Posts

EPBC Overhaul: The Price of Bureaucratic Delay

I am extremely concerned that the EPBC Act harms economic growth. Data from the Minerals Council shows average resource project decision times increased from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. This imposes a heavy financial penalty on applicants.

Minister Watt countered that the reforms passed last year (which we opposed) are specifically designed to speed up assessment and approval timeframes, covering housing, energy, and resources, while strengthening environmental protections.

Officials reported that on-time performance for resource projects like coal, gas and oil improved from 67% in 2024–25 to 92% in 2025–26 (up to 11 May). While questions on specific project age metrics were taken on notice, Minister Watt maintained that decision-making timeframes are improving.

I then brought up the budget allocation to introduce AI to the department. Officials explained that a trial of AI is being introduced to help populate referral documentation, assisting them in gathering required conservation information faster to avoid delays during the assessment process.

Poor governance in the Department is costing jobs and prosperity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we started talking about the national environmental standards under the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: I said that there hadn’t been—you asked me to come back and ask all the same questions, so that’s what we will do. 

Senator Watt: Yes—the questions you attempted to ask in corporate. 

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. 

Senator Watt: Sure. We’re ready. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you are! Your website on the new environmental standards under the EPBC does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says a circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April. When will the new standard be made available to senators? 

Senator Watt: I must admit I haven’t checked that website lately, Senator Roberts. I might get someone to do that for me. But, roughly three weeks ago, we commenced a second round of consultation. Ms Kay will give you the details. 

Ms Kay: We’ve only got two national environmental standards open for consultation on our ‘Have your say’ website. The matters of national environmental significance standard was released on 30 April, and our consultation closes on 29 May. The offsets standard was released on 8 May, and consultation for that closes on 9 June. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, as things stand, the EPBC Act is, in my opinion, a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia quoted an increase in average decision times for resource projects of 60 per cent—from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025. What steps are you taking to increase your throughput—faster processing? 

Senator Watt: As I mentioned in an earlier section—I don’t think you were here, Senator Roberts—that is one of the key reasons behind the reforms that we passed the parliament last year. It was to speed up the assessment and approval timeframes for projects in Australia, whether they be housing, energy or resources. The other objective, of course, was to strengthen environmental protections. We want to fix that. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, your main steps are revising the EPBC. 

Senator Watt: Yes. We’ve done a lot of work internally to speed up the processes. You may have seen that today I announced some really dramatic improvements around housing approvals. We’ve done what we can under the existing law, but, with those reforms that we passed last year, we expect to deliver big improvements around timeframes for decisions. 

Senator ROBERTS: The budgeting—we discussed this slightly before—includes a measure for introducing AI to the department. Will that help in data collection and analysis, or will that be making actual decisions? I think Mr Kaiser said it won’t be making decisions, but perhaps you could explain. 

Senator Watt: Yes. There was a little discussion about this before, Senator Roberts, when you weren’t here, but why don’t we quickly go back over that again. 

Mr Gaddes: I might have a go at that. The EPBC Act has a range of threatened species and ecological communities and other nationally protected matters that proponents are required to gather a whole lot of information about. There’s a range in our conservation planning documents—and they’re quite complex—that proponents need to work through in creating a referral. The AI trial is designed to help people populate their referral documentation. If you have a certain action in a certain area, you put that into the AI tool. It then tells you the sorts of things that you should consider as part of your assessment. Proponents go and do that. It helps them speed up their assessment-documentation-gathering process. We get all the information up front, and they go through the system much faster. 

Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the applicant can provide details and you can tell him or her, based on what their project is, what they need to apply. 

Mr Gaddes: Well, the AI tool does it. It helps them at the front end gather all the information so that we don’t have to stop the clock and ask them to go and gather things through their assessment process. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the increased complexity of the EPBC Act a way of increasing delays for projects? 

Senator Watt: No, and I would argue that we’re reducing the complexity in this act. Not only would I argue that but a range of stakeholders from the business community have also acknowledged that the changes will improve processes as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project—we started discussing this—the whole thing cost the project, across a 3.8 year development application cycle, $25 million a year and almost $100 million total over the four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by procedural failure in your department? 

Senator Watt: I think, when you asked that question earlier, Senator Roberts, I made the point that, again, that one of the objectives of these reforms is to reduce the timeframes for decisions around projects. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a review on the EPBC Act’s effectiveness in two or three years? 

Senator Watt: In five years. It used to be every 10 years; we changed it to every five. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects? 

Senator Watt: We’ll get the relevant officials to answer. 

Mrs Svarcas: We don’t capture the value of the project. I can’t tell you how many there are over a certain value in the system. There is a field in the system, but it’s not mandatory, and it’s not verified. You wanted to know many resources projects we had in the system? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and what the average age of the projects is. 

Mrs Svarcas: We also don’t have the average age of the projects here today, but I can take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you tell whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: What I’m saying is that one of the objectives of the reforms is to improve the timeframes. Those reforms are only just starting to roll out. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t measure the timeframes, how can you determine whether or not it’s improving? 

Senator Watt: Ms Svarcas can answer that. 

Mrs Svarcas: What we do report is how long it takes us to go through the approval. For resources projects— coal, gas and oil—I can tell you that in 2024-25, 67 per cent of the project went through the EPBC system on time, within the timeframes. In 2025-26, through to 11 May, that has improved to 92 per cent. We have seen a substantial increase in the performance stats. 

Senator ROBERTS: Percentages are essentially averages, and can hide a lot. Can you tell us the actual details of the projects’ age? 

Mr Gaddes: I think that what Ms Svarcas is trying to say that we collect that information, but we don’t have it in that format before us right now. If you have some questions, we can take them on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What is your expectation for reductions in the figure of average age in the projects in 2.8 years, and will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth, Minister, and the breadwinner jobs that go with mineral projects? Mining drives the economy, mining drives exports, mining drives the standard of living. 

Senator Watt: All I can do is repeat what I’ve been saying. That’s one of the reasons that we passed those reforms. I have to point out that the One Nation party did not support those reforms. 

Senator ROBERTS: Because of the complexities that we think will make it worse. 

Senator Watt: There are many industry groups that don’t agree with you. 

Senator ROBERTS: And there are many who do agree with us. 

Senator Watt: I’ve got the press release from the Property Council and from the Housing Industry Association. I can dig out comments from mining groups. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Minerals Council? 

Senator Watt: I can come back to you with those, if you’d like. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your government aware it’s spent a lot of money—it’s still spending a lot of money— which is inflationary and hurts people as well. They need to pay for welfare, and they need to pay for the caring economy. It comes largely from the mining industry. 

Senator Watt: I think I acknowledged earlier that the mining industry is an important economic industry in this country. It’s not the only one, but it’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: Many people would be hoping those words come true. 

Senator Watt: It’s already a big exporter. It’s a major employer et cetera. One of the objectives of these reforms is to make quicker decisions around mining projects—brace yourself—solar and windfarm projects, housing development and critical minerals, as well as to strengthen environmental protections. 

Senator ROBERTS: There’s another aspect we can talk about. 

Senator Watt: I think your colleague had a go at that earlier. 

Senator ROBERTS: There will be a review in five years? 

Senator Watt: Yes, a review in five years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/0 Comments/by

Canberra’s New Loyalty Test

,

The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 gives government ministers total discretion to suspend senior public servants (like department heads and commissioners) for up to 12 months with full pay, simply by claiming it’s in the department’s “best interest,” rather than using clear, objective performance standards (KPIs).

Public servants are already too politicised and will now be too intimidated to offer honest, independent advice out of fear of ministerial retaliation.

The poor legal phrasing in the bill, specifically the phrase “The minister may give a direction in writing,” leaves loopholes and creates potential for legal abuse.

The Albanese Labor government promised an open and transparent government, yet this legislation will further entrench cover-ups, hide accountability, and abuse ministerial control.

One Nation opposed this bill.

Australians deserve better!

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Four years of cost overruns, four years of secret government, four years of slackness, four years of another managed decline of Australia. There has been misappropriation of money and they’ve done nothing—just covered it up. Transparency was the promise; cover-up is the actuality. Why? Now, as the solution, we see the Labor Party bringing in potential abuse of ministerial powers with an opportunity, if the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is passed, to have possible control over the department heads, commissioners and others in senior positions without transparency or accountability. The performance standard under this legislation is not a discretionary instrument with specific grounds for dismissal against standard criteria—that is, KPIs. That’s not the case. With this bill, it’s purely at the discretion of the minister.  

We already have a Public Service that’s been highly politicised. We are now entrenching that and giving the public servants more to fear from ministers if they don’t do what they’re told. Under the ‘uniparty’ ministers, department heads no longer give frank and fearless independent advice. That hasn’t been the case for decades because department heads and senior public servants are now part of the political process. They’re enmeshed in the process. They cannot give frank and fearless advice. Do you want any examples? Have a look at the energy systems in this country, where they’re destroying the best electricity grid in the world and making it second rate, taking us from the lowest electricity prices in the world to now the highest in the world.  

The legislation—I think this appears four times in the legislation—says, ‘The minister may give a direction in writing.’ It does not say the minister may give a direction that must be in writing. Lawyers, as we know, have lots of incentives to argue about a word such as ‘may’. At best, this is sloppy. It’s just not good enough. If a minister suspends a senior public servant, they’re suspended on full pay, which may be extended to 12 months suspension. The minister doesn’t have to give specific reasons; they just need to say it’s in the department’s best interests—that’s it. It’s 12 months paid suspension because it’s in the department’s best interests. This means that the minister can hold a threat over Public Service heads, giving them control over department heads, complete control, creating a poor system that destroys accountability and transparency—two words that are vital for effective governance. But in this Labor government, under Anthony Albanese, accountability is hidden. It’s not possible, and transparency is non-existent. 

If governments want to be good governments, they should want transparency and accountability, because it makes them stronger. I know with Senator Pauline Hanson we are all held accountable and we have to be transparent, because we want to be, but if we weren’t she would make sure we are. The same can’t be said about the Albanese Labor government. So I am in two minds about this bill. It has severe shortcomings due to sloppiness. I think that’s all I need to say. 

/by

New Robodebt Scandal Waiting to Happen

,

One Nation cannot support this bill in its current form. While we agree that Australians caught up in the Robodebt scandal deserve closure, this legislation fails to deliver justice and accountability.

The government’s amendment MM100 introduces Section 44A, giving bureaucrats the power to use AI to mine data, match records, and even issue debt notices — all without human oversight. This is Robodebt 2.0. The same flawed approach that caused harm, heartbreak, and even loss of life is being repeated. The Royal Commission exposed the dangers of automated debt recovery. Why would we allow it again?

On top of that, Schedule 5 was added after the committee stage with zero scrutiny. It could suspend benefits for people accused, yet not convicted, of crimes. That’s a denial of natural justice and a dangerous precedent. An accusation is not a conviction, and financial penalties before due process is unacceptable.

One Nation supports restoring the six-year debt recovery limit, but without proper safeguards and accountability, this bill is a recipe for disaster. We’re calling on the government to pull these last-minute inclusions or send the bill back for full scrutiny. Australians deserve fairness, not another robodebt scandal.

— Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Minister, this bill includes provisions that have been introduced after the committee stage and, as such, have not been subjected to proper scrutiny. It’s true that those who were caught up in the robodebt scandal need closure. One way or another, they need closure. A line needs to be drawn under as many of these debts as possible. This bill as it is, however, fails to achieve that objective to One Nation’s standard. 

I note that government amendment MM100 was passed this morning on the voices. I would like to ask Hansard to note One Nation’s opposition to that amendment, and here’s why: the amendment includes section 44A, which allows the government to use a computer program—in other words, AI, artificial intelligence—to mine data and match data and decide whether a debt occurs, and even to issue the debt notice. Are you kidding? This just restarts a robodebt type of debt recovery, but this time using AI. The fundamental problem still exists—data matching across systems with different software, different indexing and different ages that led to matching errors. The government has spent $2 billion trying to sort this mess out and has now pushed back the timeframe to complete the linking of government data back to 2028. We’ll get you. Why ask for these powers now when you have no ability to deliver? There’s no scrutiny and no guardrails; just do whatever the hell the secretary wants. This is a recipe for robodebt 2. 

The government must be responsible, accountable and transparent. The failure of robodebt was to try to match data from incompatible computer systems, which led to innocent people being presented with a debt notice, and it led to inaccurate amounts being claimed. This resulted from the use of computer matching software. Amendment MM100 repeats that same mistake and will surely lead to the same outcome of substantial errors in data matching leading to erroneous debt collection. As the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found, people died as a result of these debt notices. Introducing a system that makes these notices, untouched by human hands, is not the answer. The answer is careful scrutiny. 

One Nation cannot support this bill with section 44A included. Senator David Pocock introduced a perfectly logical amendment to pull schedule 5 from the bill. The schedule was introduced after the bill went to committee. It has not been properly scrutinised. The provisions of schedule 5 could be misused to suspend benefits for persons accused, but not convicted, of a crime. In particular, fathers accused of domestic violence will be robbed of their benefits—whether that is unemployment, parenting payment, rent allowance or whatever—placing them in a weakened position to defend those charges. This schedule is designed to encourage domestic violence allegations. This provision should be limited to persons who have been convicted, not accused, of a crime, even where an arrest warrant has been issued. An arrest warrant is not a conviction. It is the police saying the accusation is serious and the complainant may be in danger. Suspending their liberty via an arrest warrant is how this is dealt with, not levying a financial penalty by terminating their income before a conviction. Greens amendment (2) on sheet 3487 restores the six-year limit for debt collection. While One Nation would have gone with seven years to align with the tax law, I understand that the six-year limit restores a provision the Liberal-National government repealed in order to facilitate robodebt initially. Again, you’re bringing it all back. Without this provision, the government has unlimited recovery powers. It has gone back to 2004 in some cases. I understand they have gone back to last century. This is a denial of natural justice and administrative fairness. Who has the documents from that far back to challenge a notice? Make no mistake: these debt notices are guilty until proven innocent. One Nation will support the Greens amendment. 

Without all of those amendments in place, One Nation cannot support this bill. We are happy to work with the government to clean the mess called robodebt and have the bill reintroduced next year with due scrutiny of the ramifications of using AI and with schedule 5 properly scrutinised. Minister, my question is: will you pull these last-minute inclusions out of the bill or send the bill back to a committee so that these last-minute inclusions can be properly scrutinised by the people’s representatives in this house? 

/by

Setting the Record Straight with the BOM

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve read each of them.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/4 Comments/by

Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact

,

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

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

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

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

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

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

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

Mr Binning: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

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

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

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

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

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

/1 Comment/by

Parents vs Woke Education: The REAL Battle

,

Parents – not bureaucrats – should have a CHOICE in their children’s education and upbringing.

I spoke against the Liberal, Labor and Greens policies forcing both parents to work. Whether mum or dad stays home should be a family choice, not something they are forced into by the cost of living.

Empower parents with school choice and protect family values. Charter schools would give funding power back to families, not bureaucrats.

Transcript

Senator McKim, through his motion, is fabricating a false dichotomy, a false divide. It’s not public schools versus private schools; it’s parents versus woke education departments. The real issue is an undernourished education.

Maria Montessori, arguably the most comprehensive studier of human behaviour and human development, said that the critical years for the formation of both character and intellect are birth to six. We form our view of ourselves, we develop our ego and our view of the world before reasoning develops, because reasoning doesn’t start kicking in until around the age of nine. Babies are sponges. They focus on their parents, and the parents’ role is absolutely crucial—especially from zero to three, and then continuing from three to six. That is primary.

So what do we see? We see the Greens policies destroying families and the role of parents. We see Senator Waters recently speaking enthusiastically in the Senate about increasing women’s participation in work. The corollary is that women are not participating in family. That’s the shame. Parents—fathers and mothers—should have a choice as to whether both work or one stays at home. Parents should not be forced to leave their children in the care of someone else for economic reasons—the rising cost-of-living expenditure due to government and Greens policies; higher energy prices due to Greens policies; higher housing prices due to rampant immigration, due to Greens policies; taxation; high interest rates. Whether the mother or the father stays at home should be a choice for each couple, but one of them should have the opportunity to have that choice.

The Greens want the parenting role contracted out to government indoctrination. The Greens are pushing globalist policies through the United Nations and World Economic Forum alliance, and their stated goals are to destroy families. The Greens policies are destroying families and parenting.

I make the point that it certainly would be better to have charter schools introduced into this country because the government allocates money to the child, and that money follows the child to the school. If the parent wants to choose a private school, they have the funds. If the parent wants to choose a public school, the money goes to the public school. Then we’d give power to adults and parents and principals, not bureaucrats.

/11 Comments/by

Alphabet Soup Agencies: Are Taxpayers Getting Value for Money?

,

The climate division at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is just another part of the alphabet soup of agencies that are dedicated to bringing in net zero goals.

Although no one at the desk wanted to tell me their salaries, the fewer than ten senior executives in the department rake in $4.5 million a year. Secretary David Fredericks, who responded to my question, is on a total package of $907,000 a year. 

Are you getting value for money?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: As simply as possible and as specifically as possible, what do the people responsible for outcome 1 at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water do? What is your basic
accountability, especially in regard to energy?

Mr Fredericks: In many ways, I can’t do any better than our corporate documents.

Senator ROBERTS: How long is that?

Mr Fredericks: Very short. It’s the outcome that we are held to account for by the parliament and ultimately by the ANAO, which is to support the transition of Australia’s economy to net zero emissions by 2050; transition energy to support net zero while maintaining security, reliability and affordability; support actions to promote adaptation and strengthen resilience of Australia’s economy, society and environment; and take a leadership role internationally in responding to climate change.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That’s exactly what I was after. What is the total salary package of everyone at the executive?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the corporate questions were at 9 o’clock this morning. We’ve released the corporate people.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put these on notice.

/by

One Nation’s Vision for Constitutional Efficiency

,

Next election, Queensland voters will face a clear choice: the Liberal-National and Labor parties’ approach of ever-expanding government, or One Nation’s approach to shrinking government to fit the Constitution.   

When Australia federated in 1901, the Commonwealth Constitution granted the federal government powers necessary to run Australia as a single country rather than six states – which included defence, immigration, currency, and taxation.  Over the past 120 years, bureaucrats have expanded their reach into areas that are rightly the responsibility of the states, such as health, education, housing, and more.   

A One Nation government will close down any Commonwealth department that lacks constitutional authority. This will not affect funding for frontline services. The federal government collects taxes on behalf of the states and One Nation will ensure that funding for schools and hospitals is not reduced. However, billions of dollars in savings will be achieved by eliminating the bureaucracy involved in this duplication of government services.   One Nation in government will shrink the federal government to align with the Constitution and return these savings to taxpayers, allowing you to keep more of what you earn. 

Transcript

As frequently happens, the Senate is dealing with a tangled mess of legislation that is flawed in design and will have unintended consequences. That’s inevitable when pressure groups run the government. It is a process that never involves the word ‘no’. Too many Australians think governments should solve all their problems, and too many in government think they can. One would have thought both would have sooner seen this folly.

When Australia federated in 1901, the state ceded only the powers necessary for the operation of Australia as a single country rather than six states. Today’s twisted, concocted federalism has given overlapping state, federal and local governments a bureaucratic tangle of incompetence and waste with no accountability and no consequences. It has allowed the Commonwealth government acquisition and abuse of power to go beyond anything our wise founding fathers envisaged. One Nation will honour our Constitution, withdraw the Commonwealth from areas that are none of the federal government’s business and return to competitive federalism, as Australia’s founding fathers designed.

This week I’ve called again for the abolition of the Commonwealth Department of Education, a move that will not take a single teacher out of a single classroom. I’ve called for abolition of the national curriculum, which is riddled with woke virtue signalling, victimhood and social engineering. Headmasters should determine and decide what’s best for students, not woke bureaucrats thousands of kilometres away. I’ve called for abolition of the department of climate change, along with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Regulator, the Climate Change Authority, the Australian Climate Service and the Net Zero Economy Authority. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be rolled into a people’s bank, and there’s more to come. One Nation will shrink government to fit the Constitution and to serve the people.

/7 Comments/by

Government’s Runaway Spending on Disability

The government’s spending on NDIS threatens to bankrupt Australia.

The NDIS is a runaway spending rocket which is failing to serve the disabled and getting worse. The service was never set up correctly in the first place and continues to waste billions and let down those who need it because of endemic bureaucratic bungling. There’s zero accountability within this agency. It is letting some abuse the system and as taxpayers we’re footing an exorbitant bill. The NDIS is not fit for purpose, yet a disability service is desperately needed and not reaching many of those it was meant to assist.

In questioning Minister Gallagher about what Labor is doing to fix this problem her answers were unhelpful and it seems she is being deliberately obstructive. Creating another level of bureaucracy won’t address the problem. It’ll only add another burden for taxpayers and extra layers of complexity for those needing help to try and navigate. If Labor is hoping that by ignoring the NDIS problem it will go away, they will be disappointment.

The NDIS needs addressing now before it’s too late.

Transcript

In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I have four questions. I’ll do a little bit of explaining to get to the point. One Nation simply cannot support a bill that establishes an entirely new disability bureaucracy when the bill does not even define ‘disability’. I wonder: is this an admission that the NDIS has failed or that the government is letting it run completely out of control? I’ll come back to that. 

I remind everyone of the hasty and ill-thought-out concoction of the NDIS. Prime Minister Gillard hastily introduced it for election purposes before an election. Then she was voted out, and the Liberals and the National Party inherited a complete mess. They tightened it up, but it’s still sloppy. In tightening it, we got mixed signals going about services that are being provided to the disabled. That leaves them in a totally inadequate situation. I’m concerned about taxpayers and the disabled in these remarks and questions. If the NDIS continues in its current form, it will send the entire country broke and continue to provide inadequate services to the disabled. 

This bill does not deal with the NDIS. It establishes an entirely new bureaucracy in an entirely new agency. If the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and the associated consequential bill pass into law, the Minister for Social Services will be given legislative authority for new spending programs to cover the 88 per cent of Australians living with a disability who cannot access support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme at the moment. 

I want to talk about the NDIS now because it provides financial support to just 610,000 participants, or 12 per cent of Australia’s estimated population living with a disability, while being the second-most expensive social program after the age pension. The annual running costs in the year ending 30 June 2023 were $38.8 billion. That is 26 per cent higher than Medicare, $30.8 billion; 40 per cent higher than aged care, $27.7 billion; and 40 per cent higher than the support for state government hospitals, $27.3 billion. Minister Bill Shorten expects the annual running cost in 2026 to be $50 billion, making it almost double what is spent on state government hospitals. The NDIS is unsustainable at these levels and will not be able to properly provide services for the disabled. 

I’m not going to sign a blank cheque for any government. I won’t be giving the government more spending power until I know how taxpayer money goes to those to whom it is intended, and many of the disabled are not getting the services necessary. Like many Australians, I’ve worked hard to bring up my children and to pay my taxes. Every tax dollar that the NDIA wastes is a dollar that is not spent on health, education and keeping us safe. NDIS participants using their plan money to holiday in exotic places and paying excessively for ordinary items like transit wheelchairs and aluminium shower chairs diminishes support for the program and prevents services to other disabled people who deserve support. Until I’m satisfied the Labor government can manage their departments, I’m not going to give them any more spending power. 

The Auditor-General investigated decision-making in the NDIA, the agency, between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2017 as part of his report Decision-making controls for sustainability—National Disability Insurance Scheme access. In one group of 150 cases that were reviewed, the decision-maker’s name was not recorded in 42 cases. In another 18 of the 150 cases, there was no record of the reasons for the decision. That’s not accountability for taxpayers’ money. In a review of another 1,339 cases, 13 per cent—that’s almost one in seven—did not have sufficient evidence to support decisions to give lifetime support under the NDIS Act 2013. 

These findings in 2017 led to the Auditor-General making a number of recommendations. Seven of the nine recommendations made in relation to improving decision-making controls and fraud controls were not fully implemented by the time the Auditor-General investigated the NDIA again last year. Despite a history of approving access to the NDIS without lawful authority, senior bureaucrats in the NDIA will not make sure all delegates are trained. Of the 1,147 NDIA planners employed by the NDIA on 30 June 2020, only 73 per cent—under three-quarters—of them had been trained to spend billions of hard-earned taxpayer money. No wonder the NDIA costs cannot be controlled! Not only does the government need to show me it can manage the NDIA in accordance with the law passed in this chamber, but it also needs to deal with the demand shock created by the introduction of the NDIS. The sudden high demand created by the tsunami of money in NDIS participant plans has caused the cost of seeing an occupational therapist, a speech therapist or a psychologist—as well as others—to skyrocket. NDIS is more generous than the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or aged care, and that leads to inequality. That should not be the case. It’s a mess. It’s time the government aligned the price it pays for the same service across different government programs.  

Anyone can apply for a participant package under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, but only people with a disability who meet the age, residency and disability requirements and can demonstrate that support is reasonable and necessary are intended to get support for a lifetime. As I’ve already said, it’s a lottery at the moment because decision-making is so poor in the National Disability Insurance Agency due to its messy and improper formation and its lack of foundation at its birth.  

While public servants sit in air-conditioned offices, an army of poorly paid disability workers provide the core supports needed by people with a disability. Disability workers are poorly paid, trapped in a system with little job security or prospects. They’re often working with questionable service agencies. Their employers are small businesses which often have no relevant experience and are unable to provide training or support in what can be confronting and stressful situations. No wonder there’s a shortage of disability workers right now. 

I want to see all National Disability Insurance Agency plans de-identified and made public. Australians need to know what is being funded. They’re the ultimate payers for this service. Employing a qualified chef to teach someone how to cook at home is a luxury that we cannot afford. Prior to NDIS, it was estimated that families provided 80 per cent of the support for a person with a disability and the government provided 20 per cent. The introduction of the NDIS was to shift some, but not all, responsibility to government, with families providing 60 per cent of the support and the government providing the remaining 40 per cent. We don’t know much about the level of family support provided today, but we do know only 30 per cent of all plans are managed fully or partially by the participant or their family, which suggests that government is taking on far more responsibility than was ever planned. Participant managed plans account for 30 per cent of the number of plans but just 12 per cent of the NDIS budget. These budgets are spent, but not overspent. Another 60 per cent of plans are managed by someone other than the participant or their family. These managed plans account for 46 per cent of the NDIS, four times as much. The remaining 10 per cent of NDIS plans are NDIA managed, and they account for 42 per cent of the NDIS budget. The NDIA consistently underspends these plans. Why?  

Until I see lawful, responsible and effective by the National Disability Insurance Agency, I will not be supporting any new spending power by government. One Nation supports disability services, yet they have to be sustainable for the Australian taxpayer or there will be no services in the future, and those services that there are won’t be fit for the disabled. Spending on the NDIS will outstrip all Medicare services. There is billions of dollars of fraud currently happening in the NDIS that the government has done next to nothing to stop. We’ll be opposing this bill until the government can prove it is running the NDIS in a way that isn’t going to send the country broke. 

I’ll go back to my opening question from my first question: is this new legislation an admission that the NDIS has failed or that the government is letting it run completely out of control?

/by

The Bureaucrats are Out of Touch and Out of Control

,

The public servants in the Canberra bureaucracy are meant to be impartial. Being impartial would mean they only comment on their ability to carry out laws, not whether they agree with policies ideologically. What we see again and again is that the bureaucrats are not impartial. They make submissions that support the woke policies of the Canberra elite, like net-zero.

I asked the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), who are meant to be the enforcers of the code of impartiality, about one particularly bad example where an agency endorsed the government’s net-zero ideas. Their response? “Well that’s just your opinion.”

The Canberra public service and their referee are so out of touch with everyday Australians that they can’t even comprehend the question. It’s easy to see why Canberra was the only state or territory in all of Australia to vote Yes on the Voice.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. The Australian Public Service works under or in accord with the code of conduct. Is that correct?

Dr de Brouwer: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How does that work in practice? I know that is a broad question.

Ms Talbot: As we alluded to earlier in our evidence, we have the APS Code of Conduct, and that sets out the standards and, I guess, the expectations on all public servants. In particular, the Public Service Act is quite clear around articulating what the APS values are and how they apply to all public servants. I can go into more detail around the code of conduct requirements if you wish.

Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the code drives behaviour or indicates the behaviour or values that are appropriate.

Ms Talbot: It sets out what the appropriate behaviours are, what the appropriate expected standards of conduct are, and it does outline the APS values and goes into some detail about those values.

Senator ROBERTS: So it is broad not specific because it doesn’t apply to just one department or one agency? It’s very broad.

Ms Talbot: It applies to everyone, but sitting underneath that there is quite a detailed document, and in particular sitting under the Public Service Act there are also commissioner’s directions, which go into more detail as well around how everything actually applies.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you elaborate on the Australian Public Service value of impartiality, specifically how the Public Service should be interpreting it practically in making submissions to inquiries?

Ms Talbot: Is there some specific inquiry?

Senator ROBERTS: My concern is that it seems some agencies aren’t being fully impartial in making submissions, especially in the area of climate policy, for example. This is dangerous because it leads to group think. My interpretation of the value of impartiality is that if an agency or department is making a submission on, for example, a law change, that submission should be limited to the agency’s ability to carry out the policy change. That might mean resource considerations and practical issues of whether they can enforce a policy. Is that what you would be expecting in a submission that meets those values of impartiality, rather than making a submission in favour of or against a policy on the basis of political aspects?

Ms Talbot: What I can say is that the guidance around impartiality is reminding public servants that in conducting their duties they are to be apolitical and they are obviously not to be biased in the way in which they conduct their duties. I think you’re asking me more for an opinion around a particular instance that you have in mind.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about several instances. It seems we have some agencies and departments making submissions that endorse the policies being put forward from an ideological standpoint, not only commenting on the practicalities of implementing the policy for that agency or department, as I said. For example, the Australian Energy Regulator made a submission to the national energy laws amendment bill. In that submission they endorsed the net zero policy setting of the government and said they support it, which doesn’t seem to be impartial. Shouldn’t they only be commenting on their ability to implement the changes, not endorsing the policy driving the changes?

Dr de Brouwer: The requirement of impartiality, as Ms Talbot outlined, is that the APS is apolitical. But it also provides advice—and I will quote from section 10(5) of the act—’that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence’. This is within the CER’s view of what is the best available evidence, what is coherent with that and what is required to achieve that.

Senator ROBERTS: So they would be informed by scientific evidence, would they?

Dr de Brouwer: That is what I think the CER will say. You should ask them.

Senator ROBERTS: You are smiling.

Dr de Brouwer: We used to deal with this in estimates 10 years ago.

Senator ROBERTS: Net zero policy is within climate policy. That’s subject to a lot of contention in the public, so supporting that would seem to me not to be upholding impartiality, especially when there have been no logical scientific points, including empirical scientific evidence, to back up net zero anyway in the world. They failed the science test, so surely they are acting partially?

Dr de Brouwer: I think that is your view, Senator Roberts, and it is up to that authority to explain how it views the evidence and provide the explanation to you of why it’s acting impartially.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

/10 Comments/by