Veterans Face New $5,000 Care Restriction

,

These Estimates questions relate to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ proposed $5,000 aggregate cap on allied health services.

Our veterans and doctors are worried – and they have every right to be.

The government claims this cap won’t hurt complex-case veterans, yet they admit the system to apply for funding above the cap hasn’t even been designed yet.

Fix the system, don’t punish everyone! If there’s fraud, target the fraudsters. Do not penalise the vast majority of honest, caring doctors and vulnerable veterans.

Those who sacrificed for our country should never face cost-cutting measures disguised as ‘reforms.’ Our veterans deserve certainty, respect, and our support.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I want to go over some changes to the annual monetary limit— some details that may not have been covered. I’ll do my best to try and avoid questions that were going to be asked but have since been covered. If I miss out, let me know. I’m also passing on a lot of complaints and questions from veterans as well as doctors. Doctors are appalled and resigned, yet, fundamentally, they all care. You have already confirmed that the cap is an aggregate cap across all allied health services, not per discipline. Is that correct?  

Mr Kefford: No, that’s not correct. It does not include optical, dental or hearing services.  

Senator ROBERTS: Apart from them. Physio, physical treatment, mental health—they’re all aggregate?  

Mr Brown: Open Arms counselling services are also not included.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the minister accept that an aggregate cap would force complex-case veterans to ration treatment between conditions formally accepted by the Commonwealth?  

Mr Kefford: Again, no. We gave evidence earlier today about the ability, particularly in complex cases, for there to be additional thresholds. The point of having the $5,000 threshold is to ensure that treatment is effective, and there’s an undertaking in the announcement for there to be consultation on the basis on which that additional funding will be provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the TPI gold card holders with multiple accepted conditions be exempt from any aggregate cap, consistent with existing exemptions for physiotherapy and exercise physiology?  

Mr Brown: No. Exceptions to the cap will be considered on a basis of clinical need. Many of the cohort that you’re referring to would potentially meet that requirement, but that will be subject to a consultation process around the design with the veteran community and provider groups.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s not designed yet?  

Mr Brown: The process for veteran card holders to go above the $5,000 annual monetary limit where there is a clinical need has not been designed yet. This measure commences on 1 July 2027, and we’ve got that lead-in time to do that consultation work.  

Senator ROBERTS: What objective criteria will DVA use to determine when funding above $5,000 will be approved, and how will veterans be informed of their eligibility?  

Mr Kefford: The focus, as we’ve said, will be on clinical need and effectiveness of the treatment, and the announced consultation process, once it has been concluded and the arrangements have been confirmed, will be communicated to veterans so they can understand the operation of the new arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: How will they be communicated?  

Mr Kefford: In our usual mechanisms.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, that’s what bothers a lot of veterans.  

Mr Kefford: We use our Vetaffairs newspaper, our social media and other presences, as well as the formal publication of the outcomes of the consultation process, as we’ve done for other similar ones.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a collection of microservice organisations, as well as the RSL, that you can send it to?  

Mr Kefford: Indeed. We would normally engage with the ex-service community as well—ex-service organisations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of W Edwards Deming?  

Mr Kefford: No, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: He was famous, globally, as a management consultant; he died at the age of 95. He said that 95 per cent of problems are not with individuals but with the system. How have you approached the design of the new policy? My point is that you’ve got a problem. There’s some fraud going on—I accept that; wherever there’s money, there are tendencies for some fraud. But the majority of doctors and the majority of veterans are honest and caring people. Has there been any thought to, rather than punishing everyone or limiting everyone, putting a severe punishment on the few miscreants?  

Ms Frame: As we explained earlier this morning, the measure will benefit most veterans in terms of providing them with clearer, up-to-date insights on who they are seeing and where they are up to with their cap. They will have that on MyService, which is a facility they don’t have now. They will have the benefit of more providers. We anticipate there will be more providers availing themselves of the increased rates that are also part of the measure, and we have designed the consideration around $5,000. The policy objective of that threshold of $5,000 is to ensure the maximal effectiveness of the treatment that veterans are receiving. It provides a way by which we can assure the veteran that the providers who are delivering them services are accountable for genuine improvements in their condition and not just delivering services in perpetuity that aren’t subject to any checks and assurances that they are affecting real improvements in veteran wellbeing. 

Mr Brown: I reiterate the evidence I gave earlier today that, of those veteran cardholders who access allied health services with those veteran cards, the average amount of services they provide, based on historical data, is around $3½ thousand per annum, so the $5,000 cap is adequate to facilitate allied health services for the majority of veterans accessing those services through card arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Averages can be really misleading and deceptive. They can hide things. I’m not accusing you of hiding things, but averages—that’s a fact. What percentage of—  

Senator McAllister: He has the median as well. There are a number of statistical indicators. You may enjoy this.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re partial indicators.  

Mr Brown: We have a number of high-end users that skew that average. The median is $1,900 without those high-end users skewing that average.  

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage of veterans go over $5,000 in a year?  

Mr Brown: It fluctuates, but it’s between eight and 12 per cent, so roughly one in 10 of the eligible population.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a sizeable number nonetheless. That skews. It distorts. Have you built systems— or are you still building systems—to take care of that 10 per cent’s needs?  

Mr Brown: That would be the process that we’ll build off the back of the consultation that will occur over the next 12 months to ensure that we’re meeting the clinical needs of those veteran cardholders who require an amount over the $5,000 threshold.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ve found in my career is that humans are not afraid of change. People misleadingly say that humans are afraid of change. What they’re afraid of is uncertainty. Is there anything you can do to make things less uncertain for veterans who are worried?  

Ms Frame: I announced in my opening statement this morning that we will be doing this consultation. We have conveyed that. We will be consulting on the mechanism, but we have also put a section on our website in the last week that responds to miscommunications, what is coming to us about the veteran community and where they have fears about how the measure will be affected. As we said, it hasn’t started yet, but we are doing our best to proactively engage with that and put up-to-the-minute information that responds directly to where we see misinformation and misapprehension circulating in the veteran community to address that exact uncertainty and provide as much information as we are able to at this point in time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you consulting with any veterans to design the communications before you release the communications? This is not meant disrespectfully. It’s meant with complete respect. Your environment is different from the veterans’ environment. Your language is different. Are you using veterans to guide you in the messaging? That seems to be a big problem.  

Ms Frame: No, not directly with that communication as I understand it at the moment. It is based on direct feedback from veterans, so we’re looking at exactly what they are saying and using their own language and terminology in our responses as much as possible.  

Senator ROBERTS: So veterans will be required to apply for additional funding. What evidence will be required, and how long will approvals take? Is that still being designed?  

Mr Kefford: That’s the nub of the consultation, which will involve a process of both presentations from us and submissions from individuals as well as professional organisations. So that will be worked through, and it will be communicated once it’s been settled.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will there be regular updates and communications?  

Mr Kefford: Indeed.  

Senator ROBERTS: What appeal mechanisms will exist if DVA declines to fund clinically necessary care above the cap? That’s still part of the process being designed, I take it.  

Mr Brown: That will be considered during the design process, but it’s not going to be an administrative decision made under any primary legislation. We’ll consider that issue during consultation, but it’s unlikely—I don’t want to speculate too much—that it will be appealable through our normal administrative decision-making processes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any ideas on how it will be appealable?  

Mr Brown: No. I don’t want to speculate further about what the process might look like ahead of a consultation period.  

Mr Kefford: Mr Brown’s absolutely correct. I would say two things. First of all, the intention here, as the secretary has outlined, is to ensure that allied health is clinically appropriate and effective. And the purpose of having the process that we’re describing is to ensure that, particularly, those veterans who have more complex needs are properly cared for and receive the support and rehabilitation that they need.  

Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has the government made of the risk that a capped funding model will further reduce provider willingness to treat veterans, given existing concerns about low DVA fee schedules? I’ve had a number of doctors say this is insane.  

Mr Kefford: Part of the measure is, directly to that point, to actually increase allied health fees. One hundred and sixty-seven, is it, Luke?  

Mr Brown: It’s 169—$170 million in round numbers.  

Mr Kefford: And that’s intended to encourage more providers to provide services to veterans. That’s been welcomed by a number of bodies, and we tabled a letter from the physiotherapists association—that’s not the proper title—this morning.  

Mr Brown: For example, as part of that measure, for a face-to-face standard room consultation with a physiotherapist, our fee will increase from $75.10 to $110. Those fee increases apply across the board to allied health providers.  

Senator ROBERTS: How does the government reconcile the introduction of a monetary ceiling with the royal commission’s finding that barriers to healthcare access contribute to veteran suicide risk?  

Mr Kefford: A part of the measure is to, below that threshold, actually remove the requirement for the treatment cycles that currently exist and to provide that flexibility, recognising that the threshold’s been set with regard to what is normal usage, but then to have a process to ensure that necessary treatment is available and that treatment that’s provided is clinically appropriate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the government accept that veterans with numerous accepted conditions will exhaust the cap more quickly than those with a single injury, despite both having conditions recognised as service caused?  

Mr Kefford: That would be the logical conclusion, and that’s why we’re having a process of—the $5,000 limit is a threshold at which point there can be further decisions about clinically necessary care that needs to be provided.  

Senator McAllister: I think it’s worth—just in response to your last three or four questions, Senator—putting the whole measure in context. The royal commission did say that the government should take steps to improve access to health care, including by raising the charging or the provisioning for procuring allied health services. This measure does that; it raises the fees. It also seeks to remove some of the administrative hurdles for veterans by removing the treatment cycle, which will remove some of the impediments to people procuring the services that they want for their own needs. And, as Ms Frame said, it also will allow us to invest in some digital systems that will let veterans see what services they’ve already used and what resources might be available to them. So the context for this is actually a broad measure to improve access to allied health across the sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: What safeguards exist to prevent the cap from disproportionately harming veterans with complex, chronic or degenerative conditions?  

Mr Brown: Part of the measure that’s been announced by the government is that, where there’s a clinical need to access allied health services above the $5,000 cap, that will be provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: What transitional provisions will be put in place to ensure veterans do not experience sudden loss of access to essential treatment when the cap begins in July 2027? This is a source of pretty severe mental health pressure. Is there a transitional arrangement?  

Mr Kefford: The detail of, particularly, the mechanism by which veterans will seek additional funding above that first threshold is the nub of the consultation process. I’m sure the concerns that you’re raising will be aired in that context. 

Senator ROBERTS: When will clear, written guidance be issued to veterans and providers explaining how the cap will operate in practice? Do you have a scheduled time or an approximate time?  

Mr Kefford: The undertaking is that the consultations will commence in August. We haven’t set a conclusion or detailed timeline for that yet, but certainly the intention would be to have arrangements clear and able to be communicated well in advance of 1 July.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we understand what you’re trying to do, but I don’t think the message has got out from the department, the DVA, as clearly as possible, because $5,000 is seen by many veterans as pitifully and ridiculously small. It’s an insult. How much of this is a cost-cutting exercise to get your government through the hoops with regard to the waste and hypocrisy that it’s shown—  

Senator McAllister: I indicated to you earlier—  

Senator ROBERTS: across all budget areas.  

Senator McAllister: that our goal is to ensure that veterans have access to the allied health treatment they need in a timely way, and to make sure that the services they’re being provided are clinically effective. One of the consequences of creating a system where very large quantities of services are procured from the private sector by individuals is that we see the emergence of some behaviours in that market that are not in the best interests of veterans. At the worst end of it, it looks like fraud: claiming for services that were never delivered. Stepping a few clicks back from that, sometimes it looks like overservicing: making a set of recommendations for which there is no clinical evidence and from which the individual doesn’t see a material benefit in their own health and wellbeing. We judge that, given what we know about the use of these services by veterans, most veterans are using well under that $5,000 limit. When we see veterans experiencing higher rates, we think it’s appropriate for there to be a threshold to evaluate whether what’s on offer to that person is genuinely going to assist them. We have every intention of ensuring people do get the healthcare services they need, and this reform is about a multipronged approach to make sure that’s true, both for the people whose needs are at lower levels of intensity and for the people whose needs are at the higher level.  

Senator ROBERTS: This government has developed a reputation for wasteful spending and loose spending, and people are concerned about that. It seems to me that there’s a lot of work going on, but the root causes are resignation among the veterans that nothing concrete has been done, and there’s so much fear. I think it’s a matter of not only what you just stipulated as your desire and what your targets are but how it’s being done—the process. Would you agree?  

Senator McAllister: I don’t agree with many of the things you said. Our government in each and every budget have found savings so that we can prioritise the things that we care about and that we know the community cares about. One of those areas of investment has in fact been in DVA, because we came to government knowing that it was significantly underprovisioned and that the lack of staff, in particular, in this organisation had led to unconscionable delays in people being able to access the services that they deserve as veterans. We’ve set about addressing that, and there’s a lot to be proud of in the work that’s been done by the many people who work in this department and the collaborative way that the veterans community has engaged in that work to make sure that we do improve the service level that’s available.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/0 Comments/by

Small Businesses Hit by Hasty Laws

,

During this estimates session, I brought serious concerns from my Queensland constituents regarding disruptions facing the skirmish sports and gel blaster industry. Small businesses and lawful hobbyists are trapped in a web of confusion due to recent amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026.

I highlighted a specific case of a compliant Queensland business owner who has followed every weapon licensing rule, yet had one shipment seized and destroyed by Border Force and another returned to the sender. These people are legitimate business operators, not extremists or terrorists, and they need clarity.

I asked the Minister and Australian Border Force (ABF) officials how these new definitions are being applied in practice.

Acting Deputy Commissioner Smith has agreed to liaise directly with those affected to hopefully resolve their specific import and permit grievances.

ABF officials have also committed to updating and publishing clearer guidance materials online and working closely with industry partners to map out lawful import pathways.

Department Secretary Ms. Foster admitted that due to the “hurried” and “pressured” nature of drafting this legislation following the Bondi attack, no formal economic impact assessment was conducted, and no transitional provisions were included for existing businesses. She took on notice my request to investigate potential transitional support regarding stock and employment management.

Further, she said that the government’s intent is not to ban gel blasters, but rather to regulate them consistently across states. Under the new framework, importers require both a firearm-style licence for the gel blaster and an import permit.

The government confirmed they are establishing a firearms council specifically intended for ongoing consultation with industry, legitimate holders, and affected stakeholders to iron out these regulatory wrinkles.

Australian Border Force (ABF): 131 881 within Australia, or (02) 6196 0196 from outside Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today; good to see you. Minister, these questions are built on an extensive session with constituents in Queensland. One in particular has followed all the rules for importing parts for gel blasters but is still being refused access to necessary gel blaster equipment for his business and personal use. He’s done everything. Border Force confiscated one shipment and destroyed the goods, and the other shipment was returned to the sender. He’s had no problem with Queensland weapons licensing, who approved the purchase. He and many others within the hobby, the hobby industry and small business, believe the industry may be at risk due to the amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026. They’re confused, so I’m hoping to get some clarification.  

Senator Watt: I’m afraid that’s probably a level of detail I’ll need to get the officials to respond to, about the exact prohibitions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was just making you aware of the context before asking the questions. The first one is to you, Minister: can you confirm how skirmish sporting equipment, including gel blasters and paintball markers and their parts, is intended to be treated under the revised import framework?  

Senator Watt: I might get the officials to speak to that.  

Mr Smith: I can speak specifically in terms of the Australian Border Force’s actions at the border, in terms of administering the prohibition. With the level of detail you’re talking about in terms of the actual legislation itself, in terms of the background behind the legislation or what the legislation has brought forward, I might have to take that on notice. Can I just check: is it the actions of the ABF that you’re looking for?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s broader than that; it’s the interpretation. People are confused.  

Mr Smith: In terms of the administration of gel blasters at the border?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. You’ll see the questions that I ask. I’ve got quite a few.  

Mr Smith: I may have to take the specific details on notice. Broadly speaking, from the Australian Border Force perspective, in terms of changes to the legislation, we would work within the parameters that have been defined as to what a prohibited good is. I can only assume that, in the case you’re talking about, the goods themselves would fall within the parameters of being a prohibited item, which is why they’re being seized at the border.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct.  

Mr Smith: On the detail in relation to the legislation itself, as to what it is and what it isn’t, I might have to come back to you on notice, in terms of any complexity with that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please, and maybe add to that the subsequent answers to questions, because I think we’re heading down the same line of questioning. Given these items are defined within the legislation, can the minister or an officer clarify how those definitions are being applied in practice across the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026 and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956?  

Mr Smith: The combating antisemitism, hate and extremism firearms laws act achieved royal assent on 21 January. The act strengthens the firearms import controls. It strengthened the permissions, the limitations and the ministerial discretion in relation to the way those laws are managed at the border. They provide specific detail in terms of the parameters of what falls within and constitutes that legislation. Again, I’ll have to take that on notice specifically in terms of the questions you have around your constituents’ concerns. 

Senator ROBERTS: It might help if we can put the constituents concerned in contact with you.  

Mr Smith: That would be good, thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think I know the answer to this now: what clear practical guidance is being provided to ensure lawful individuals—these people are not far-right extremists or far-left-wing terrorists—and businesses can consistently interpret those definitions and remain compliant under the new framework? Is there guidance?  

Mr Smith: Frameworks from the Australian Border Force perspective are provided through the internet sites in terms of where our webpages would provide details—  

Senator ROBERTS: The Border Force websites?  

Mr Smith: That’s correct. Also, our engagement with industry across a number of different levels—we are working across different industry partners to ensure that any further details are published in Australian notices that go out through our industry partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the intended lawful pathway or steps that businesses and individuals need to take to remain compliant under the new import requirements? Is that laid out anywhere?  

Mr Smith: It would be. It’s fair to say we maintain a strong line of communication with any individuals that may have questions in relation to trade matters. We have specific areas within the Australian Border Force who engage with importers that may be seeking clarification in relation to whether goods have fallen within the parameters of being prohibited. Those mechanisms are available through our intranet sites.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will guidance be issued to clarify how this framework is to operate in practice?  

Mr Smith: Guidance continues in terms of how the Australian Border Force administers that legislation at the border. In terms of the specific legislative framework, that may sit outside of the Australian Border Force— potentially with other agencies such as the Attorney-General’s Department or others that administer the framework.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, does the government accept that lawful operators are currently unable to determine how to comply? There’s a real problem there.  

Senator Watt: As you’ve heard from the acting deputy commissioner, there has been guidance material provided. I’m sure that the officials will take on board what’s been said today. If there are ways that that can be further clarified, I’m sure they’ll do that. Ms Foster: It would be very helpful to put the constituents in touch with Border Force so that they can hear directly from them and try and work with them.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I asked Mr Smith about.  

Mr Reynolds: We’re very happy to put more material online to assist people looking to lawfully bring these items into Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there an approval pathway? Do you stamp approval on goods or on applications, or do you just confiscate them or send them back?  

Mr Smith: There’ll be two streams that are administered at the border. We look at our first response at the border for goods that we identify as part of our examination. Equally, we have streams that look at our preclearance interventions. That’s when we have teams that look at the specific documentation and what’s been declared the appropriate permits to ensure that what is coming through the supply chain has been validated before it arrives in the country. We have teams focused on trying to make sure that, if there are legitimate entry permits in place and the goods sit within the parameters of being a legal item, they are facilitated through the border as quickly as possible. Where there is any confusion in that, if that’s from a pre-clearance perspective such as the documentation isn’t clear and requires clarification, those goods are held pending further information from the importer. Equally, when goods are identified at the border subject to our examination, if they do not have clear documentation to support permit entries, they are held pending further details from the importer.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the constituents said he had all the permits necessary, but one shipment was shipped back and the other shipment was confiscated and destroyed. Does he have to get any clearance from you beforehand?  

Mr Smith: It probably goes to the earlier conversation on the line of questioning you have—they are very specific details. Maybe if we discuss it with the constituent themselves, we can get clarification around that answer. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, did the government consider the needs of stakeholders involved in structured skirmish sports and related activities when developing the current framework? I know the legislation was rushed, for reasons the government made clear.  

Senator Watt: I believe that we did consider that, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you consider the skirmish industry specifically?  

Senator Watt: I wasn’t directly involved in that but I’m sure that that was given consideration.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get on notice not personal names but the names of groups that were consulted?  

Senator Watt: I’m happy to take that on notice and I might just ensure that that answer also reflects what other consideration was given, aside from meetings with stakeholders.  

Senator ROBERTS: I noticed—and this is not being critical; it’s being complimentary—that you said you didn’t know for sure, but you’d get back to me.  

Senator Watt: Yes. I’ll take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. If stakeholder needs were not fully considered, will the government commit to engaging with affected groups to ensure the framework is clear, practical and workable? In other words, will you do a review?  

Ms Foster: I think we probably need to understand what the scope of the problem is, and we will then establish whether or not there is a problem of a nature that needs a review, whether there are things we can streamline or whether in fact the government’s intent is being implemented. This may not be helpful, Senator, but my understanding is that essentially there were different approaches to gel blasters in different states. What the legislation did would essentially mean was that people who wanted to import a gel blaster needed both a licence—like a firearm licence but a licence for the gel blaster—and an import permit. It may be that if we work through with your constituents what is missing in the framework we might be able to remedy it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has any assessment been undertaken of the economic impact of these changes on small businesses and associated employment?  

Ms Foster: When we were developing the legislation, we certainly had discussions, most particularly in Queensland because that’s where most of the gel blaster industry was centred. So there was a consideration of the impacts as we were preparing the legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: The economic impacts?  

Ms Foster: That’s right, and the impacts on the businesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. What impacts were identified?  

Ms Foster: We were aware, as I said, that there was a sort of grouping, particularly in Queensland, of industry that would be affected, so that was one of the things we took into account as we were developing that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you quantify the size of the impact economically?  

Ms Foster: Not to my memory. I’m trying to answer these questions for you, because it was one of the earlier outcomes, very much from memory, not having been personally involved in the work. The level and extent of the work that was done is not something I can recall, but we can get you that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Secretary or Minister, if there is a need for it, will any transitional provisions be considered for existing businesses and lawful participants affected by these changes?  

Senator Watt: I’m sure there’d be someone who could speak to whether there are transitional provisions in the legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Even better.  

Ms Foster: Minister, I don’t believe we did include transitional provisions in the legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think so.  

Ms Foster: I’m also advised that we did provide some analysis on the impact but not a formal impact assessment. You’ll recall that it was a pretty—  

Senator ROBERTS: Hurried.  

Ms Foster: pressured period when we were doing this work. What we were trying to do was to actually understand and highlight the impacts so that government could make an informed decision. 

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your openness and honesty there, Secretary. If current operators need it, can they get clarification or transitional provisions on how to manage stock, employment and ongoing operations? They’re confused.  

Ms Foster: We’ll certainly perhaps include that in the earlier undertakings that my colleagues have made in terms of the import and permit issues. I think it would be helpful if we wrapped this up as a package of advice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Should these constituents go directly to someone or just follow the website?  

Mr Reynolds: They’re welcome to come directly to the Australian Border Force and we will assist them as we can.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any name to refer to within the Border Force?  

Ms Foster: I think Acting Deputy Commissioner Smith would be happy to receive representation.  

Mr Smith: Absolutely.  

CHAIR: I’m looking at the time, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: One last question: Minister, I’m not asking for a mea culpa, but does the government acknowledge the risk of unintended economic and community impact in the absence of transitional guidelines?  

Senator Watt: I guess the government made a decision, especially after the dreadful antisemitic terror attack in Bondi— 

Senator ROBERTS: Agreed.  

Senator Watt: that action needed to be taken urgently on what we described as the motive and the method for that attack. That’s why we brought in legislation that addressed the motive, being antisemitism and hate speech and hate crimes, and we also brought in legislation to address the method, which was those firearms, which I think most people would agree should never have been in the hands of those individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: Agreed.  

Senator Watt: That is why we took the action that we did. I understand that not everyone is pleased about that, but we don’t back away from the need to take that action.  

Senator ROBERTS: With almost all legislation, there’s a risk of unintended consequences. You have consultation before and review afterwards. With the rushed legislation—and I’m not being critical because, as you’ve just explained, there’s a need to balance urgency with the risk of consequences; I acknowledge that fine consideration—there is a risk in the absence of transitional arrangements.  

Ms Foster: Let me take it on notice. Often, as you know, we build into legislation a review. Let me see if there is such a thing or what our intent is. I would note also that we haven’t in the legislation banned gel blasters. They have been regulated in a way that they weren’t previously in some states. So I am hopeful that we can find a way to work with affected parties in that regulatory framework. It would be a different matter, of course, if they had been banned and there were no options for people going forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and I thank you. You’ve hit the nail on the head, I think. People are concerned that either the legislation was an attempt to ban gel blasters or it’s a precursor to banning them. I don’t think that was the case, but—  

Ms Foster: That’s not the case—you’re right—and that’s one thing that you could immediately take back to the constituents. The other thing that might be helpful is that we are setting up a firearms council with the express purpose of consulting. I’m not sure if you were here yesterday when we were working through with Senator McKenzie the very broad range of groups that we have been consulting with. She was obviously concerned to make sure that we were including industry, legitimate firearms holders and people with other legitimate uses. I think this could be very helpful in the context of the regulation of gel blasters as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by

The Aussie Parental Nightmare

,

It’s wrong that Australian parents are forced to pay child support to a parent holding their child in Japan contrary to Australian court orders.

During this session, the department couldn’t tell me how many Aussie parents are trapped in this nightmare, nor how they ensure these funds actually benefit the children.

While I welcome news of updates to Japanese domestic law, we must stop enabling parental abduction.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here again today. My questions should be fairly brief, I think. For those not familiar with this scenario, many Australian children have been taken by one parent to Japan, with that parent refusing to return the Australian child to Australia, contrary to both the wishes of the other custodial parent and an Australian court order. In Japan, the non-Japanese parent is often denied access to their child or to even have contact with that child. Sometimes contact is limited to a small number of written letters or emails per year. This is because of Japanese domestic law. Senator Chisholm, I’ve just heard good news from Senator Wong that Japanese domestic law has been changed. So this may be eased somewhat. This organised child stealing is still happening, to some extent with the financial support of our welfare system here in Australia. Why should an Australian parent be forced to pay child support to a Japanese parent where the child is being held in Japan contrary to the wishes of the Australian parent and other family members and contrary to court orders? Why should that happen?  

Mr Flavel: On child support, there are a number of different agreements that exist between countries in relation to child support, and I don’t really want to get into providing a commentary on their adequacy or the way that they apply in individual cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr Flavel: I am very happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. How does Social Services know that the money being paid to the parent in Japan is used for the benefit of the child?  

Mr Flavel: That, of course, goes to any payment made, if what you’re referring to is child support payments, because you mentioned welfare. Child support isn’t welfare. Child support is a payment from one parent to another. There aren’t requirements for the receiving parent to acquit the payments. Obviously, there would be an expectation, though, that they are being applied for the wellbeing of the children.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does this system of paying child support to an overseas parent encourage the child stealing parent to basically hold the child at ransom by taking the child to Japan?  

Mr Flavel: I think that’s veering dangerously into giving an opinion, so I’m not going to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many Australian based parents are being forced to pay child support to a parent holding a child in Japan?  

Mr Flavel: If you are after numbers of international child support arrangements, we can take that on notice and provide that to you, and, if it’s specifically in relation to Japan, we can come back on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the situation as it is really in the best interests of the child?  

ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, I think you’re going to an opinion. Could you frame your question in the sense of a fact that the officials can respond to.  

Mr Lye: The child support scheme is about making sure that children in separated families are not left in poverty and receive the benefits of the resources of both parents where possible. It’s to address high rates of child poverty. I know the issue that you’re pursuing is a particular one in relation to that, but the reason why the scheme itself is there is to protect the interests of children. There has been a lot of conflict in the scheme over the years because separated parents, almost by definition, don’t agree on things, but very few people would contend that a child shouldn’t benefit from the economic resources of their parents, even where they’re separated.  

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you on that score, Mr Lye, but I’m wondering how we can make sure it’s being effective.  

Mr Lye: We can come back to you on the questions you’ve asked.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by

The Japan Custody Battle

,

I questioned Minister Wong (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) and officials regarding the devastating issue of Australian children being abducted to Japan by one parent and entirely cut off from their Australian families due to Japanese domestic law.

While I understand the need for diplomatic language, my priority is getting these kids back to their families.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, can I just use the rest of my time to get into the second bracket? I’ve only done five minutes.  

CHAIR: Well, you’ve been very efficient, so, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister Wong, this goes to something we’ve discussed before and that I think you’re quite supportive of, but I won’t pre-empt it.  

Senator Wong: That worries me!  

Senator ROBERTS: When you’re worried, I’m worried! For those not familiar with this scenario, many Australian children have been taken by one parent to Japan, who’ve refused to return the Australian child to Australia, contrary to the wishes of the other custodial parent or an Australian court order In Japan, the non Japanese parent is often denied access to their child or even contact with that child—a terrible situation. Sometimes contact is limited to a small number of written letters or emails per year. This is because of Japanese domestic law. Minister, what is the current state of negotiations between Australia and Japan to set this situation right?  

Senator Wong: Sorry, I’m just trying to find my brief on this. I’m hoping someone from my office is going to text me on this fairly shortly. I don’t have anything in front of me, and I’m hoping that someone who can talk about Japan, not just consular, might come to the table, please. Ms Adams: I can, but I just want to hear the—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll repeat the question. What is the current state of negotiations between Australia and Japan to set this situation right?  

Senator Wong: I want to respond to the word ‘negotiations’. You might recall—I think we had this discussion previously, and I assume Ms McGregor can go to this—that this is a domestic legislation for Japan and that we have been advocating or supporting the changes to their domestic framework and working with them, including through, from memory, the chief justice of the family court, who went to Tokyo to share our experience on joint custody arrangements et cetera. I can’t recall what the legal term is. My recollection is that the legislation has passed. Am I right?  

Ms McGregor: It’s come into effect.  

Senator Wong: That is the legal system changing, which we are supportive of. Then there has also been representations we make on a consular basis for the non-custodial parents. And you should know that I have raised this issue, including the sensitivity and distress of these issues and the distress that many parents feel, with my counterparts over a number of years, because I’m sure they’re in contact with you. There are obviously parents who are very distressed, but Ms McGregor can probably more directly go to the consular issues.  

Ms McGregor: I can confirm that Japan’s joint custody reforms came into effect on 1 April 2026, and we very much welcomed that step. We’re doing a range of things to assist Australian parents who are facing child abduction and custody issues in Japan. We continue to provide consular assistance to affected Australians and—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, this is wonderful news, but how many Australian children are being held in Japan, contrary to international law, and how many Australian parents have raised this as an issue, if you could include that in your statement?  

Senator Wong: Can we just reframe that for us? I don’t mind you saying that, but, rather than making the assertion ‘contrary to international law’, why don’t we give you whatever we can about how we deal with the people we have dealt with without us being drawn into having to make a legal—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll rephrase it.  

Senator Wong: No, it’s only because obviously we have to make representations, so we use language carefully.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not a diplomat.  

Senator Wong: No, you can say what you want, Senator, but I’m just saying—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy for you to rephrase it. I just want these kids back.  

Senator Wong: If you don’t mind, Ms McGregor can assist.  

Ms McGregor: I think we can speak about this in terms of numbers of consular cases involved. DFAT is currently providing consular assistance to 16 parents with respect to 23 children on these issues of parental abduction and child custody. Since 2004, we’ve provided assistance to the parents of 90 children in similar cases. Obviously, we can’t comment on individual cases, but we do a lot of work, particularly to keep parents updated with periodic updates on our advocacy and on developments in Japan. Most recently, we sent out one of those updates in May. Alongside that, we continue to engage Japan to explain the sensitivity of this issue to ensure that they’re aware of the distress of parents and also to encourage progress in this matter. A lot of our work has been focused on supporting the effective implementation of those reforms, and we do that by sharing family law expertise and maintaining regular engagement with Japanese stakeholders, as well as like-minded governments. And the minister mentioned in particular the visit of the Hon. Justice Victoria Bennett of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. She visited Japan. She shared experiences of family law and reform with parliamentarians, judges, bar associations and academics. We’ve had other visits such as that over a number of years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Minister, the Japanese Prime Minister recently came to Australia on an official visit. Was this issue raised with the Japanese Prime Minister or did you see no need to because the legislation in Japan is pending?  

Senator Wong: I will check what I can share with you on that. Obviously it’s the Prime Minister’s bilateral, not mine—so, meetings between the leaders—but generally the track for raising this and keeping it— 

Senator ROBERTS: Bubbling?  

Senator Wong: Actually, demonstrating to Japan that this is an important bilateral issue we have interests in and want to keep trying to progress, that has been me to my counterpart. I’ve had a number of Japanese counterparts and it’s one of the issues we make sure we continue—at my level and through our diplomatic track— to make clear to them that this matters to us. I’ll check about Prime Minister Takaichi, but just to be clear with you, it would be me to Minister Motegi—and, previously, Minister Kamikawa et cetera—rather than leader to leader, in general.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that some law firms in Australia have run seminars to show Japanese parents how to take their Australian children permanently out of the care of the other parent? It’s not in the best interests of the child.  

Senator Wong: No, I wasn’t aware of that.  

Senator ROBERTS: This organised child stealing—use whatever diplomatic language you want—is still happening, to some extent, with the financial support of our welfare system. Should a non-custodial Australian parent be forced to pay child support to a Japanese parent where the child is being held in Japan, contrary to the wishes of the Australian parent, other family members and a court order? Are you aware of that? I’ll be asking questions in another committee—  

Senator Wong: This is on a law firm site, is that what we’re—  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?  

Senator Wong: Where is this information that you’re quoting?  

Senator ROBERTS: My staffers advised me.  

Senator Wong: I’m not trying to—I’m saying, is this something a law firm in Australia is—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Senator Wong: Right.  

Ms Lawson: We’d be interested to have that information so we can have a look at it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question—two questions: What can you offer to devastated parents in Australia to end this situation of standing by while child stealers thumb their noses at the other parent? Are you expecting any changes now that the legislation in Japan has changed? Can you do more?  

Ms Adams: We haven’t been standing by. This issue has been—  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not saying you have been.  

Ms Adams: Well, you did. Excuse me, but I thought that’s what you just said in your question just then. But we know we’re not standing by; we’re continuing to advocate on the particular cases and on the systemic issue. It’s been a high priority for the embassy as well as the foreign minister for many years now. We’re continuing to work on effective implementation of the—quite historic, in a Japanese context—legislation that recently passed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Last question: how keen do you think the Japanese administration is to resolve this? Will they implement the law fully?  

Ms Adams: The change in the law was carefully debated and very intensely worked through in the Japanese system over many years. It is actually a historic change to introduce shared custody as a new concept in Japanese family law. We have every expectation that it will be fully implemented.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/2 Comments/by

CSIRO Animal Testing and Biosecurity

,

During this estimates hearing, I questioned CSIRO regarding animal experimentation practices and biosecurity measures at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness in Geelong.

CSIRO’s response to Question on Notice (SI-173) revealed that in the 2024 calendar year, 248 experiments involved over 1.07 million animals, with a staggering 752,757 humanely killed afterward. Excluding fish, 98,293 animals were destroyed. I requested specific data on these species and the justification for this level of killing.

Dr Taylor defended the research as being vital for border protection, export markets, and human health threats, ranging from observational cattle studies to high-level biocontainment.

I questioned whether this complied with the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. Dr Taylor assured me they comply, claiming that regular independent audits are carried out through a dedicated animal ethics committee.

Holding up aerial photographs of tower structures, I asked if the facility conducts onsite burning for animal disposal or releases exhaust gases. Dr Taylor clarified that they use an international-standard autoclave process to heat-treat all material before release, ensuring no fumes leave the facility and multiple biosecurity redundancies are in place.

I tabled an aerial photo showing two large, blue-green ponds, expressing concern that the colour indicates toxic cyanobacteria and noting pipes leading toward Stingeree Bay. I was told that these are for general stormwater runoff and have “no purpose” in waste handling. They
said all biosecurity water processing happens inside the facility.

Because a water-processing plant is not visible on the aerial shots, I placed multiple questions on notice. I have asked them to provide a full drainage report, clarification on the pond contents, and details on their internal water-processing. Further, I want an absolute assurance that no toxins or bacteria have entered Stingeree Bay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: In the October estimates you took on notice this question: ‘How many times has CSIRO used animals for testing over the last five years and how frequently was the subject destroyed afterwards?’ This is question on notice SI-173. Your response was detailed and came in good time, so thank you very much, it was very prompt. Your answer was as follows: ‘In the 2024 calendar year there were 248 animal experiments involving 1,077,455 animals, and 752,757 were humanely killed afterward. Of these, 645,464 were fish—’ so this leaves 98,293 animals that were not fish— ‘which were killed in animal experimentation by CSIRO in a single year.’ Do you have data on what those animals were and what the experimentation was that justified this level of kill?  

Dr Hilton: I’ll pass that question to Dr Taylor.  

Dr Taylor: We do use animals in our research. Obviously, we adhere to very strict regulations and guidelines, and we’re a signatory to the transparency of use of animals in research, so—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me—is that international or national?  

Dr Taylor: National. The type of work within that research ranges from observational studies, such as the videocapture of cattle and those sorts of things, all the way through to areas where, as you say, animals are humanely killed. We use animals in our biocontainment facility at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness. They’re, obviously, very important experiments that we undertake, where we do that for the national benefit and the protection of our borders from biosecurity threats, for the support of our export markets and also for preparedness for any threats to human health.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did this experimentation occur at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, formerly the Australian Animal Health Laboratory?  

Dr Taylor: Some of it does but certainly not all of it. That facility is a highly specialised facility for distinct purposes. Where that work does require that level of biocontainment, then, yes, it does. 

Senator ROBERTS: It seems that CSIRO are running a substantial animal experimentation operation at what was the Australian Animal Health Laboratory. Does it comply with the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, which CSIRO co-wrote?  

Dr Taylor: Yes, it does, and that facility complies with that. It also complies with a dedicated animal ethics committee that is made up of members independent of CSIRO and that undergoes external review on a very regular basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any independent audit of the procedures?  

Dr Taylor: There is regularly, through the ethics committee that undertakes that, yes. Those reviews are available and are part of our obligations with the experimental use of animals.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that independent or just within CSIRO?  

Dr Taylor: It’s independent. It’s conducted by a body independent of CSIRO.  

Senator ROBERTS: The international trend in animal testing is to replace and reduce animal use. On notice, can you provide the figure for the number of animal experiments and the number of animals which were not fish that have been euthanised after research over the last five years.  

Dr Taylor: I’m happy to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the facility have chimneys, and are they still in use? If so, for what purpose? We’re looking at pictures of the facility.  

Dr Taylor: Can you define what you mean by ‘chimneys’? It does have towers, I guess. Maybe what you’re asking is how the waste from the facility is dealt with. Is that what you’re asking?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know whether you burn things onsite and whether the exhaust gases and products go out the chimney.  

Dr Taylor: The Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness is quite a unique facility in that all of the material that is used is treated thoroughly before it leaves the site. What actually happens is an autoclave process, where all material is heated to an internationally recognised temperature that kills everything in it before it is released. So there are no fumes that leave the facility. Everything that leaves that facility has been treated, with multiple redundancies in place.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate what you said in your answer. I’m not after the environmental compliance or the production of carbon dioxide; I’m after knowledge—  

Dr Taylor: This is security compliance, in fact—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s right. It’s biosecurity.  

Dr Taylor: and it’s part of what makes the facility unique.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’ve worked out. Does it include the disposal of euthanised animals?  

Dr Taylor: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve tabled an aerial shot of the photo of the Geelong facility. Can you explain what those two large green areas are?  

Dr Taylor: Yes; they are bodies of water.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what we guessed. What is the purpose of these ponds?  

Dr Taylor: There is no purpose.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why have they got what look to be pipes going through the creeks, in drainage channels on each side, and both of them ending out in Stingeree Bay?  

Dr Taylor: I’m not a hydrological engineer, so I am happy to take that on notice. But they are not for the purpose of handling waste from the facility.  

Dr Hilton: They are entirely separate from the containment facility. There is no connection between the effluent and the creeks. We’ll take on notice and perhaps provide you with a report about the drainage from those bodies of water, but they would be treated like run-off from lots of other areas around the facility.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Dr Hilton. I’m concerned about the colour, the bluey-green colour—it’s typical of cyanobacteria. I would like to know what is in the ponds, what they are used for and how they are treated when they discharge, because they would discharge.  

Dr Hilton: Happy to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I can’t see a water-processing plant anywhere, so I’d like to know why the ponds have what appear to be pipes connected to the drainage lines, and then to the bay.  

Dr Taylor: The way the facility is constructed, all water processing happens within the facility and within full biosecurity containment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you answer on notice what sort of processing and where is the plan?  

Dr Taylor: Yes; I’m happy to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: And can you assure me that no cyanobacteria or other bacteria or toxins have been released into Stingeree Bay?  

Dr Hilton: We’ll take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. And thank you, Chair. 

/0 Comments/by

The NDIS Fraud Files

,

During this Estimates hearing, I questioned the NDIA regarding an investigative series on NDIS fraud by Pete Zogoulas and Drew Pavlou, asking if the agency had launched any audits, compliance actions, or law enforcement referrals based on their reports.

I specifically tried to ask about any investigations into individuals named Jamal Sabsabi, Josef Yusif, and Marcia De Menezes. Mr Dardo declined to comment on individual cases and defended the agency’s broader enforcement system. He emphasised that the agency has identified and removed thousands of fraudulent providers through both public prosecutions and non-public measures, such as manual payment reviews and search warrants.

Mr Dardo further stated that journalists would have no way of knowing the full scope of the NDIA’s confidential actions, adding that some public matters highlighted in the videos had already been actioned by the agency long before the series was produced.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: NDIA, is the agency aware of the investigative series into NDIS fraud produced by independent journalists Pete Zogoulas and Drew Pavlou that has reportedly exceeded two million views on YouTube and more than 100 million views across other platforms? Has the agency reviewed these investigations, and have any audits, compliance actions or referrals to police or the CDPP been commenced as a direct result of the matters they raised?  

Mr Dardo: We clearly cannot comment on individual cases, so I won’t respond at an individual level in relation to that case. What I would say at a broader system level is that, as I’ve previously stated in these hearings, there have been thousands of providers that we’ve identified and removed. In some cases, those providers have been removed through actions that are in the public domain, and you can find them in the public domain because there are administrator reports or there are prosecution outcomes or convictions. Then there are actions where we’ve removed them because we’ve implemented manual payment reviews. When we implement those manual payment reviews, that may not be in the public domain but that’s still thousands of providers that have been treated through those actions where we’ve reduced their ability to claim without us vetting the claims. Then there would be investigations where we’ve executed search warrants which may not be in the public domain. Again, members of the public would not know that we’ve done those warrants. Then there would be cases where investigations are ongoing or prosecutions are imminent or other interventions have occurred that are not in the public domain. So, at a broad level, what I can say is we can’t comment on that case, but there would be no way for any of the people that you’ve referred to to know what we have or have not done in that case, other than the fact that there are some things in the public domain that they have seen or pointed to that we had already actioned well before those videos were produced. 

Senator ROBERTS: Has the NDIS launched any internal investigations in response to this reporting that I specified—in particular, into Jamal Sabsabi, Josef Yusif, Marcia De Menezes—  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the official has already said that he won’t be commenting on individual cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put the questions on notice then because they’re replete with specific cases.  

ACTING CHAIR: Fair enough. Do you have anything else, Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t. Thank you, Mr Dardo. Thank you for your succinct answers.

/0 Comments/by

Where is Our Dam?

,

The people of Central Queensland deserve clear answers, not continuous delays, when it comes to the Paradise Dam new wall project. The last public update on foundation geological mapping was in late 2024 and it’s time to find out what actual progress has been made.

Mr Darrough from the National Water Gridadmitted that the detailed business case was finalised in July 2025 and evaluated by Infrastructure Australia in September 2025. And here we are in 2026 and still a formal proposal for the revised dam wall hasn’t been submitted.

The estimated cost has skyrocketed to a staggering $4.4 billion because they realised the old wall couldn’t be reinstated, and they would have to build a new one downstream.

The federal government has committed $600 million (with $50 million already spent on early works), and the rest is just sitting in the budget.

The federal department is just sitting on its hands waiting on the Queensland state government to get its act together and put forward a formal funding proposal.

Meanwhile, Queenslanders wait for water security.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again today. I have some brief questions about water infrastructure. I’m told this needs to be asked here. Is anyone familiar with Paradise Dam?

Senator Watt: Oh yes!

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about the new dam wall for Paradise Dam. The last update we can find on this project is the conduct of foundation geological mapping conducted by Sunwater in November 2024. Has anything progressed beyond that and, if so, what?

Senator Watt: While the officials are getting ready, I’ll say that this is a Queensland government project. There will be a limit to the role that this department has in that project, but obviously the officials can share whatever they have.

Mr Darrough: The detailed business case was finalised in July 2025 and is being considered by the Queensland government. The Queensland government hasn’t submitted a proposal for the new project with the revised dam wall arrangements. Infrastructure Australia published its evaluation of the detailed business case in September 2025.

Senator ROBERTS: Who’s funding the new dam wall and in what proportions?

Mr Darrough: The Australian government made a commitment of $600 million; $50 million of that is contracted with Queensland to deliver early enabling works and the detailed business case, and the balance of the funding remains available in the budget.

Senator ROBERTS: What do you expect the total cost to be? How much will the Queensland government pay?

Mr Darrough: I think it’s on the record that it’s an estimated $4.4 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: So the vast majority will come from the Queensland government?

Mr Darrough: The Queensland government hasn’t put forward a proposal to the Australian government for funding.

Senator Watt: In case you’re unaware, Senator, the commitment that our government made of $600 million was 50 per cent of the funding for—was it going to be a new dam originally?

Mr Darrough: It was originally to reinstate the old dam wall, but, when the early work was done on that, Sunwater realised that it couldn’t be restored and that they needed to do a new dam wall downstream, so the price has been revisited. That’s also some time ago, so the estimates have gone up through escalation factors in any case.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re waiting on the Queensland government to get the total cost?

Mr Darrough: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any formula for funding of that from federal compared to state?

Mr Darrough: No. The National Water Grid Infrastructure Investment Framework puts in place arrangements whereby states and territories can ask for up to 50 per cent of funding for capital and construction projects, but there is no formulaic base. The level of contribution that the Australian government would make is a matter that’s decided by the government, and it’s informed by the business case evaluation from Infrastructure Australia, the proposal from Queensland and advice from the department.

Senator ROBERTS: So, in summary, you’re waiting on the Queensland government.

Mr Darrough: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to Urannah Dam. It was cancelled by the Albanese Labor government in 2022, I understand. We have the preliminary business case, which was released. I don’t have the final business case and environmental impact study, which I’m assuming showed why the project was not feasible. Were these completed?

Mr Darrough: On Urannah Dam, the then Australian government committed $22.65 million to support the business case, environmental approvals and geotech. On 16 December 2022, the delivery agent, Bowen River Utilities, announced it had withdrawn the scheme from environmental assessment processes in Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: Was any reason given?

Mr Darrough: I’d need to take that on notice. The funding that was actually in the budget for construction of Urannah Dam was within the infrastructure portfolio, not the water elements that transferred to DCCEEW.

Senator ROBERTS: In whose hands is the final business case?

Mr Darrough: I’ll need to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: And also the environmental impact study?

Mr Darrough: Again, I’ll take that on notice. We encourage jurisdictions to publish business cases that the Australian government contributes to, but, ultimately, the Commonwealth-state relations and the funding arrangement that we have puts ownership of those documents in the hands of the jurisdiction. It’s ultimately a matter for them to decide whether or not they publish.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the state?

Mr Darrough: Yes, but we encourage in all cases that it be published.

Senator ROBERTS: If you have access to it, may we have a copy, please?

Mr Darrough: I’ll need to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s fine. If the business case says there’s not enough use for the water, then are you aware that there’s a Project Iron Boomerang or, actually, Capricorn Steel, which is a large project—I won’t go into the details—that would involve putting a steel mill at Collinsville?

Mr Darrough: I can talk more broadly about the Burdekin Basin, of which the Urannah area is part. The Commonwealth is partnering with Queensland on the Burdekin Regional Water Assessment, and that process is under way, looking at a basin-wide assessment of demand and supply for water in the catchment.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to know this, but I’ll ask it anyway. Are you aware of the potential for a steel mill at Collinsville and other steel mills in Central Queensland? Mr Darrough: Only from newspapers.

/0 Comments/by

Why QLD Projects Are Going Nowhere

,

I wanted a clear update on major projects vital to Queenslanders. As usual, we are seeing a lot of bureaucratic foot-dragging.

First up, I called out the very slow pace on the M1. The Infrastructure Priority List shows we are still stuck at Stage 2 and 3 of the framework, waiting on the Queensland State Government to get its act together on a business case. While a tiny 10-kilometre section was upgraded, the M1 is 80 kilometres long. When I pushed for a timeline on the rest of the highway, the department couldn’t give me a straight answer on the spot and took it on notice.

It was a similar story with the Centenary Highway. Whilst the new bridge in western Brisbane is welcome, the highway is 42 kilometres long. I asked the exact same question: when will the rest of the widening actually happen? The department’s answer? We’re still in the “business case stage.”

We then discussed the Paradise Dam. We support rebuilding the dam wall, however the numbers must make sense. When I asked about the timeline and cooperation from the Crisafulli Government, the department shirked responsibility and passed the buck, claiming it falls under the Department of Climate Change (DCCEEW), not land transport.

The Queensland Inland Freight Route (Mungindi to Charters Towers) is a brilliant project that One Nation has been pushing for a long time. It links vital regional networks from Roma to Longreach and up to Townsville. I wanted to know why it has stalled and when the Minister will use some real leadership to get it moving. The department clarified it’s a road upgrade, not rail, and provided an update on early works, including pavement widening and bridge upgrades on the Carnarvon Highway and Gregory Developmental Road. It’s a massive multi-year project, and it needs to be finished.

Lastly, I wanted to know why the Port of Gladstone land and sea access upgrade has been stuck as an “identified problem” since 2015 with zero progress. I asked if they were considering the major I-PG Global container facility proposal, however the officials could not answer, instead directing me to Infrastructure Australia who handles those assessments.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Canavan. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like an update on the infrastructure plan for the country. My first question is this. Referencing the infrastructure priority list dated 6 February 2026 on the Brisbane to Gold Coast highway it says the next step is: Proponent to develop potential investment options (Stage 2 of Infrastructure Australia’s Assessment Framework), and complete business case development (Stage 3 of the Framework). The proponent is the Queensland state government; is that correct?

Mr Bourne: Yes.

Ms Hall: If that’s what’s on the infrastructure priority list, yes, that would be correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I note that a 10-kilometre section of the highway was upgraded, yet the M1 is 80 kilometres long. When will we see progress on upgrading the rest of the M1?

Ms Hall: We can take you through what programs we have on the M1 currently, but any additional requests for funding would have to come from the Queensland government.

Mr Bourne: Would you like us to go through our projects along the M1?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. Or could you put it on notice, maybe? I’ve got a few other questions. Are they all short answers?

Mr Bourne: There’s quite a bit to them. We can take that on notice if that’s how you’d prefer to do it.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The centenary highway is the next project. The new bridge is welcome, so thank you for that. People in western Brisbane appreciate it. However, the centenary highway is 42 kilometres long, and, on the plans to widen the motorway, let’s talk about what to do next. It’s the same question. When will we see the rest of the widening occur on the centenary highway?

Mr Bourne: Currently, we have a project called the Centenary Motorway upgrade, and that is a business case that is currently underway. That will be subject to the outcomes of that business case.

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re at the business case stage?

Mr Bourne: Yes, if we’re referring to the Centenary Motorway upgrade.

Senator ROBERTS: The next one is Paradise Dam. We don’t disagree with the decision taken to rebuild the wall—let me make that clear. My question, though, is straightforward. Construction on the replacement dam wall was listed at a cost of $4.1 billion. However, the project is still awaiting a business case. What stage is this project at? When is construction likely to start? And what is the level of cooperation from the Crisafulli government to start the rebuild?

Mr Betts: That would be a matter for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

Senator ROBERTS: The department of climate change?

Mr Betts: Yes, DCCEEW.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s under their purview, not yours?

Mr Betts: Correct. We are responsible for land transport infrastructure.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re excited about this next one. The Queensland inland freight route capacity and safety proposal is to bring Inland Rail over the border at Mungindi and then take it due north to Charters Towers. This would link in with the Brisbane line and the Toowoomba airport from Roma, the existing line to Longreach, the Port of Gladstone with a small missing link across to the Gladstone heavy rail network and to Mount Isa and Townsville along the existing MITEZ route. This is the right alignment for Inland Rail. At last, we’re seeing progress. This proposal appears to have stalled, though, waiting on the Crisafulli government to do something. At what point, Minister, do you use your power to just get these brilliant infrastructure projects moving? We’re delighted to hear of these projects.

Senator Chisholm: Can the department provide any update on where that is at?

Mr Bourne: Senator, if you’re referring to the inland freight route upgrade—because I think you also mentioned the Inland Rail as well—

Senator ROBERTS: The inland freight route capacity and safety—going from Mungindi to Charters Towers.

Mr Bourne: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: We love the idea! It’s something we’ve been pushing for a while.

Ms Hall: That’s a road upgrade, not a rail upgrade. We can take you through the inland freight route upgrade.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.

Mr Brummitt: There’s an early works package that’s continuing at the Carnarvon Highway between Injune and Rolleston, the Dawson River Bridge and Gregory Developmental Road, and pavement strengthening and widening of various sections as well. Then, also on the Carnarvon Highway, the Baffle Creek bridge upgrade is proceeding, and the Gregory Developmental Road pavement strengthening and widening in a number of sections there is under construction, as well as a number of major culvert upgrades. The inland freight route is obviously a very large multi-year project.

/0 Comments/by

The Broken Promise of Inland Rail

,

In this session with the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC), I asked questions on the Border-to-Gowrie section of the Inland Rail, a project that continues to look like a horrendous waste of taxpayers’ money.

I asked how much hard-earned taxpayer money has been spent on this 217-kilometre stretch to date and what it will cost before construction even starts. This question was taken on notice. Estimates have been submitted to the federal government, yet the actual cost of building 37 bridges and 3,000 culverts remains up in the air.

We were originally promised a “port-to-port” network from Melbourne to Brisbane. Now, the ARTC admits the actual scope only goes from Beveridge to Kagaru. They’re admitting they cannot get double-stacked, 1.8-kilometre trains into the Brisbane port — and never will. Moving the intermodal terminal to Ebenezer is a flat-out confession of that failure.

They’re stubbornly sticking to a route that goes over a mountain and straight across the Condamine flood plain, which is an engineering nightmare that we’ve warned them about for years. They’re even talking about a “vast new rail tunnel” down the range before they’ve even sorted the basic costs or engineering reality.

I put it to them directly: every single cent being spent on this Queensland route is completely wasted. If you can’t get double-stacked freight to the port, the entire business case goes completely out the window.

While I know the ARTC is just “following orders,” I urge the government to stop throwing good money after bad.

Although they need to finish costing that range tunnel, they must immediately halt the rest and look at alternative routes, such as taking the alignment to the Port of Gladstone, which would actually deliver real logistical and economic benefits for the entire nation.

Once again – this was taken “on notice.”

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight, and have a good evening. My questions are on Inland Rail from the Queensland border to Gowrie specifically. This stage is at phase 4 approval. For 2026, ARTC anticipates increased activity, with teams conducting more site investigations, surveys and updates as they work towards securing final environmental approvals. How much money has been spent on the border-to-Gowrie section to date, and how much is expected to be spent before the first construction begins?

Mr Zambelli: I’d have to take that historical data on notice. At the moment we do have a design team engaged—that’s working on that border-to-Gowrie section to get the next refinement of the design—and we’re out there doing site investigations. I’d have to take on notice the total amount that we’ve spent over many years.

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that—and also the cost of the design.

Mr Zambelli: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: It appears you’re persevering with a route over a mountain and across the Condamine flood plain, which we’ve talked about many times, to get down to the Brisbane rail network, which will never be able to handle 1.8-kilometre trains or double-stacked trains—never. Why are you persevering with a route that will never get you to port, instead of taking the Inland Rail alignment to the port of Gladstone? There are many logistical benefits for the whole nation.

Mr Zambelli: The scope of Inland Rail is to go to Kagaru, not to Brisbane port, with double-stacked trains to Ebenezer and single-stacked trains to Kagaru. That is the scope. Inland Rail does not go to Brisbane port.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that, but we were originally told it was port to port—Melbourne to Brisbane. That’s what we were originally told was the vision for Inland Rail. It’s not going to do it. It can go to the port of Gladstone.

Mr Zambelli: I’m just telling you the scope, Senator. Inland Rail is Beveridge to Kagaru.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. You’ve got to follow orders. The border-to-Gowrie section is 217 kilometres of mostly new track, 37 bridges and 3,000 culverts. How much will this cost?

Mr Zambelli: The cost of that section is still being determined. We’ve provided some scope and design, schedule and cost estimates to the federal government, and that’s a matter for the federal government and their assurance verification specialist that’s working with them.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s horrendous. There’s Gowrie to Helidon, including a ‘vast new rail tunnel’—they’re Inland Rail’s words. Surely, taking Inland Rail to Toowoomba shouldn’t be considered until you sort the cost and engineering for taking it down the range. I put it to you that every cent you’re spending on the Queensland route is completely wasted. If you can’t get double-stacked freight to Brisbane, the whole business case is out the window, and your recent update about moving the intermodal from Kagaru to Ebenezer acknowledges you can’t get double-stacked trains to Brisbane itself, which you’ve admitted. Would you please continue work on costing the tunnel down the range but otherwise spend your time, Minister, revisiting alternative routes for Inland Rail? There are so many other fine options that will benefit the country.

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister.

/0 Comments/by

Endless Studies, Zero Dams

, ,

The Urannah Dam project was cancelled by the Albanese Labor government in 2022. I wanted to see the final business case and environmental impact study (EIS) to see what they’re hiding.

The Commonwealth threw $22.65 million into the business case and approvals, then Bowen River Utilities withdrew the scheme from Queensland’s environmental assessment processes in December 2022.

When I asked why it was withdrawn, where the final business case is, and where the EIS is, the department agreed to provide it on notice. They claimed that because of “Commonwealth-state relations,” the ownership of these taxpayer-funded documents rests with the state, though they “encourage” publication. I’ve requested copies if they have access to them.

I asked if the bureaucrats are looking at the bigger picture regarding future water demand in the Burdekin Basin.

There is massive potential in the Great Australian Infrastructure Project, which would see a major steel mill established at Collinsville, along with other mills in Central Queensland. These visionary projects will have a massive appetite for water.

The department representative admitted he only knows about these vital industrial opportunities from reading the newspapers. They did note they are partnering with Queensland on a broader “Burdekin Regional Water Assessment” to look at basin-wide supply and demand, however it’s clear they are disconnected from real-world economic development.

Whether it’s Paradise Dam or Urannah Dam, we are seeing the same pattern: endless assessments, massive cost escalations, secret reports and a total lack of urgency from state and federal governments to actually build the water infrastructure Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again today. I have some brief questions about water infrastructure. I’m told this needs to be asked here. Is anyone familiar with Paradise Dam?  

Senator Watt: Oh yes!  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about the new dam wall for Paradise Dam. The last update we can find on this project is the conduct of foundation geological mapping conducted by Sunwater in November 2024. Has anything progressed beyond that and, if so, what?  

Senator Watt: While the officials are getting ready, I’ll say that this is a Queensland government project. There will be a limit to the role that this department has in that project, but obviously the officials can share whatever they have.  

Mr Darrough: The detailed business case was finalised in July 2025 and is being considered by the Queensland government. The Queensland government hasn’t submitted a proposal for the new project with the revised dam wall arrangements. Infrastructure Australia published its evaluation of the detailed business case in September 2025.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who’s funding the new dam wall and in what proportions?  

Mr Darrough: The Australian government made a commitment of $600 million; $50 million of that is contracted with Queensland to deliver early enabling works and the detailed business case, and the balance of the funding remains available in the budget.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you expect the total cost to be? How much will the Queensland government pay?  

Mr Darrough: I think it’s on the record that it’s an estimated $4.4 billion.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the vast majority will come from the Queensland government?  

Mr Darrough: The Queensland government hasn’t put forward a proposal to the Australian government for funding.  

Senator Watt: In case you’re unaware, Senator, the commitment that our government made of $600 million was 50 per cent of the funding for—was it going to be a new dam originally? 

Mr Darrough: It was originally to reinstate the old dam wall, but, when the early work was done on that, Sunwater realised that it couldn’t be restored and that they needed to do a new dam wall downstream, so the price has been revisited. That’s also some time ago, so the estimates have gone up through escalation factors in any case.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re waiting on the Queensland government to get the total cost?  

Mr Darrough: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any formula for funding of that from federal compared to state?  

Mr Darrough: No. The National Water Grid Infrastructure Investment Framework puts in place arrangements whereby states and territories can ask for up to 50 per cent of funding for capital and construction projects, but there is no formulaic base. The level of contribution that the Australian government would make is a matter that’s decided by the government, and it’s informed by the business case evaluation from Infrastructure Australia, the proposal from Queensland and advice from the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, in summary, you’re waiting on the Queensland government.  

Mr Darrough: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to Urannah Dam. It was cancelled by the Albanese Labor government in 2022, I understand. We have the preliminary business case, which was released. I don’t have the final business case and environmental impact study, which I’m assuming showed why the project was not feasible. Were these completed?  

Mr Darrough: On Urannah Dam, the then Australian government committed $22.65 million to support the business case, environmental approvals and geotech. On 16 December 2022, the delivery agent, Bowen River Utilities, announced it had withdrawn the scheme from environmental assessment processes in Queensland.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was any reason given?  

Mr Darrough: I’d need to take that on notice. The funding that was actually in the budget for construction of Urannah Dam was within the infrastructure portfolio, not the water elements that transferred to DCCEEW.  

Senator ROBERTS: In whose hands is the final business case?  

Mr Darrough: I’ll need to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: And also the environmental impact study?  

Mr Darrough: Again, I’ll take that on notice. We encourage jurisdictions to publish business cases that the Australian government contributes to, but, ultimately, the Commonwealth-state relations and the funding arrangement that we have puts ownership of those documents in the hands of the jurisdiction. It’s ultimately a matter for them to decide whether or not they publish.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the state?  

Mr Darrough: Yes, but we encourage in all cases that it be published.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you have access to it, may we have a copy, please?  

Mr Darrough: I’ll need to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s fine. If the business case says there’s not enough use for the water, then are you aware that there’s a Project Iron Boomerang or, actually, Capricorn Steel, which is a large project—I won’t go into the details—that would involve putting a steel mill at Collinsville?  

Mr Darrough: I can talk more broadly about the Burdekin Basin, of which the Urannah area is part. The Commonwealth is partnering with Queensland on the Burdekin Regional Water Assessment, and that process is under way, looking at a basin-wide assessment of demand and supply for water in the catchment.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to know this, but I’ll ask it anyway. Are you aware of the potential for a steel mill at Collinsville and other steel mills in Central Queensland?  

Mr Darrough: Only from newspapers.  

/1 Comment/by