Coal LSL Under the Microscope – Again

,

During a session with Ms. Darlene Perks from Coal LSL, I inquired about the case of Mr. James Joseph, who is currently in a significant dispute with Coal LSL regarding payment of his long service leave entitlements.

Ms. Perks stated that Coal LSL would not take any action until they received notification from the employer via a levy form. She said that disputes arising from the failure to provide correct information should be directed to the Fair Work Commission for resolution. Ms. Perks explained that employers often make errors on certain forms, which then require adjustment. She added that if an employee is no longer employed, levy payments would cease.

I asked about the risks that were alluded to in a recent ANAO audit and was told that the concerns related to errors in financial statements and the valuation of unlisted trusts, which are quite complex.

When I questioned why the management of billion-dollar government funds is in private hands, I was told it would be taken on notice and answered at a later time.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Perks and everyone from Coal LSL. Mr James Joseph was injured on BHP’s Mount Arthur coal mine on 7 June 2023. Are you familiar with James Joseph?  

Ms Perks: We are familiar with James Joseph, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coal LSL have confirmed with Mr Joseph that they were not informed of his workers comp status, which was approved in May 2024 following a six-month delay. Mr Joseph’s correct workers compensation status seems not to have been reported to Coal LSL by BHP or the insurer, Coal Mines Insurance. The board of directors of Coal Mines Insurance, I understand, has 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors and 50 per cent coal owners.

Ms Perks: I’ll answer the last part. The shareholding of Coal Services, which I think you were just referring to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Coal Mines Insurance.  

Ms Perks: Yes. It is not an organisation we have any relationship with in our jurisdiction, but I can confirm that the shareholding is as you have reflected—the Minerals Council and the CFMEU.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the composition of the board? Fifty-fifty?  

Ms Perks: Our board?  

Senator ROBERTS: The Coal Mines Insurance board.  

Ms Perks: I can confirm that, but I think they do have independent directors.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about your board?  

Ms Perks: The legislative framework hasn’t changed in all the hearings we’ve had. Our board has six directors who are appointed by the responsible minister—three directors nominated by employee companies or bodies and three directors nominated by union organisations. They are minister appointed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for correcting that. It’s fifty-fifty again?  

Ms Perks: Our director composition?  

Senator ROBERTS: Your board composition.  

Ms Perks: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-fifty employers and union—okay. What is being done to rectify this particular case, and is this a common occurrence—that is, an employee is medically terminated whilst on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or their insurer? This seems, by the way, very familiar. It is similar to the mistreatment of Mr Simon Turner by BHP and his employer at the time, the labour hire firm, Chandler Macleod. What’s being done to resolve this, and is it common?  

Ms Perks: The scenario we’re talking of is termination. I tried to explain this in a couple of hearings over the years as well, but I appreciate there are a lot of new members, and I’ll explain the process again. Our GM of Legal, Michael Dowzer might be able to add to the process. The employer will advise us through their monthly levy returns a termination code for the employee. One of the reasons for termination can be ill health. Others would be redundancy or cessation. That process hasn’t changed. That is the legislative arena that we operate within. Nothing has changed from the explanations over the years with regard to how we collect the data, how the employer advises us and how we then verify the data through the relationships and interactions with the employers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was that one of the problems that Coal LSL was encountering—a lack of verification of the data? I’m not saying you didn’t do this here. It’s common then for someone’s employment to be terminated while still being on workers comp?  

Ms Perks: I can’t talk to the commonality of that with regard to the data. As I said, the reason for cessation will be advised to us by the employer.  

Senator ROBERTS: But sometimes the employer won’t notify you.  

Ms Perks: They will notify us of a reason for termination.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, but sometimes they won’t notify you that he has actually been terminated.  

Ms Perks: Would you like to add to that, Michael?  

Mr Dowzer: The notification comes through our levy form, and they identify when employment has ceased and the cessation code which indicates the reason for termination. That is a report from the employer. If subsequently there is an issue in relation to that, we’ll engage with both the employee and the employer to seek to understand that issue, but, ultimately, it’s to be resolved between the employer and the employee.  

Senator ROBERTS: The question was: is it a common occurrence that an employee is medically terminated while on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or the insurer?  

Mr Dowzer: What we are notified of is the cessation of the employment. There’s no requirement to notify us in relation to any other details in the employment relationship.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, in your experience of checking up, it’s not really common that you’re not notified?  

Ms Perks: The way I’d answer that is in relation to complaints. Your question is: is it a common occurrence? No, we don’t have volumes of complaints which would illustrate a systemic issue in the common occurrence of employers advising us of termination codes which an employee doesn’t agree with. I know there are a couple of cases, and, certainly, we’ve had a lot of conversations around those. But I wouldn’t say it’s a systemic issue that has been understood through volumes of complaints for the scenarios that you’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of governance issues at the moment. We sorted them out, hopefully, after the review. What are the implications when this occurs—for example, an impact to levy payments, because the employer is no longer paying, super payments and internal workloads of Coal LSL to investigate and resolve such matters? Does that put a burden on you?  

Ms Perks: In the scenario where it’s found that an employer has advised us of a termination code that an employee disagrees with, certainly the resource from the team would be to engage with the employer, engage with the employee, assess the information et cetera. If that is unresolved, then we would be advising the employee to take it to the Fair Work Commission, because we’d be classifying it as an industrial relations dispute, which is out of our jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: If the companies fail to notify Coal LSL within a reasonable period, what would normally come of it? For example, there was a six-month failure to inform you in Mr Joseph’s case. What happened there when BHP didn’t inform you for six months?  

Ms Perks: I’ll talk about the obligation under the collection act, where the employer has an obligation to submit a monthly levy return. That is a statutory obligation. In regard to correcting or working through a disagreement or a dispute in information that we’ve received, that would be a process which isn’t time bound in our statutory frameworks. But the employer has an obligation to inform us monthly of employees’ service and any other critical information, such as terminations and eligible wages.  

Senator ROBERTS: If this is proved to have occurred through a registered organisation, what intervention, penalty or enforcement would Coal LSL apply under its constitution to deter recurrence? Is there any?  

Mr Dowzer: The key obligation is to submit a monthly levy return with correct information. We are reliant on that information in terms of being able to conduct any further inquiries. If an issue is brought to our attention by an employee, we will engage with the employer and seek to get the employer and the employee to resolve that issue and communicate the outcome to us. We don’t have any power to adjudicate on that dispute.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there are no consequences for the employer?  

Mr Dowzer: If there’s an incorrect levy return then there could be consequences, but that is a factual matter which we would not have evidence of.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please advise why Mr Joseph’s Coal LSL number looks to only exist from September 2022 onwards, as per his Coal LSL commencement letter, recently provided to him under a freedom of information request? What is the specific reason for the delay in creating his Coal LSL member number?  

Ms Perks: I think we’d have to take that one on notice and have a look at the timeframe of his records and provide a response on that review.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph has been provided information under FOI, freedom of information, that shows Coal LSL levies were paid by BHP to Coal LSL in as early as July 2022. However, his welcome member letter was produced in September 2022. Why was that?  

Ms Perks: We’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?  

Mr Dowzer: When the levy return identifies a new employee, we will take that information and effectively create a record for that employee. Our obligation is to keep records— 

Senator ROBERTS: And then you get an identification number out of that?  

Mr Dowzer: There is an identification number which would be created at that point at which the employee is first put on a levy return.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it wouldn’t be possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?  

Mr Dowzer: The first time that a new employee is properly identified on a levy return would be the point at which we would commence a record for that employee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph requested all company audits provided by BHP to Coal LSL for the entire period of his employment, from 2011 to 2024. I don’t think he was continually employed at Mount Arthur for that period; I think he was involved in other divisions of the company, including in Western Australia. Why was he only provided with two years, considering that Coal LSL are reviewing his open recognition of prior service application for periods that fall within this freedom of information date range, 2011 to 2024?  

Ms Perks: Can I take that one on notice as well? I do know the FOI case. I can’t answer without going back to the reasoning as to why that information was provided and some wasn’t.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

Ms Perks: I know that the team work within the jurisdictions of FOI, so we’ll take that one on notice and provide a reasoning.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine, Ms Perks. The December 2023 Coal LSL BHP external audit report indicates potential discrepancies in reimbursement amounts claimed by BHP. Has the investigation into this matter been completed? This is two years later.  

Ms Perks: That’s their audit report? I’d say it’s quite common, through the process of that audit work, for employers to have adjustments in reimbursement claims or levies. It’s through that audit process that the reimbursement, if it’s overclaimed or overpaid, would be rectified, and similarly the levy payment would be rectified. I won’t answer without being able to check with the team that that has been closed out, but I’d be very confident, with an audit report dated December 2023, that an action from the audit report submission would be closed out, as our administrative processes would—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Perhaps you could take this next item on notice, then. Was this, in fact, found to be a confirmed finding—that is, BHP claiming illegitimate reimbursements? If so, how significant were the findings of this discrepancy?  

Ms Perks: ‘Illegitimate’ is a strong word. Again, if I take us back to the process of the employer, it is a selfreporting scheme. The employers, through the submission of monthly levy returns and then the reimbursement claim process, will be calculating based on our guidance of how to calculate levy payments and also how to claim the reimbursement under the reimbursement rules. It is very common that employers get it wrong. It’s a complex administrative process. So it is quite common that, through the external audit function that we rely on for the assurance of the correctness of levies paid and reimbursement claims, there will be a—  

Senator ROBERTS: An adjustment?  

Ms Perks: An adjustment. I wouldn’t typically classify that as illegitimate or deliberate actions. We would typically see that as human error on the employer’s side, and the audit process provides the assurance to then get the adjustments correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is this a disclosable matter? If it is, was it disclosed in the Coal LSL annual report for financial year 2023-24?  

Ms Perks: No, that’s not a disclosable matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is it true that BHP did not pay any Coal LSL monthly levies from any of their owned entities to the Commonwealth Coal LSL fund in the period between November 2015 and November 2016?  

Ms Perks: I will take that on notice, but I would be very surprised to find that they hadn’t paid levies. I would be very confident in saying they have paid the levies, but we will take that on notice to answer your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Something in my mind is reminding me that that might have been proven in the Iron Mountain document. Can you recall that? I can’t.  

Ms Perks: I’m not familiar with that document.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you also tell me what was done about it, please.  

Ms Perks: If it wasn’t paid?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Perks: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was that approach consistent with the Coal LSL constitution at the time, and were any penalties applied? Could you tell us that as well, please.  

Ms Perks: If an employer hasn’t paid a levy in line with their obligations under the collection act, the lever that we have available is to charge an additional levy. It’s an interest calculation. That is the lever that we’d have available to us.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we have got some penalty provisions?  

Ms Perks: We do have some penalty provisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: BHP and Coal Mines Insurance previously refused to acknowledge Mr Joseph as a black coal industry covered employee, challenging him on this as recently as July 2024, yet Coal LSL have received levies from Mr Joseph since July 2022. Can you explain how and why this would occur, from Coal LSL’s perspective. I’ve got my thoughts on it. Ms Perks: Other than taking it on notice—  

Mr Dowzer: My position on that is that, for the purpose of compliance with our scheme, the inclusion of an employee on a levy return is a statement by the employee in relation to eligibility under our scheme. As to matters relating to other issues of employment, we do not have visibility on them and wouldn’t have a view on them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m guessing there’s still probably some confusion. Mr Joseph was on what some people call a staff payroll, which is an admin job, a managerial job or a supervisory job, compared with, say, a coalminer at the front line, who would be on an hourly rate.  

Mr Dowzer: I would make the distinction that coverage under any industrial arrangements is, in some cases, a different assessment to eligibility under our scheme, so it’s really not appropriate for us to be commenting on those interpretation questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just wondering whether that’s where some of the confusion comes from. He wouldn’t have been on the supervisory staff or administrative staff. He wouldn’t have been on the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. He would’ve been on the staff award, for example. Does the Coal LSL levy apply to the accident pay component of employee wages when on workers compensation?  

Mr Dowzer: The issue of an employee on workers compensation is dependent upon the nature of the workers compensation arrangement between the employer and the employee. So, if the employee remains employed by the employer, then that is leviable eligible wages. If employment has ceased, then the obligation under our scheme is on the employer. There is no obligation on an insurer under our scheme. There is no leviable eligible wages if employment has ceased.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, if the insurer is paying workers compensation but the employee has been terminated, there’s no obligation on BHP?  

Mr Dowzer: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: And there’s no obligation on the insurer to pay either. Is that what you’re saying?  

Mr Dowzer: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Should an employee on workers comp in the black coal mining industry who is medically terminated and who remains on workers comp continue to accrue Coal LSL leave if they remain incapacitated due to their injuries and condition whilst they continue receiving workers compensation wages? You’ve just answered that question. This gets complex, doesn’t it?  

CHAIR: How are you going there, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: I probably need another five minutes—maybe less, because we’re going to change topic pretty soon, and then it should go quickly. In previous estimates, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has stated there is a list of around 80 entities who may have been paying levies in error. Has this investigation now concluded?  

Ms Perks: Paying levies in error?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you remember that?  

Ms Perks: Yes. That investigation has concluded. There were 28 employers who were paying levy in error, and 25 of the 28 employers have been refunded that levy amount. The three remaining, for different reasons, still need to be transacted. We’re waiting on the employer to provide information so that we can refund that amount.  

Senator ROBERTS: So they overpaid.  

Ms Perks: They incorrectly paid into the scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: Too much. Were any of the entities coal services or coalmining services? They wouldn’t have been, would they? They don’t employ coalminers.  

Ms Perks: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the list include any BHP owned entities?  

Ms Perks: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will change topics, you’ll be pleased to know. I will move on to the audit. The report of the most recent audit of Coal LSL conducted by the Australian National Audit Office flagged ‘higher risk related to both valuation of investments and the valuation of provision for reimbursements’. What is the real meaning of these two findings of risk in regard to the effective operations of and the integrity of the scheme? What are the risks and who is at risk of exposure?  

Ms Perks: Mr Windever will answer that question.  

Mr Windever: The external audit focuses on areas of high risk on our balance sheet, and these particularly will be in areas of our provision for reimbursements, which is a piece of analysis that is covered by our actuary, but also our investments, as you pointed out. To be specific, they’re higher areas of risk of misstatement of our financial statements. I’ll speak to the first one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not financial risk, just a risk of error in your statements?  

Mr Windever: In the financial statements—that’s correct. If we talk about the first one, the provision for reimbursements, that analysis is conducted by our actuary. It’s considered to be an area of higher risk, rather than a high risk, for the organisation, just by the very nature of the modelling, the estimations, the assumptions and the judgements that go into that. It’s an inherently high-risk area and one that’s a recurring area of higher risk, if you like, in our audit reports in previous times. It’s not a new finding for us. The second finding around investments is around the valuation of our unlisted trusts. Simply, the reason why this continues to be a high-risk area is the nature of those investments. Unlisted trusts are considered to be more complex from a valuation standpoint compared to other forms of assets. Certainly, there’s a portion of our portfolio that is illiquid assets. They are also, from an auditing standpoint, more complex to assess from a valuation standpoint. That’s why the valuation for investments is also considered a high-risk area. Again, it’s something that we’ve seen in previous audits. It’s not a new set of findings for us.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it doesn’t affect the integrity of the scheme; it’s got more to do with assessing the size of the investments, the rates of payout and the rates of income.  

Mr Windever: That’s correct. It’s so that we can stand behind the accuracy of the financial statements. Again, these two areas are focused on our balance sheet in particular.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said there’s no real risk to your entity—Coal LSL.  

Mr Windever: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s not going to be much fallout if the risks crystallize.  

Mr Windever: They’re considered to be high-risk areas, but, each year, as we work through the audits—we had a successful passing again of this audit of our financial statements. We’re satisfied with that outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the next part of this. The funds arrive in the accounts of the scheme from compulsory levies upon the relevant employers, right? The funds held by the fund are now in excess of $2 billion. What happens to the excess income generated from the scheme after leave entitlements are paid out?  

Mr Windever: You’re correct about the size of the fund. It’s $2.6 billion now. We measure the health of that in terms of a fund surplus or a fund coverage ratio. That’s how I would answer that question, if you like. It remains on the balance sheet, but we have some goals that we work towards around the coverage of assets over our liabilities, and we manage to those goals accordingly. That’s how I’d answer that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. Emmett J in the Federal Court in 1998 emphasised that—and I acknowledge that that’s some 27 years ago—there was a lack of control of the corporation by the government and a lack of accountability to the government. Was Coal LSL a government entity at that time?  

Ms Perks: In 1998? Yes. It was in 1992 that the entity was established under the administration act. 

Senator ROBERTS: What change of governance, if any, has occurred within Coal LSL since then to tighten that up?  

Ms Perks: Since 1998? That’s a very big question. I can talk about what we’ve done since I’ve been in the organisations, and we’ve had a lot of conversations around that. I can—  

Senator ROBERTS: Governance was a particularly hot issue.  

Ms Perks: I can talk to that specifically. Since 1998—I wouldn’t answer that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: I hear what you’re saying. Given that the fund was originally set up as a stopgap measure to build up a money chest, if you like, to cover an estimated shortfall of funds to cover long service leave claims, can your office comment on the purpose for which it’s satisfied for the fund to continue generating millions of dollars per year after the original purpose was met a quarter of a century ago. Why is it still continuing?  

Ms Perks: It’s a very good policy question. I can talk with passion about the value of the scheme, and I’m the first one to talk about the value of portable long service leave and what it has done for the industry and employees in the industry. What I would say is—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me for cutting you off. I didn’t mean that. You don’t need to convince me of that portability. That’s fine. What I’m getting to is that my understanding—I think it’s correct—is that there was a fund created because there was a shortfall in funds. Now, you’ve a massive service in funds. Why is the fund still in existence?  

Ms Perks: That would be a question for government. I think you’re referring to the first reading speech or the explanatory memorandum in 1992, which talked about why the fund was being created. The payroll levy was set at five per cent at that point in time to get the fund back into—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m comfortable with all of that.  

Ms Perks: What I would say, though, is that it wasn’t legislated. There was nothing in the legislation in 1992 to legislate a winding up of the fund. Yes, it’s in the first reading speech as—well, is it an intention? I won’t comment. It’s definitely in the first reading speech, but that didn’t translate into the legislation when the fund and the corporation were established.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking about the original coalmine insurance fund. I’m a bit hazy on this, but I understand that there was a stopgap measure of an increase in funds to cover a shortfall due to excessive payouts and not enough revenue coming in. It was probably one of the boom-and-bust years, so they instituted an additional levy as a temporary stopgap. It’s now well past that, and they’ve got a massive $2.6 billion in funds. You don’t need it anymore. Why is it still going?  

Ms Perks: Why is the fund still going?  

Senator ROBERTS: The extra fund.  

Ms Perks: No, the additional payroll levy that you’re talking about was removed in 2008 from memory. The payroll levy was set, and then there was an additional component added, which made it a levy of five per cent. That was in place from 1992 through to—I think it was 2005, from memory. When the fund got back into a neutral position, that’s when that additional levy component was removed. Our levy has been at 2.7 per cent for many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at—not the original fund, the stopgap fund. So that has been removed?  

Ms Perks: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: So this is wrong. Thank you. Minister, a question for you—why is a private company run by the NSW Minerals Council, the Queensland Resources Council and the Mining and Energy Union managing billions of dollars contributed compulsorily by employers on behalf of the federal government?  

Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice, Senator Roberts and see what I can provide you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Before you came into the chair, a lot of the problems in the coal sector came from entities that have 50 per cent Minerals Council or 50 per cent Queensland Resources Council and 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors. There seems to be a very tight cluster of organisations—Coal Mines Insurance, Coal LSL, Coal Services. There’s another entity in there too that I’ve forgotten.  

CHAIR: I think the minister’s taken that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m just trying to give her some background. That’s it; thank you very much. 

/by

Dodgy Degrees, Broken Rules — Where Is Home Affairs?

,

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned Home Affairs on their failure to properly vet the migrants they are letting into Australia.

Education is being used as a backdoor to permanent residency, with work requirements being rorted.

23,000 dodgy qualifications have been cancelled. These individuals abused the opportunity given to them — buying degrees and working instead of studying. $11 billion is sent overseas every year by foreign students. They breached their visa conditions and should be sent home—yet only 4 people were found guilty of immigration offences in 2023–24.

With 4.5 million visa holders, is enforcement even happening?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll defer to that and respect the committee then. Let’s move on to the next question. I want to refer to reporting that the Australian Skills Quality Authority has cancelled 23,000 dodgy qualifications since late 2024. Many of these were in relation to international students, who are here on strict visa conditions. If they’ve been found to be participating in a ghost college or something similar to obtain a dodgy qualification to satisfy their visa, that’s clearly deceptive and a breach of their visa conditions, so they should be deported. Are we deporting international students in that 23,000 dodgy qualifications cohort?

Senator COX: They’re the same questions.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on. I’m going to refer to the federal defendants statistics out of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which say that only four people were found guilty of immigration offences in 2023-24. It seems extraordinarily low, given the 100,000 that we just discussed. How many people did the Department of Home Affairs refer for potential prosecution in 2023-24?

Mr Thomas: It would be across a range of different areas. For example, with the NZYQ affected cohort, we make a number of referrals to law enforcement for breaches of visa conditions. There are other referrals that happen through other parts of the business. We don’t have an aggregate number, but there is a regular flow of referrals through to law enforcement for consideration where we identify a noncitizen that’s in breach.

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t have a total number?

Mr Thomas: Not on me, and I think finding that would be quite difficult.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have the resources to refer everyone who may be committing an immigration offence for prosecution?

Mr Thomas: In terms of referring matters, yes. That’s a fairly straightforward process.

Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me how many have been referred?

Mr Thomas: Not in totality across all of the department.

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m really asking is whether every single person the department becomes aware of who may have committed an immigration offence is referred for potential prosecution—yes or no?

Mr Thomas: Where we come across the situation where we think someone has committed a crime or breached the law, we will refer it to the appropriate authority.

Senator ROBERTS: But you don’t know how many deserve to be referred?

Mr Thomas: I don’t have those figures with me. I can take it on notice to try and find out.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So you can’t guarantee that someone who’s in breach will be referred for potential prosecution?

Mr Thomas: You’re asking me a hypothetical question, but, in general, as I said, when we come across an instance where we think someone is in breach of a law, we will refer it to the appropriate jurisdiction.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that only four guilty verdicts out of 2.5 million temporary visa holders in the country would imply it’s not possible.

Mr Thomas: I don’t have visibility of the statistics you’re referring to, but I’m aware of a range of migration outcomes.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2021 there were three million permanent visa holders. How many permanent visa holders are in the country right now? Is it four million?

Mr Willard: I have a figure. I’ll just flag that I’m not tracking that figure of three million for 2021. There are different types of permanent visas, but the figure I have at 30 June 2025 is 1.8 million. That includes 860,000 resident return visas. That’s a type of permanent visa.

Senator ROBERTS: What are the other classifications in that 1.8 million?

Mr Willard: There’s family, offshore humanitarian, onshore protection, other permanent, skilled and special eligibility, and resident return.

Senator ROBERTS: No other temporary visa holders?

Mr Willard: That’s the permanent visa figure that you mentioned.

Senator ROBERTS: How many temporary?

Mr Willard: The temporary figure’s 2.76 million.

Senator ROBERTS: So we add the 1.8 million to the 2.7 million to get the total noncitizens, temporary and permanent?

Mr Willard: The second figure, the 2.76 million figure, is temporary visa holders, and the first figure is permanent visa holders.

Senator ROBERTS: So visa holders in total are about 4.5 million?

Mr Willard: Approximately.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Chair.

/2 Comments/by

Robert Pether’s Fight to Come Home

,

At Senate Estimates, I raised my ongoing concerns with the Department regarding Mr Robert Pether, an Australian engineer who was unfairly jailed in Iraq and is now being held under a travel ban that prevents him from returning home to Australia. His situation is dire — he is severely unwell, homeless, unable to work, and has very limited resources.

I asked what assistance the Australian Government is providing and was told he is receiving consular support. I was also informed that the Government is actively engaged with Iraqi authorities, and that his plight has been raised by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Australian Ambassador — most recently in September this year.

Let’s hope the Iraqi authorities are listening.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Welcome back. It’s good to see you, Minister Farrell. I know you’re just here briefly. The call is with Senator ROBERTS till two o’clock.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’ve got four topics I’d like to discuss. I’ll go through them one at a time, of course. The first topic is Mr Robert Pether, who was jailed in 2021 on fraud charges in Iraq, which the UN described as an arbitrary detention. I have two very short questions but a long preamble to set the scene and make sure I’m on the right track. Mr Pether is a mechanical engineer. He went to Iraq to rebuild its central bank headquarters in Baghdad. A contract dispute between the bank and his employer, CME Consulting, landed Mr Pether and his Egyptian colleague, Khalid Radwan, in prison after the bank accused the men of stealing money from the project. After being held without charge for almost six months and then subjected to a speedy trial, the two were each given five-year jail sentences and slapped with a joint fine of $17½ million. A 2022 UN report determined that the case contravened international law and that Mr Pether and Mr Radwan had been subjected to ‘abusive and coercive interrogations’. The International Chamber of Commerce’s Court of Arbitration ruled that Iraq’s central bank was at fault in the dispute with CME and ordered it to pay $13 million to the company. Mr Pether was finally released from jail late at night in June. He is fragile, in very poor health and not receiving proper medical treatment. He has limited means and has been homeless in a foreign country. I have two simple questions. Robert Pether is in poor health, is homeless and is being prevented from leaving the country. When will the Australian government bring him home?  

Ms McGregor: Firstly, I want to acknowledge the immense toll that Mr Pether’s detention and travel ban have had on him and his family. We are working tirelessly to secure the lifting of that travel ban that is on him. We very much welcome the release of Mr Pether on bail earlier this year. We will continue to provide consular support to him and his family, including continuing that advocacy for him to be able to leave Iraq.  

Senator ROBERTS: What specific action has the Australian government taken to have Mr Pether returned to Australia and his family, given that his health is now severely compromised?  

Ms McGregor: We remain engaged with Iraqi authorities, as I said, to advocate for Mr Pether to depart Iraq and be reunited with his family. We continue to provide consular assistance. Any ongoing legal matters in relation to that particular travel ban are, of course, a matter for Mr Pether, but I would say that we have consistently advocated for Mr Pether at all levels since his detention in Iraq in 2021. More than 240 representations have been made by Australia, including by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Most recently, on September, the foreign affairs minister raised his case with her Iraqi counterpart in the margins of the UN General Assembly. The Australian ambassador in Iraq has also raised Mr Pether’s case with the appropriate officials in Iraq, including the Prime Minister and the President.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. It’s a disturbing case. What about his health and his welfare?  

Ms McGregor: We continue to provide support for his health and his welfare. I don’t want to go into details of that, out of respect for his privacy, but we are continuing to engage with him regularly to receive updates on his situation 

/by

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