Children Held in Japan Against International Law

,

Last week, I once again raised the issue of Australian children being abducted by a parent and held in Japan, contrary to international law. I was informed that the Department is currently providing support to 17 parents of 24 abducted children.

Since 2004, there have been 90 cases of children abducted to Japan. I was advised that Japanese legislation is planned for 2026, which may allow for joint custody — but only if both parents agree.

Senator Penny Wong could not answer why an Australian parent would be required to pay child support to the abducting parent in Japan. She did say, however, that she had raised the issue of the abducted children with the Japanese government again on September 25 this year.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I now move to the fact that many Australian children are currently being held by a parent in Japan—not one parent, but several cases, by one of the parents—contrary to Australian and international law, without a remedy for the Australian parent to have their child returned. These are truly stolen children. I’ve brought this up before in Senate estimates. My first question is: how many of these abducted children are in Japan, as reported to the department? Previously it was 89. Some children returned—I think it was 18—and are no longer listed as abducted children. How many are now in Japan, abducted?  

Ms McGregor: Thank you for your question, Senator. I can confirm that DFAT currently provides consular assistance to 17 parents—and that’s in respect of 24 children—on parental abduction and child custody issues in Japan. Since 2004, we have provided assistance to the parents of 90 children in similar cases. Those are the numbers.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a big improvement. What progress has been made to return these children since the last time I raised this in Senate estimates? Numbers, and also action you’ve taken.  

Ms McGregor: There has been some progress recently with the passage of Japan’s legislative reforms, through their legislature, that will allow joint custody from the middle of 2026. We continue to engage with Japan to encourage them to implement that legislation in a way that will allow children to have relationships with both parents where it’s in the best interest of the child to do so. We will continue to advocate with Japan for those reforms. Minister Wong raised child custody with the foreign minister of Japan at a bilateral meeting in the margins of the 2+2 meeting in early September 2025. Minister Wong also raised the issue with then foreign minister Kamikawa in July 2024 in Tokyo, and before that in 2023 in September, and on multiple occasions with Foreign Minister Hayashi as well. We continue to make those representations. There has been other assistance. The Hon. Justice Victoria Bennett of the Federal Circuit and Family Court visited Japan in April last year to share experiences of family law reform with parliamentarians, and her visit helped strengthen Australia’s advocacy. We also supported a six-month visit to Australia by a Japanese Ministry of Justice judicial official to learn about Australia’s family law system. That was from October 2024 to March 2025. Other than that our ambassador to Japan and other officials consistently raise this matter with Japanese ministers and authorities, and we coordinate advocacy with like-minded countries.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, my next question is to you. Thank you for your advocacy on this matter. It’s been successful so far. The upcoming laws in Japan in 2026, though, do not solve the problem because visitation rights with the non-custodial parent are not addressed and joint custody is only made possible if both parents agree. What’s your view on that, and what prospects have we got for resolving it?  

Senator Wong: We have advocated to Japan in the way that officials have outlined. We have encouraged Japan to implement this legislation in a way that allows children to have relationships with both parents where it is in the best interests of the child and it is safe to do so. That has been the position that we, the officials and I, have articulated. Obviously, these are matters for domestic processes in Japan, but I have engaged, as Ms McGregor talked about, with a number of foreign ministers in relation to this. We have had engagement through a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Justice Bennett, which Ms McGregor referred to. We’re trying to put our views and share some of our experiences, but ultimately these are matters that the Japanese system is determining. We are pleased that there has been progress. I understand it’s been very distressing for a number of parents.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume you’re still working on the visitation rights issue?  

Ms McGregor: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this may not be possible for you to answer, but is it possible that a parent without access to their abducted child can be forced to pay Australian child support to the abducting parent while the child is being held in Japan? Senator Wong: I’m not in a position to answer that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. If so—and I’m not trying to be cheeky; I’m trying to understand—by paying child support is the government not becoming complicit in supporting the process and the abduction? Now, I understand; I’ve had dealing with Japanese people. They’re very wonderful and respectful. I just wonder if that’s possibly the case.  

Senator Wong: This is a question: if child support is required, what are the consequences of that?  

Senator ROBERTS: Basically, yes, and does it encourage abduction?  

Senator Wong: We don’t ever want children to be abducted. This portfolio doesn’t deal with child support, and I don’t know what the parameters are around the child support legislation—  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s why I prefaced my question.  

Senator Wong: so I can’t comment any further.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is Japan, which is our supposed ally, saying to support its position of not assisting to resolve this matter with regard to returning abducted children? Do they understand our system? I know you’ve tried to educate them on our system.  

Ms Adams: Perhaps I can offer some comment. I think the reality is that Japan has quite a different, you could say, family law approach overall than our country has. I think we—not just this department but other parts of our system—through our sustained advocacy have had some success in encouraging Japan to nudge their quite culturally specific, as they would see it, system towards one where access to both parents is more normal. But it’s fundamentally a different set—  

Senator ROBERTS: A different culture.  

Ms Adams: of legal and family-oriented decisions that they make.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve negotiated with the Japanese. They’re wonderful people, but it is difficult to get across to a different culture at times. Is the Australian government minister prepared to bring this matter to the United Nations for resolution, in the same way that Australia achieved success globally in halting whaling by raising it at an international level?  

Senator Wong: I don’t think you were in the room, but I responded to Senator McKim by making the point that grandstanding is not necessarily being effective. In fact, it usually is not effective. We have worked in the way that we have, bilaterally and respectfully, recognising that this is a matter for their domestic political processes in Japan, but we have sought to put our view, to express the sensitivity of this issue, the distress of a range of non-custodial parents whom we are aware of and deal with and what effect this has, and respectfully to encourage progress on this matter. I appreciate that there are people who will want more to have been done, but I think we have seen progress and we have seen the willingness of our counterparts to engage on this issue. I think that is a more effective way. The approach we have been taking has been, I think, a more effective way to progress this issue.  

Senator ROBERTS: Out of respect, I would agree with you, because that is the way the Japanese do it, and I think you would be more effective that way anyway.  

Senator Wong: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. I will have more questions, if I can come back

/by

Fire Ant Bureaucrats Ignorant

,

During last week’s Senate Estimates, I questioned Minister Chisholm and Acting Secretary of the Department, Ms Justine Saunders, regarding the ongoing mismanagement of the Fire Ant Eradication Program in South East Queensland.

Despite them saying that the Department has been working closely with Queensland operatives, both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders claimed they were unaware of any issues within the program. They stated that they had seen no evidence of mismanagement by those on the ground in Queensland.

When asked directly about what might constitute a “reasonable excuse” for the program’s failings, they declined to comment—which would suggest that such a determination should be a matter for the courts.

In light of this, I am calling on anyone with evidence of mismanagement or misconduct by program officers to urgently send it to both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Senator the Hon Anthony Chisholm

Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

PO Box 6100

Senate

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Email: senator.chisholm@aph.gov.au

Ms Justine Saunders

Acting Secretary

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

GPO Box 858

Canberra ACT 2601

Email: justine.saunders@aff.gov.au

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move onto fire and a broad overview of the federal government exercising to ensure the states are successful because we’re using federal funds in the National Fire Ant Eradication Program. 

Ms Sawczuk: We’ve been very closely monitoring the delivery of the program as the chair of the national management group, and also as a key party to all of the governance program and the technical committee. We have also been working with Queensland, and the program specifically, by providing compliance and enforcement officers some assistance around communication.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve been providing them to Queensland?  

Ms Sawczuk: Yes, we have.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are their duties? 

Ms Sawczuk: To provide, for example, assistance on a compliance and enforcement framework, noting that there were a number of detections of importance; having a look at the compliance and enforcement activities done around that; and also working with the program to assess the triggers and the risks, if any of them are being met as a result of the detections. We’re also working with them to strengthen communications. We’re looking at the messaging that is getting out, particularly some of the success stories but also some of the targeting of the right messages. And because we are the national management group committee chair, we’re providing some advice on governance and cost-sharing arrangements. We work very closely with them to monitor the program, given that there is a significant investment, but also given that we do have that national coordination role in the governance. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’d like to go with this. We do provide a lot of federal taxpayer money for this Queensland program—it’s largely Queensland. Is this government aware of the overreach and intimidating tactics being used by the states and of breaches of regulations on pesticides, particularly in South-East Queensland? I’m sad to say that they’re forcing their way into properties and causing fear and distress to landowners, upsetting women and terrifying crying children? Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No, we’re not.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s going on; that’s right. Since when is it okay for gates and fences to be broken down with a police presence, threatening those with reasonable excuses who withheld consent to strangers forcing their way onto properties with a view to unlawfully spreading poison when there is not a fire ant within cooee— this is in breach of pesticide regulations. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is exactly what happened recently at Beechmont and Laidley and other places, when property was damaged and officers behaved like criminals in a home invasion while trespassing on private land. The violence came from the officers, not the landowners. I’ve talked with the landowners. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: We’ve got no evidence to suggest unlawful conduct or misconduct by the program in undertaking the compliance activities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I send you evidence?  

Ms Saunders: Of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers if they have a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: Sorry, can you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers—that’s fire ant eradication program officers—if they have a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: To be honest, I don’t know the specifics of the legislation under which the program operates, in terms of the compliance enforcement. They’re state laws, and the question is better directed at the state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Biosecurity Act says that they can have a reasonable excuse and then they cannot go onto the property.  

Ms Saunders: We’re not applying the Commonwealth Biosecurity Act in relation to this program.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, state.  

Ms Saunders: I’m not familiar with their legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think it’s a reasonable excuse to obstruct when a resident has an illness such as asthma or other respiratory ailments confirmed by a medical certificate as likely to be made worse by exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly when being sprayed? 

 Ms Saunders: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on facts that I’m not familiar with and/or are the responsibility of a state jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals present represent a threat to domestic animals—dogs, cats, birds—if they are exposed to the toxic chemicals?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware of those circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals are not being administered according to the safety requirements under the permits issued by the APVMA?  

Senator Chisholm: Again, I’m not aware of any existence of that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your truthfulness. It’s very helpful. I’m not trying to have a ‘gotcha’ moment. This is very serious in Queensland. Why is aerial application of pyriproxyfen occurring on a wide scale on areas where no fire ants have been identified, ever, when the permit number PER87728 clearly states by way of restraint: DO NOT apply as a preventative measure for Red Imported Fire Ant control. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse, Minister, to obstruct when the administering authority has already disastrously polluted a significant waterway in the Samford Valley—you’d be familiar with the beauty of that valley—near Brisbane, killing extensive native marine, reptile and insect species?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case, Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals have already been shown to not discriminate between insects and have already wiped out thousands of native ants and native bees and their hives?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not aware. By the way, I’m not expecting you to be aware. Thank you.  

Ms Saunders: Also, nor do we have any evidence, Senator, that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. I’ll get people to contact you about it. Where is the environmental safety research that has been done to establish the safety of humans and our native birds and small animals when poisoned insects form part of the food chain? Is there any?  

Ms Saunders: I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Who is responsible for determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: That’s a state matter. You’d have to ask the state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Shouldn’t it be up to a court to decide this crucial question?  

Ms Saunders: Once again, that’s a matter for state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and—what’s the other ‘f’?—Forestry step up to pay compensation to those affected by the misapplication of the fire ant eradication program in Queensland thanks to the use of federal funds? Are you responsible?  

Ms Saunders: I’ll repeat my comments. No, they are matters for the state.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your direct answers. I’ll get someone to contact you. 

/4 Comments/by

Tradies Promised – Families Delivered

,

Australia’s migration program is failing to deliver the skilled workers we were promised.

An analysis shows that in 2023-24 only 12% of permanent migration spots went to skilled workers — and 0.09% to tradespeople. Meanwhile, the housing crisis worsens.

The system is broken!

— Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I want to go to an analysis of the migration program—it’s an analysis done by Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald and Professor Alan Gamlen, who are affiliated with the Migration Hub at the ANU—and also a comment on their analysis by Leith van Onselen, the economist, who says of the report:

Australia’s immigration system is unskilled and broken.

They say, ‘In 2023-24, the permanent migration program’—185,000—’delivered just 166 tradespeople, negligible against national needs.’ The report also shows that just 12 per cent of places in the nation’s permanent migration program are going to skilled workers. Instead, many of these place are being allocated to members of skilled workers’ families. Zero point zero nine per cent of new permanent residents are in the trades. Australians have been promised that the migration program is to fill skills shortages to fix the housing crisis, and that’s being used to justify hundreds of thousands of arrivals—millions over the last few years. Yet now we know that just 166 tradies arrived in one year. Why is your department failing to make sure the people who are granted permanent places in Australia are actually skilled?
Senator Watt: Maybe the place to start, Senator, is what figures the department has around—there was a little discussion about this earlier in a session you weren’t here for, but maybe that’s a decent place to start.

Ms Sharp: Certainly. Thanks, Minister. Going very specifically to primary visa applicants who work in the construction sector, in 2024-25 there were 15,524 skilled visas granted to workers in construction.

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me—what was the total migration that year?

Mr Willard: 185,000.

Senator ROBERTS: 185,000?

Ms Sharp: That was the permanent program, Senator, yes. Of that permanent program, 8,741 were skilled workers in the construction sector.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s about four per cent.

Senator Watt: But very different to the numbers you were just quoting, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Depends how they’re classified, Minister.

Senator Watt: Well, I think you gave a figure of 150-something—

Senator ROBERTS: 166.

Senator Watt: Yes, whereas the actual number is over 8,000—so, pretty big difference.

Senator ROBERTS: We can argue about the accuracy because it depends on the classification, but keep going.

Mr Willard: Senator, I’d add that the permanent program—it’s roughly two-thirds allocated to the skilled program. You are correct that the skilled program includes the primary applicants and their immediate family members, and there were 132,148 places delivered in that skilled program in 2024-25.

/by

NDIS Blackhole

,

During this session with officials of the NDIS, I was told that there are currently between 270,000 and 280,000 NDIS providers, with 93% of them being unregistered.

This is a massive number and makes it almost impossible to monitor. Astoundingly, there is no set timeframe for when providers must become registered.

The Minister COULD NOT tell us exactly how much taxpayers were being ripped off by fraudulent operators – however stated that all providers are required to comply with the Code of Conduct. This “compliance” with the Code of Conduct means little to fraudulent operators.

I was not comforted by the responses to this massive waste of money – which is predicted to soon cost more than the entire Australian defence budget.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How many providers are now registered with NDIS?

Ms Glanville: The number changes all of the time very rapidly, but we have around 270,000 to 280,000 providers. About seven to eight per cent of those are registered.

Senator ROBERTS: When will the commission extend mandatory registration to all providers, and how long will it take for all providers to be registered?

Ms Glanville: The issue of registration and regulation is a matter for government. We’re very pleased to be talking to government about these issues and we will await the outcomes from those discussions.

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know yet?

Ms Glanville: No.

Senator ROBERTS: How many sole traders are unregistered?

Ms Glanville: No, we can’t answer that question, but we can take that away and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice? Thank you. How much funding has been claimed by unregistered providers from the NDIS since the scheme began and specifically in the 2024 financial year?

Ms Glanville: That’s a question for Mr McNaughton.

Mr McNaughton: Let me take that on notice and see if I get that during the hearing. To confirm, in what financial year was that?

Senator ROBERTS: How much funding has been claimed by unregistered providers from the NDIS since it began?

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

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know of any other government funded schemes where regulation or compliance is optional, similar to NDIS provider registration?

Ms Glanville: I think there is a whole range of different regulatory systems across government. That’s probably the most accurate thing I can say. We maintain a position of the importance of regulation and registration in the way in which the scheme works. We note the differences about this scheme than perhaps other regulatory regimes that do exist in the Commonwealth.

Senator ROBERTS: What financial risks does the presence of a large unregulated provider base pose to the NDIS?

Ms Glanville: Our main interest is in the quality and safeguards issue. As a human rights regulator, we are keen to see people with disability receiving very safe and quality services to enable them to live their ordinary lives. Questions about the funding is something perhaps Mr McNaughton could address.

Senator McAllister: The government is very committed to dealing with any questions of fraud or noncompliance in the scheme. The ANAO has made the point that prior to our coming to government there were very limited financial compliance arrangements in place within the NDIA. We’ve made substantial investments to improve that. I can ask Mr McNaughton to talk you through some of those, if that assists you.

Mr McNaughton: It’s also important to talk about the fact the market is a quite diverse market. When we talk about unregistered sole providers, it could be an allied health professional or it could be a clinical psychologist who isn’t registered for the NDIS but is registered in all of their other industry bodies and governed by that process. Sometimes they choose not to register for the NDIS for their own purposes because they have other registration requirements. The market is quite diverse in that range. Through our fraud and integrity work, we are doing a lot of work across government. Mr Dardo can talk to some of the work they’re doing to match everything from ABNs to tax file to pay-as-you-go information so we can see if there are challenges around integrity relating to a provider, whether registered or unregistered. We are agnostic to that in our fraud and our integrity work. We are absolutely committed to preserving this scheme and eradicating fraud. This is something that—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, sir, that was the point I was getting to. The scheme itself is at risk if it’s not brought under control and quickly.

Mr McNaughton: The government has invested significantly. I’ll get Mr Dardo to talk through some of the government investment over the past couple years and some of the great work that’s been underway to put better assurance processes in around the scheme to really tackle those fraudulent providers and make sure all disability funding is going to participants who require it.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the offer, but we heard from Mr Dardo in the previous session of Senate estimates and what he said was compelling. It stunned a lot of people in the room, including me, so I don’t think we need to revisit that again. What percentage of providers are now made up by unregistered providers?

Ms Glanville: I think I answered that earlier. Do you want to give a bit more detail on that, Ms Wade?

Ms Wade: We anticipate that approximately 93 per cent of providers do not elect to register. As at 30 June 2025, we have 22,955 registered providers. It’s important to note that, whether you are registered or unregistered, you are still required to comply with the code of conduct. The regulator can still ban and take compliance and enforcement action against you, which includes bringing matters before the Federal Court, which is an important part of our regulatory approach to ensure we are clear that the NDIS delivers quality and safe services. During today’s hearing, the Federal Court of Australia delivered a judgement with respect to a matter where a registered provider had a participant die in their care. As a result of their failures under the NDIS Act, they have incurred a $2.2 million penalty, which is the highest penalty that the Federal Court has brought to a provider to date. This is an important reflection on the role that registration but also regulation plays for the NDIS market.

Senator ROBERTS: I think the evidence in a previous session was that the Federal Court would be overwhelmed if you dumped it all on the Federal Court. There’s a lot at stake. I understand that.

Ms Glanville: I can also add to Ms Wade’s comments that the result today is very good because of the quantum in that it is the highest amount that’s been awarded. In the regulatory sense, it also acts as a deterrent to others to think very carefully about what they are doing potentially in relation to the services that they provide to people with disability, and to look at the action that will be taken if they’re found to be wanting in that regard.

Senator ROBERTS: I have examples, but I don’t have the time to go through them of carers who provide massive unpaid support who are not receiving their rightful remuneration and of others who deserve care but are not getting that care. There’s quite a lot at stake. Are you aware of the massive overcharging by some people, for example, for cleaners and nurses. A cleaner is charged at $40 an hour normally. We know this from someone in our staff. When they charge out that cleaner to the NDIS it’s $130 an hour—same job.

Senator McAllister: This is mostly a question to the NDIA in relation to pricing, but we touched on this earlier. The board makes decisions about pricing, but one of the things they have been very clear about in their discussions with me is the importance of making sure people with disability do not pay more for services than do other Australians. I’ll pass to Ms McKay and Mr McNaughton to answer your questions.

Mr McNaughton: We issue what we call our pricing guide, and it sets out what are the maximum rates that can be claimed for certain services. We regularly monitor that as part of annual pricing review. We are always trying to benchmark so that you’re not paying more just because you’re an NDIS participant. We want to make sure we’re paying market rates, whether you’re a private citizen, NDIS participant, Department of Veterans’ Affairs or whatever that might be. That’s what we’re continuing to do. Where we do receive a tip-off that a person may be charging higher than that, that will be referred to our integrity and fraud team, who would then be investigating those matters. I can assure you that’s what they do.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that $2 billion is lost annually to NDIS fraud? Is that acceptable to the government? Would it be better that the NDIS, which provides a decent service, be returned to the states for competitive federalism to develop accountability? We’ve just got to look at every way of getting this monster under control.

Senator McAllister: The policy you just referenced now is not something that the government is considering. However, the issue around fraud and integrity in the system is a matter that the government takes very seriously. Since coming to government in 2022, we have essentially needed to build an antifraud and compliance framework almost from scratch. We have made a $500 million investment into the NDIA to support them in building this capability. You heard, as you’ve indicated, from Mr Dardo previously about some of the outcomes of that investment. We will continue to back those processes, because these are not really victimless crimes. Aside from taxpayer impacts, when we see fraud we often see other harms to participants. We certainly see money being spent on things which should be being provided to people with disability. This is a matter that the government takes very seriously and is something which we are backing with investment.

Mr McNaughton: I echo those comments. What we have through our Fraud Fusion Taskforce is at least 25 or 26 Commonwealth agencies involved in looking at and cracking down on fraud and investigating fraud related matters to the NDIS. We all agree that, as I said earlier, this scheme should be protected for people with disability who require it. There are unfortunately some unscrupulous providers trying to access the scheme. We want to come from a participant safeguarding perspective to make sure we’re removing those providers from the scheme and safeguarding participants so they can access the genuine disability related supports from good service providers. I should say 99.9 per cent of service providers are really good providers. But there are some bad actors who are trying to get on the scheme. We have very good systems in place through our integrity and fraud teams doing some great work. As I said, I could get Mr Dardo to talk through the work of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, but in the interests of time—

Senator ROBERTS: I know he’s doing a good job. Fundamentally, Mr McNaughton, how do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time? Can we break it down into states again? The other thing is this was started without bones. There was no skeleton even. When Julia Gillard promised the NDIS it was to win an election. She didn’t win the election. The Liberals came in and they were stunned at what they saw. I’m not defending the Liberals, by the way.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I do need to share the call. I do enjoy the history lesson, but we’re very short on time.

Senator ROBERTS: Should it be sent back to the states where we’ve got competitive federalism which will give us accountability and each state can improve?

Senator McAllister: That’s not a policy that we’re contemplating.

/2 Comments/by

Bugs for Dinner? Not on My Watch!

,

Has the price of a steak taken your breath away recently? That’s because the government wants you eating bugs or lab grown cells, not organic red meat.

In 2022, I confronted Meat and Livestock Australia directly. They were signed up to the crazy plan of ‘net zero’ by 2030.

The only way they ever could have achieved this is by killing off cows, reducing the total number across the country. That means good farm-grown meat would be too expensive for the peasants, but the elites jetting off to Davos every year would be able to afford it.

Three years later, Meat and Livestock have just admitted they are ditching their net-zero 2030 goals, exactly like I told them to do three years ago. Yet, they’re still committed to doing it by 2050.

End the nonsense. Ditch net-zero and make meat affordable for every Aussie house!

Meat and Livestock Australia drops 2030 carbon neutral target | The Australian

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:

We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.

I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?

Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.

Mr Strong : We can certainly do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?

Mr Strong : In part, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Only in part? There are other factors involved?

Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.

Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.

Mr Strong : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.

Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?

Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.

Senator ROBERTS: But he did work for you?

Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.

Senator ROBERTS: So he’s pretty competent?

Mr Strong : That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, though, does it? We could also quote other papers—

Senator ROBERTS: No. But, if he’s competent, there’s got to be a reason for not agreeing.

Mr Strong : Certainly. But other papers that have been produced by independent analysts say the herd’s even smaller than what we project.

Senator ROBERTS: Even smaller?

Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.

Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.

Mr Strong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?

Mr Strong : We can provide you with some.

/5 Comments/by

Transparency Needed: Rob Stefanic’s Departure

,

I questioned the Department of Parliamentary Services about the concerning departure of former Secretary Rob Stefanic who I questioned over serious issue previously. The President confirmed he was terminated due to “lost trust and confidence” – but both the President and current Secretary Ms Hinchcliffe dodged questions about whether Mr Stefanic intercepted a public interest disclosure letter, potentially contradicting his court affidavit.

Even more troubling: 14 senior executives have left DPS in just three years. This follows my previous questioning about serious cultural issues within the department.

As your Senator, I remain committed to ensuring proper oversight of taxpayer-funded positions. The Australian public deserves full transparency about what occurred under Mr Stefanic’s leadership and exactly why he was asked to step down, especially given his $478,000 salary was funded by taxpayers.

I’ll continue pushing for accountability. If you’re a current or former DPS staffer with concerns, you can contact me confidentially at senator.roberts@aph.gov.au

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again. Ms Hinchcliffe, last November I asked you a series of questions, and you and your department have plain refused to answer the questions I’ve put to you. You’ve raised no public interest immunity claim. Ms Hinchcliffe, you are the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services. You cannot expect us to believe that you don’t know the proper process is to raise a public interest immunity claim, not simply flat-out refuse to answer questions. You know a public interest claim is the correct process, don’t you? 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: The questions on notice that you’ve raised—and, I’m sorry, I need to find them— 

Senator ROBERTS: Question 116.  

Ms J Hinchcliffe: We have provided an answer to those questions and those answers have been submitted. I suspect what you’d like to say to me is that those answers are not the answers that you’re looking for and you’d like to press me in relation to those. But we have provided answers to those questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: In question on notice 116, I asked you about your predecessor, Rob Stefanic, who 

stepped down in absolute controversy, yet you still won’t explain why he stepped down. That’s the answer I’m looking for. Why did he step down?  

Ms J Hinchcliffe: That’s not a question for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who is it a question for?  

The President: It’s a question for the presiding officer. 

Senator ROBERTS: President, why did Rob Stefanic step down?  

The President: I provided an opening statement at the last estimates, at which I said we had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.  

Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether Rob Stefanic intercepted a letter of an employee making a public  

interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit that he made in court. The answer to that question is contained in documents that you have access to, both of you.  

The President: Do you mean me, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

The President: I don’t have access to those documents. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who does? 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure what documents you’re talking about. As I said to you at the last estimates that you raised these, these matters are matters that pre-date me. I don’t know what occurred. It seems to me that question, of what Mr Stefanic did, is a question for Mr Stefanic rather than a question for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s either you or the President, the presiding officer. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: In terms of Mr Stefanic’s actions? 

Senator ROBERTS: Why Mr Stefanic stepped down. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: Sorry, what— 

Senator ROBERTS: Why did Mr Stefanic step down?  

The President: I’ve answered that question: because the presiding officers lost trust and confidence in the secretary.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did he intercept a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, and did that not contradict an affidavit given in court? Did he or not?  

The President: Who’s the question to, sorry? 

Senator ROBERTS: You.  

The President: I’ve indicated that those are proceedings I have no knowledge of and nothing to do with. That is not my role as the President.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who would have knowledge of that? 

The President: I have no idea, I’m very sorry. That’s not a question for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have knowledge of that, Ms Hinchcliffe? 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I don’t, and I’ve said before that I don’t have knowledge of that. 

Senator ROBERTS: So no-one knows why he stepped down. 

The President: I’ve answered that question twice now, and I’ve answered it a third time. I made an opening statement at the last estimates at which I said the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the details around that, and was his intercepting of a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court, part of the reason for losing trust?  

The President: I indicated in my opening statement that I was not able to provide any further information. The letter that you’ve talked about, I have absolutely no knowledge of at all. I know nothing about it.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that answers your question—in that it was not a relevant factor in losing confidence if the President didn’t know about it.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that we request. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. And both of you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or in producing documents to this committee. As I understand it, President, the default position of senators is that the Senate prevails. So unless you can come up with a public interest immunity, we are constitutionally empowered to fulfil our duty to taxpayers.  

The President: I’ll re-table my statement from last time. I made it clear that the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in the secretary and that it was not able to discuss, at that point, further matters in relation to the secretary. In relation to the matter that you are raising, a legal matter, whether it was me as a presiding officer or the previous presiding officers, which is where I understand this matter has its genesis, none of us would have—it’s not our role as presidents to have that level of depth of knowledge about court proceedings or DPS operations. That is not the role of the presiding officers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who oversees that? Whose role is it? Surely there’s someone with that role? 

The President: A court matter is a court matter. It’s nothing to do with the department. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Did he or did he not, and who would be aware of that? Surely, someone must be?  

The President: Ms Hinchcliffe has answered the question to the best of her ability. I have indicated, on a number of occasions, it’s not my role as the President. I have no knowledge of the matters you’re raising. We have answered your questions. I don’t know what else I can do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve got a new question. 

The President: These are matters which go back to previous presiding officers and previous DPS executive officers. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic left a rotten legacy. I want to know whether or not he intercepted a letter to an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit he gave to court. 

The President: Senator Roberts, I would hate for the DPS staff who are watching this to think that they are dirty and rotten. They are fine officers. They do an amazing job. 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. 

The President: I think that’s what you’re implying. I took that as— 

Senator ROBERTS: I said he left a rotten legacy. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, don’t speak over the President. 

The President: I’m not making a comment about that. The Presiding Officers acted swiftly. We lost trust and confidence, and he was terminated. We acted very swiftly in filling the position with Ms Hinchcliffe, and what we hope and what we’re looking forward to and what is currently happening within DPS is that we are restoring trust and confidence within that department. That is our role. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again. He left a rotten legacy. Many of your fine employees have come to me telling me of that, and still they’re very concerned about the legacy he left—what he actually did. I will ask if you can take it on notice to find out whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court. 

The President: I can’t take that on notice because it’s not my business. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t know, then tell me who does know. Who should that question— 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve already said to you that I don’t know that information and that the person who would know that information is Mr Stefanic. 

The President: This is a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter. It was a court matter. 

Senator ROBERTS: He was paid by taxpayers, as are we—all three of us. We all have a responsibility, don’t we, to taxpayers? 

The President: Absolutely. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you disrespecting the Senate and the taxpayer in this? 

The President: Senator Roberts, you are asking me about a court matter. If you ask me about a DPS matter, of course I will answer to the best of my ability, and it will be a truthful and transparent answer. I can’t comment in court matters. They’re not my purview. I am responsible for the running of Parliament House, DPS, the PBO and the Department of the Senate. That is the extent of my responsibilities. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking a simple question. Who is responsible? Who can I ask this question of?  

The President: Ms Hinchcliffe just told you: the previous secretary. It’s his matter. It’s a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter. 

Senator ROBERTS: Someone oversaw it. He intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Surely that affects everyone, ultimately. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: Senator, I’ve answered your question. I don’t have any knowledge of this. The person who you would need to ask is Mr Stefanic. If you’re asking about his actions, you would need to ask him. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Hinchcliffe, your department and what you do is immune to freedom of information requests. The only chance the Australian taxpayers and the fine employees of DPS have to hold you and the department accountable for your conduct is through questions we, as senators, ask. I’ve asked you to provide answers, and you’ve point blank refused. How are you meant to be accountable and transparent if you don’t answer questions this senator puts to you? 

The President: That characterisation is incorrect. The secretary has not refused. She has answered questions to the best of her ability. Both Ms Hinchcliffe and her staff are working very, very hard to restore trust and confidence not only within DPS but with all senators in this room. Of course we have a responsibility to answer your questions as they relate to DPS. This does not relate to DPS. It relates to a former secretary on a court matter. I can’t be any clearer on that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but it still remains the fact that apparently he intercepted a letter of a DPS employee making a public interest disclosure. That must bother someone. Please, someone. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered the question about my knowledge of this matter and who you would need to ask about whether or not Mr Stefanic intercepted the letter. I don’t know the answer to that. You would need to ask him. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there is no-one— 

The President: I think the actions that the Presiding Officers took in terminating the previous secretary indicate that we are very concerned about DPS and its reputation, so to suggest that no-one cares is, again, an incorrect characterisation. We acted as swiftly as we could. The secretary was terminated. We’ve acted extremely quickly to replace him, and I am very optimistic that with the new leadership at DPS we have a very, very exciting future. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we will need to conclude. We may be here next week for you to continue  

questioning. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I just have one more question? 

CHAIR: One more, and then the coalition has the call. 

Senator ROBERTS: It must bother your employees—taxpayer employees, whom you serve and for whom you are responsible—that someone wrote a letter and that letter was intercepted in making a public interest disclosure. Why does that not raise a simple answer in you to say, ‘I will find out’?  

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered your questions here today about my knowledge of this matter and about who you would need to ask about your suggestion that the secretary intercepted a letter. I’ve been very clear with this committee about my views on the use of taxpayers’ money: that everything that we do as a department is spending taxpayers’ money and we need to be very clear that we are getting value for money. You heard the conversation I just had with Senator Hume on that matter and the work that I’m doing to ensure that we are really clear in the department that we are spending taxpayers’ money wisely and well to support each of you in your business here in  

parliament. That is what we are here to do. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve had 14 senior executive service staff leave their senior positions in the last three years. That tells me something. 

The President: If I could state—I think it should be on the record—I think the matter you’re referring to is a matter that goes back to 2018. 

Senator ROBERTS: And when did Mr Stefanic leave? When was he removed? 

The President: In December. 

Senator ROBERTS: Of 2024. That’s six years in which he was doing— 

The President: But none of the officers at the table, including me, including the current government, had anything at all to do with this matter. 

Senator ROBERTS: That speaks to low accountability in your predecessors. 

The President: It’s seven years ago, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/by

$2.15 Billion in Subsidies: The Hidden Costs of “Cheap” Renewables

,

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned ARENA about their massive spending of taxpayer money. The numbers are staggering – they’ve now committed $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewable projects.

Despite claims that solar is “the cheapest form of electricity generation in history,” Australians’ power bills tell a different story. The reality is they don’t account for all the extra costs of firming, storage, transmission lines and general unreliability. This is what happens when government agencies focus on pushing unreliable renewables instead of ensuring affordable power for Australian families.

We used to have some of the cheapest electricity in the world, but these massive subsidies and failed green energy policies are driving up costs for everyone.

The net zero fantasy is already hurting our regions, ruining small businesses, and driving up the cost of living across Australia. It’s time to ditch these wasteful subsidies and return to reliable, affordable power.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever think about how much taxpayer money your agency has spent on net zero policies, only for power bills to continue to get more expensive? 

Mr Miller: Senator, that doesn’t occupy much of my time. We’re working on innovation to help lower the cost of the core technologies that go into lowering power bills in the long term. And, as you would appreciate, this innovation cycle takes a while. We’ve obviously seen the success of solar PV, which was maybe written off many years ago, but has come through as the lowest cost form of generation in history, as we’ve noted in past conversations. I’m very confident, actually, that wind technology, solar technology and battery technology, which is coming down the cost curve rapidly, combined at scale will actually reduce energy costs for Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your job to bring down power bills or give money to solar and wind energy? How much does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency currently administer in deployed capital in terms of loans or equity stakes? 

Mr Miller: The objects of ARENA, the agency, are set out in the act. They are to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, increase the supply of renewable technologies and support Australia’s decarbonisation emissions reduction objectives. You’d be aware that we’re a granting agency, so none of our funding is provided through debt and equity. It’s all through the provision of grants. In some circumstances, those grants are recoupable based on performance of the projects, and we make that decision on a case-by-case basis. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How much did ARENA issue in grants in the most recent year? 

Mr Miller: I can get you that in a minute or two. My colleague Mr Faris could probably find that number in the pack. When we think about the progress of our work in terms of project projects, we look at approval rates, which is the key milestone for ARENA when I, under my delegation, or our board, or the minister— 

Senator ROBERTS: Getting a project to approval stage. 

Mr Miller: When we provide an approval, we then, in most circumstances, are working through to a contract, which ultimately lands to be grant money flowing. But that can take months and years in some cases. But I think in the last financial year we provided approvals of $497 million, and I think in the year before it was $540 million. So, per our annual report: funds approved in 2023-24 total $445 million, and contracts written, which is a later stage, were $392.5 million in that financial year. 

Senator ROBERTS: So what did you call your key measurable indicator? 

Mr Miller: Approvals. Well, it’s one of many, but, yes, that’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you categorise as an approval? 

Mr Miller: An approval is a decision by the CEO, the board or the minister, with respect to their relative delegations, to provide funding to a particular project in that amount. 

Senator ROBERTS: Approve the funding? 

Mr Miller: Approve funding, yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what your total budget allocation is over the forward estimates, the next four years? 

Mr Miller: That will be in the PBS, and we will get that number for you if we can. Otherwise, we’ll take it on notice and provide it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that located in one area? Are all the different components of the money located in one area? 

Mr Miller: It’s an aggregation of various programs and funding pools that we have been provided with by the government over time. Well, let me say governments because we were well supported by the coalition government a number of years ago, and have been even further supported by this government. But it relates to what we call our baseline funding, which is the money that is provided to ARENA where ARENA’s board, essentially, is the primary decision-maker on policy and programmatic objectives. And then, in addition, there are about a dozen programs that ARENA is running, with specific funding amounts, and with specific instructions through the policy instruments, and we’re managing all of that through the funding. But it all gets amalgamated, ultimately, into the forward estimates amounts. So I’d be very happy to read you the figures in the forward estimates for each year, revenue from government, if that would help you. The current year’s revenue from government is $425 million. The budget for next year is $709 million. The year after that, it is $735 million. Then we’re at $1.1 billion, and then we’re at $1.117 billion for the final year of the forward estimates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a lot of money. 

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ever since ARENA came on the scene—when was that?—you’ve been issuing grants and loans in solar and wind. Have people’s power bills actually got cheaper? 

Mr Miller: It’s not my jurisdiction to talk about power bills, but we came on the scene on 1 July 2012, and as I— 

Senator ROBERTS: In 2012? 

Mr Miller: Yes, 2012, and, as I mentioned before, we don’t do loans. We do grants. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t do loans—well, issuing grants then. So you’ve been spending billions of  

dollars, and power bills have gone up. 

Senator Ayres: Well, Senator, you should— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Miller. You don’t need to— 

Senator Ayres: Yes, and I’m entitled to drop in from time to time. It’s one of the inconvenient bits of  

estimates for senators who ask questions. If you go and talk to your constituents in the main street of a country town somewhere in Queensland— 

Senator ROBERTS: Which is what I’ll do. 

Senator Ayres: Yeah, I know. We saw you beaming in. But if you talk to them and then listen to the answer that they give you—engage in a conversation—what you’ll find is that many of them have solar technology on their roofs, which substantially decreases their electricity costs. 

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I actually was talking to a shopkeeper yesterday, and she said— 

Senator Ayres: Fascinating as that is, I am just going to keep answering your question. 

Senator ROBERTS: power bills have gone up tremendously. 

Senator Ayres: That is technology that was invented in Australia. All of the IP in solar panels all around the world—it’s Australian, right? It’s something that we should be proud of as a country—invented here, substantially reducing costs for households, with some of them earning a quid because they are under residual agreements. 

Senator ROBERTS: Without your subsidies, without your energy relief, the costs would be higher than ever. 

CHAIR: Okay. And we are running out of time. 

Senator Ayres: They are substantially benefiting from that technology. Now, it’s different for different households. Our job as a government is to make sure that the lowest-cost technology is in the system, and also to make sure that more of those Australian inventions are commercialised here in Australia and manufactured in Australia, and Mr Miller and ARENA’s work is to make sure that more of that technology is commercialised in Australia, and they’re doing a very good job indeed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your policies are driving up prices 

/7 Comments/by

Price Hike: The Cost of Green Energy Policies on Australian Power Bills

,

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike – between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we’ve been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up!

I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning – they recently added “emissions reduction” to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn’t have been approved before – they couldn’t name a single one!

The truth is clear: We’ve gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren’t accidents – they’re the direct result of failed green energy policies.

Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signalling that drives up costs for families and businesses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The default market offer for electricity prices is going up yet again. You published a draft notice, I understand, contemplating rises between 2.5 per cent and 8.9 per cent. For 20 years, Australians have been told that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy, yet electricity prices are going up again. Mr Oliver, are you seeing any kind of indications in the bill stack that show you will be able to actually cut the default market offer for electricity prices in the near future?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few different components, as you mentioned, in that stack that go to comprise the default market offer. It is ultimately, of course, only the benchmark offer that’s applicable to standing offer contracts. That’s less than 10 per cent of customers in most regions. Most pay less, of course, because they’re on market offer contracts, which typically sit under those default levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is representative, isn’t it?  

Mr Oliver: Not representative, no. I’d say it’s more of a safety net. So it’s more at the upper end of what most consumers would pay. For example, a customer might not have gone into the market, not shopped around for a market offer, and might be on a standing offer contract. As I say, that’s generally less than 10 per cent. But the vast majority of consumers pay less than the default market offer price. Indeed, the ACCC put out a report in December last year as part of their electricity price monitoring saying that roughly 80 per cent of consumers could pay even less than they are today if they continue to shop around.  

Senator ROBERTS: So do you see any signs of the default market price coming down?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few key components. The biggest variable is wholesale cost. Network costs are reasonably steady year on year. Retail costs have gone up, at least in our draft decision this year, but we’re still studying those. In terms of the wholesale cost component, we have seen over the last year some high-price events in the spot market, some volatility in the spot market. That is continuing to put upward pressure on the forward contract market, the prices that ultimately are responsible for setting a lot of the wholesale energy cost. They’re difficult to predict year on year. We don’t necessarily see them continuing to increase. If market conditions alleviate, that wholesale cost can potentially come down. We will, of course, look at those again more closely before we put out our final decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was going to be this, but I think you’ve answered it: in the data you’re seeing, is there any realistic hope that electricity prices can go back down to what they were five years ago under the current policy settings?  

Mr Oliver: Well, it’s a question of time. We don’t anticipate that kind of decline between now and the final decision. But there are obviously plans in place to continue the rollout of renewable generation and other forms of generation as well across the energy market, across the NEM, and, as we see more of that generation capacity coming into the system, that will alleviate pressure on wholesale costs. There’s work underway at the moment to look to orchestrate and utilise all of the consumer energy resources that we have in the system at the moment—20 gigawatts of rooftop solar, for example, which could be utilised more effectively to also bring down those wholesale costs as well. There are various ways. It’s a number of pieces that need to be looked at to do that. But yes, all of those trends will, over time, see the wholesale cost of energy come down.  

Senator ROBERTS: So those trends will help reduce the full bill stack?  

Mr Oliver: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions reduction was recently added to the national electricity objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. Can you provide an example of a project that went ahead after the emissions objective was added that would have been rejected under the previous objectives, or a project that was prioritised higher?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one specific project that would meet that criterion. We would probably need to take that on notice to see if we could identify one. It is, as you described the objective quite correctly, one that has a number of different facets. So, whenever one is making a decision that requires the application of that objective, it’s about weight and deciding how various things are taken into account. What the amendment does is say quite explicitly that one of the things to be considered is emissions targets and objectives that are enshrined in policy and legislation, but that doesn’t necessarily point to a project which then gets up that might have otherwise failed. I can’t think of one now, but we might take that on notice as well, just to confirm that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you had four factors: quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. You’ve had added now emissions reduction. So you can’t see any project that has been brought forward because of emissions reduction at the moment?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one now. I’m glancing at my colleagues and they’re not nodding either, but we’d perhaps take that on notice just to see. It may well be that the answer would be that there’s no project that would meet that specific criterion. It affects other things of course, in terms of proposals for expenditure in a network proposal, for example. There might be a stronger case for investment in a particular area that might otherwise not have been as strong a case. But those are very complicated and multifaceted decisions where you’re looking at a lot of different things.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the relative weights of those now five criteria? 

Mr Oliver: We don’t do it in any specific quantitative sense. If, for example, it is an expenditure proposal, we would be looking at the driver behind the proposal, why the network, if it is a network project, says that they wish to undertake that expenditure, who they’ve consulted with, which of the objectives they’re trying to meet, and whether they’re doing it at the most efficient cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/3 Comments/by

Setting the Record Straight with the BOM

,

During the recent Senate Estimates Session with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), I tabled a graph from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to challenge some of the exaggerated claims we’ve been hearing about extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, and fires.

For years the BOM has always referred me to the IPCC’s work as the authoritative source on climate science. I specifically pointed to the IPCC’s Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, where they provide an analysis of a wide range of weather events. What struck me—and I think it should strike everyone—is that for nearly every major type of extreme weather event, the IPCC finds that there has been no detectable change in frequency or severity over time. This includes river floods, fire weather, tropical cyclones, and coastal floods. The data doesn’t support the claims that these events are becoming more frequent or intense because of “climate change”.

This is important because politicians and the media have often linked these events to human-induced climate change. They claim that floods, fires, and cyclones are somehow the direct result of our carbon dioxide production.

Yet if the IPCC itself, the body these same politicians refer to, says there’s no significant change in these events, why aren’t we calling out this misinformation? Why isn’t BOM calling out this misinformation?

For example, tropical cyclones – the IPCC indicates no change in their frequency or severity, not just for today, but looking ahead through to 2100—even under the worst-case climate scenario. And yet, we continue to hear false claims that “human-induced climate change” is worsening cyclone events. This isn’t true. These events have been part of the natural weather cycle for millennia.

The BOM Director, Dr Johnson’s response acknowledged that the science on cyclones is evolving and confirmed that while there may be fewer cyclones in the future, the ones that do occur may be more intense. Yet again, these claims are based on unsubstantiated projections—not hard data. They’re misinformation!

What’s more, looking at the IPCC’s tables, which break down the evidence of (naturally) varying weather patterns, for nearly every phenomenon—whether it’s precipitation, floods, fire weather, or tropical cyclones—the data simply doesn’t support the idea of dramatic increases due to “human-induced” climate change.

So, why are we still seeing politicians and the media push these claims?

This is not saying to ignore the importance of understanding climate variability, it’s about dealing with the facts – the measured data. The science must guide us, not the political agenda. And if the observed, measured scientific data says these extreme weather events aren’t changing as some claim, we need to stand firm against the misinformation.

Let’s be clear: the data doesn’t support the alarmist rhetoric. We should be calling out the misinformation and ensuring that decisions, policies, regulations and public opinion are based on what the science actually tells us—not on what some want us to believe.

I will continue to hold taxpayer funded agencies and politicians accountable. The truth matters, because, as always, it’s we the people who pay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table this graph from a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as the basis for some brief questions. I don’t have too many questions today. I’ll start with a little preamble just to set the scene for this. When you get the graph, you’ll see it. I refer to misinformation being put out that cyclones and floods are getting more frequent and severe. Over many years in this committee the BOM has referred me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This might surprise you, but I’m not actually going to argue with you on the merits of the IPCC today, even though they’re a bunch of net zero pushers and are politically driven. I’m going to quote them, because you claim they’re the authority. I’ll take you to Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, table 12.12, by working group 1, on the science of climate, at page 1856. In that table is just about every type of measurable weather event. Some call it extreme weather events.

The blank or white boxes indicate there is no detectable change in frequency or severity of the weather event. I’ll go down the list of what the IPCC itself says—not me. River flood—no change is detected in current period. No change is expected to be detected under the worst case climate scenario by 2050 or even by 2100. Fire weather—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Tropical cyclone—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Coastal flood—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Pluvial—there’s a minor risk in the most extreme, worst-case scenario. If your net zero gods at the IPCC say the data shows weather events are not getting worse because of climate change, why isn’t the Bureau of Meteorology calling out the misinformation peddled by politicians when they state that this flood is because of climate change, this fire is because of climate change or this cyclone is because of climate change? Everyone knows that’s not true. These events have been happening for millennia. Even the scientists in the United Nations that you reference say it’s not so.  

Dr Johnson: I might make a couple of preliminary remarks and then ask Dr Braganza, who is online, to join in. I haven’t had a chance to study the page that you’ve just supplied me. I think many times I’ve referred you to the State of the climate report that the bureau produces with the CSIRO every two years, which contains the latest up-to-date information on climate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve read each of them.  

Dr Johnson: I know you read it, and I’d encourage you to refer to it again. Across a range of phenomena we know there are very strong signals already from climate change, in particular around temperature and in particular around drying in the southern, south-east and south-west parts of Australia. Those signals are very strong. The level of confidence in them is very high. Some of the signals for other phenomena, including tropical cyclones, are still evolving and maturing. We have seen an increase in the incidence of high-intensity rainfall. We know as a matter of fact that, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture—probably up to 10 or 11 per cent more—than it would otherwise have, and that we’ve seen an increase in high-intensity events. We’ve certainly been on record saying that we expect in Australia it’s likely that there will be a lower number and frequency of cyclones, but they’re likely to be more severe. We’ve been on the record for that for ages. We’ve also been on the record on many occasions—  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain the basis for that? The UN says it’s not—  

Dr Johnson: I’ll come to that. Dr Braganza might want to say something about this in a minute. We’ve also been on the record that, particularly when it comes to individual cyclones and individual rainfall events, it’s very difficult to attribute single events to climate change. We’re talking about longer term global trends here. That’s been our position for some time, and it remains so unless new evidence is entered into existence that would cause us to change our mind. I can only be accountable for the science we do. I can’t be accountable for how those in the public domain choose to talk about it. We certainly provide advice, as we’ve done to this committee many times and in many other fora, about what we’re observing and what our science is telling us is likely to come down the pipeline, and also where we have higher or lower confidence about what is or isn’t coming. They would be my general comments.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you correctly—just before we go to Dr Braganza—that cyclones are not becoming more intense?  

Dr Johnson: No, I didn’t say that. I said that in our outlooks we think there’s a reasonable likelihood—Dr Braganza will be able to quantify this in more specific detail—that the Australian region is likely to see fewer cyclones, but there’s a likelihood that they’ll be more intense rather than less intense. Dr Braganza is our lead in this space and I’d rather he answer these detailed questions that you might have.  

Dr Braganza: For tropical cyclones, the bureau, as Dr Johnson has pointed out, has consistently communicated that we have potentially seen a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones in our region, in particular in the east. We haven’t communicated that we’ve seen any significant change in intensity. Categorising changes in tropical cyclones is difficult. We’re limited to the satellite era. Prior to the satellite era, categorising tropical cyclones for severity and even whether or not they’re a tropical cyclone in the mid latitudes becomes difficult. There are data limitations in trends in tropical cyclones. The bureau has been entirely consistent in how it’s described those and entirely transparent in the data limitations. We have not communicated that we have seen large changes in tropical cyclones that are due to climate change. We don’t communicate around these individual weather events that they were caused by climate change. For tropical cyclones there are multiple aspects to the weather event. When we talk about intensity, we’re often talking about wind speed. Wind speed is just one aspect of a tropical cyclone. There’s also rainfall intensity and there’s storm surge intensity. Due to sea level rise and increased warmth in the atmosphere, we expect increased heavy rainfall and increased storm surge activity from all such events, not just tropical cyclones. There are also events such as east coast lows and others. Observational data is what it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to comment on this, because you don’t have the table in front of you, but I’ll just go through chapter 12 and table 12.12, emergence of climate impact drivers in different time periods. That’s with regard to the future. The white colour indicates that there’s no confidence in what they’re saying or what they’re projecting. In terms of already emerged and ‘worst case scenario’ in the future by 2050 and by 2100: mean precipitation, no confidence in the data. No trend has emerged. River flood is the same. Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood is the same. Landslide is the same. Aridity is the same. Hydrological drought is the same. Agricultural and ecological drought is the same. Fire weather is the same. Tropical cyclones is the same. Coastal flood is the same. These are often taken advantage of by politicians and the news media; there’s no evidence for their comments attributing them to climate change caused by humans.  

Dr Braganza: I’ll have to take that on notice since I don’t have the material in front of me. Some of the phenomena you’ve called out again in terms of establishing observed trends is limited by sample size. You’re talking not about weather events necessarily; you’re talking about impact events such as the size of a flood following heavy rainfall. There are possibly data limitations involved, but I would have to see exactly the material that you’re referencing. 

/4 Comments/by

AFP’s Efforts Against Hate Crimes

,

Last week at Senate Estimates, I asked the Australian Federal Police (AFP) about the measures that are in place to protect Australians that are in a country that is guided by a Christian influenced Constitution. The AFP clarified that while they don’t monitor social media, they will review evidence to determine if any hate crime offence has occurred.

Greens’ Senator Shoebridge challenged whether our Constitution is really influenced by Christianity, however the Chair ended this line of discussion, stating that the preamble of our Constitution referenced “Almighty God”. (It’s worth noting that the country was overwhelmingly Christian when the Constitution was drafted.)

The AFP took on notice my question about the total number of arrests that have been made to date, however so far, there have been two charges for displaying terrorist symbols and ten for advocating terrorism. My question regarding deportation of non-citizens convicted of hate crimes was also taken on notice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you and your people for appearing here today, Mr Kershaw. According to our Commonwealth Constitution’s opening sentence Australia is constituted as a Christian country. What’s being done to charge those preachers in mosques of preaching hatred and threatening violence and use of physical force against Christians here in our country and bringing such hate preachers to justice?

Mr Nutt: Senator, I can take that one. Obviously, we’re very concerned where online hate speech and other actions of hate occur in the community. We obviously work in partnership with our state and territory colleagues, who are often first responders to certain offences. The AFP does not monitor the internet. We certainly review any allegation that relates to hate speech targeting any protected group against the Commonwealth offences that are available to us and we assess the content in those circumstances. That often involves obtaining legal advice. These offences change over time, in terms of what an offence may look like, decisions of court and those sorts of things, so we always ensure that, at the time, we are looking at not only current but past conduct and that we evaluate that conduct against not only the offences but the standards and decisions of courts in the jurisdiction where the offences occurred.

Senator ROBERTS: Have any such preachers of hate in Australia been charged, and, if not, why not?

Mr Nutt: I don’t have statistics relevant—

Senator ROBERTS: Can you get them?

Mr Nutt: I’m happy to take that question on notice. I take it you are just referring to the AFP, because that’s all we can respond to.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Chair, I have a point of order. I think in the circumstances this country finds itself, to leave on the record uncorrected the statement from Senator Roberts that the Constitution establishes Australia as a Christian country is unconscionable. Can I say the preamble to the Constitution references the ‘blessing of Almighty God’. As far as I can remember Christianity does not have a monopoly on the concept of ‘Almighty God’, and we shouldn’t allow that on the record.

CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, order.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a Christian God.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Maybe for you, Senator.

CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, thank you. You’re welcome to go and post those thoughts on Facebook. Senator Roberts is able to make his views known, and people can take them at his word, knowing his past reputation for—I’m not saying that you are misleading the parliament, but you have your views and they’re well known, and I think people can take your statements together with your previous statements. Senator Shoebridge, I don’t think anyone would be concerned at all about statements about the Constitution in this Senate. People say a lot of different things that aren’t true from time to time. People can just read it. It’s a document. I think we can move on. Senator Roberts, do you have any other questions?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. There have recently been faith based crimes committed in Australia involving fire bombings, graffiti painted on buildings, cars damaged and hate symbols displayed. How many arrests have been made, and what is being done to identify the criminals and bring them to justice?

Mr Nutt: Again, I’m happy to take those matters. Again, we can only speak on behalf of the AFP. Certainly, there are Commonwealth offences not only in the recent legislative amendment on 8 February, which has been described as the hate crimes bill, but other offences including in the prohibited hate symbols and other measures act. This legislation is available to our state and territory colleagues as well, and they can use those offences where state offences don’t apply.

Since 8 January 2024, when the prohibited hate symbols act came into effect, we have not charged anyone in relation to prohibited Nazi symbols under 80.2H of the Criminal Code Act 1995; however, we have charged two individuals in respect of the prohibited terrorist organisation symbols—that is, the intentional public display of proscribed terrorism organisation symbols—and we’ve also issued a direction under section 80.2K for the display of a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol. We have not charged anyone in terms of the trading of symbols, but we do have a number of investigations on the books with respect to prohibited terrorist symbols generally.

In terms of advocating terrorism, which, again, is the current version of the offence which came into effect in December 2023, we haven’t charged anyone. This is around advocating terrorism under section 80.2C of the Criminal Code. However, under the previous version, which was available between 2021 and 2023, we charged 10 persons for advocating terrorism under section 80.2C of the Criminal Code. As I mentioned, there was some updated hate crimes offences that came into effect on 8 February this year. Those offences are yet to be utilised by the AFP.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this question is for you. Will noncitizens convicted of hate crimes be subjected to deportation?

Senator Farrell: I’ll have to take that question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Back to the AFP. Do AFP officers need to get permission from a higher authority before making an arrest, or may an AFP officer exercise their discretion to make an arrest for a crime unfolding in front of them?

Mr Kershaw: Normally, depending on the nature of the event—if it’s a public order matter and some other particular matters—a senior officer can direct someone to be arrested, but there is also what we call the ‘Office of Constable’, which is an independent office that goes way back in the day to the UK, where an individual officer is held liable if they make the arrest. It’s their decision, independent of anyone else. So you could have a situation where one officer may gather some facts and say, ‘I’m okay to arrest that person,’ and another officer may say: ‘I’m going to use a summons. I’m not going to arrest them. I’m going to treat it differently or give them a caution.’ We, as senior officers, have to respect that and understand that. Discretion is really important, and we teach that and we train that with our officers.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there an ongoing training program for AFP officers in relation to rapidly evolving legislation relevant to the issues I’ve raised today? Mr Nutt alluded to a number of pieces if legislation that have come in, in recent years.

Mr Nutt: There are others at the table, in terms of those who are responsible for our legislative reform area. But our legislative reform area provides guidance to staff, which then gets incorporated into relevant training programs. We also work closely with the Attorney-General’s Department, which has responsibility with respect to Commonwealth legislation, and it provides materials not only to us but also to our state and territory partners on guidance in the application of Commonwealth offences, particularly new ones.

I won’t speak on behalf of the Attorney-General’s Department, but when we have new legislation that relates to areas of mutual interest with our state and territory police we provide that advice to them by essentially circulating the Attorney-General’s Department’s material. In certain circumstances—for example, in the espionage and foreign interference arena—we develop a training course and provide it to the state and territory police to assist their officers and for them to incorporate it into their own training program. We aren’t responsible for training state and territory police.

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. There has been a lot of violence displayed on the internet and on TV—news et cetera—for the last 12 months or so. When will Christian, Jewish and other followers of faith be able to feel safe in our own country, knowing that the police will protect them from harm?

Mr Nutt: Perhaps where I’ll take that question is that we’ve had some success with a relatively new offence relating to the possession and communication of violent extremist material. This offence focuses on material that portrays terrorist acts. It is also material that aids—in terms of education—in the carrying out of violent acts in the advancement of a religious, political or ideological cause.

Since this offence was introduced, it has been quite effective in the early identification of individuals who are consuming and potentially acting on violent extremist material. You may note that in the last week we had our first conviction under these provisions. We were very concerned about the violent extremist material that that individual had. We’re concerned because of the nature of the material and how accessible it is—building on what the commissioner has already said, in terms of the role and responsibility of internet service providers and the like in preventing the spread, distribution and access to violent extremist materials—and more broadly around end-to-end encryption. When it comes to our young people and vulnerable people more generally, we have noted the digital algorithms that may come into play of people’s internet activity and developed what has generally been considered to be echo chambers where someone looking up something may be pushed along or drawn along a path. The result being increased exposure to violent extremist material. We’re quite concerned about that as an issue.

Senator ROBERTS: To build on your answer—and thank you for the answer—I’m guessing the AFP does a lot more intelligence work these days as a proportion of its overall crime fighting than it used to because of the internet.

Mr Nutt: It’s always a mix.

Ms Barrett: I’ll also take the opportunity to reference Special Operation Avalite, which we stood up in December. That specifically targets antisemitism in this country. We have charged six people since we stood up that special operation. But I want to take this opportunity to thank the community. When we stood up the special operation, we went particularly to the Jewish community and asked them to assist us and to work together in partnership with us in relation to how we could specifically target the right areas. So I want to take this opportunity to thank the community for their partnership with us.

Senator Farrell: Senator Roberts asked a question earlier and I took it on notice. The question that you asked the Attorney-General needs to be directed to the Department of Home Affairs.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s the quickest answer I’ve ever got on questions on notice.

/by