eSafety Commissioner’s Actions Questioned

,

The Office of the eSafety Commissioner does commendable work in protecting children and adults from bullying and, most importantly, removing child abuse material. I praised the Office for this work.

However, in my opinion, the eSafety Commissioner has brought the office into disrepute with her personal vendetta against Twitter/X and her attempt to become the world internet police.

Last year, the Commissioner finalised investigations into 9,500 pieces of violent and extremist content. I asked what these were. The answer provided was that the Commissioner was taking down material from anywhere in the world, detecting it in part because they actively searched for it, even without a complaint.

Given that the Commissioner is positioning herself as the world internet police at our expense, I asked what benefit removing the 9,500 pieces of material had for Australians.

The answer relied on one incident, and there was no proof it actually caused a terrorist incident. I asked why there was no explanation of what the other material was, such as a transparency register so we can see what material they are requiring to be taken down to check for political bias. The question was ignored.

I also asked what direct benefit her actions had in addressing terrorism and violent material. The Commissioner answered regarding child material, which I had already praised.

The Commissioner is avoiding scrutiny of her takedown notices for violent and extremist material, and I believe it is because they follow a political bias.

One Nation calls for the eSafety Commissioner to stand down.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I, first of all, pay a compliment and I’ll read out some statistics. From the ACMA annual report 2023-24, the office of the eSafety Commissioner has received 13,824 complaints regarding web URLs, with 82 per cent relating to reports about child sexual abuse, child abuse or paedophile activity. This is a 19 per cent increase from the previous year. Your office sent 9,190 notifications related to child sexual abuse material to the INHOPE network—which I understand are the good guys, the right people to work with—and referred 130 investigations to the Australian Federal Police. On cyber abuse, you received 2,695 complaints to the Cyberbullying Scheme for Australian children and 3,113 complaints to the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme with a removal rate of 88 per cent where removal was required. My opening comment is simple: well done; thank you very much. This is important work. 

My first question is that you finalised 9,461 critical investigations into terrorist and violent extremist content, representing a 229 per cent increase—that’s amazing—in these types of complaints from the previous year. I’d like to ask about that. How do you define terrorist and violent extremist content? 

Ms Inman Grant : I will turn over to Ms Snell to talk about that. That is part of our illegal and restricted content team under the Online Content Scheme. 

Ms Snell : I’m actually going to invite Mr Downie, who is the executive manager for our Investigations Branch, who oversees this work, to talk specifically to this. 

Mr Downie : When we’re dealing with terrorism and violent extremist content under the Online Safety Act, we deal with terrorism as defined under the Criminal Code to the pure definition of what a terrorist act is. However, when we’re applying the Online Safety Act, we apply the content according to the classification scheme, and we’ll classify that material as ‘refuse classification’, which then falls into class 1 and class 2 definitions. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is this content relating to Australian content or international content? 

Mr Downie : With the complaints that we receive, we receive content that can be generated or hosted anywhere in the world, but the key is that it’s accessible by the people within the Australian community. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you seek this content out yourself, or do you rely on a complaint before acting? 

Mr Downie : Generally, we rely on a complaint before acting; however, we do have own-motion investigation provisions where we are then able to further conduct investigations to locate material that may be in furtherance of that complaint. 

Senator ROBERTS: Of those 9,461 completed investigations, what was the outcome, please? 

Mr Downie: I’d have to take that on notice for the specific details of those investigations, but in the majority of cases that content is removed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any demonstrable benefit from you taking this material down? What is the benefit to the taxpayer of this aspect of your office? 

Mr Downie : Having access to that type of content, whether it be globally or not, is very harmful to members of the community. That material can be used to incite violence. It can be used to radicalise vulnerable people or youth, which, as we’ve seen in the media, can be then used to incite further violence within the community. So less access to that type of content can only be beneficial for the Australian community. 

Ms Inman Grant : And I’d note that ASIO Director-General Burgess has said that the vast majority of terrorism investigations conducted right now are of young people between the ages of 14 and 21 and in every single case they have been radicalised somehow on the internet. You would probably also be aware of, heartbreakingly, the stabbing video of bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, which was geo-blocked here by X but was available in the rest of the world. In the sentencing of the 17-year-old Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, who went and stabbed three little girls to death while they were making bracelets at a Taylor Swift themed dance party, that very video, that very Wakeley stabbing video, he accessed on X 25 minutes before he stabbed those little girls and claimed that that was his inspiration. So you can imagine that this is something that the UK government has wanted to talk to us about. We have a partnership with Ofcom. We of course have different powers, but I think it’s just a very powerful reminder that this kind of content is accessed by young people. It can normalise, desensitise and, in the worst cases, radicalise. 

Senator ROBERTS: On page 206 of the ACMA report, there’s a graph which shows X is the source of five per cent of your cyberabuse claims and Google four per cent, compared to Facebook at 25 per cent. Page 216 of your report lists major noncompliance actions. X has four and Google one. Why does X occupy so much of your time? 

Ms Inman Grant : In terms of adult cyberabuse? 

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of terrorism complaints and cyberabuse. 

Ms Inman Grant : If you recall back to 16 April, around the Wakeley stabbing, we worked with all platforms. With the exception of Meta and X Corp., they all did a good job in trying to identify, detect and remove the Wakeley terrorism video. We weren’t satisfied that either Meta or X did, but, once we issued formal removal notices, Meta responded and complied within the hour, and, of course—you know the story—X said, ‘We’ll see you in court.’ That’s what has taken our time. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about the others? That would apply to one of your complaints against them. What about the others? Why the other three? 

Ms Inman Grant : It depends on the type of harm. For instance, when we’re talking about youth based cyberbullying, most of the cyberbullying happens on the top four platforms where children spend their time, on YouTube, TikTok, Snap and Instagram. When it comes to image based abuse, there’s a much higher proportion now of sexual extortion targeting young men between the ages of 18 and 24. They tend to meet on Instagram, sometimes on Snap, and then they’re moved off platform. So it depends on the form of abuse. It also depends on the complaints we get. But, when it comes to the terrorist and child sexual abuse material, we go to where the content is hosted and shared. 

Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question. You’ve got four major noncompliance actions against X and only one against Google, yet you’ve mentioned several platforms. Why does X have to occupy so much of your time? 

Ms Inman Grant: Because they did not comply with our notices. Google came close to not complying, so we gave them a formal warning. 

Mr Fleming : Those tribunal and court cases are often initiated by X, so we’re responding to the claims that they make challenging our powers. That’s why they feature the most. 

Senator ROBERTS: The report goes on to list how many notices are issued under each part of the act yet does not provide a detailed list. This is fine for child and adult abuse material, of course. We’re happy with that. For class 1 extremist and violent material, why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and the reasons why? There’s a widespread belief in the public that you’re overstepping on your choice of material to take down. 

Ms Inman Grant: Respectfully, I’d like to read from some weighted and validated surveys of the Australian public. In November 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 87 per cent of those surveyed supported the introduction of stronger penalties for social media companies that do not comply with Australian laws, 77 per cent supported the proposed ban on social media for children and 75 per cent supported the Australian government’s plan to introduce a digital duty of care. In August 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 79 per cent said that social media platforms should operate with a regulator with the power to order content removal. That seems like a pretty overwhelming amount of support from the public. 

Senator ROBERTS: That wasn’t my question. My question was: why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and a breakdown of the reasons why? 

Ms Inman Grant : We provide as much transparency as we can. You would understand that confidentiality is incredibly important. We can’t describe these in great detail. We can’t name names. What kind of information do you think would be helpful to your understanding? That’s something that we can certainly look at in the interests of transparency. 

Senator ROBERTS: The specific behaviours, without breaching confidentiality, would be helpful. We wouldn’t expect you to breach confidentiality or name names—certainly not—but we would like the types of actions that the commissioner thinks worthy of a takedown notice, as I said, and the reasons why. 

Senator McAllister: The commissioner and I are trying to understand, with a little more precision, what sort of information. You’re simply saying a generalised list of examples that are deidentified— 

Ms Inman Grant : Of 40,000 complaints we receive annually. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’re dealing with them, so presumably you know what they are. I’d like to see some sort of classification so that people could understand the proportions, because at the moment I don’t think you’re accountable for that. 

Ms Inman Grant : We can take that on notice. We would have to look at privacy and confidentiality. We would also have to look at resource implications and how that might serve the public interest, but we’re happy to take a look at that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I think the people have a right to know. Referencing unofficial takedown notices, which I note are issued under section 183(2)(zk), these go to the question of your secrecy. If these are dangerous enough to require a takedown, then they should be dangerous enough for you to list out by making the register of takedown notices public knowledge—that’s what I was getting at. Otherwise, you’re simply exercising power without any accountability, power that can be abused. How would we know? Can you, Commissioner, point to one terrorist act you’ve prevented, one person you’ve deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material? 

Ms Inman Grant : I go back to what D-G Burgess often says, ‘You’re never congratulated when you stop something from happening.’ Again, do we have to have more heartbreaking examples of, like I just explained to you, what happened with those three little girls murdered in Southport, UK? We’ll never know. What I do know is I have parents coming up to me and saying: ‘You’ve saved my son’s life. He was sexually extorted. He had just turned 18. He went to the police; no-one would help him. I wasn’t going to let it go. I found your website. Your investigators supported him, got the content down, gave him advice and sent him on to mental health support services.’ So I do know that we’re saving lives every day. 

How many cases of 12- and 13-year-old girls being cyberbullied and bullied do you need to prove that this is a veritable epidemic and that young people are losing their lives? We’re here to help them and to prevent that from happening. My biggest regret, if there is one, is that more people don’t know about us. Only about 40 per cent of the Australian population knows about us, but we do everything we can to help people. When we stop helping people and making the online world a safer and better place, then, yes, it’s time to hang up our hats, but we’re just getting started. 

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Ms Inman Grant, you didn’t answer my question— 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have to rotate the call. There are a lot of senators who wish to ask questions. 

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to clarify that one. 

CHAIR: I can come back to you, if you wish. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’ll only take a second to do this. 

CHAIR: Go on then. 

Senator ROBERTS: I asked, ‘Can you point to one terrorist act?’ I accept you’re doing a good job. You’re preventing child abuse, no doubt about that. We’ve discussed that in the past. Can you point to one terrorist act you prevented, one person deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material? That’s what I want to know. 

Ms Inman Grant : We’re not going out into the public asking young people if they saw a particular video that radicalised them or not. We do know when people have been radicalised by content that has been online. Some of the gore content that we’ve taken down includes the manifestos, the horrific imagery of people at Christchurch huddling in the corner while being shot. Anything that’s dehumanising that we are able to get down to not cause further pain to victims and their families and have not incite others into taking the same action, I think, is worth doing. I don’t need proof that I prevented this, that or the other from happening. We’re trying to make the internet a safer, more positive place with less violent extremist material, and that’s why we take these issues so seriously. 

Senator ROBERTS: My concern is with— 

CHAIR: We’ll go to Senator Darmanin— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put one more question on notice. 

/by

Federal Police Drop Vaccine Mandate

,

The Federal Police have finally dropped their vaccine mandate for workers, yet won’t apologise to the people who have been persecuted and lost wages for years.

It’s been known from the very start it didn’t stop workers getting COVID, and it didn’t stop transmission of COVID to others. That hasn’t changed, so why this change four years later?

It’s not good enough! One Nation calls for an apology, backpay, compensation and immediate rehiring of anyone who lost a job because of a vaccine mandate.

Transcript

CHAIR: I also note the time. Can we give Senator Roberts the call for a moment? Senator Roberts, do you have questions for the AFP? 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing tonight. Just before the last break, Commissioner, did you say you revoked the COVID vaccine mandates on your police yesterday? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I can answer that. Thank you for the question. You might recall last time we appeared at this committee back in November, we did disclose that we had undertaken a review of the COVID Commissioner’s Order 10 policy, which related to COVID vaccines. That review, as of November, had been completed and supported by our enterprise operations board. I mentioned at our last hearing in November that the next phase for us to do, as per the legislation, as per the Work Health Safety Act, was to undertake genuine workforce consultation. So throughout December and January we have undertaken that genuine consultation with the workforce, which included comments back that were supportive and not supportive. In consideration of that consultation, the commissioner, yes, he has determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 is to be revoked, and that was announced to the workforce. Our internal website has a range of frequently asked questions and information for staff to address the issues that were raised across that consultation process. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Am I accurate in saying they were revoked yesterday? 

Ms Van Gurp :  No. The Commissioner’s Order 10 was signed off as revoked by the commissioner on 13 February. It was announced to the workforce this week. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Why did you revoke the vaccine mandates? I know you have been through a process—I don’t need to hear about that again, with respect—but what was the reason they were revoked? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Throughout the process since the Commissioner’s Order was put in place, we did undertake regular reviews looking at that policy. As we talked about before in this forum, it was an important policy for us at a time to protect both our workforce and the community, particularly the vulnerable communities that we are working with across the Pacific and other areas of the globe. But the most recent review in relation to reflecting on the health advice from our Chief Medical Officer as well as ATAGI and others, we determined that that risk posed didn’t necessitate a specific Commissioner’s Order anymore because, rather than it being a global pandemic, the status of COVID had been downgraded, so we made that determination through that internal review and through doing an updated risk assessment treatment plan. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Given that nothing has changed arguably in recent years—certainly in many, many, many, month many, months—why did it take long to revoke the vaccine mandates? 

Ms Van Gurp :  As we have talked about here previously, while for some other agencies the advice had changed around the risks of the community, we were conscious that we have a workforce that we need to be able to readily deploy at any time and we are deploying to vulnerable communities, so our assessment was not just to follow the general community advice; it was to undertake our own internal assessment, so we held that policy in place for a longer period of time to protect both our workforce and the community, but we have determined now is the time to revoke that policy. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Given the injections did not stop people getting COVID and did not stop people transmitting COVID, why were the mandates implemented? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Based on the health advice both from government and our Chief Medical Officer, it was to minimise the risk to both our members and to the vulnerable communities, so acknowledging, yes, of course, Senator, you are correct—the COVID vaccine didn’t prevent people getting it or prevent people transmitting it but it did mitigate that risk. 

Senator ROBERTS:  So was that on the evidence of the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI health agencies? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Did they provide you with the evidence? I am asking: on what evidence? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will have to take that on notice, but essentially we considered the advice coming from ATAGI and others externally. We considered the risk to our people by undertaking our own risk assessment treatment plan internally and that was in consideration of the way in which we deploy staff, where we are deploying to, the nature of our operations et cetera. So, for some time, our internal position was that we needed to maintain that vaccination requirement that the safety of our members and for the safety of the communities were dealing with. But as I said, we have revised that risk assessment treatment plan now and have determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 can be revoked. 

Senator ROBERTS:  On notice, could I have a copy of the advice from the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI, please? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will take that question on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Also in your own deliberations within the AFP, I would like to know what drove the conclusion, particularly your risk assessment. I would like to see the risk assessment. 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: The inefficacy of the COVID injections in stopping transmission was known well before yesterday. Why did it take so long to revoke? 

Ms Van Gurp :  As I mentioned, our decision to have that Commissioner’s Order in place was not just based on ATAGI and other advice; it was our internal position as well in consideration of our own risk assessment treatment plans. We went through a thorough process to make sure that, before we revoked it ,we were being thorough in our assessments. As I previously talked about, we did an internal review that Deputy Commissioner Gale’s team led. That review came to our internal enterprise operations board for consideration. We supported the position of the review and then, as per the WHS Act, we undertook workplace consultation prior to making a decision, and that is a requirement under legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Could I, on notice again, have any evidence that you considered within the AFP in making the decision and on why it took so long? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Yes, Commissioner. I’m happy to take on notice to provide that plan. 

Senator ROBERTS:  I haven’t been promoted yet! 

Ms Van Gurp :  Senator, sorry! 

Senator SCARR:  It’s coming now—just hold off! 

Ms Van Gurp :  It’s past my bedtime! 

Senator ROBERTS:  It’s past my bedtime too. I have two more questions, very briefly. Did you mandate the AstraZeneca shots that were later withdrawn? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Our Commissioner’s Order 10 required that staff had to have two vaccinations. We didn’t mandate which vaccination that needed to be. But I’m happy to take it on notice if you need more clarity around that. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Commissioner, will you apologise to police who were basically forced to take the AstraZeneca shot? 

Mr Kershaw :  I don’t know what evidence you have there, Senator. I’ll have to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  They were withdrawn from use in the UK and other countries, I believe, on the basis of a court case in Britain. They were also withdrawn in this country, although I understand the federal health department did not withdraw them until quite some time later. I’d like to know why they were mandated. 

CHAIR: Do you mean that type of vaccination, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, the AstraZeneca brand. 

CHAIR: I’m not going to answer for the commissioner, but I think he has taken it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, he has. Thank you all for appearing. 

CHAIR: I hope you’re enjoying whatever regional town in Queensland you seem to be joining from. I’m sure it’s a fabulous place.  

/4 Comments/by

Investigation into Wage Theft for Coal Miners in the Hunter

,

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has received a Ministerial directive to investigate wage theft allegations affecting coal miners in the Hunter region. Upon inquiring about the investigation’s status, Mr Steve Ronson, the Executive Director of the FWO shared that there are currently 18 cases under investigation, involving 25 workers and 17 employers, with 2 self-reports also being considered. All complaints are being thoroughly investigated, and the process includes holding meetings with various stakeholders.

A dedicated email address has been established for individuals to contact the FWO regarding these issues. So far, meetings have been held with Coal LSL, the Mining Energy Union, and the Independent Workers Union of Australia. Mr Ronson mentioned that the amounts to be calculated have not yet been assessed, with some claims dating back around 10 years. It’s been estimated that the total claim could potentially reach up to $1.3 billion. He also expressed his willingness to accept a submission from One Nation, which has been advocating for this investigation since 2019, marking it as the largest wage theft claim in Australia.

Interestingly, there has been no liaison with the Fair Work Commission, although other entities are welcome to submit material. Early findings from the investigation may emerge by mid this year, but the final report is expected by mid-2026. Status reports might be discussed through the estimates process. Mr Ronson clarified that while underpayments can be investigated beyond the 6-year period under the Statute of Limitations, enforcement is limited to this timeframe. He committed to securing any identified underpayments through the investigation.

Stay tuned for more updates as this significant investigation progresses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending, everyone. First of all, I understand the Fair Work Ombudsman has received a ministerial directive to investigate underpayments of casual black coal miners working under enterprise agreements; is that correct? 

Ms Booth: We have been asked to conduct that investigation. On the last occasion, you’ll recall, Mr Ronson gave you a thorough rundown. Since that time our enforcement board has approved an investigation plan. I will turn to Mr Campbell to give you any further updates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Before he does so, would it be possible to get a copy of the ministerial directive, please? 

Ms Booth: I’m not sure I would describe it as a ministerial directive, although others might be more aware of the protocol in these matters. I believe it was a letter. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I have a copy? 

Ms Booth: I see no reason why you shouldn’t. I’ll hand over to Mr Campbell and Mr Ronson to give you more details. 

Mr Campbell: Is there a particular aspect of our inquiries that you’re interested in, or are you looking for a general update? 

Senator ROBERTS: I’d specifically like, please, an overview of the status of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s activities, and could you in particular describe the process the Fair Work Ombudsman is using to conduct its investigations. 

Mr Campbell: I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist. 

Mr Ronson: I can give you an update on the status of the investigation. The Fair Work Ombudsman is currently investigating 18 black coal mining industry matters that involve 25 workers and 17 different employing entities. We’ve also received two self-reports from the sector. All the requests for assistance that we’ve received are being investigated, and as part of our project plan we’re meeting with a whole range of stakeholders. We’ve begun meeting with them to talk about the investigation, to enhance and increase awareness and to encourage those in the sector to come forward. We have a dedicated email address to receive any allegations or information from any member of the sector or the community. So far, we’ve had some very constructive and positive meetings. We’ve had two meetings with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, we’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union, we’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia, and we’ve got a whole range of other stakeholder meetings lined up in the next couple of weeks. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I assume that there’s a dedicated process that casual coalminers can now use to lodge complaints about underpayment with the Fair Work Ombudsman? 

Mr Ronson:  That’s correct. There’s a dedicated email address we’ve set up for the whole project so that anyone in the sector or anyone with information relating to the sector can feel confident that they can go straight through to contacting us through that email, or they can give us a call—whichever way they want to make contact with us. Of course, there’s still the anonymous report function as well, which is available to all members of the community. 

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Independent Workers Union of Australia. I take it that some of the submissions, or complaints, have been lodged through that and some of the others have been individually lodged, for individual work. 

Mr Ronson: That’s right. Probably two-thirds have come through the agency of the Independent Workers Union of Australia and the other third are just individual workers in the sector who have requests for assistance that we’re looking at. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate your succinct and direct answers. Can the Fair Work Ombudsman provide the range of possible underpayment amounts currently being looked at by the Fair Work Ombudsman? 

Mr Ronson: It’s hard to assess at the moment what potential underpayments, if any, exist. Some of the allegations date back at least 10 or 11 years. There are some individuals who’ve worked in the sector for many years. If the allegations are upheld and if the evidence is obtained, there could be significant underpayments owing to certain workers. But at this stage it’s too early. We’ve requested a series of documents, a lot of information from various companies, that will assist us to begin, if you like, the assessment of these particular claims. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many employers—not only mine owners but the labour hire firms—are subject to investigation so far? How many? 

Mr Ronson: All up, it’s 17. 

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned that—okay. Will the Fair Work Ombudsman advertise to coalminers in the black coal mining sector, encouraging them to lodge and apply to the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to underpayments they believe they may have been subject to? 

Mr Ronson: By ‘advertise’, do you mean increasing awareness, as in media statements? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes: letting them know you’re open for business and you’re aware that this is an issue. 

Mr Ronson: Yes, that’s definitely an option available and one we’re considering. There are some other ideas that we have as well about enhancing awareness. For example, there’s nothing to prevent us writing to all labour hire providers and employing entities in the sector. This is one of the suggestions that has been put to us and one we’re currently considering. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would that be a wise move in terms of trying to get to the miners? Some of these labour hire firms—some—have been deliberately suppressing this? 

Mr Ronson: That’s right—good point. In terms of former workers, that’s a different sort of ‘audience’, if you like. That’s one we’re turning our minds to in thinking about how we ensure people who either are in the industry now or were formerly in the industry are aware of this investigation. The second point I was making, yes, was in relation to employers. That’s something we’ve done in the past. We’ve written, for example, to the ASX Top 100 companies and encouraged them to review their status, and if they self-identify they can self-report any potential noncompliance. 

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that some of the miners are not aware of it, but it’s a major issue, because we estimate that about 5,000 miners at least have been the subject of Australia’s largest wage theft case, and it’ll cost, ultimately, around $1.3 billion—they’re rough estimates. So I think these people need to be told that there’s an option for them to seek justice and repayment. 

Mr Ronson: Yes. As I say, it’s something we’re definitely turning our minds to, and we’re considering what’s the best way to get the word out, if you like. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s hope you can get that out fairly soon. The Fair Work Ombudsman would be aware that One Nation has pushed for investigation into this issue and that One Nation released a detailed report in February 2024. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman taking submissions on how the alleged underpayments have occurred, and would the Fair Work Ombudsman accept One Nation’s report as a submission? We can provide data, companies involved, amounts, enterprise agreements and underpayment. 

Mr Ronson: Yes, sure. We welcome all and any information and any submissions. 

Senator ROBERTS: So we would make submissions in the same way anyone else would? 

Mr Ronson: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Would One Nation be involved in any follow-up discussions on the nature of the issue and its resolution? 

Mr Ronson: Yes, if there is information that’s material and actionable, by all means, we’ll be in contact. 

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the Mining and Energy Union, which is what’s left in the coalmining sector after the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union split, are not seeking back pay. They seem to be hiding it because they were involved in agreeing to the enterprise agreements and signing off on enterprise agreements that were paying much less than the award. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman inviting submissions from other organisations and individuals? If so, who specifically has been approached? 

Mr Ronson: To date, as I said before, we’ve met with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, and we’re asking that agency to provide us with any relevant information. We’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union; we’ve extended the same invitation. We’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia. As you know, they’re actively involved, and they’re assisting our investigation. We also intend to meet with the Queensland Labour Hire Licensing Compliance Unit; RCSA, the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association, which is responsible for labour hire; the Minerals Council of Australia, with which we have meetings lined up; and safe work bodies in New South Wales and Queensland. 

Senator ROBERTS: Will you be covering more than the wage theft case and the specific amounts of the wage theft? In other words, will you be covering loss of other entitlements, protections and safeguards? 

Mr Ronson: Our jurisdiction only extends to entitlements or conditions that are actionable or have been created under the Fair Work Act and the regulations, so it’s only what is within our remit. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman consulting with the Fair Work Commission on the issue? 

Mr Ronson: Not to date. There’s been no need at this stage. I’m confident that we said at our last hearing that we don’t have the power or the capability to question any approvals of any agreements that have been made in the past. Others can take that issue up. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who are the others who can do that? 

Mr Ronson: Parties to an agreement. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So only the Mining and Energy Union; its predecessor, the CFMEU; and employers, such as mining companies? 

Mr Ronson: I’ll defer to the chief counsel as to who in particular can question agreements. 

Ms Volzke: I think Mr Ronson has given a reasonable list. I would just say more broadly that one of the issues that I raised at the last estimates is just to remember that we still have that statutory timeframe of six years that applies under the Fair Work Act as well. Obviously, that won’t preclude us from investigating, but it’s important that the miners that we’re looking at also bear that in mind. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’m pleased to say that it wouldn’t preclude you investigating. It may, at the moment, preclude addressing the issues that are raised in the investigation, but it would not preclude the investigation. The premise for my next question is as follows: the black coal award does not allow for casuals. Enterprise agreements were made, and some are still current, but the agreement’s pay rates are demonstrably less than what should be paid under the award if the award allowed for casuals. To an ordinary person, paying casuals less than the award casualised rate—that’s a full-time rate plus 25 per cent—is plainly wrong. That’s the pub test, as people say. And yet the Fair Work Commission endorsed the enterprise agreements. I assume the Fair Work Ombudsman must somehow determine which instrument prevails, being either enterprise agreements that pay less than the casualised award rate or an award rate that incorporates a casualised 25 per cent add-on to a full-time rate. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have an idea as to how this may be resolved? 

Mr Ronson: That’s the $64 question, if I can confirm it. I think, as with previous evidence we’ve provided, there remains uncertainty regarding the legal consequences of the Black Coal Mining Award’s lack of provision for employees in these roles as it hasn’t been authoritatively determined by a court. So it remains an open question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman be issuing a report or reports on its findings of the investigation? If so, what would be the anticipated timeline for such reports? I think the minister made some comment as to [inaudible]. 

Mr Ronson: At this stage we’re more than happy to provide status updates in this forum as we go along, but we’re hoping that we’d have early preliminary findings towards the middle of this year or just after the middle of this year. I think I said last time, and I think it’s still the case, it could be at least until mid-2026 before we’re in a position to provide a final report. But we will keep this committee posted. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you be in a position to provide interim reports as the investigation progresses? 

Mr Ronson: It’s probably easier if we provide status reports, like I have today. The thing about how long an investigation takes is it all depends— 

Senator ROBERTS: It depends on the [inaudible] and what you find. I get it. Would any reports you provide be public and unredacted, except of course for retaining confidentiality of workers allegedly underpaid? 

Mr Ronson: I see no reason why it wouldn’t be. A report that we provide would be as fulsome and comprehensive as we could publish. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’re not expecting names of individuals to be disclosed. 

Mr Ronson: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: We would expect them to be redacted. Would the reports indicate the employers involved, the organisations involved, the employers and organisations under investigation and any findings that the Fair Work Ombudsman has in relation to the specific employers? 

CHAIR: Just before you answer that question, Senator Roberts we’re running an hour and a bit late. I don’t want to cut off your questions, but if there are some that can be on notice that would be helpful. Otherwise, I will come back to you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The way Mr Ronson is answering the questions directly, it won’t be long at all. I’ve only got a few more to go. And I have to move on too. 

CHAIR: No worries. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Ronson? 

Mr Ronson: The best way of answering your question is: it’s the long held practice of the Fair Work Ombudsman to provide reports of all its major investigations. We’ve published all of them and they’re available on our website. It is our practice and it would be our expectation to do so again. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If the Fair Work Ombudsman were to conclude that underpayments had occurred, and based on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s past experiences, does the Fair Work Ombudsman have ideas of scenarios for compensation for any worker underpayments? 

Mr Ronson: Well, we have ideas. As to whether they’re actionable or realisable, that will be determined in due course. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. This is something Ms Volzke raised. What is the effect of the statute of limitations and how would that apply to someone lodging a complaint today? Can they still lodge it? 

Mr Ronson: Yes. As the chief counsel answered, it doesn’t preclude our investigations. The provision in the act only relates to enforceability in the event of proceedings, but there’s no reason why we can’t go back historically and look at historic underpayments and, if the allegations are upheld and there is an entitlement owing, to seek to secure that underpayment. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman investigating beyond the statute of limitations to ascertain full amounts possibly underpaid? 

Mr Ronson: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Chair, I want to express my appreciation for Mr Ronson being direct. It enabled me to get through my questions. I also want to communicate to the secretariat that I’ll be on the road, so I won’t be able to ask the Fair Work Commission questions in the hearings, but I will put them on notice. And it’s the same with the coal long service leave. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

/1 Comment/by

Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact

,

The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.

I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?

Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?

Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.

Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.

Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?

Mr Binning: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.

Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.

Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.

Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.

Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.

Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?

Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?

Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.

CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.

Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s
generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.

Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Labor is Hiding Australia’s Largest Wage Theft

,

After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research, we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). For example, a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.

In this session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked Mr Furlong, General Manager of FWC, how many applications for regulated Labour Hire Agreements were currently under the Commission’s consideration. He stated that 55 applications had been submitted, with 11 Orders made—9 in the mining industry and 2 in the meat processing industry.

I then asked a series of questions about the relationships between Awards, Regulated Labour Hire Agreements, and Enterprise Agreements. Mr Furlong confirmed that, under the Labor government’s recent legislation, it’s standard for casual workers performing the same job as full-time workers under a Regulated Labour Hire Agreement to receive an additional 25% in pay as compensation for entitlements they do not receive. Mr Furlong agreed to look into which Awards would have applied in the absence of Labour Hire Agreement Orders and provide that information on notice.

I’ve raised this issue at every senate estimates hearing since late 2019 and finally the Fair Work Commission and Minister seem to be taking this issue seriously. Until recently, bureaucrats and Ministers have been in denial of what has been happening right under their noses and that raises questions of integrity.

Australia’s largest wage theft case has been possible only with the participation of the relevant union bosses in the CFMEU/MEU, labour-hire firms, mine owners and the FWC’s approval.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’m interested in exploring the nature of labour hire arrangements and their relationship with associated awards, and also partly the CFMEU administrator. What’s the total number of labour hire arrangements currently before the commission to date? 

Mr Furlong: I might start here and then ask Ms Scarlett to assist. My understanding is that to 30 September we’ve received 55 applications for regulated labour hire authorisation orders. And of that— 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘regulated’? 

Mr Furlong: Of that number? 

Senator ROBERTS: No, what does the term ‘regulated’ refer to? 

Mr Furlong: That’s the term— 

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Come before you guys’? 

Mr Furlong: given under the loopholes mark 1 changes. In terms of the number of orders that have been made, there are 11. Nine of them, I understand, are in the mining industry and two are in the meat-processing industry. Ms Scarlett, is there anything you’d like to add? 

Senator ROBERTS: That number was how many? 

Ms Scarlett: It was 55. As Mr Furlong has said, 11 labour hire arrangement orders have been issued since the commencement of the provisions. 

Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of orders? 

Ms Scarlett: Regulated labour hire arrangement orders. Of the 55 applications, 11 orders have been made, a number of applications have been withdrawn and the remaining matters remain before the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the breakdown of these labour hire arrangement orders for each award that would otherwise have covered the employees? You might have to take that on notice. 

Ms Scarlett: Yes. I’m not sure that we can go to the award. The regulated labour hire arrangement orders apply where there is a covered employment instrument such as an enterprise agreement in place. So it’s not necessarily an assessment of the award which applies, rather whether an enterprise agreement is in place that would cover the work of the labour hire employees if they were working in the business. 

Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement would be in an industry or work site that is covered by an award, but the enterprise agreement supersedes the award; is that right? 

Ms Scarlett: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: So would there be any such sites that only have an enterprise agreement and no back-up award? 

Ms Scarlett: I don’t believe there would be, but I’d need to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know the connection to the award, or to the award that would be in place if the enterprise agreement wasn’t there? 

Ms Scarlett: I understand. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice whether there would be a general expectation that anyone working as a casual should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Ms Scarlett: The regulated labour hire arrangement order provisions provide for a 25 per cent casual loading for regulated labour hire employees. 

Senator ROBERTS: Casuals. 

Ms Scarlett: Casuals. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice if there is specific legislation, regulation or policy that requires that a casual employee should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? I know that it’s a community expectation and it’s a right almost, but is it enshrined in law, statute or policy? 

Ms Scarlett: I’m not aware of a specific provision in legislation that requires a 25 per cent loading. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to check that? 

Ms Scarlett: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll take on notice to check it? It is fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? Can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t point to an award, but I’ll happily take it on notice. There are 155 modern awards, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, so I’d like to know if that’s normal. 

Mr Furlong: Can I clarify the question so we make sure that we provide you with the information that you require? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. Is it fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? That’s the first part. 

Mr Furlong: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: The second part is: can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Mr Furlong: We’ll take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong. In applying the better off overall test, the BOOT, to enterprise agreement applications, would it be the normal expectation of the Fair Work Commission, having regard to pay rates of casual workers, that casual employees should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Mr Furlong: I will ask Mr Corcoran to assist you, Senator. 

Mr Corcoran: Each application is considered on its own merits by the member. They take into account the circumstances in their entirety. It’s not a line-by-line assessment that the member will make; the better off overall test is a global assessment. 

Senator ROBERTS: A global assessment. If an award did not allow for casual employment, would this create the circumstance in which casual employees working under enterprise agreements subject to the set award would be paid less than full-time employees and/or be paid a rate that would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent? 

Mr Corcoran: A casual employee wouldn’t be paid less than a full-time employee, I wouldn’t have thought, in normal circumstances. 

Senator ROBERTS: A casual employee would be paid less than a full-time— 

Mr Corcoran: I thought they would not have been paid less. 

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. And they’d be paid full time plus 25 per cent? 

Mr Furlong: With some of these questions, I return to the correspondence I provided you on 11 January this year regarding information published on your website but also relating to the better off overall test and the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015. I’m not too sure if you still have access to that correspondence. 

Senator ROBERTS: I do. It’s sitting on my desk—with an intent to reply. 

Mr Furlong: This series of questions has been covered in that correspondence. I’m happy to table it, if that would assist. 

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s fine; I know exactly where it is on my desk. Can you envisage a circumstance in which, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections? 

Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed several times, the better off overall test, as Mr Corcoran said, is a global assessment to ensure the employees are better off overall. It is always determined by a member of the commission. Members, as you’re aware, are independent statutory office holders who are required to ensure that, in their decisions, they are satisfying the obligation, functions and prescribed content of the enterprise agreements before they can be satisfied and then ultimately approve the decision to make the agreement operational. If a party to that agreement or someone who has a valid interest in that agreement is unsatisfied, is concerned with that agreement application, they can seek to have the agreement overturned through the mechanism of an appeal; that is their right. The other thing I’d like to add here— 

Senator ROBERTS: Just on the answer to that question: would the commission ignore the objections in assessing the enterprise agreement? Would the commission ignore the objections of the union as part of that? I’m not talking about passing it and then objecting to it; I’m talking about objecting as they’re processing it. 

Mr Furlong: Prior to the application being made? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Furlong: It would be the subject of deliberation of a member before the tribunal. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, though, wouldn’t it? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of our members and their independent decision-making. 

Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever seen a member overturn a union objection? 

Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed, my role is to provide administrative support to the president of the commission to ensure— 

Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, wouldn’t it? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Alright. I cut you off there. 

Mr Furlong: I was just going to say that if an agreement has reached or passed its normal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can seek to have the agreement unilaterally terminated. They will then fall back to the underpinning award—or they can have the right to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the extra detail; it goes outside what I’m looking for. In the process of getting approval for an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would hardly ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections. 

Mr Furlong: It’s a case-by-case basis, on the information provided to the members in the consideration of whether or not— 

Senator ROBERTS: What would be the likelihood? Have you heard of any? 

Mr Furlong: As I said, it’s not my role to comment on cases determined by members of the commission. It’s my responsibility to provide the president with administrative support, as the general manager, to ensure the commission can operate effectively. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you for your opinion. 

Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on cases that come before the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to. I’m not asking for your opinion on the member making the decision. I’m asking: would it happen, and has it happened? 

Mr Furlong: I don’t have any oversight of particular cases that move through the tribunal side of the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would anyone else care to comment? It seems to me to be almost impossible; I won’t say it is impossible! 

Mr Corcoran: I would say a member would always consider the views of the parties, but ultimately the member must be satisfied that the requirements of the act have been met. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have some questions for the minister; I think most of them will be pretty simple, Minister. I table this letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia; it’s the letter that was sent to the CFMEU administrator, copied to you, me and Senator Cash. I think these questions will be fairly simple, given your background, Minister. Why is the CFMEU administrator not here at Senate estimates? 

Senator Watt: They’re not a public official. I think pretty much every person who attends estimates is either a minister or a public servant. The administrator is not a public servant. There are probably other reasons but that would be one of them. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who pays his salary? 

Senator Watt: He’s being paid by the CFMEU in the same way that officials of the union have traditionally been paid. 

Senator ROBERTS: That explains that. What responsibilities does the CFMEU administrator have with or to the Fair Work Commission? I imagine he’d have to deal with them a fair bit. 

Senator Watt: Mr Furlong might be better placed. 

Mr Furlong: Under the registered organisations act, I am the regulator of registered organisations. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re overseeing it? 

Mr Furlong: I oversee all the registered organisations, employer and employee alike. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could the CFMEU administrator authorise payment of the underpaid miners from the CFMEU mining division using CFMEU funds? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of the administrator. I don’t think you were here for this section of my evidence: the administrator operates independent of government. He will make decisions on behalf of the union as he sees fit. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can he investigate wage theft from casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley? 

Mr Furlong: In representing the interests of his members, he can look into the underpayments. It’s a core function of trade unions to do that. 

Senator Watt: Noting that the administrator is the administrator of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. To use the colloquial, his members are members of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, not, for example, members of the maritime division and certainly not people who are now members of the Mining and Energy Union. His only responsibility is for the Construction and General Division, and its members. 

Senator ROBERTS: The government said it needed the parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality, didn’t it—amongst other things? 

Senator Watt: I might look back at what we said. We had a debate this morning about it. It’s not possible for me to go into the intention of the administration because of the High Court litigation. I’m sure you can look back at what was said in the second reading speech. 

Senator ROBERTS: That was my impression, so correct me if I’m wrong. Now, management of this is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. You said it would be a matter of immense public importance. 

Senator Watt: I think there has been a lot of public interest in this issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes—so wouldn’t it be better to have him subject to parliamentary scrutiny and Senate estimates? 

Senator Watt: I’m looking around at our lawyers. I might get Ms Godden, the departmental chief counsel, back up, if that’s okay. I know departmental people don’t normally appear at the table for this. Senator Roberts, I don’t know if you were here this morning but we had a discussion about issues that we could answer questions on and issues that we couldn’t because they might involve the High Court case. I don’t want to say anything which will interfere with that, and I know you don’t want me to either. Could you ask the question again, so I can get some advice on whether I can answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is the government said it needed parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with the alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality. Now the oversight of the CFMEU administrator is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and yet it was said to be a matter of immense public importance. 

Senator Watt: I have no doubt it’s a matter of great public interest. I was saying before to Senator Payman that either the legislation or the scheme of administration requires the administrator to provide a report to me every six months, which I’m required to table in the parliament, so there is a form of parliamentary accountability through that. That was considered to be the appropriate amount of reporting for a role that is completely independent of government. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I know you’ve been very patient during the day, but this is— 

Senator ROBERTS: Given a report in the media on 12 April this year—I mentioned this in a speech in the Senate, but there was no answer to it—is the real reason for the CFMEU being placed in administration to stop John Setka taking over Labor in Victoria, as he reported? And why wouldn’t constituents be suspicious of the arrangement? 

Senator Watt: As I said in response to an earlier question, I’d really like to be able to answer that question but it’s probably not wise that I do given the High Court litigation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

Senator Watt: But I’m told you might want to have a look at paragraph 11 of the revised explanatory memorandum, which provides some reasoning for the legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Doctors Versus The System

,

At the recent senate estimates in November, I spoke with Dr Antonio Di Dio, Director of Professional Review Services, asking why the current system was still biased against doctors. He denied this was the case, even though the agency maintains a 100% conviction rate of doctors in a system that does not allow merit appeals or the ability to challenge the facts used against a doctor.

Dr Di Dio conceded that the agency had not undergone a review, despite it being suggested many years ago during an inquiry. Senator Gallagher added that a review was unnecessary, asserting that the system was functioning well, despite evidence to the contrary.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Annual reports of the PSR, directed to the health minister, make no attempt whatsoever to disguise the fact that PSR operates in part as a debt recovery system from doctors of Medicare funds. Given that admissions have earlier been made before Senate estimates that committees are not chaired by a judge, that merit review on appeal is not allowed, and that no cross-examination of the committee’s case ever occurs, why is it not reasonable to conclude that PSR operates similarly to a robodebt scheme for doctors, with doctors who’ve come before it having as little meaningful defence as did robodebt’s victims? 

Dr Di Dio: That’s certainly not my view. When a practitioner is referred to PSR, a small minority of them are referred to a PSR committee. Last year it was 12 out of 109 referrals. When a practitioner appears before a PSR committee, the committee process is one in which peers interview and discuss with the practitioner under review whether or not, in their view, inappropriate practice has occurred. At every stage of that committee process, numerous times per day, the committee may say, ‘We have found preliminary concerns with this matter and invite your response.’ In other words, the entire process is made up of taking into account the practitioner’s response, over and over again. Furthermore, the practitioner, of course, is invited to bring their legal representative. In terms of a merits review, there is no formal merits review process as that term is commonly known. However, there are opportunities during and after the committee process to respond to the committee’s findings. For example, at the end of a committee, despite having opportunities to respond verbally all through the process, the practitioner under review also is invited, either themselves or through their legal representative, to make final comments about anything that has come up during the committee process. Furthermore, after the committee process is completed, there is a draft report issued by the committee to the practitioner under review, inviting comment and submissions to that draft report. So those committee findings are still deemed preliminary findings, because they are still awaiting further response and information from the practitioner under review. 

Senator ROBERTS: That sounds wonderful, but it does not discuss the fact that the PSR’s case cannot be scrutinised in terms of evidence. You omit that. Why do you repeatedly omit that? Every time we come to Senate estimates, you omit that. That’s fundamental to justice. 

Dr Di Dio: The PSR process is one in which, in order to elicit whether or not inappropriate practice has occurred, people’s medical records are reviewed. 

Senator ROBERTS: But your data is not open to scrutiny; your case is not open to scrutiny. The facts cannot be disputed—cannot even be challenged. 

Mr Topperwien: There are no facts found until the end of the committee process. There are no findings of fact until after the committee process, after all of the evidence has come in. Yes, the committee receives billing data from Medicare, but that’s open to inquiry and investigation as to how accurate that is, and that comes up often in hearings as to whether that data is accurate. And it’s open, then, for the practitioner to put on evidence to counter that data. And that happens regularly at committee hearings. The hearing is an investigation. It isn’t a prosecution. So the committee is inquiring into the information that the committee has already received in the way of the billing data and gets the patient records to see how they match up to what’s been billed as to whether the doctor has fulfilled their obligation to keep adequate and contemporaneous notes of what they did, and to then investigate, ‘What was this practitioner’s conduct in connection with the provision of these services?’ It’s only after they’ve conducted a full inquiry investigation, asked lots of questions, and looked at all of the evidence, that they then may find facts, which may show that the doctor has engaged in inappropriate conduct. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back. I don’t want an answer to this just yet, but I want to say that there has never been a comprehensive review of the process, despite a 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months. So let me continue. Many of the annual reports of the PSR director, to the health minister, contain the assertion that the goals for care planning must accord with the acronym SMART, specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-based—notwithstanding that no explicit allusion to specific SMART goals appears in the care planning MBS descriptor. Given that, essentially, all doctors who appear before PSR committees who do care plans are found guilty, and given that merit review of the committee’s case is never allowed, how can the committee’s finding of all doctors’ care plans as being unacceptable be valid? 

Mr Topperwien: The committee examines random samples, usually, of the practitioner’s care plans. The practitioners who are examining those are practitioners who themselves do care plans. They are experts in what the general body of their specialty or profession do in their practice. And the reality is the law requires adequate records to be kept, and care plans that are meaningful. And, quite often, the sorts of care plans that committees see are blank templates. There’s nothing in them other than the patient’s name with goals that are totally meaningless. And so those sorts of care plans are ones on which they will find, ‘This is not a care plan that’s adequate and of any use to this patient. It is not a clinically relevant service that’s been provided.’ 

Dr Di Dio: Senator, if it helps, I do care plans every couple of weeks in my practice. I could take you through what one should like. But I think what you really want to know is: this is a peer review scheme, and so what the people on committees determine is what the general body of peers would be considering is appropriate or not. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is an apparent peer review scheme, but it’s not. You claimed in the past that it is peer reviewed, and we’ve given examples where it’s not. Your predecessor, I think, offered to have a conversation with me—on the basis that it was not to discuss a specific doctor’s case; he made that clear. I accepted that offer straightaway, and I said, ‘That’s no problem at all.’ Soon after, he left. So we’ve never had that. Would you be willing to give us a briefing and have an exchange on that? 

Dr Di Dio: I think you’ll find that the person who had that conversation with you was me, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, it wasn’t. 

Dr Di Dio: Right. Well, Senator, I can further discuss— 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you willing to have a meeting with us and give us a briefing? 

Dr Di Dio: Senator, in order for me to do that, I need to get the appropriate permissions from my own minister, but, should that be the case, I would be very pleased to discuss with you or anybody else how the PSR system works—on the condition, of course, that it does not discuss any particular case or any particular practitioner. I can refer to some correspondence that I’ve had with you about this in the past, if you wish. 

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. 

Dr Di Dio: We most recently corresponded with you on 21 March of this year and confirmed that we’d offered to meet with you in the context of providing general information about the PSR scheme and would happily provide that general information, and additionally on any questions you may have on procedural fairness. We said the discussion would not be able to include any specific matter or case before us and that I was not able to meet with any other person being reviewed or their legal representative or anyone else. 

Senator ROBERTS: Does that still apply? 

Dr Di Dio: Well, yes, because— 

Senator ROBERTS: Good. Okay, let’s accept it, and we’ll set up a date. 

Dr Di Dio: Well, nice to hear back from you, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Good. Many doctors, and all the medical defence organisations, complain emphatically that committees routinely make up rules in passing their judgement. Why is this not solid evidence of dysfunction, injustice and systemic injustice? 

Dr Di Dio: I meet regularly with the medical defence organisations, most recently less than two weeks ago, and I present regularly to thousands of doctors in toto, various colleges and representative groups. That is not the impression that I get, talking to hundreds of doctors around the country. We attempt to do what we exist to do, which is to protect the Commonwealth from paying from inappropriate health care and to protect citizens from potential harms from inappropriate health care through a process that we consider to be as fair as possible. 

Senator ROBERTS: And we applaud that. We just want procedural fairness and justice. Minister, when will this government review this broken system? It’s got to be changed. 

Senator Gallagher: Well, I don’t accept that it is broken, Senator Roberts. That’s your assertion. The department provides advice to the minister about the operations of all parts of the health portfolio, and we are very confident in the processes and the leadership that’s being provided through the Professional Services Review system. 

Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no review since the 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months—no review. Clearly, it was a problem back then. 

Ms Shakespeare: Senator, there have been reviews of aspects of the PSR scheme on several occasions since then. I am happy to— 

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have, on notice, those reviews and the dates, please, and the topics and the scope? 

Ms Shakespeare: Certainly. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/2 Comments/by

Renewable Energy: Land Use and Cost Concerns

,

Coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations each have about 40 hectares of footprint, with a very narrow target transmission lines straight to the cities. In contrast, solar and wind installations are scattered and located away from the main cities, taking up enormous amounts of space. Their energy density is very low, requiring a vast amount of land to produce the same power, and they aren’t on consistently. This increases transmission costs and the amount of land that regions must devote to solar, wind, and now batteries, causing significant angst.

Around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar and wind has also increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. For example, look at Germany.

A surface coalmine must pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and if it is rehabilitated properly to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. However, there is no such bond for solar and wind companies to set aside funds for decommissioning their complexes at the end of their life. This needs to change!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Your predecessor said, ‘Australia’s random renewable energy push needs to be overhauled and a nationwide stocktake is required to determine what should be built and where it should go.’ Are you committed to that overall overhaul?

Mr Sheldon: That is an observation or recommendation made by Mr Dyer, and I think that’s been built into the review that Mr Duggan has just been talking about. So all those action plans and so on are designed to
ensure—

Senator ROBERTS: When’s that coming out? I’m sorry, I missed it.

Mr Duggan: The action plan has been agreed by the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council, so that’s now a public document. So we’re in the process now of implementing. The full response to the review was
published on 19 July.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So that’s been included in their recommendations?

Mr Duggan: Yes, that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer also said, ‘The sort of granular planning required for a once in a generation transformation to secure the nation’s energy supply still had not happened.’ Is that now in the report as well—
granular planning?

Mr Duggan: Yes, this was a recommendation to governments. As you would know, a lot of the detail, the specific planning around land use and specific locations of related transmission, sits with the state governments
and involves a very big input from the local governments. So a lot of the argumentation around that recommendation was to point to some of the best practice that already exists and to encourage that to be taken up
by the other states and territories.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s a lot of pain in the regions now, because they’re bearing the brunt of solar and wind disturbances.

Mr Duggan: What the report highlighted was that, certainly where best practice is not happening, there was an opportunity to improve the way projects are being delivered to the betterment of communities. That’s
absolutely correct.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems like it’s hell for leather, just do whatever you want. And there’s a lot of cash flying around, which is inducing councils to bypass some of their own ordinances, as we understand it.

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, the government inherited the last government’s framework and commissioned Mr Dyer to do this report because it’s in the interests of rural and regional communities and of an
effective rollout of generation and transmission capability that we improve the governance and consultation processes and all of the things that are included in Mr Dyer’s report. That’s what’s motivated the government to commission this report. On those nine recommendations, I think Mr Duggan said three of them are directed towards the Commonwealth, because there are multiple participants in this process, but they have, essentially, all been adopted. It’s our job now to operationalise that effectively in a way that addresses, I think, many of the issues that you raise.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that, Minister. Are you aware that a coal-fired power station and a nuclear power station have about 40 hectares of footprint, and that’s it, and a very narrow target transmission
corridor straight to the main users, which are the cities and the provincial cities? Solar and wind are scattered and away from the main cities and they take up enormous room. Their energy density is very low, which means that you need an enormous amount of land to produce the same power. And even then you can’t produce it regularly. So that increases transmission costs, and the amount of land the regions are devoting to solar, wind and transmission, and also now to batteries. It’s causing a lot of angst. Are you aware of that?

Senator Ayres: I’m certainly aware, on one hand, that, with the processes for approval and consultation with these projects, we were operating with the last government’s processes, and we are working to improve those. I’m also aware that you’re trying to make a broader point, I guess, about the merit or otherwise of the approach that is being taken by the government and the states and Commonwealth in terms of building an energy system for the future. I appreciate that you’re not one of the coalition MPs here, but I think it’s hard to make an argument about community consultation on one hand, and then do a press release that says: ‘We’re going to turn up with seven nuclear reactors in your neighbourhood, whether you like it or not. We’re not going to tell you how much they cost, or how many of them we’re going to build—but, Muswellbrook, here you go, whether you like it or not, a nuclear reactor’—

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. A coal-fired power station would be fine—

Senator Ayres: That will be very expensive. What we know, and I think the evidence that you’ve heard today shows—and I understand you don’t agree with it; I think you’ve demonstrated over time that you are impervious to the facts and evidence that are provided by the agencies—

Senator ROBERTS: I do the contrary, Minister. I love evidence.

Senator Ayres: That’s your right, I understand that. But the shift to the cheapest form of energy is what the government is interested in here. Claims are made—some of them very wild claims, and some of them
somewhere between misinformation and disinformation—about the scale of land that is required for these projects. I understand that people make those claims and some people retweet them and repost them—pretty
irresponsible in my view. But we have commissioned the Dyer report for a reason; that is, to improve the processes. The minister believes, and the government believes, that adopting those, together with the appointment of Mr Mahar and other steps that the government is undertaking, will improve the effectiveness of the consultation process as we get on with one of the most important nation building things that government can do, and that is to deliver the lowest cost, most reliable energy system as we upgrade our energy system so that we can have manufacturing jobs and low cost, reliable, renewable energy and storage for households and business into the future. It’s a decades-long pathway and we’re determined to do it in the most efficient way possible for the Australian people.

Senator ROBERTS: There are two things I would remind you of, Minister. One is that the energy density drives the cost, and physics does not change the very low energy density of solar and wind, whereas coal and
especially nuclear are very high energy density. The second thing is that, everywhere around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar wind, has increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. Have a look at Germany. Something that Mr Dyer was very passionate about was rehabilitation bonds, so that these wind and solar companies have put money away for decommissioning the complexes at the end of life. A surface coalmine has to pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and then, at the end of the life of the mine, if it’s rehabilitated properly, to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. There is no bond for solar and wind. What work have you done on putting reforms to government that would ensure there is money put away to clean up the environment, not just leave a toxic wasteland? Specifically, what have you done with the government?

Mr Sheldon: Can I just clarify that question? Is it: what work has the AEIC done to raise that issue with government?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Sheldon: I think Mr Dyer raised that. It was in his annual report in 2022 that he raised this issue about performance bonds in relation to wind farms in particular.

Senator ROBERTS: And what work has been done in following up?

Mr Sheldon: It’s certainly one of those issues that does get raised with us. It’s not in the top 10 or so issues that are raised with us in the complaints that we receive. We’re like a small ombudsman. We receive complaints. It’s an issue that does get raised. During the time that I’ve been in the role, from 2 April this year, it has been raised a few times, but it’s certainly not the top issue. In terms of what is happening, I think since 2022, when Mr Dyer raised the issue, what I’ve observed in the time that I’ve been in the role is that, in different jurisdictions, there’s certainly work done to increase transparency. One of our roles, I guess, in the AEIC is to promote more transparency around these projects.

Senator ROBERTS: What, specifically, have you done?

Mr Sheldon: It’s not our role to implement policy. We’ve identified issues and we certainly monitor them. New South Wales, for example, has recently worked on its renewable energy plan, which includes standard
clauses and so on around the landholders in relation to this sort of issue. We’re monitoring that, but we don’t have responsibility for implementing it, as a complaint handling body. If we identify good examples, we’ll identify them as part of our role.

Senator ROBERTS: So what are you doing, specifically, to make sure that the bonds come into place?

Mr Sheldon: We don’t have a role to implement putting that in place. It’s certainly something we can raise as an issue. We have a range of mechanisms to do that. One of them is the annual report, which, obviously, comes out every year, on a calendar year basis. And part of what’s always been appended to that annual report is a series of observations that have really been built on the observations of the commissioner over many years—which is where the observation was made in 2022. That’s a place where we can raise that with officials that do have policy responsibility for these sorts of matters. That’s generally how we do it. We also have a website where we would raise things. We have reporting obligations to the minister. So, if we identify an issue, we obviously include that in our observations or reports.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I ask if you have much more to go? We’re running terribly behind.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to make a comment to the minister. Minister, this is a comment, but there’s no reflection on the people at the table with you right now, because they’re interim—well, you’re not in interim,
but Mr Dyer was a thorough professional—

Senator Ayres: We’re all interim in one sense or another, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer was a thorough professional, who did his job extremely well. We happily endorsed him in Senate estimates. He was effectively an ombudsman, and a very good one.

/2 Comments/by

Underpaid Coal Miners: FWO’s Investigation

,

I congratulate the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for at last taking the many complaints from underpaid coal miners seriously and treating them professionally. It’s only taken me five and a half years of persistent questioning to reach this point.

I was informed that preliminary results of the FWO’s investigation would be available around mid-2025. The six-year time limit that applies for enforcement under Section 544 of the Fair Work Act does not prevent investigations from extending beyond that period.

Determining the legality of Enterprise Agreements (EAs) is outside the scope of the FWO. If the Fair Work Commission (FWC) approved an EA, the FWO would consider it legal until a court rules otherwise.

The Senate passed my amendment to a recent Labor bill. That amendment requires the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to investigate this wage theft. Minister Watt agreed to provide me with updates and mentioned that the investigation might take up to 18 months to complete. We will persist in holding the Minister accountable in increasingly detailed ways as to progress in his investigation.

After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners recently submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman -. i.e. a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. I want to congratulate and thank the Fair Work Ombudsman for responding to the Independent Workers Union of Australia request for underpayment assessment on behalf of IWUA casual miner members. I hear that the Fair Work Ombudsman is treating these requests with seriousness and professionalism and that you’ve set up a specific process for handling the claims. Given that the underpayment claims involve detailed investigation of documents relating to each miners’ annual income, their pay rates and so on, going back as far as 2013, I appreciate that the investigations may take some time. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have any idea of the timelines involved? I’m not urging or wanting a fast outcome. Rather than a rushed job, I’d prefer a thorough high-quality investigation.

Ms Booth: Thank you for the question and the compliment. I’ll ask Mr Campbell to commence, but Mr Ronson has direct knowledge of that investigation, I believe.

Mr Campbell: I don’t know that we’ve got a timeframe at this point, but I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist with an answer, given his immersion in the subject.

Mr Ronson: We’ve put together an overarching project plan in response to the requests to investigate the sector. In terms of preliminary findings—this is a guide, not so much necessarily for each request for assistance or each employee—we’re looking at preliminary findings by at least the middle of next year. The challenges we face, of course, as we go back to 2013, are those records, available witnesses and so forth.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; that’s good. When you said ‘next year’, I suddenly realised we’re nearly at the end of the year. I understand that the Fair Work Ombudsman’s investigation is subject to a six-year time limitation. Can you advise of the specific legislation, regulation or policy that creates that six-year time limitation?

Mr Ronson: That’s section 544 of the Fair Work Act. But there’s an important distinction to make, and this is one that we’ve put into our plan. That provision relates to enforceability. If I can just take you back—if someone puts in, as we’ve received, claims that go back to 2013, that does not prohibit us from investigating back to that period. However, if we were to find underpayment and request an employer or previous employer to compensate the employee for their underpayment, we would be restricted or limited by the impact of section 544. What that really means is: say we had to take someone to court. It would mean that at the time we file proceedings—I’m happy for chief counsel to help me here—we’d only be able to enforce an underpayment that goes back six years.

Senator ROBERTS: To 2018. Thank you; that’s pretty clear.

Mr Ronson: That doesn’t preclude us investigating historic underpayment.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s even more encouraging. Thank you so much. My next question is: is the Fair Work Ombudsman able to investigate back beyond—yes, you’ve said that. The One Nation report detailed coalminers’ wage theft and detailed the way casual coalminers’ underpayments have been justified by the people involved. The report identified what was called legal trickery that argued that, because the black coalmining industry award does not allow for casuals, a comparison to what would ordinarily be a casual rate under the award could be ignored in assessing the claimed underpayments of the national Independent Workers Union of Australia member coalminers. What is the approach of the Fair Work Ombudsman to this legal argument that claims to justify underpayments? What bearing does or would this argument have on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s investigations?

Mr Ronson: In terms of the requests for assistance that have come from workers who are being assisted by the Independent Workers Union of Australia, their argument is that the enterprise agreements are unlawful. There are various reasons they have put forward, probably in line with the report you just held. The question of whether those agreements are unlawful is outside our scope. The chief counsel, I think, on previous occasions gave evidence to this committee as to why we don’t go to second question. Nor can we guess the enterprise agreement approval process. What is in scope—what is in jurisdiction for us—is whether there was any coercion or any breach of general protections in the making of the agreement. As to the foundation or the status of the enterprise agreement, if it’s been approved by the Fair Work Commission, we take it as approved. There are a whole range of questions that flow from that, but that’s it in summary.

Senator ROBERTS: So, it’s not necessarily compliant with the law just because the Fair Work Commission approves it, but it has been approved.

Ms Volzke: Senator Roberts, I think we’ve traversed these issues before. It’s the Fair Work Commission that approves agreements, and it’s our job to apply the law to any particular case. As Mr Ronson said, that is exactly what we’re going to do with all of those requests for assistance that have been made. Certainly, there have been issues of legal complexity which still haven’t been authoritatively determined: what actually is the effect of the black coalmining award not providing for casual employment in operational roles. Certainly, there’s been some commentary around that, but it hasn’t been formally determined.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In undertaking the investigations, will the Fair Work Ombudsman report to the Senate on the progress of the investigations, findings and follow-up, obviously within the bounds of required confidentiality in relation to each miner?

Mr Ronson: We’re very happy to, at these appearances, provide updates, if you like, without jeopardising the integrity of any particular investigations. So it’d be at a fairly high level, but we’re more than happy to provide updates.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have questions to Minister Watt. Minister, when will you start your investigation that the Senate ordered on 16 May by passing my successful second reading amendment to the government’s recent so-called closing-the-loopholes Fair Work Amendment Bill?

Senator Watt: I would have to go back and take a look at that, Senator Roberts. I must admit I—

Senator ROBERTS: It was at the time Minister Burke was in the chair.

Senator Watt: Okay, that’s probably why I’m not familiar with it. Let me take that on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m surprised that you’re not aware of it. No-one in the handover made you aware of it?

Senator Watt: I don’t remember anything like that in the terms you’ve described, but Ms Volzke might know.

Ms Volzke: Yes, certainly. Minister Watt wrote to us—I think it was in August, so a couple of months ago— in relation to tasking us to effectively look at investigations of underpayments in black coal mining.

Senator Watt: Yes, I do remember that now. Sorry, I forgot.

Senator ROBERTS: So you are interested in workers?

Senator Watt: I think my record shows I am pretty interested in workers, including coalmining workers, Senator Roberts. I sign a lot of letters, but I do remember that one now.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I can understand. What’s your planned format, in terms of reference and scope, for the investigation?

Senator Watt: That’s probably a question for the—

Mr Ronson: That’s what I’m working on, and that’s where we’re developing what we’re calling an overarching project plan. What we’ve got at the moment is around 20 workers who have already approached the Fair Work Ombudsman, and obviously each of those persons will be very helpful to our investigation, because we’ll be able to talk to them about the sector. I can just give you a couple of key features of the project plan. One is to map out and identify who are the key players, the key influences. Senator, you’re on the record, for example, as saying that there are five labour hire entities of significance that you claim warrant attention.

Senator ROBERTS: We think there are more, but we’ve only investigated five.

Mr Ronson: Yes. Labour hire entities will obviously be a sharp focus for this plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Good.

Mr Ronson: Just in the nature of the industry, there are tensions, which we’ve already talked about before, between entitlements that are owed under the award and those under the enterprise agreement, so that’s in scope. We’ll also be working and talking with other regulators—for example, the coal long service leave board—where there are entities of mutual interest. We might be able to collaborate with that agency to enhance our capability and capacity.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s broad, and—

Mr Ronson: Yes. There’s an overarching plan that will take us around the next 18 months to deliver, but within that we’ve already set up, for example, a dedicated email address for anyone in the sector to approach us. We’re in communications with the Independent Workers Union. They’ve already started using the dedicated email address. We’re active and open for business now, but there’ll be other initiatives and steps we take to enhance awareness of this investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: I might come up with some more questions, but I’ll put them on notice. You’ve told us it will be about 18 months?

Mr Ronson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, I refer to the letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia to the CFMEU administrator in relation to the Independent Workers Union of Australia’s application to the Fair Work Ombudsman for investigation—you and I were copied, as was Senator Cash—and the activities of the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to those underpayments. The IWUA sent you a copy. Have you made yourself, or do you intend to make yourself, cognisant of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s reviews of the underpayment assessments.

Senator Watt: Certainly I will no doubt be informed of the result of the work that the Fair Work Ombudsman is doing.

Senator ROBERTS: Before the 18 months for the overarching inquiry.

Senator Watt: I’m sure the ombudsman will keep me informed of that, as they do on a range of matters.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Have you made yourself, or do you intend to make yourself, cognisant of the One Nation report on this matter, specifically with a view to understanding the CFMEU’s role?

Senator Watt: I haven’t read the report, but you and I have talked about this many, many times at estimates, so I think I’ve got a bit of an understanding of the issues that you’ve raised.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve always been sceptical, but I encourage you to read the report.

Senator Watt: I’m sure it’s top-quality work, coming from you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, we commissioned it. I didn’t do it.

Senator Watt: Oh, okay.

Senator ROBERTS: I just informed some parts of it.

Senator Watt: I’m sure it would have been better if you’d written it yourself.

Senator ROBERTS:Have you investigated, or do you intend to investigate, the historical activities of the CFMEU where the CFMEU either negotiated, oversaw, were aware of, approved, endorsed or were a party to the agreements that are in discussion?

Senator Watt: My recollection is that those complaints that have been made have been investigated previously and, in some cases, are still being looked at. I’ve got full confidence in the authorities that are looking into those matters.

Senator ROBERTS: They haven’t been investigated yet.

Senator Watt: I think there has been some work looking at the veracity of those allegations. From what I’ve seen, there’s a different view compared to what has been put forward by that group of people. I respect the fact that you believe in and support the people who’ve made those complaints. I guess there’s a different point of view.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I have copies of that advice, please.

Senator Watt: I’ll get you anything that we’ve got, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you investigated or do you intend to investigate whether officers of the CFMEU or persons associated with the CFMEU engaged in any collusive activity such as conspiring with other people or entities to enable the underpayment of casual labour hire coalminers?

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, we should make the point that when you’re talking about the CFMEU you’re talking about what was the mining and energy division of the CFMEU. It’s now a separate union.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s the Mining and Energy Union now.

Senator Watt: There’s been a lot of discussion about the CFMEU today, and we’re not talking about the construction division. Again, my understanding is that a number of those matters have been looked at already— or, at least, you’ve had them referred to authorities. I’d be relying on the work that’s already happened there.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, give us copies of what you’re relying on.

Senator Watt: Sure. I thought, Senator Roberts, that you had actually referred some of these matters to authorities for investigation already. If I’m right in thinking that, I’ll come back to you on what’s happened. If I’m not right about that, then I’d encourage you to refer those, whether it be to the Fair Work Ombudsman or to other groups.

Senator ROBERTS: I think the correct avenue is now being followed by the miners.

Senator Watt: Exactly, so we’ll wait and see the outcome of that.

Senator ROBERTS: If you have anything on what the department has done with it, I’d like to see that.

Senator Watt: Sure.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Given the alleged extensive criminal activity within the CFMEU—I know that was a different division, but the divisions do talk—have you investigated or do you intend to investigate whether any criminal activities, such as bribes or other things, could have resulted from or were a feature of the CFMEU’s involvement with the enterprise agreements, resulting in a shameful massive underpayment of casual coalminers? It seems it could not have happened without this.

Senator Watt: I don’t think anyone has ever produced any evidence of bribes or corruption involving the Mining and Energy Union or, previously, the mining division of the CFMEU. If you’ve got evidence of that, then I would strongly encourage you to refer that to the police for investigation, but I’m not aware of any evidence.

Senator ROBERTS: I believe that two miners that I accompanied, along with a barrister in my office, gave evidence to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and to the former minister’s staff—Minister Burke.

Senator Watt: Okay. I’ll take a look at what happened with that. As I say, if you’ve got evidence of someone taking a bribe or engaging in corrupt activity, then I’d strongly encourage you to take that to the police. They’re the authority who can lay charges.

Senator ROBERTS: Do they involve the Fair Work Ombudsman as well? They’d be interested in the motive, wouldn’t they?

Senator Watt: I think what would typically happen, if you’re talking about bribery, corruption or criminal offences—if they came to the attention of the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ombudsman would refer them to the relevant police. The Fair Work Ombudsman has responsibility for enforcing workplace laws, so offences against the Fair Work Act, but criminal offences, whether it be bribery or any other criminal offence, are a police matter.

Senator ROBERTS: To remind you, Minister Watt, this is Australia’s largest wage theft case. It’s outside the legislation that’s been passed since you came to office, and it’s not due to a loophole. Fixing the wage theft and preventing recurrence simply require compliance with the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. Did the government introduce the so-called closing loopholes bill to hide and bury Australia’s largest wage theft case?

Senator Watt: No.

Senator ROBERTS: There were no loopholes that enabled this. It was just straight-out noncompliance with the award.

Senator Watt: No, that’s not why we introduced the law.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

Senator Watt: We introduced the closing loopholes laws to, among other things, fix the labour hire rort that was being used by some employers.

Senator ROBERTS: This is the rort, Minister Watt.

Senator Watt: What I’m saying is that the purpose of our introducing the legislation was, among other things, same job, same pay. As I’ve pointed out to you before, Senator Roberts, you didn’t support that law.

Senator ROBERTS: Because there was no loophole. This is the cause of the underpayment. This is the cause of Australia’s largest wage theft case.

Senator Watt: If you didn’t think there was a loophole with coalmining labour hire workers getting underpaid, then I don’t agree with you. I think that was a massive loophole that was being exploited.

Senator ROBERTS: It was just noncompliance with the award. Given the extreme wealth of the CFMEU, have you or do you intend to investigate and consider whether you have, at minimum, a moral obligation to cause the CFMEU to financially contribute to compensation to affected coalminers who have been underpaid? Can you do that?

Senator Watt: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can the CFMEU administrator do that?

Senator Watt: No, because—I wouldn’t think so, because the CFMEU administrator is responsible for the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU not the Mining and Energy Union, which is a standalone union these days.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you legislate to force those responsible for Australia’s largest wage theft case to pay the miners what they’re owed, if the findings show that?

Senator Watt: I guess, theoretically, governments can legislate on anything, as long as they’ve got a constitutional basis for that legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased to hear that.

Senator Watt: You could bring in a private senator’s bill. I probably shouldn’t have suggested that, should I?

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister Watt. Thank you, Chair.

Senator Watt: Can I say this really quickly. Senator Roberts, we’ve had a bit of a joke as we’ve gone along, but we take any report about wage theft seriously. All I can do is keep encouraging people like yourself, if you’ve got evidence of things—there are bodies whose role it is to investigate these things, and I’d encourage you to take them forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The Independent Workers Union of Australia is showing its mettle.

Senator Watt: They can make complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand they have.

Senator Watt: We’ll wait and see how that goes.

/1 Comment/by

Concerns Raised Over Smart Meter Practices

,

I raised concerns about the use of smart meters, highlighting that they are being used by some companies to gouge customers without informed consent. Customers are often switched to punitive plans and charged excessively based on their peak usage, even if it occurs infrequently.

Ms. Savage clarified the distinction between network and retail tariffs and explained that the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) is proposing new rules to protect consumers. These rules would require customers to opt into time-of-use tariffs and provide a three-year period during which they cannot be automatically switched to such tariffs.

I asked what were the tangible benefits of smart meters for consumers and was told smart meters help manage peak demand and reduce the need for network investment, ultimately benefiting consumers by keeping bills down. That seems to be a hollow promise given power bills have only gone up for many people who have had smart meters installed.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. We’ve discussed at length—I think it was with you, Ms Savage—smart meters. You’ve regularly touted that they are a good thing, and you’ve spoken about the Australian Energy Regulator’s need to have them rolled out as widely as possible as quickly as possible. 

Ms Savage: That’s not us. That would be the Australian Energy Market Commission who’s talked about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s actually happening is that smart meters are being used to gouge customers. Many companies are not getting informed consent from consumers before changing customers over to incredibly punitive plans. Then those smart meters are being used to pinpoint the exact time someone is using their maximum amount of power, and the companies are charging the customer as if they’re doing that the entire period. What we’ve heard of is, for example, a family might be away on holiday for a couple of weeks. They come back near the end of the month, and they throw everything in the dryer and the washing machine. Their demand goes way up, and they’re charged at that rate for the whole month. That’s clearly gouging them. Are there no protections for the consumer who wants to have their smart meter removed, and what are you doing to crack down on those predatory power companies? 

Ms Savage: Thank you for the question. I think there’s just a distinction I’d like to make between a network tariff and a retail tariff. The electricity rules require network tariffs to become increasingly cost reflective, but a retailer’s job is to manage the risk on behalf of customers. As you can imagine, the price of power in the wholesale market fluctuates every day between minus $1,000 and $17,000. 

Senator ROBERTS: It does these days, yes. 

Ms Savage: It always has, actually. The cap has been different, but it’s always been highly volatile in the NEM. A retailer’s job is to package up a product for a customer that manages that risk for them. Networks have a set of cost-reflective tariffs that they show to retailers as well because of the way in which the cost of a network is really about the maximum use of the network. If all of us in this room decided to turn everything on at exactly the same time, the network has to be built big enough to accommodate that. I’m sure you can appreciate that. What the network is doing is giving to the retailer a signal about when they’ve got more or less capacity available in their network, and then retailers package up that network signal and that wholesale signal and give it to a retailer. The Australian Energy Market Commission has recognised that, with the rollout of smart meters, more and more customers are being put on to tariffs that they may not understand, the sort of tariff you just described, so they’ve actually got a draft report out at the moment which is suggesting that there should be a longer period of time for customers. Three years I think is what they’ve proposed, and Mr Duggan might want to talk a little bit more about this, given it’s not my agency, but they’re giving customers a three-year window where retailers can’t put them on to a time-of-use tariff. Even if they get a smart meter, they couldn’t go automatically on to one of those time-of-use tariffs. Did you want to add to that? 

Mr Duggan: Just two additional things. It must be an opt in. Under what’s being proposed by the AEMC, you must opt into a time-of-use tariff, not be forced on a time-of-use tariff. The other element is, if you choose not to opt in, then you continue to face the flat tariff you would’ve before—building in additional consumer protections. 

Ms Savage: For the three years. 

Mr Duggan: For the three years. 

Senator ROBERTS: What protections are available in the National Electricity Rules for consumers against power companies that are using the smart meters you’re encouraging to be installed to gouge people? 

Ms Savage: This rule change that Simon has just referred to I’ve referred to will put that protection in place. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that what’s it’s designed to do? Is that why you’re bringing it in? 

Ms Savage: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: What tangible benefit are consumers supposedly getting out of smart meters? 

Ms Savage: It’s a really great question. I’m going to give you a bit of a techie answer, but in Victoria, where we’ve had smart meters for some time, when we look at the rate of asset utilisation and the distribution system and compare to jurisdictions that don’t have smart meters, there is actually much higher utilisation. We see utilisation rates in the high 70s, whereas the average utilisation rate across the National Electricity Market is more like 43 per cent. Part of that is because the smart— 

Senator ROBERTS: How do you measure utilisation? 

Ms Savage: How much network is built to meet peak demand versus how much latent for the rest of the day. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is the idea to try and decrease the amount of peak network capacity? 

Ms Savage: It’s to try to ensure that, basically, we ‘ve got loads filling up the holes in the day so we’re not building too much network, that’s right. What you see in Victoria is the level of utilisation is much greater, so the overall network cost is much smaller. Customers are really benefitting from the reduced need to invest in networks, because of improved utilisation, so that’s one benefit. We also— 

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms Savage. Is that because consumers know when to utilise the network? 

Ms Savage: That’s part of it, and it can be the visibility the network has over some of these assets as well. I know you and I have talked before about some of the different types of tariffs that exist in Queensland, like controlled load tariffs et cetera, particularly with pool pumps and things like that. Being able to move these types of discretionary loads—not heating, cooling, dishwashers or lights, but some of those moveable loads through the day—can actually avoid investment in the network, which is a great thing for consumers in keeping bills down. 

Senator ROBERTS: Last question related to smart meters. I raised at a previous session the issue of air conditioners being throttled by power companies. You seemed unaware of that issue when I raised it. Have you had time to review the article I supplied confirming that actually did happen at an alarming frequency? I think it was six times in a matter of months. 

Ms Savage: I think that was a question about the PeakSmart device. You gave it to us on notice, and we’ve responded on notice. Is that correct, Steph? Yes. 

/2 Comments/by

Urgent Reforms Are Needed to Address NDIS Fraud and Inefficiencies

,

During the November Senate Estimates, I raised significant concerns about the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Since its inception, the NDIS has faced numerous challenges, including ineffective costing and planning, resulting in unmet needs for vulnerable individuals. The program is plagued by massive fraud and a forecasted budget cost of $90 to $100 billion.

I questioned why many direct care providers remain unpaid while fraudsters exploit the system for millions. Despite the scheme’s noble intentions, it is clear that implementation issues need urgent attention. I emphasised the need for effective measures to address these problems and ensure that every dollar benefits those who need it most.

The NDIS agency acknowledged the challenges and highlighted initiatives like the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, which aims to crack down on unscrupulous providers. I stressed the importance of fixing these systemic issues to restore public trust and ensure the scheme’s integrity.

I remain committed to advocating for a well-implemented NDIS that truly serves the needs of Australians with disabilities.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing today. The NDIS has been a problematic program since inception. That doesn’t reflect on you guys. It is not effectively costed or thought through. At the
time, it seemed to be a headline looking for a preselection buzz for the Labor Party under Julia Gillard. The program is failing on multiple levels resulting in the needs of vulnerable people remaining unmet and other
stakeholders being ignored. There is massive fraud plus a forecast budget cost of around $90 billion to $100 billion. That is what people are telling us. Why is it that many direct care providers remain unpaid while at the same time many rorters and unscrupulous fraudsters are able to rip off the system to the tune of millions of dollars? It seems to be systematic, rife, organised ripping off. The public is being taken for a ride for billions of dollars yet some agencies pay the bare minimum to untrained carers. Some carers are not paid at all. Why is that?

Senator Ayres: I suppose, Senator Roberts, the first thing to do is to respond to the initial set of assertions. Of course, you will be unsurprised to learn that’s not the government’s view at all about the value of the scheme for Australians. There are many families in Queensland who rely upon—

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, that’s not what my questions—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. Senator Ayres, continue your answer. I will listen carefully if there is a point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: I did not say the scheme was not worthy.

Senator Ayres: They rely upon the scheme and whose lives have been changed fundamentally by the scheme. The government supports the scheme. We support it because it improves the lives of people who have a disability, particularly children who have a disability. It improves the lives of families of people who look after those people. It has a demonstrably positive effect in communities. It is often not just families who look after and support people with a disability; it’s communities. We want to see workers in the disability sector paid more, paid fairly and firms engage on an ethical basis in the activities around the scheme. Almost all of them are. We want to see productivity in a real sense—that is, more and better quality services offered to Australians who are participants in the scheme. We have committed to the scheme growing, in cooperation with the state and territory governments, at eight per cent per year. That is more than the increases in inflation. We anticipate—we traversed some of these issues in the committee—that there are other sources of growth beyond just what happens in terms of the broader inflationary impact. So that is an eight per cent commitment to growth of the scheme. It is completely legitimate for government and, indeed, members of this committee to be focused upon value for money questions, compliance questions and constantly improving the focus of the governance of the scheme to deliver better outcomes. You are right to point to some of the compliance challenges that the scheme and the government must deal with. That is very much the focus of the minister. I just doesn’t think it’s fair to denigrate the overall scheme or its value for Australians. What you do is a matter for you. It is certainly the government’s position that this is a scheme that is in the interests of Australians, in the interests of disabled Australians and in the national interest.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that, Senator Ayres. The NDIS is a scheme that is needed. It’s very badly implemented. I am asking the people at the table what they are doing to fix it, because I believe they can fix it. I deny your assertions that I am against it. I wonder why you need to make assertions like that, because it just detracts from my answering time.

Senator Ayres: You were the one who started with the preamble, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I will ask the question: why is it that many direct care providers remain unpaid while at the same time many rorters and unscrupulous fraudsters are able to rip off the system to the tune of billions of
dollars? What is the core problem?

Mr McNaughton: We agree that what we would like to see—we see it in the majority of cases—is very good support providers providing the necessary disability supports to people who need those supports. That’s what makes this scheme such a very important scheme in the landscape of the country. I will ask Ms McKay in a moment to talk through some of the work that government has invested into the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and the crackdown on fraud. We know that there is—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. Is that one of your big initiatives?

Mr McNaughton: It is a big initiative.

Senator ROBERTS: That is pretty important in the scheme of things?

Mr McNaughton: It is very important. I will hand over to Ms McKay to talk that through. That is around cracking down on those unscrupulous providers who are doing the wrong thing by participants. We want to
eradicate that from the scheme because we want to make sure that every dollar is going to a person with disability who requires it. I will hand to Ms McKay, who will talk through those initiatives.

Ms McKay: I want to talk about the Fraud Fusion Taskforce as well as other initiatives that the agency is undertaking to ensure, first and foremost, the safety and continuity of services for participants and to ensure that
the integrity of this scheme remains as strong and robust as we can ensure it can be.

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms McKay. The integrity of the scheme would be essential for the other prerequisites—the safety and continuity of services—right?

Ms McKay: Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m with you.

Ms McKay: I will talk firstly about the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce was established in November 2022 with an initial investment of $126.3 million over four years. An additional investment was made for Services Australia of $26.5 million, which brings the total investment to $152.8 million. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce is co-led by the NDIA and Services Australia. It has 19 other members, which are other government bodies. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce is focused on—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. Does it have any law enforcement agencies as member?

Mr McNaughton: The Australian Federal Police are on it.

Ms McKay: I apologise. I am using the captions. Sometimes I am a bit delayed in my response or understanding of your questions. As Scott mentioned, enforcement agencies are part of the process. There are 95
active fraud operations being led. We’ve got over 500 active investigations currently underway with many cases there. That is one tranche of what the agency is doing. It is working across government to ensure that fraud and organised crime are dealt with in an absolute way that shows no tolerance for those behaviours within the scheme. The second tranche of initiatives that we’re doing is uplifting our system capability through a crackdown on a fraud systems uplift approach. The government has invested $83.9 million for the 2024 calendar year to focus on that work. That work absolutely complements the work of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce by ensuring that we can implement new systems that have the uplift capability we need to make sure that it’s easier to get things right and harder to get things wrong. The types of programs that we have been investing in include identity proofing systems; improving systems that check payment claims; making sure that our new IT systems are connected; and making sure that we have a fraud case management approach. I have a whole program of work that is being undertaken as part of that process. We’re also ensuring that the work we do in relation to this is co-designed and discussed with participants as well as with the sector more generally. This is so that, as we make changes to our systems, participants can have confidence that they’ve been consulted on the changes and they are going to have their safety first and foremost and continuity of care always as principles that will govern those changes that we introduce.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That was clear and succinct.

Ms Glanville: We are also a member of the taskforce. I can perhaps give you a sense of the regulatory actions that connect to that. That would be quite useful. I will quote from our 2023-24 end of financial year figures. This is in the context of there being terrific providers out there doing great work with people with disabilities and supporting them to live the ordinary lives that they require, as recognised in the Every Australian Counts
campaign from all those years ago.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s important. The good ones at the moment are being drowned out by a focus on the unscrupulous ones.

Ms Glanville: There are many good providers out there, so I agree with you that it is important to recognise them. I will give you some quick figures. The regulatory chill is that we have banning orders. There were 142 in the 2023-24 financial year. Civil penalties—

Senator ROBERTS: What is a banning order?

Ms Glanville: When someone is not allowed to provide services into the future. Civil penalties proceedings might be before courts. There were three of them. There are, of course, some other matters that I can’t talk about here but which are before the Federal Court in terms of practices and behaviours that we would find unacceptable.

Senator ROBERTS: Criminal activities?

Ms Glanville: Sometimes these can involve criminal activities, yes. There were 52 compliance notices. That is where a provider is asked to comply in certain ways with certain code of conduct or other matters. That is a significant power we have. Of course, education remains very important. We did over 21,985 sessions that relate to that. There were five enforceable undertakings and 147 infringement notices. The number refused
registration—I think this goes to the core of some of the issues are you raising—is 11,952.

Senator ROBERTS: So 11,952 registrations were refused?

Ms Glanville: Where there was a refusal of registration, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that for providers or agencies?

Ms Glanville: That’s for providers, people providing services.

Senator ROBERTS: What about agencies? How many of them have been prohibited?

Ms Glanville: I can’t make that distinction, but I’m happy to take that away and see if we can get any information for you on that.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.

Ms Glanville: Revocation of registration was 192. Suspended registration was 12. Warning letters was 3½ thousand-odd. That gives you a sense of about 38,000 different types of enforcement actions that we took and the outcomes of those. This is in the service of trying to lift the quality overall to ensure that people with disability have the opportunity to make good choices in terms of who provides services to them. It also ensures that we have a strong regulator where the sorts of concerns that you are raising in some of your questioning can be addressed very thoroughly by the commission and others.

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to know on notice the agencies that you have taken on. I understand that there are some very good providers and there are some unscrupulous providers. There are some very good
agencies and there are some unscrupulous agencies. The agencies that are unscrupulous magnify the problem because there is not just one or two people in those agencies. There are sometimes many people in those agencies.

Ms Glanville: We’ll certainly take that on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I will cede the call there because I’ve had my 10 minutes. I would like to come back and drill into some of the details.

CHAIR: I will put you on the list, Senator Roberts, for a crossbench rotation.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you

/5 Comments/by