Australia’s Visa System is Snapping Under the Weight

,

During this estimates session with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), I asked questions regarding the scale of visa appeals they are reviewing – and it’s worse than expected.

Migration cases now make up 56% of the entire tribunal workload, with student visas alone accounting for 35%. The backlog is astonishing.

77,938 migration cases, 52,452 student visa cases, and 130,983 cases overall waiting for hearing. Protection visas add another 37,830, and even NDIS reviews are climbing.

The tribunal admitted its receiving around 90,000 applications a year, but is only funded to finalise 60,000, meaning the backlog grows by 30,000 every year.

When asked when this backlog is expected to be cleared, the answer was blunt and honest. On present numbers, they have no reasonable expectation.

The tribunal is drowning. A system meant for genuine review is being overloaded, under-funded and pushed beyond capacity, while taxpayers foot the bill for backlog that grows every single day.

Much of the fault lies with Australian universities, who aggressively market their degrees by promising students a fast track to permanent residency. This is often done through third-party brokers employed by the universities.

How long will the Government let the Tribunal drown before doing its job and and fixing this mess?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I may have heard, on the tail end of what Senator Cash was saying, you going through some categories, so, if I do, forgive me for repeating them. Which is the largest category of applications for review currently before the tribunal? I think you said it’s student visas.  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. It’s in the migration case load. I hope you’re going to be wearing a maroon tie tomorrow!  

Senator ROBERTS: State of Origin.  

Senator CASH: I’ll even agree with that, as a Western Australian!  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m supporting coal today!  
 
Mr Hawkins: The highest case load is migration and the student visas within that.  
 
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the proportion of migration and then the proportion of that that’s students?  
 
Mr Hawkins: If I can say, migration is 56 per cent of our total case load. Within that, students represent 35 per cent of our total case load.  
 
Senator ROBERTS: How many of these applications are waiting for hearing?  
 
Mr Hawkins: Waiting for hearing, which is cases on hand—in migration we have 77,938 on hand. We have 52,452 student visas on hand. Across the total tribunal we have 130,983.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wow. No wonder you’re ‘aware’. What are the other major categories for review before the tribunal?  

Mr Hawkins: Our biggest case loads are working, skilled and investment visas. We have 13,983 on hand. For protection, we have 37,830, which is 29 per cent of our on-hand case load. For NDIS we have 7,136, which represents five per cent of our case load.  

Senator ROBERTS: Although that’s only five per cent, I heard you say that you’re worried about that because of the potential for growth.  

Mr Hawkins: Only from the sense of the media talk of what reforms are going to happen. As there’s nothing legislated, I can’t comment any further. As I said to Senator Cash, I’m alert but not alarmed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I get, on notice, a breakdown of all the categories and their numbers?  

Mr Hawkins: Of each list that we have?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Hawkins: I can do that for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You’ve given me the total. This question could be difficult: When do you envisage this backlog will be reduced to an acceptable managed workload? What is a well-managed workload?  

Mr Hawkins: I guess a manageable case load is what we are funded to achieve. If it’s 100 per cent case load that we want to achieve, we need to have 100 per cent funding. As I explained to Senator Cash before, an issue we have with our funding is that we do actually have a cap in it, which is based on our ability to accommodate members to be able to do that work. At the moment our cap is 345 FTE of members, which is equivalent to about 60,000 finalisations, but we’re receiving about 90,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are 90,000 coming in, so you’re going backwards 30,000.  

Senator CASH: Every year?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the reason for that?  

Mr Hawkins: Because we have a cap on our ability to accommodate members at the moment. As I also explained to Senator Cash, some of the initiatives that the Senate has been able to give us, such as being able to do student visas as a decision on the paper, will give us some flexibility as to how we accommodate our members. We might be able to have a number of members being able to do those types of cases from home because there’s no hearing involved. We have an initiative that every member in the tribunal will do 10 per cent of their case load as a student visa. So we’re trying to make inroads in that way as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: When do you expect the backlog to be cleared?  

Mr Hawkins: On present numbers, I don’t. I cannot have a reasonable expectation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, any comments to add?  

Senator Green: Is there a question, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The tribunal are saying that they’ve got a workload that is increasing, not decreasing.  

Senator Green: I think, as Mr Hawkins alluded to in the comments he made, probably before you entered the room—apologies, Senator Roberts—it’s a demand driven funding model. We’re currently considering applications for additional members because we do acknowledge that more members definitely are required. Applications have been received for additional deputy president and senior member recruitment rounds, and the department can take you through the process for those rounds. As Mr Hawkins has alluded to, the Senate has also made some changes to the way that student visas are being considered so they can be considered on the papers, and there are regulations that are imminent to allow that to happen.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many members of the tribunal are there?  

Mr Hawkins: We will have 423 members as at 1 July, representing 347.5 FTE.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ll be able to tell us more at supplementary estimates in November?  

Mr Hawkins: I certainly will.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s early days. Is there any way of getting a handle on the cost of each review to the taxpayer?  

Mr Hawkins: It’s a very complex formula because every matter is different. For example, a social security matter might take a day; a complex tax matter could take two weeks. So it’s very difficult to determine a cost per decision. We could calculate it on an average basis across each decision, and I could share with you a unit cost which shows that this tribunal today is more efficient than it’s ever been.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you do that, please?  

Mr Hawkins: Let me just find the appropriate note. This is allowing for CPI adjustment and a weighted cost per unit. In 2025-26, year to date, our unit cost is $2,250.88.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s for a hearing?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. To give you an indication, in 2020-21 it was $3,053, and in 2015-16 it was $2,769.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s coming down?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. Where we have to be most efficient is, again, in that funding model, because we are receiving 91,000 applications a year, but we can’t just do the 60,000 that we’re funded for. At the front end we still have to deal with the 90,000 in some way. There are case management events that take place. There’s outreach with those 90,000 cases. Also, it’s very difficult to calculate unit costs because unit costs might be based on a finalisation, but in fact we’re touching matters, all matters, that come in our front door. Of those 130,000 matters that I mentioned before, there are touchpoints all through that process that we can’t account for until it’s a finalisation, so it’s a very complex calculation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I won’t ask the tribunal for an opinion but I’ll ask you: is there any work on alternative systems and processes? I’m not suggesting we should do that, but it sounds pretty overwhelming.  

Senator Green: I think we’ve taken you through some of the steps that we’re implementing to assist the tribunal with its work. Obviously, merits review is a really important part of responsible and accountable government. Applications that are made, as you know, are made when an applicant disagrees with a reviewable decision; for example, when the government denies someone a visa—or a student visa, in this example. We’re looking at all of the different ways that we can reduce the workload but also provide the tribunal with the resources that they need to be able to make these decisions.  

Mr Hawkins: You yourself, Senator, have been facilitating that through the Senate with the reforms that you’ve given us; for example, the decision on the papers. I mentioned before that the parliament has given the president powers to authorise registrars to handle matters more expeditiously. I think Senator Cash before was alluding to what more we can ask for, and perhaps there is space in the decision on the papers area for us to consider into the future, but at the moment we’re going to master the powers that we have.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we should know more by the November supplementary estimates. Is this process of using the Administrative Review Tribunal for appeals being exploited by those wishing to stay in Australia who have no right to be here?  

Mr Hawkins: That’s not a matter for me to answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Green: There are a range of cases and reasons why people make applications. I’ll take that as a comment from you, Senator, rather than a question to me. 

/0 Comments/by

The $5M Vaccine Grant With Zero Accountability

,

I questioned the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on why taxpayers are funding a new $5 million vaccine-adjuvant research centre when Australians still haven’t been given clear answers about the safety of existing adjuvants.

Their written response to my questions confirmed the project was funded simply because peer reviewers ranked it highly, saying that “there are only seven adjuvants used in license vaccines which limits the choice” and the NHMRC’s Centres of Research Excellence aims to “discover novel adjuvants to improve vaccine development.”

That’s not oversight – that’s the NHMRC waving through millions without addressing the real issues.

I asked directly whether concerns about aluminum-based adjuvants or neurological conditions played any role and they couldn’t give me an answer.

I also confirmed that any new vaccine technology developed with Australian taxpayer money WILL NOT be owned by Australians.

This is simply not good enough.

Taxpayers should not be funding research that lines the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies. Any intellectual property generated through these grants must belong to the taxpayers. Handing over valuable IP to entities to monetise at our expense provides zero return to the taxpayers.

This has to stop!

For a billion-dollar grant body, Australians deserve better than vague justifications and no clear outcomes.

Australians deserve accountability that matches the scale of the spending.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could I turn to the National Health and Medical Research Council, please. In 2025, the National Health and Medical Research Council funded the Vaccine Adjuvant Discovery and Development Centre of Research Excellence—CRE—led by Professor Katherine Andrews at Griffith University, with $5 million as part of a $72 million CRE package. This grant focuses on discovering new adjuvants to enhance vaccine efficacy, safety and related purposes. First question: Why do we need new adjuvants? What’s wrong with the existing adjuvants?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We assess grants through a peer review process. Through that process, we utilise experts from around Australia to assess all of the grants that come to us—whether it’s for a centre of research excellence, an investigator grant or an ideas grant. The way that CRE would’ve been assessed would’ve been through that peer review process. Through that peer review process, they would’ve been elevated to the top of that scheme and would’ve been funded on the basis of their peers indicating that this was high-quality research that was likely to have a significant impact on health in Australia. We would take that on board; therefore, if they were ranked accordingly, we would fund them.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the reasons why their peers elevated it to No. 1?  

Prof. Wesselingh: I would have to go back and look at all of the assessments by those peers. Obviously, I don’t have that directly in front of me at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you do that on notice, please? We’d like to know why that research was approved, why we need new adjuvants, and what’s wrong with the existing adjuvants? 

Prof. Wesselingh: I’m very happy to look back at the peer review. But what I can guarantee you is that they would have been regarded as excellent research likely to produce significant impact.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what they are.  

Prof. Wesselingh: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Adjuvants and vaccines are there to enhance the body’s immune response to the antigen. Common adjuvants include aluminium hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate and potassium aluminium sulphate. These have been widely linked to neurological conditions spontaneously occurring after vaccination. Is this program an admission that there might be a level of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism? I guess you wouldn’t know, because you don’t know the—  

Prof. Wesselingh: So you’re asking us if the fact that we funded the CRE is an admission? We, again, funded the CRE on the basis of the scores that the CRE obtained. Those scores would indicate the quality of the science and the likelihood of obtaining high-quality evidence to improve the health of Australians.  

Senator ROBERTS: Right, and you’re going to find the reason anyway, so perhaps you could check if there is any aspect of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism as part of the reasons for developing a new adjuvant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We can certainly look at the arguments that the CRE made and the peer review of that CRE.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If research is successful and you find an effective adjuvant that is not neurotoxic, who will own the intellectual property the taxpayers just funded?  

Prof. Wesselingh: The way our granting system works is that the intellectual property developed by—the people who get the grants from us, which are normally medical research institutes or universities or members of those organisations, own the intellectual property. So the intellectual property would be assigned according to a university’s intellectual property rules or a medical research institute’s rules. I’m not sure, with that CRE, where they were.  

Senator ROBERTS: A $5 million synergy grant was awarded in 2024 to a multi-institutional team, including Monash University, to optimise vaccines for respiratory viruses, like influenza and RSV. This includes evaluating safety profiles to improve protection while minimising risks. If that develops new technology which achieves that objective, who will own that IP?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, the IP would be organised according to the rules developed by the organisations as part of that synergy grant. Synergy grants tend to have a number of organisations from around Australia, so I imagine there are multiple universities and MRIs involved in that synergy grant, and they will have developed an IP policy and the IP will be owned according to that policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: But not by the Australian government?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Not by NHMRC or by the government.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re very concerned about the level of spending in this government. Professor Bette Liu from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance received a $2.79 million investigator grant in 2024 to study adult vaccination programs. This explicitly includes assessing vaccine safety, identifying risks in high-risk groups and informing safer program designs. What was the outcome of that grant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, if I knew the outcomes of all of the grants that I fund—we fund a billion dollars worth of grants every year—I think I’d be pretty good. I can’t tell you the outcome of that grant, but we can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you still think you’re pretty good?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Do I think I’m personally pretty good or the NHMRC is very good?  

Senator ROBERTS: Both! Okay, thank you very much. 

/0 Comments/by

Australians Deserve a Regulator Beyond Reproach

,

I welcomed the ACCC’s decision to oppose the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group – and pushed hard on a bigger issue: the revolving door between regulators and major law firms.

I raised recent examples of senior ACCC figures moving straight into firms with competition clients, stressing that, even with separation deeds, the perception and potential for insider advantage remain.

Australians deserve a regulator beyond reproach, and senior officials shouldn’t be able to jump straight into the industries they once oversaw.

It’s time to restore integrity and end the cosy pipeline.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a pleasure.  

Senator ROBERTS: It was intriguing hearing some of your comments in answer to Senator Sharma—taking on Apple and mentioning Apple Pay and some of your other comments. I just use cash, because governments have been trying to get rid of cash, so we have to protect it. Anyway, it was very brave, so thank you for your refreshing comments. I’m going to start with a compliment, actually. In October, we discussed the growing concentration in the ownership of insurance companies. You mentioned you were reviewing the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group. I note that, on 11 December, the ACCC announced the takeover had been opposed on the basis of a reduction in competition. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to say on that. I hope this is the start of the end of market concentration in insurance.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It was based upon a careful analysis of the market conditions in Western Australia. It is possible that transaction will be brought back to us under the mandatory merger notification regime. The parties did foreshadow that when we announced the opposition under the informal regime. So it may be reassessed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Tonight’s line of questioning is about a potential revolving door of staff between the ACCC and private legal firms. Are there restrictions on someone who is on the ACCC payroll, especially the executive, leaving and immediately taking a position in the business they may have just been regulating at ACCC.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We require the entry into a separation deed that—  

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: They enter into an agreement with the ACCC, which is a binding, enforceable agreement, to firstly preserve the confidentiality of the information that has been received and also to continue to observe obligations that applied under the employment in relation to conflict of interest. We did, in one case, specify a period of required leave before employment could be taken up in a private law firm, but we look at that question—beyond the general obligations in relation to conflict of interest and preservation of confidential information—on a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is signing that deed a requirement that the prospective employee must agree to before signing up?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. Employees are obliged to do so, and commissioners enter into a code which, during the term, obliges us to comply with all statutory obligations and legal obligations and also to enter into that separation agreement upon leaving.  

Senator ROBERTS: That relies on trust. It would be very difficult to enforce it, because you don’t know what’s happening in the new employer’s offices.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have some observation because we see who comes before us. But, yes, we do not know what is being said.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Financial Review has reported on this topic, and I’m considering legislation to stop politicians and senior bureaucrats leaving and going to work for a company they were just regulating. This practice is too commonplace. ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver—is that how you pronounce her name?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: She left in May 2025, halfway through her term, and went to work for Herbert Smith Freehills. Is that correct?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you address this move at the time, in respect of the perception—and I’m sure this was a false perception—that HSF bought off an effective commissioner with a large job offer?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: I think that is an incorrect perception, and Ms Carver did sign a separation agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner Carver was the enforcement committee chair for the 2023-24 ACCC prosecution of BINGO bins. BINGO bins were represented by Herbert Smith Freehills. Bingo lost and were fined $30 million. In the Sigma Healthcare and Chemist Warehouse merger—  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Sorry; just one moment. I should note that, to my knowledge, though it was resolved before I became chair, Ms McDonald would know Miss Carver was conflicted and did not participate in the consideration of BINGO matters when she came to the ACCC. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. In the Sigma Healthcare—Chemist Warehouse merger, Carver as deputy chair of the Mergers Review Committee participated in merger assessments in that period. The merger was approved in November 2024. Herbert Smith Freehills advised Chemist Warehouse—I’m not suggesting misconduct in any way by any party, but I am saying the capacity for corruption exists in these arrangements. I think you’re acknowledging that.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have a very clear and very strict conflict policy. Commissioners are required to disclose conflicts of all work that has been done, if they have been in private practice when they join the ACCC, that results, depending upon the extent of the seniority. If it’s a one-off transaction, it’s at one end of the spectrum; if it’s continued advising, it’s at another. If at the continued-advising level, that person will be conflicted and not have involvement in matters for that company for a number of years while at the ACCC. But, if a clear disclosure is given, the chair receives advice on it from our general counsel and our CEO, and I then take a recommendation to the commission, and we decide and record in a register the treatment of that conflict. So we take that very seriously. Frequently, for the initial period, when commissioners join, if they have been in private practice, they will be absented from a number of matters. They leave meetings, they don’t participate at all in the deliberations, they don’t receive papers, and they do not then participate in decision-making.  

Senator ROBERTS: Of course, I didn’t think of that, but there are potential conflicts entering ACCC as well as departing from ACCC.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There are. There is an objective to bring in highly skilled and experienced people. We have many highly skilled and experienced people who have worked in the public service throughout their career, and they are significant—they are the majority of contributors in the ACCC, there is no doubt—but we also bring in and are keen to attract appropriate people with skill levels, and that requires careful management.  

Senator ROBERTS: I suppose it’s small, but there may be some people who want to get into ACCC so they can get out again later and use their contacts. It’s always a possibility.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a possibility. We do seek through our legal arrangements in the separation deed to manage this, but it’s a possibility.  

Senator ROBERTS: Jennifer Barron was promoted to general counsel for merger reform in early 2025—this is my last question—with a major task on the books: preparation for merger law changes. In late April 2025, King & Wood Mallesons announced her appointment as a partner in their national competition team in Sydney, a team which does merger cases. The law says this person can’t use direct knowledge of an upcoming event at the new company, but they can use any other insider information to make themselves a valuable new employee. Is there anything being done about that?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Ms Barron also entered into an agreement undertaking ongoing obligations to preserve confidential information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: My pleasure.

/0 Comments/by

Did Agencies Fail to Do Their Job?

,

We know that no new laws would’ve stopped the Bondi atrocity. The real issue is why ASIO, the AFP and NSW Police didn’t act on the warnings they already had.

I asked the Official Secretary, Ms Anne Sheehan, of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion how a terrorist on an ASIO watchlist was still able to get a firearms licence, what surveillance was actually happening, and why critical intelligence wasn’t shared.

The commission confirmed these failures will be scrutinized – including whether agencies simply didn’t do their job.

Australians deserve a Royal Commission that delivers real answers and a safer future for everyone.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: The commission found that no further legislative measures would have prevented the Bondi atrocity, but what could have been done by either ASIO, AFP or New South Wales police that could have prevented this atrocity?  

Ms Sheehan: In relation to the interim report, I’d note that we commenced our second hearing block today, which is expected to run for up to three weeks. The interim report identified that there are a number of issues that needed to be further examined during this next hearing block, and that’s what we’re doing at the moment. Other than what recommendations that the commission has made that are in the interim report itself, we need to wait and see what comes out of this hearing block.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. When will we find out? Is it in the next interim report?  

Ms Sheehan: If the commissioner determines that another report is required before the final report—there’s a final report that’s due by 14 December—it’s open to the commissioner to issue other recommendations or another report along the way if she considers it appropriate to do so. It’s too early to say whether it would be needed to do that, but it’s something that can be done.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand your sensitivity about this, and I can understand that a lot of people will be anxious to find out why ASIO, the AFP and the New South Wales police didn’t take action. Will the commission consider how one of the terrorists got a clearance to purchase a firearm when the person had been on a watchlist with ASIO?  

Ms Sheehan: In this hearing block, the commission is considering term of reference C, which goes to the circumstances in the lead-up to the Bondi attack. There will be a range of issues considered in that hearing block, some of which will be in public, and some will have to be held in closed session, either to avoid prejudicing the criminal trial or because it’s dealing with classified information.  

Senator ROBERTS: This may be another sensitive question. Were ASIO or the AFP aware that a firearms licence had been issued to one of the terrorists by the New South Wales weapons licensing branch?  

Ms Sheehan: That really goes to the substance of matters that the commission might be looking at. I couldn’t answer that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the commission consider what level of surveillance was directed to the murdering terrorists when they were already on ASIO’s radar?  

Ms Sheehan: Broadly, the factors that the commission is considering during this hearing block go to the terrorism threat level, the security environment in the lead-up to the attack, and the conduct of security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies relevant to the attack. I think that goes to the issue that you’ve just raised. It will also look at the security arrangements for the Chanukah by the Sea event, and how intelligence about individuals known to authorities is utilised and shared between agencies to then inform decisions made by security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including, for example, how individuals are monitored and how decisions in respect of firearms licence applications are made. Yes, those things will be looked at.  

Senator ROBERTS: The commission will consider if any agency did not perform their duties to protect Australians. That’s clear.  

Ms Sheehan: The commission will be looking at the conduct of intelligence and law enforcement agencies in relation to those issues I’ve outlined.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the letter from the royal commission to Gab, in the United States?  

Ms Sheehan: I don’t think so, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: The commission sent the social media company Gab, in the United States, a letter. From what the owner of Gab posted on social media, it’s not possible to get a clear idea of what your intent was. Can you please explain what that letter was all about? Do you want me to read the letter?  

Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that letter, so I think I would have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your letter included a statement that failure to comply with the notice carried a criminal penalty of 12 months in prison. Is it accurate to threaten a US citizen in the United States with a criminal prosecution under Australian law?  

Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that correspondence. I think it’s best if I take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Gab have used the United States first amendment as a defence to such actions in the past, including from our eSafety Commissioner. Could you tell me, on notice, why you’d take the action when you know the US constitution precludes you from taking that action.  

Ms Sheehan: I’ll take that on notice as well—once I’ve seen the correspondence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your efficiency in asking those questions. 

/0 Comments/by

Australia Day Council Restores Flag

,

At the February Senate Estimates, I raised concerns that the Australian Flag was absent from The Australia Day Council’s website.

I am pleased to see that it has now been restored.

Our flag is a symbol of our shared values, our democracy and our monocultural society.

Displaying it proudly reminds us of all that we can be united under one flag.

Transcript

CHAIR: We will head straight to questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. Senator Ayres, you had better be ready for a long session.  

Senator Ayres: I’m all ears.  

Senator ROBERTS: At the last estimates, I asked you why the Australia Day Council did not have an Australian flag on their website. I’m pleased to see that you now have an Australian flag. Thank you. Well done. It’s good to see.  

Mr Ashurst: I would like to say thank you, Senator. As the interim CEO, once that was brought to my attention, as a former soldier myself, I found that was very important to rectify.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is gratifying to hear. Thank you. I note that you have removed the flash screen acknowledgement of country and instead displayed the Aboriginal flag in your header, which is a fair compromise that I hope leads to further engagement with Australia Day by the Aboriginal community.  

Mr Ashurst: Yes, Senator. It was a deliberate choice in accordance with normal government convention to display not only the Australian national flag but also the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flag. We obviously are aiming for Australia Day and the Australian of the Year awards to be inclusive as much as possible and be representative of our entire nation and the make-up of our entire nation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all. 

/0 Comments/by

Why Is Australia Still Approving Gain-of-Function?

In this session with the Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC), I pushed for a straight answer on whether it will conduct or drive research. The response I got? A “bit of yes and a bit of no”.

They admitted they’ll “participate” in research yet won’t actually do it. No beakers, no test tubes, just another layer of bureaucracy.

I raised the seriousness of gain-of-function research. I pointed out that the regulator hasn’t met since 2023, its website hasn’t been updated since 2024 and the body responsible for overseeing gene technology won’t even use the term “gain-of-function”, yet it’s still approving these projects.

When I asked whether the government would ban gain-of-function research, the Minister dodged yet again.

So, I made it clear – One Nation will ban gain-of-function research. It’s simply too dangerous to allow.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. I refer to an answer by Ms Wood in the December 2025 estimates regarding the potential research function of the CDC. Your answer was very carefully worded. You said: The CDC won’t be … conducting research on matters that are in the remit of other organisations. The CDC is a complement to the Commonwealth public health capability. It will not be taking over or otherwise leaning in on research conducted by any other Commonwealth entities … That’s not a no. Can I have a clear answer, please? Will the CDC be conducting research or causing research to be conducted—yes or no? 

Mr McCormack: One of the functions for the CDC in our legislation is to advise on research requirements specifically as they relate to public health matters. We will be undertaking that, and we’re therefore an active participant in research. We are not researchers ourselves in the sense of producing primary evidence, though we are an expert organisation, and we would expect a number of our staff, through the course of their work, to be participating in research undertaken cooperatively with institutions such as universities et cetera. But we’re also not a funder of research. The principal funding mechanism for medical research in Australia is, of course, the NHMRC, complemented by programs administered by the department, including the Medical Research Future Fund. It’s not a question that necessarily provides for a very simple yes-or-no answer. It’s a bit of yes and a bit of no. We’re a participant. We’re not a principal researcher. We’re a supporter of research strategy. We’re not a significant funder of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll be participating in research, but you’re not researching.  

Mr McCormack: It’s not a simple yes-or-no thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. I understand.  

Mr McCormack: We have a role in research under our legislation, but it’s not to be a prime driver of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got hold of the beakers and the test tubes.  

Mr McCormack: We do not have hold of the beakers and test tubes. No.  

Senator ROBERTS: A further part of that answer was that the Gene Technology Standing Committee oversees gain-of-function research through the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. The standing committee has not met since 2023, and their website was last updated in 2024. The website of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator does not mention gain-of-function research. The only time they have interceded on the topic was for medical research, where they defended and approved the application. I’m pursuing this line of questioning because gain-of-function research gave the world the MERS virus and the COVID virus. President Obama banned gain-of-function research funding in 2014 owing to lab mishaps with anthrax, smallpox and avian flu. Every time I ask this government about this topic, I get an evasive answer. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator just approved a public trial of gain-of-function research that produced an influenza virus replica. Australia is doing gain-of-function research, and the regulator is approving it. Minister, will this government ban gain-of-function research?  

Senator Green: I don’t have anything to add to answers that, I assume, have been given to you over many estimates and the information given by the officials tonight.  

Senator ROBERTS: You won’t. One Nation would ban—will ban—gain-of-function research.  

Senator Green: It’s great to hear about your policies, because then we know exactly what the Liberal-National policies will be in a few months.  

/0 Comments/by

Legalised Wage Theft

,

Once again, I am calling out Fair Work officials.

This time it is for the blatant contradiction between their own statements and the Ombudsman’s findings.

I pushed Mr Furlong to reaffirm that enterprise agreements cannot legally undercut award entitlements — then confronted him with written evidence from the Ombudsman claiming the exact opposite, that an enterprise agreement “overrides” the Black Coal Award.

I pressed further, pointing to the Penny Vickers case to show this pattern isn’t new. Unions and big businesses have used enterprise agreements to “legalise” underpayment before, and only whistleblowers exposed it.

Despite every attempt to deflect, the failure is undeniable. The Fair Work system has allowed wage theft before, it’s allowing it again, and regulators refuse to confront it.

I won’t let them hide behind the process.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Furlong, and your colleagues for being here and minister. 

Senator Watt: It’s great to see you again, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Same here, Minister Watt. 

Senator Watt: We spent a lot of time together last week. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, on 9 November 2022, I asked you a question in Senate estimates, specifically: 

Can an enterprise agreement remove the entitlements that the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards provide employees? 
 
You replied simply, ‘No.’ Clear. So you recall this? Now you are aware, I believe, that the Fair Work Ombudsman has been investigating allegations of the underpayment of coal workers where the enterprise agreements have underpaid in comparison to the black coal industry award. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: I am broadly aware that they were conducting an operation in relation to that, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking to put you on the spot for the verdict.  

Mr Furlong: Very broadly, I understand it.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are aware. You answered. The ombudsman has recently completed a number of investigations. I will quote from one of those investigations where the ombudsman has stated in writing to the coal worker who lodged the complaint: ‘As the Fair Work Ombudsman has determined that’—the named person’s—’terms and conditions are governed by the’—named labour hire enterprise agreement—’we do not consider that the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010 applied’—to the named person’s employment. ‘Consequently’—the named person’s—’wages and entitlements during the relevant period should not be derived from the award but from’—the named labour hire enterprise agreement. Would you agree that on the surface and to an everyday person the Fair Work Ombudsman’s statement that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the fair work requirements—in this case, the award—override the EA?  

Mr Furlong: I think that they’re actually perfectly consistent. An award will persist unless there is an enterprise agreement that is in place for a workplace. But an enterprise agreement, in terms of the minimum hourly rate of pay, can’t be less than what is stipulated in the underpinning modern award.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s what I was looking for. Are you aware of the SDA case involving Penny Vickers?  

Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that case.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me refresh your memory. In 2016, Penny Vickers, a shelf-filler at the giant supermarket chain Coles, exposed huge underpayments of Coles workers. The underpayments occurred because the union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, had signed an enterprise bargaining agreement with Coles that ‘legalised’ the underpayment. The independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, had authorised the agreement which gave it legal cover. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I’m aware of the circumstances broadly.  

Senator ROBERTS: The union and big business did a deal. The deal enabled Coles to pay workers less than they should have been paid when they worked on weekends. Penny Vickers took on the union and big business giants and successfully had the underpayment deal overturned in the Fair Work Commission. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: And it was not just Coles. I initially thought it had been just Coles. It was not just Coles that had been in on the union deal. Other huge retailers were also in on the deal, including Woolworths, Bunnings, Target, Kmart, Big W and others. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: No. I’m interested to know—and Mr Corcoran might be able to assist you with this—if the application that was brought to the commission was post the nominal expiry date. Mr Corcoran, can you remember the circumstances of the case?  

Mr Corcoran: Not completely, but I think it might have been within the nominal expiry date of the agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Media reports suggest that, by themselves, just three of these big businesses were underpaying workers by around $150 million a year back in 2016. Are you aware this is extreme wage theft well beyond payroll errors?  

Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that or reviewed that decision. I don’t feel like I can reasonably respond to these questions without going back and reading the decision closely.  

Senator ROBERTS: This was, of course, a huge scandal that sent shock waves through the retail sector in particular—I can remember it was in the papers once it got exposed—and forced the rewriting of retail enterprise agreements almost across the board. Yet, if it hadn’t been for the tenacity and persistence of one person, Penny Vickers, and of the media, including, I believe, Judith Sloan and Rob Gottliebsen, the underpayments would never have been exposed. Mr Furlong, I put it to you that the Fair Work Act has failed. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer- 

employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and the cost and harm of small businesses?  

Mr Furlong: As you’re aware, Senator, my role doesn’t extend to matters of policy. Those questions should be addressed to the department in the normal course of things.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I caught the tail end of your question. I’m happy to have a go at answering it if you’d like to put it to me again.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Fair Work Act has failed. It’s been needlessly complex over many, many years. It’s not understood by workers. It’s not understood by small business. It’s not understood by many employers without a lawyer. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer-employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and of small businesses?  

Senator Watt: I, of course, have a different view about the Fair Work Act, especially after the reforms that our government has undertaken. It’s very clear that, due to the reforms our government has put in place to the Fair Work Act, wages are rising, more agreements are being reached between workers and their employers and industrial action is lower than it was under the coalition. So, in a range of ways, I think that the Fair Work Act has been very successful for Australian workplaces. I know you and your colleagues from One Nation voted against those reforms. I did note, Senator Roberts, on the weekend, the interview with Senator Hanson, where she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage. Is that a general One Nation position?  

Senator ROBERTS: Workers are going backwards. The cost of living is rising faster than wages. Workers are going backwards under your government.  

Senator Watt: Actually, I don’t know if you saw this, Senator Roberts, but just today the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision in the annual wage case, which granted a pay rise for the lowest paid workers in the community of 4.75 per cent, which is ahead of inflation. Senator Hanson on the weekend said that she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage, so I presume that means One Nation doesn’t support that pay rise.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Fair Work Commission has made its decision.  

Senator Watt: But it sounds like your party didn’t support that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move back to Mr Furlong. I’ve asked this question once. Having listened to me talk about Penny Vickers and the illegal enterprise agreement that was reversed, would you agree that, on the surface and to an everyday person, the Fair Work Ombudsman statement that I talked about, with the black coal mining industry award, that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the Fair Work requires, in this case, that the award override the enterprise agreement?  

Mr Furlong: I haven’t seen the Fair Work Ombudsman correspondence that you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I read you quotes.  

Mr Furlong: But I haven’t seen it. I haven’t had the chance to review it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you undertake then, Mr Furlong, to make inquiries of the Fair Work Ombudsman as to why they have taken that view and whether the view is right or wrong and report back to me on this question on notice?  

Mr Furlong: I’ll certainly take up the opportunity to read the correspondence, but, in terms of my role at the commission, I’m required to support the president in the efficient operation of the tribunal. I have two statutory roles. I can certainly look at it and read it, but I’m not too sure what statutory power I could rely on to actually make any sort of commentary around whether or not the provisions of the act have been complied with in these circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong.  

CHAIR: Are you ready for me to rotate?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

———————————————————————————————————————————— 
 
CHAIR: I’m going to go to Senator Roberts—to give you a moment to see if that’s possible. I’ll come back to you after that. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, I’ve got a constituent who wants to ask you a question, so I’m going to ask it for them. You’ll probably have to take it on notice, because I don’t think you’ll know the answer off the top of your head, based on what you said earlier. Section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act provides:  

FWA must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions …  

The use of the term ‘must’ imposes a mandatory legal obligation on the commission. My question is: does the commission have the liberty to bypass, dilute or ignore this statutory duty?  

Mr Furlong: I’m happy to provide a detailed response on notice. We—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/2 Comments/by

Is the Gap Closed?

,

During this session I pressed Commissioner Kiss on waste, duplication and middle-man costs in the Aboriginal industry.

She acknowledged the funding failures, yet still joined the chair and other senators in pushing back on my questioning – proving that even when everyone admits the money isn’t reaching communities or Closing the Gap targets, they resist being held accountable.

My point was clear: money is being poured in, yet outcomes are worsening, accountability is missing, and real on-the-ground help is being smothered by bureaucracy.

How much taxpayer money will this government burn before the Gap Closes?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Kiss. You recently made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties. Apparently that was after the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election. Is that correct?  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: After the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election, you made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties.  

Ms Kiss: I don’t recall using that language at all. Can you clarify what you’re talking about?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s all I’ve got here. What benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would such a statement bring?  

Ms Kiss: Again, I’m not clear what you’re referring to. So, if you could, give me some clarity around where I might have used that language. I don’t recall using that language.  

Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t use it?  

Ms Kiss: Not that I can recall.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What are your thoughts on the Aboriginal industry—that is, what’s referred to as the Aboriginal industry, the lawyers, the politicians, the public servants, the bureaucrats, the contractors, the academics and the activists living off the money allocated to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in poverty despite receiving welfare payments the same as other Australians in need? The money is being allocated, but it’s not getting to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts on that? 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that sounds an awful lot like you’re asking the commissioner for an opinion. That’s not—  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have an opinion?  

Ms Kiss: I do have an opinion, but it’s not my role to share my opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that that’s happening?  

Ms Kiss: I can speak to the fact that we know that there is a fair amount of financial allocation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services and supports. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of welfare support, but I do have concerns about the fact that funding that’s being allocated to our communities and to our organisations and to government agencies is not actually meeting the needs of our communities. That’s evident in the Closing the Gap targets.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’re agreed. Are you aware that often more than half the grant money is eaten up by salaries and other middleman costs before getting to the people the grant was supposed to assist?  

Ms Kiss: The indication of that has been presented in Productivity Commission reports and Indigenous expenditure reports, so, yes, I am aware that there is consideration of that.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m struggling to see the connection between your questions and the role of Commissioner Kiss.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ll see it fairly soon.  

CHAIR: Okay, I’m looking forward to that. That would be helpful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that most assaults upon Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia are committed by Aboriginal men?  

Senator COX: No, they’re not.  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure that those statistics are necessarily accurate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Why does nobody comment that the large proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal people are in jail because they committed crimes warranting a jail sentence from a magistrate or judge? That’s called social justice.  

Ms Kiss: I can’t make comment on that, Senator. That’s not a question for me. 

CHAIR: Again, it’s asking the commissioner for her opinion.  

Ms Kiss: Senator, I don’t make the decisions about who goes to jail and how they’re sentenced. Sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, when will this government learn that throwing money around is not the solution? These people are living in misery, in poverty, and throwing more money at them and throwing it to the activists and the parasites in between is not being effective. It’s quite clear. Social justice includes people accepting responsibility for their own actions and genuine help on the ground. What is your government going to do about closing the gap, because it’s widening now?  

Senator Green: Thanks for the question, Senator. I reject the language in your question. Yesterday, in front of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the National Indigenous Australians Agency appeared and gave a lot of evidence about all of the work that we are doing to improve outcomes and close the gap. Our government is committed to that. The Prime Minister gave a statement to acknowledge the Closing the gap reports. We acknowledge that not enough is being done and more needs to be done, and that’s why we’ve made significant investments in the budget. I want to thank the commissioner for the work that she does in highlighting not just to governments around the country but to everyone in the country how important it is that we do close the gap, not just for the people who are living these lives right now but for future generations of Australians.  

/by

The Public Arrest Spectacle: Who Really Made the Call?

,

During the June Estimates, I questioned the Australian Federal Police (AFP) regarding the high-profile public arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith at Sydney Airport.

Both Minister Watt and AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett claimed that most of my questions had already been comprehensively covered during earlier questioning by Senator Cash. I accepted this at the time and agreed to review the Hansard.

However, the one specific question I wanted answered, which I’m certain was not addressed during Senator Cash’s session, was whether the AFP specifically discussed the location of the arrest with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Instead of providing a direct answer, Commissioner Barrett deflected, citing operational decisions and general stakeholder engagement.

Having since reviewed the “comprehensive” answers provided to Senator Cash, I strongly disagree that my question was covered. I will pursue this matter at the next opportunity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to effect the arrest before you arrested him?  

Ms Barrett: I referred to that in my statement as well, in relation to why and the reasons.  

Senator ROBERTS: You had a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions?  

Ms Barrett: In relation to what specifically?  

Senator ROBERTS: Where you intended to effect the arrest.  

Ms Barrett: Those matters are operational matters that were operational decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions before arresting Mr Roberts-Smith?  

Ms Barrett: In my statement, I referred to us engaging with stakeholders in relation to that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about the location in which to arrest Mr Roberts-Smith—yes or no?  

CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: She hasn’t answered my question.  

CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question. If you’ve got another question you want to ask, please ask it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think it might be better for the commissioner to answer.  

CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question.  

Senator Watt: Maybe a good way forward—if you take a couple of minutes to read that statement, I think you’ll find that many of your questions have been addressed.  

Senator ROBERTS: This one clearly has not been.  

Senator Watt: Just in the interests of time: Senator Cash ended up finding that all the questions she was going to ask were addressed in the statement. If there are questions you have that haven’t been addressed already, I’m sure the commissioner would be happy to answer them.

/1 Comment/by

Fatal Army Rollover: Was the Vehicle Defective?

,

In this session, I raised several concerns regarding the heavy vehicle involved in the 2021 rollover near Townsville, which killed Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne.

I asked whether the 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle had entered service overweight, causing the axles to sit on the bump stops, thereby restricting axle movement and reducing roadholding. I also noted that the tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to operate at higher loads and pressures.

Furthermore, I stated that there was no evidence the antilock braking and stability systems had been calibrated for the addition of the fifth axle, the higher tyre pressures, or unique Australian road conditions. Finally, I pointed out that the operator manual, which was compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions regarding safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and entirely omitted recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads.

Defence officials (including Ms. Quinn and Ms. Kuczma) noted that standard contracts include “fitness-for-purpose” and risk-mitigation clauses. While Defence can theoretically choose to accept deviations in specifications under tight timelines, the DDA will maintain independent authority and accountability to manage contracts, enforce compliance, and withhold payments or suspend programs if requirements or safety standards are not met.

In response to my concern that the fatal vehicle’s flaws have still not been remedied, Defence Secretary Ms. Quinn rejected that the department is not focused on safety. She emphasised that Defence takes loss of life very seriously and continually adapts maintenance, acquisition, and operational processes based on new information.

I’ll be watching for the release of the report from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, officers, for appearing again tonight. My question is to the Chief of the Defence Force. On 30 August 2021, a 45M vehicle occupied by Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne failed to take a bend on Dotswood Road near Townsville, rolled and killed both occupants. ‘On 29 August 2025, an investigation was opened into the contributing factors in the rollover’—this is a quote—’that caused the deaths of Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Allan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Anthony Payne and was due to report by 4 March 2026.’ Has that investigation been completed?  

Adm. Johnston: I’ve just been joined by the Chief of Army, who may assist me with those answers. 

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can confirm that the Defence investigation has been completed and the final report was submitted to Comcare. That investigation was led by the land accident investigation team. That matter is now with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available to me during the period of litigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, did you say ‘not available’?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: They’ve been referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available for dissemination during the litigation that is currently ongoing.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the outcomes of the investigation that you can share with us?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m not in a position to share those outcomes with you while they’re subject to litigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm my understanding of these vehicles? The 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle entered service overweight, resulting in the axles sitting on the bump stops. This restricted axle movement and reduced roadholding. Is that correct?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: The tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to run at higher loads and pressures. Is that correct?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: There was no evidence of the calibration of the antilock braking stability systems for the addition of the fifth axle, higher tire pressures and unique Australian road conditions. The operator manual had been compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions for safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and did not include recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads. Could you take that on notice, please.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: You’re effectively making a series of assertions that may or may not be included as part of the investigation that was undertaken and is currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’ve been advised—some of the design failures or flaws in the vehicle.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Is that a question or a statement?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm that?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: As I’ve just advised, the investigation is referred to and currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can speak to a whole range of work that we’ve done. We have what you might describe as a generative safety culture, which is modelled on the way that airworthiness and air safety are managed. That is a proactive culture of reporting and continual improvement. In terms of the detail as to some of the things that we have done, I’ll provide some of the outcomes and then I might throw to my colleague Major General Vagg to provide some more. First, the application of data and analytics—that is, to have systems on the vehicle that are able to provide us with both retrospective and predictive analysis as to driving habits, and, therefore, help us understand the risks. Second, we’ve undertaken a review of the training that we provide for soldiers and other members of the ADF to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that we apply what we have learned from vehicle incidents and accidents. As you might appreciate, we have some soldiers who join the army who may not have even a civilian drivers licence. The kinds of conditions that we need to operate vehicles in, include not only the operation of the vehicle but also its tactical employment, whether that’s by day or night, on formed roads or cross country, in any kind of season, weather or terrain. We’re continually looking to update the way in which we train people to ensure that they can operate safely. In the introduction to service, and even before that, is the selection, testing and validation of any major system vehicle or weapon to ensure that it can be operated safely and that we have properly characterised the risks that may accrue to our people, and that we have either procedural, technical or equipment based mitigations or ways of reducing the risk to our people.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of a man called W. Edwards Deming?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have.  

Senator ROBERTS: You would know, then, that he led the turnaround of the Japanese producing crap to producing the best products in the world.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m generally aware of what Mr Deming did.  

Senator ROBERTS: He said that as much as people in management like to blame or inherently try to blame people for their problems, 95 per cent of the problem is the system, which only the manager can fix. What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have a couple of points before I’ll hand over to my colleague. Firstly, I’m accountable for everything that happens in the Army and the safety and wellbeing of all our people. Secondly, we operate a whole range of different systems, and in every case we seek to ensure that our people are systemically supported. We have a multifaceted approach to ensuring that equipment is safe, whether it’s technical assessments, predictive analysis, the way in which we train our people, or the assurance of the safety, the maintenance and the supply chain systems. It’s a holistic approach to assuring capability, assuring that those capabilities are fit for purpose, assuring that they are safe for our people to use, and assuring that our people are trained, educated and experienced to ensure that risks are managed so far as is reasonably practical.  

Major Gen. Vagg: I’ll reinforce what the Chief said. He is the land worthiness authority. Land worthiness is a system of checks that looks at current, in-service capabilities and also future-looking capabilities that we’re going to introduce into service. We’ve been developing that system over several years now. It had an interim operating capability in March 2020, and we’re on track to achieve a final operating capability in December of this year. That process is backed by a series of assessment tools, such as data trend analysis, that identify high-risk capabilities but also new capabilities, and we form an independent board which interviews users—from soldiers to managers, the procurement agency and other assurance agencies—and validates that the capability is fit to do what we’ve acquired it to do and that it’s fit and safe to operate, as the chief discussed. That board is made up of a series of retired one-star and two-star officers from across the services who have no direct linkage to the capabilities. They have no independent equities or personal equities to that capability. They’ll provide independent advice to the landworthiness authority and a series of recommendations. Those recommendations are then heard through the army operating system and implemented through our capability development and capability management processes.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question is for the deputy secretary of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Chris Deeble, or Nadine Williams or both.  

Ms Quinn: There are two different activities. There’s the capability acquisition group, for which we have a witness, and then there is the whole-of-government review of the defence delivery mechanism. So, depending on where your questions go, we may have different witnesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. There’s been much discussion and evidence provided to me and the parliament of the knowing approval of defective capability leading to injuries and fatalities. What does the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group do?  

Ms Kuczma: I think the question is quite broad. Our job is to acquire capability that is fit for its intended purpose and deliver that to the service that requires it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s pretty succinct.  

Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts—sorry to interrupt. I know and recognise your advocacy for the safety of our people. If you do have evidence that suggests that we have not treated safety in the introduction of equipment into service, I would welcome that being provided through our minister so that we can both review that material and come back to you with insights that answer those areas of concern that you have identified.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What actions have been taken in the design of the Defence Delivery Agency to ensure that non-compliant capability is not accepted for service?  

Ms Quinn: I’m happy to give a high-level answer. There has been an ongoing review of the acquisition system within the Department of Defence that goes across all phases of the acquisition program, from defining capability to acquiring and sustaining it, and the feedback loops throughout that whole system. In that process, there’s been an identification of some improvements we can make—some structural, some behavioural and some about being clearer on our accountabilities. So they do fall into different categories. One is just being very clear about the accountability for the different elements of those phases of any capability acquisition, development and sustainment. The second is to improve the professionalism of the staff at all three stages of that process. That includes having a specialised workforce, particularly through the Defence Delivery Agency—I keep using the acronym DDA. That’s about professionalising the workforce, working with other elements of the Defence establishment, including industry in particular, to be able to ensure that we can improve the acquisition. Safety, of course, is one of the elements of the process. I’ll pass to Nadine Williams if she’s got anything to add.  

Ms Williams: I wouldn’t add much to that. As the secretary has said, the design of the Defence Delivery Agency has considered the matters that she’s raised. We’re going through quite an extensive process of looking at how the Defence Delivery Agency is constructed, how professionalism might be better articulated through that construct and how accountabilities will ensure that there are really clear responsibilities for all elements of acquisition as it’s currently articulated.  

Ms Quinn: The concept of contestability in decision-making has been a theme as well. One reason to be very clear about the stages of the process is to ensure there’s very good contestability at the different stages, so that it’s a multidisciplinary view of capability development, acquisition and sustainment. Having more voices, but with clear accountability, will improve the delivery system overall.  

Senator ROBERTS: The current contracts for defence procurement include clauses that say that Defence does not pay any additional cost for a non-compliant capability in the supplier’s product.  

Ms Quinn: I think it would be hard to generalise across all the different types of contracts that we have, because there are a great deal of different contracts. We look at value for money, operational capability and risk sharing. Value for money also includes ensuring that, if faulty products are provided, there’s recourse for such an outcome. So our contract management would include risk mitigation activities. I’ll just see whether Ms Kuczma wants to say—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. By ‘risk mitigation’, you mean you’ll accept the vehicle or the piece of hardware and make a risk assessment as to how to use it without fixing it?  

Ms Quinn: We certainly do that, but also, if we’d specified a certain capability—and the contract was clear on that—and we received a capability that did not meet the specifications, then there would be avenues in the contract to rectify such a situation.  

Ms Kuczma: In general terms, we have a contracting suite that includes fitness-for-purpose clauses, which look at the outcome that’s required under the contracts. Generally they exist in our contracting templates to ensure that we can have recourse should those deliveries not meet our expectations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can they be bypassed if there’s a rush?  

Ms Kuczma: We have the ability to accept supplies and work through deviations, or things that don’t meet the requirements, should we choose. But our purpose is: fitness for purpose, receive what’s required contractually and deliver.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Defence Delivery Agency have the authority to stop delivery, suspend programs and withhold payment where capability does not meet contract regulation or legislation?  

Ms Quinn: It is the intention that the delivery agency will have independent accountability and authority for contracts and manage those contracts in the interests of Defence, in terms of delivering the capability we need.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just talked in terms of future tense.  

Ms Quinn: Existing contracts will be novated to the delivery agency, as appropriate, so existing contracts will also have that ability—as is the case now in the Department of Defence. There will be no step back from the ability to manage delivery or to meet specifications, including safety concerns.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand from Lieutenant General Stuart that there’s no comment yet on the reports of the fatal accident, but it would seem to be—I may be wrong here—another example of failure in the military procurement process, as it appears that recent inspections of the vehicles show that the problems have still not been remedied, placing drivers and passengers of these vehicles at risk of death. Why?  

Ms Quinn: To the first part of that question, what I heard in evidence was that the investigation has been provided to the public prosecution. It’s not available to the public, but there’s certainly a process going through to look at the investigation and see whether there are next steps that need to be taken. We also heard about the implementation of a lessons- time. So the characterisation that the department isn’t focused on it, or the Army is not focused on it, I wouldn’t accept. In high-risk situations, with the activity that’s undertaken across the Defence enterprise, there is the possibility for loss of life. The department and the services take that very seriously and focus on ensuring that, if something does happen, lessons are learnt, processes are put in place and improvements are made, and that includes into the development of capability, in terms of the acquisition and sustainment of capability—because some things are to do with maintenance—and the rectification of problems. As a layperson prior to joining this department—there have been instances of things retired for a whole set of reasons. The system does respond to new information to ensure the safety of serving men and women.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by