a reasonable excuse to obstruct when a resident has an illness such as asthma or other respiratory ailments confirmed by a medical certificate as likely to be made worse by exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly when being sprayed?
Ms Saunders: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on facts that I’m not familiar with and/or are the responsibility of a state jurisdiction.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals present represent a threat to domestic animals—dogs, cats, birds—if they are exposed to the toxic chemicals?
Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware of those circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals are not being administered according to the safety requirements under the permits issued by the APVMA?
Senator Chisholm: Again, I’m not aware of any existence of that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your truthfulness. It’s very helpful. I’m not trying to have a ‘gotcha’ moment. This is very serious in Queensland. Why is aerial application of pyriproxyfen occurring on a wide scale on areas where no fire ants have been identified, ever, when the permit number PER87728 clearly states by way of restraint: DO NOT apply as a preventative measure for Red Imported Fire Ant control. Are you aware of that?
Ms Saunders: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse, Minister, to obstruct when the administering authority has already disastrously polluted a significant waterway in the Samford Valley—you’d be familiar with the beauty of that valley—near Brisbane, killing extensive native marine, reptile and insect species?
Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case, Senator ROBERTS.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals have already been shown to not discriminate between insects and have already wiped out thousands of native ants and native bees and their hives?
Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re not aware. By the way, I’m not expecting you to be aware. Thank you.
Ms Saunders: Also, nor do we have any evidence, Senator, that’s the case.
Senator ROBERTS: No. I’ll get people to contact you about it. Where is the environmental safety research that has been done to establish the safety of humans and our native birds and small animals when poisoned insects form part of the food chain? Is there any?
Ms Saunders: I’d have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Who is responsible for determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse?
Ms Saunders: That’s a state matter. You’d have to ask the state government.
Senator ROBERTS: Shouldn’t it be up to a court to decide this crucial question?
Ms Saunders: Once again, that’s a matter for state government.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and—what’s the other ‘f’?—Forestry step up to pay compensation to those affected by the misapplication of the fire ant eradication program in Queensland thanks to the use of federal funds? Are you responsible?
Ms Saunders: I’ll repeat my comments. No, they are matters for the state.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your direct answers. I’ll get someone to contact you.
Australia’s migration program is failing to deliver the skilled workers we were promised.
An analysis shows that in 2023-24 only 12% of permanent migration spots went to skilled workers — and 0.09% to tradespeople. Meanwhile, the housing crisis worsens.
The system is broken!
— Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I want to go to an analysis of the migration program—it’s an analysis done by Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald and Professor Alan Gamlen, who are affiliated with the Migration Hub at the ANU—and also a comment on their analysis by Leith van Onselen, the economist, who says of the report:
Australia’s immigration system is unskilled and broken.
They say, ‘In 2023-24, the permanent migration program’—185,000—’delivered just 166 tradespeople, negligible against national needs.’ The report also shows that just 12 per cent of places in the nation’s permanent migration program are going to skilled workers. Instead, many of these place are being allocated to members of skilled workers’ families. Zero point zero nine per cent of new permanent residents are in the trades. Australians have been promised that the migration program is to fill skills shortages to fix the housing crisis, and that’s being used to justify hundreds of thousands of arrivals—millions over the last few years. Yet now we know that just 166 tradies arrived in one year. Why is your department failing to make sure the people who are granted permanent places in Australia are actually skilled? Senator Watt: Maybe the place to start, Senator, is what figures the department has around—there was a little discussion about this earlier in a session you weren’t here for, but maybe that’s a decent place to start.
Ms Sharp: Certainly. Thanks, Minister. Going very specifically to primary visa applicants who work in the construction sector, in 2024-25 there were 15,524 skilled visas granted to workers in construction.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me—what was the total migration that year?
Mr Willard: 185,000.
Senator ROBERTS: 185,000?
Ms Sharp: That was the permanent program, Senator, yes. Of that permanent program, 8,741 were skilled workers in the construction sector.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about four per cent.
Senator Watt: But very different to the numbers you were just quoting, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Depends how they’re classified, Minister.
Senator Watt: Well, I think you gave a figure of 150-something—
Senator ROBERTS: 166.
Senator Watt: Yes, whereas the actual number is over 8,000—so, pretty big difference.
Senator ROBERTS: We can argue about the accuracy because it depends on the classification, but keep going.
Mr Willard: Senator, I’d add that the permanent program—it’s roughly two-thirds allocated to the skilled program. You are correct that the skilled program includes the primary applicants and their immediate family members, and there were 132,148 places delivered in that skilled program in 2024-25.
During this session with officials of the NDIS, I was told that there are currently between 270,000 and 280,000 NDIS providers, with 93% of them being unregistered.
This is a massive number and makes it almost impossible to monitor. Astoundingly, there is no set timeframe for when providers must become registered.
The Minister COULD NOT tell us exactly how much taxpayers were being ripped off by fraudulent operators – however stated that all providers are required to comply with the Code of Conduct. This “compliance” with the Code of Conduct means little to fraudulent operators.
I was not comforted by the responses to this massive waste of money – which is predicted to soon cost more than the entire Australian defence budget.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: How many providers are now registered with NDIS?
Ms Glanville: The number changes all of the time very rapidly, but we have around 270,000 to 280,000 providers. About seven to eight per cent of those are registered.
Senator ROBERTS: When will the commission extend mandatory registration to all providers, and how long will it take for all providers to be registered?
Ms Glanville: The issue of registration and regulation is a matter for government. We’re very pleased to be talking to government about these issues and we will await the outcomes from those discussions.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know yet?
Ms Glanville: No.
Senator ROBERTS: How many sole traders are unregistered?
Ms Glanville: No, we can’t answer that question, but we can take that away and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice? Thank you. How much funding has been claimed by unregistered providers from the NDIS since the scheme began and specifically in the 2024 financial year?
Ms Glanville: That’s a question for Mr McNaughton.
Mr McNaughton: Let me take that on notice and see if I get that during the hearing. To confirm, in what financial year was that?
Senator ROBERTS: How much funding has been claimed by unregistered providers from the NDIS since it began?
Mr McNaughton: I’ll need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know of any other government funded schemes where regulation or compliance is optional, similar to NDIS provider registration?
Ms Glanville: I think there is a whole range of different regulatory systems across government. That’s probably the most accurate thing I can say. We maintain a position of the importance of regulation and registration in the way in which the scheme works. We note the differences about this scheme than perhaps other regulatory regimes that do exist in the Commonwealth.
Senator ROBERTS: What financial risks does the presence of a large unregulated provider base pose to the NDIS?
Ms Glanville: Our main interest is in the quality and safeguards issue. As a human rights regulator, we are keen to see people with disability receiving very safe and quality services to enable them to live their ordinary lives. Questions about the funding is something perhaps Mr McNaughton could address.
Senator McAllister: The government is very committed to dealing with any questions of fraud or noncompliance in the scheme. The ANAO has made the point that prior to our coming to government there were very limited financial compliance arrangements in place within the NDIA. We’ve made substantial investments to improve that. I can ask Mr McNaughton to talk you through some of those, if that assists you.
Mr McNaughton: It’s also important to talk about the fact the market is a quite diverse market. When we talk about unregistered sole providers, it could be an allied health professional or it could be a clinical psychologist who isn’t registered for the NDIS but is registered in all of their other industry bodies and governed by that process. Sometimes they choose not to register for the NDIS for their own purposes because they have other registration requirements. The market is quite diverse in that range. Through our fraud and integrity work, we are doing a lot of work across government. Mr Dardo can talk to some of the work they’re doing to match everything from ABNs to tax file to pay-as-you-go information so we can see if there are challenges around integrity relating to a provider, whether registered or unregistered. We are agnostic to that in our fraud and our integrity work. We are absolutely committed to preserving this scheme and eradicating fraud. This is something that—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, sir, that was the point I was getting to. The scheme itself is at risk if it’s not brought under control and quickly.
Mr McNaughton: The government has invested significantly. I’ll get Mr Dardo to talk through some of the government investment over the past couple years and some of the great work that’s been underway to put better assurance processes in around the scheme to really tackle those fraudulent providers and make sure all disability funding is going to participants who require it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the offer, but we heard from Mr Dardo in the previous session of Senate estimates and what he said was compelling. It stunned a lot of people in the room, including me, so I don’t think we need to revisit that again. What percentage of providers are now made up by unregistered providers?
Ms Glanville: I think I answered that earlier. Do you want to give a bit more detail on that, Ms Wade?
Ms Wade: We anticipate that approximately 93 per cent of providers do not elect to register. As at 30 June 2025, we have 22,955 registered providers. It’s important to note that, whether you are registered or unregistered, you are still required to comply with the code of conduct. The regulator can still ban and take compliance and enforcement action against you, which includes bringing matters before the Federal Court, which is an important part of our regulatory approach to ensure we are clear that the NDIS delivers quality and safe services. During today’s hearing, the Federal Court of Australia delivered a judgement with respect to a matter where a registered provider had a participant die in their care. As a result of their failures under the NDIS Act, they have incurred a $2.2 million penalty, which is the highest penalty that the Federal Court has brought to a provider to date. This is an important reflection on the role that registration but also regulation plays for the NDIS market.
Senator ROBERTS: I think the evidence in a previous session was that the Federal Court would be overwhelmed if you dumped it all on the Federal Court. There’s a lot at stake. I understand that.
Ms Glanville: I can also add to Ms Wade’s comments that the result today is very good because of the quantum in that it is the highest amount that’s been awarded. In the regulatory sense, it also acts as a deterrent to others to think very carefully about what they are doing potentially in relation to the services that they provide to people with disability, and to look at the action that will be taken if they’re found to be wanting in that regard.
Senator ROBERTS: I have examples, but I don’t have the time to go through them of carers who provide massive unpaid support who are not receiving their rightful remuneration and of others who deserve care but are not getting that care. There’s quite a lot at stake. Are you aware of the massive overcharging by some people, for example, for cleaners and nurses. A cleaner is charged at $40 an hour normally. We know this from someone in our staff. When they charge out that cleaner to the NDIS it’s $130 an hour—same job.
Senator McAllister: This is mostly a question to the NDIA in relation to pricing, but we touched on this earlier. The board makes decisions about pricing, but one of the things they have been very clear about in their discussions with me is the importance of making sure people with disability do not pay more for services than do other Australians. I’ll pass to Ms McKay and Mr McNaughton to answer your questions.
Mr McNaughton: We issue what we call our pricing guide, and it sets out what are the maximum rates that can be claimed for certain services. We regularly monitor that as part of annual pricing review. We are always trying to benchmark so that you’re not paying more just because you’re an NDIS participant. We want to make sure we’re paying market rates, whether you’re a private citizen, NDIS participant, Department of Veterans’ Affairs or whatever that might be. That’s what we’re continuing to do. Where we do receive a tip-off that a person may be charging higher than that, that will be referred to our integrity and fraud team, who would then be investigating those matters. I can assure you that’s what they do.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that $2 billion is lost annually to NDIS fraud? Is that acceptable to the government? Would it be better that the NDIS, which provides a decent service, be returned to the states for competitive federalism to develop accountability? We’ve just got to look at every way of getting this monster under control.
Senator McAllister: The policy you just referenced now is not something that the government is considering. However, the issue around fraud and integrity in the system is a matter that the government takes very seriously. Since coming to government in 2022, we have essentially needed to build an antifraud and compliance framework almost from scratch. We have made a $500 million investment into the NDIA to support them in building this capability. You heard, as you’ve indicated, from Mr Dardo previously about some of the outcomes of that investment. We will continue to back those processes, because these are not really victimless crimes. Aside from taxpayer impacts, when we see fraud we often see other harms to participants. We certainly see money being spent on things which should be being provided to people with disability. This is a matter that the government takes very seriously and is something which we are backing with investment.
Mr McNaughton: I echo those comments. What we have through our Fraud Fusion Taskforce is at least 25 or 26 Commonwealth agencies involved in looking at and cracking down on fraud and investigating fraud related matters to the NDIS. We all agree that, as I said earlier, this scheme should be protected for people with disability who require it. There are unfortunately some unscrupulous providers trying to access the scheme. We want to come from a participant safeguarding perspective to make sure we’re removing those providers from the scheme and safeguarding participants so they can access the genuine disability related supports from good service providers. I should say 99.9 per cent of service providers are really good providers. But there are some bad actors who are trying to get on the scheme. We have very good systems in place through our integrity and fraud teams doing some great work. As I said, I could get Mr Dardo to talk through the work of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, but in the interests of time—
Senator ROBERTS: I know he’s doing a good job. Fundamentally, Mr McNaughton, how do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time? Can we break it down into states again? The other thing is this was started without bones. There was no skeleton even. When Julia Gillard promised the NDIS it was to win an election. She didn’t win the election. The Liberals came in and they were stunned at what they saw. I’m not defending the Liberals, by the way.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I do need to share the call. I do enjoy the history lesson, but we’re very short on time.
Senator ROBERTS: Should it be sent back to the states where we’ve got competitive federalism which will give us accountability and each state can improve?
Senator McAllister: That’s not a policy that we’re contemplating.
