Posts

Taxpayer Dollars and Legal Secrets

,

In the recent estimates session, I questioned officials from the Attorney-General’s Department about the Legal Services Directions – the rulebook that dictates how the government must behave when involved in legal proceedings.

The government isn’t supposed to play dirty. Under these rules, they are required to act as “model litigants”, meaning they must be honest, fair, and efficient.

The Department isn’t a “police force.” Government agencies are largely responsible for reporting their own mistakes. The Department just “supports” them in fixing those errors.

I asked officials if these rules were followed during the Brittany Higgins settlement and the ongoing cases of Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown. Their response: they stated that Comcover (the government’s insurer) is handling the cases and “complying absolutely” with the rules.

When asked why the government hasn’t “accepted” court findings that cleared Reynolds and Brown of wrongdoing, officials dodged, stating they simply “note” the judgments but see them as separate from the Higgins settlement.

When I asked about legal costs or why the government isn’t mediating with Fiona Brown, the Department passed the buck to the Department of Finance.

The big question? Is the government actually following its own rules, or is the system designed to let them off the hook?

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again today. What are the Legal Services Directions? Could you explain that, please?  

Ms Jones: The Legal Services Directions are established under statute in order to provide an overarching framework for the conduct of legal proceedings that the Commonwealth is party to. I have the experts to the right of me who can talk to that in detail.  

Mr Ng: Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts. As the secretary has indicated, the Legal Services Directions are made by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act, and they govern, in part, the conduct of much of the Commonwealth legal services.  

Senator Roberts: There are requirements for sound practice in the provision of legal services to the Australian government?  

Mr Ng: That’s correct. One of the aspects that they cover is in relation to, for example, how the Commonwealth is to conduct itself in litigation. One of the appendices to the Legal Services Directions reflects those model litigant obligations.  

Senator Roberts: Are they binding, and on whom are they binding?  

Mr Ng: The application of Legal Services Directions applies in full to non-corporate Commonwealth entities. There are aspects of the directions that apply to corporate Commonwealth entities, who are in a different category. Also, they won’t apply to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which are not covered. They’re referenced in a couple of points, but not directly covered.  

Senator Roberts: Does noncompliance have to be reported? If so, by and to whom?  

Mr Ng: There are provisions under the Legal Services Directions where noncompliance with the directions is reported to the Office of Legal Services Coordination within the department. It remains the responsibility of agencies, relevant agencies or named agencies, to assess those allegations of noncompliance, but the department maintains an overarching role in supporting those agencies to assess and deal with the complaints that they may have received.  

Senator Roberts: So it’s the department’s responsibility?  

Mr Ng: How I would characterise it is that agencies have a responsibility to notify our department of possible or actual breaches of the Legal Services Directions and to assess their compliance with that. The department has a role in that, in supporting those agencies in meeting their obligations and in addressing noncompliance. Absolutely, the department has a role, but the agencies themselves are the ones who, of course, are responsible, and are running their own cases, where some of these complaints may arise.  

Senator Roberts: Who enforces noncompliance?  

Mr Ng: The Office of Legal Services Coordination is not a regulator as such. Our role here as a department is to support agencies in the assessments they make. They submit what are called agency notification forms to the department which identify both the allegation of the breach and, where there are instances that the agency themselves has assessed as noncompliant, the corrective steps that are taken and the corrective steps they intend to take as well. The department plays a role in engaging very closely with those agencies to ensure that those steps are taken.  

Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions applied in the Brittany Higgins mediation and settlement?  

Mr Ng: The matter you refer to is a matter that was managed by Comcover; that is probably the first thing to say in that instance. Comcover, as a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, is required to comply with the Legal Services Directions, and that was managed in accordance with the Legal Services Directions.  

Senator Roberts: So they did comply. Are the Legal Services Directions being applied in Linda Reynolds’s and Fiona Brown’s cases?  

Mr Ng: Both of those cases are, again, managed by Comcover, within the Department of Finance. Comcover is obliged, as I outlined earlier, to comply with the Legal Services Directions in all aspects of the management of those cases.  

Senator Roberts: Were they complied with?  

Mr Ng: I’m sorry; I’m just trying to clarify your question, Senator. Is it whether there are allegations of noncompliance? What is it that—  

Senator Roberts: Were the Legal Services Directions being applied?  

Mr Ng: From the department’s perspective, Comcover are complying absolutely with the Legal Services Directions, noting that they’re managing those claims.  

Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against Fiona Brown were without foundation?  

Ms Jones: It’s not a matter for us to accept the findings of court judgements. We note the judgement, but those proceedings dealt with issues that were separate to the settlement that we had a role in administering.  

Senator Roberts: What are the total legal costs incurred to date by the Australian Government Solicitor in external legal assistance for the federal government in relation to Fiona Brown’s claim against the Commonwealth?  

Ms Jones: I think we’d need to take that on notice. It’s a matter for Comcover. In fact, I would request that question be put to Comcover. They are the instructing agency.  

Senator Roberts: What external legal assistance has been engaged, and from whom? What rates have been agreed, and who approved any extra rates? Ms Jones: Again, that is a matter for Comcover. They are the instructing agency. S 

Senator ROBERTS: Who does Comcover report to?  

Ms Jones: The Department of Finance. They’re a division within the Department of Finance, although set up as a separate entity.  

Senator Roberts: The bureaucracy is so big that we can’t comprehend it all. Why is the Commonwealth not mediating with Fiona Brown?  

Ms Jones: We couldn’t provide a view on that. I think that goes to the conduct of that matter, which is a matter for Comcover.  

Senator Roberts: Moving to Linda Reynolds—  

Mr Ng: As it’s an ongoing legal proceeding, of course it would not be appropriate for us to comment.  

Senator Roberts: Do the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor now accept the findings of two senior Australian courts that the workplace allegations made against then minister Reynolds were, in the words of Justice Lee, ‘without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact’ and, in the words of Justice Tottle, ‘objectively false and misleading’ and ‘dishonest’?  

Ms Jones: I return to my previous comment. It’s not a matter for us to accept or not accept comments that are made by judges in the course of their decisions. Those proceedings addressed separate issues to the issue of the settlement of Ms Higgins’s claims.  

Senator Roberts: Have these judgements that I just referred to given you cause to review your actions in relation to then minister Reynolds over the Brittany Higgins settlement?  

Ms Jones: I think I’d just repeat my previous comment that the settlement in relation to Brittany Higgins’s claims went to related but slightly different issues than to the matters that were the subject of the two judicial observations that you’ve referred to.  

Senator Roberts: Is the current Reynolds litigation being handled as an exceptional case or as a major claim, and who made that determination?  

Ms Jones: I think—  

Ms Chidgey: It’s a matter for Comcover again. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, Senator.  

Mr Ng: Also, it’s been reported as a significant issue under the Legal Services Directions.  

Senator Roberts: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

The Illusion of Peer Review

,

My exchange with the Professional Services Review (PSR) during the December 2025 Senate Estimates only deepened my concerns regarding the integrity of their review process. It is becoming increasingly clear that their ‘peer review’ is a mere box-ticking exercise, dominated by lawyers rather than the medical peers the legislation intended.

I questioned why lawyers, rather than the doctors themselves, are drafting the reports. While the PSR claims lawyers only “put together” the doctors’ views to ensure procedural fairness, it appears to me that the heavy lifting, sometimes over 150 hours of drafting, is done by legal staff, while committee members may spend as little as seven to 10 hours reviewing the final product.

I raised the issue that there is no legal requirement for committee members to share the same subspecialty as the GP under review. A GP in a niche field like aerospace medicine could be judged by practitioners with zero experience in that specific group.

I questioned Professor Dr Dio and Ms. Weichert on the lack of basic legal protections, such as the absence of a presiding judge, the inability to cross-examine the committee on their views of “general body” standards, and the lack of a formal merits review.

Several questions were taken on notice, specifically around providing detailed log of hours spent by both staff and committee members on reports over the last three years. We need to see if the time spent by doctors actually justifies calling this a “peer-reviewed” outcome.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: At the December 2025 Senate estimates, Professor Dr Dio, you indicated that lawyers prepare their reports from the review scheme but that the committee members review the reports. In what way does the PSR monitor the performance of the committee—including if the committee has read the entire report and the material presented to it before signing it off? 

Prof. Di Dio: The committee diligently reads the draft reports and the final reports, and we have staff who liaise with the committee at various stages after draft reports and final reports have been sent to them. So should for any reason a committee member not do their duty and read in the draft report, the legal officer in charge of giving service to that committee would firstly of course remind the committee members to review the report, and if they do not, they would then come to me. But that’s a theoretical possibility, because I cannot recall that happening.  

Senator ROBERTS: The PSR committee process is supposed to be a peer review process performed by doctors. Why then don’t the doctors write their own reports? If administrative support is needed, why are lawyers drafting their reports instead of administrative or secretarial staff, which would come at a lower cost to the department?  

Prof. Di Dio: Because the reports are incredibly important. We are passionate about according natural justice and procedural fairness to all practitioners under review. It is my view that the best way to do that is to have the best qualified, quality people writing those reports. Reports of this nature would be best written by people who are very good at supporting doctors in providing their reports.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Best qualified’ to me would seem to be the doctors—and then trimmed up or modified by the lawyers.  

Ms Weichert: The lawyers are writing up what the doctors have formed a view about as part of that committee process, as part of the hearing process, the concerns they have put to a person under review and the things that have come back—the lawyers are just putting it together. They are the doctors’ concerns or the medical practitioners’ concerns. It is they who sign off on the report, who approve the report. They are the peer review committee members’ views.  

Senator ROBERTS: If it can be shown that a lawyer spends over 150 hours drafting a report, but a committee member only spends seven to 10 hours reviewing the material and reading the report, is this truly considered by the PSR to be a legitimate peer review?  

Ms Weichert: That’s not taking into account any of the time that was spent in the hearing, in questioning and the time that the committee members have turned the matter throughout the process.  

Prof. Di Dio: A hearing might take eight days; it might take 50 or 60 hours. The prehearing reading might take many, many hours. The contemplation of what happened during the committee hearing might take the committee members many, many hours to turn their mind to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Over the past three years, as an average, what percentage of the total services reviewed has the committee found the services provided by doctors to be inappropriate?  

Prof. Di Dio: I will have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: This question is about general practitioners. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners recognises 37 specific interest groups as subspecialities. If a GP is under review by the committee, is it correct that there is no legal requirement for the committee members to share the same subspecialty? For example, if a GP practices solely in aerospace medicine, there’s no legal requirement for the committee to have any experience in aerospace medicine, because they all fall within the category of general practitioners. Why is there no subspeciality matching?  

Prof. Di Dio: The subspecialty matching is that members of the committee are general practitioners. But the PSR strives to find general practitioners who have experience in those matters. I can assure you that for some practitioners who are in craft groups that are exotic, as you say, like me—I have particular special interests—we try to match those as much as we can. But, under the law, a general practitioner can review a fellow general practitioner.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it correct that the legislation allows just three committee members to decide what is unacceptable to the general body of general practitioners? In deciding what the general body of general practitioners find unacceptable, do the committee members have to have any regard to any external resources or consideration of other doctors? Do the lawyers draft that part of the report as well, about what the general body of doctors think?  

Prof. Di Dio: One of the things that we train committee members to do, to absolutely and scrupulously give fairness to the practitioners under review, is try as much as possible to ask one question at a time to avoid the risk of the practitioner missing the opportunity to respond to any and all of the questions put to them. I’d be very grateful if you could ask me the first couple, and I’ll go through them with you systematically. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is it correct that the legislation allows just three committee members to decide what is unacceptable to the general body of practitioners?  

Prof. Di Dio: Yes. Ms Weichert: It’s at least three. There are certain circumstances where there could be additional committee members appointed, but it is usually three.  

Senator ROBERTS: In deciding what the general body of general practitioners find unacceptable, do the committee members have to have any regard to any external resources or consideration of other doctors?  

Prof. Di Dio: The committee members have to have regard to all of the evidence before them so that they can—  

Senator ROBERTS: All of the evidence before them?  

Prof. Di Dio: Yes. The committee members welcome from the practitioner any materials that they wish to submit as further evidence either before, during or after the hearing.  

Senator ROBERTS: While PSR committees are intended to operate as expert peer-review bodies, concerns include the absence of a presiding judge, the lack of merits review, the inability to cross-examine the committee on what they believe to be the views of the general bodies, the downweighting of significant evidence, limited engagement with defence submissions and a lack of transparency. Why do PSR procedures deny these basic elements of procedural fairness and justice, and how does the PSR contend that the peer-review function is being properly exercised in their absence?  

Prof. Di Dio: Could you ask the six points one at a time, and I’ll gladly respond to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re intended to operate as expert peer review bodies. Concerns include the absence of a presiding judge.  

Prof. Di Dio: The process is a peer-review process. So, if somebody is trying to find out whether I’ve engaged in inappropriate practice, then the best placed people to do that are my peers, not a judge.  

Ms Weichert: And, ultimately, we are applying the scheme as it is set out in the Health Insurance Act, so that provides for a committee—  

Senator ROBERTS: That may be the problem. The lack of merits review?  

Prof. Di Dio: Under the act, there is no formal merits review; however, we try as much as we can to build fairness into this process by having multiple opportunities to respond and make submissions—multiple opportunities.  

Senator ROBERTS: The inability to cross-examine the committee on what they believe to be the views of the general bodies?  

Prof. Di Dio: The committee is there to ask questions and find out if the practitioner under review has engaged in inappropriate practice. It’s not the committee that is under review.  

Ms Weichert: But the person under review can put forward their information when they’re answering the questions and the information that they would like the committee to consider, and that will occur as part of the process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The downweighting of significant evidence?  

Prof. Di Dio: What do you mean by that?  

Senator ROBERTS: As I said, ‘the downweighting of significant evidence’—  

Prof. Di Dio: I don’t understand what you mean.  

Senator ROBERTS: with significant evidence being put cursorily or downgraded.  

Prof. Di Dio: What significant evidence? Who has reviewed something cursorily or downgraded it? I don’t understand.  

Senator ROBERTS: If there is significant evidence put before the committee, it’s downgraded in terms of the verdict.  

Prof. Di Dio: I don’t understand what you mean by that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Limited engagement with— 

Prof. Di Dio: I would gladly take that on notice if it’s clarified for me. I just don’t quite understand. I’m not in any way being disrespectful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I can’t understand how you can’t see that, because the words seem to be selfexplanatory.  

Prof. Di Dio: Are you suggesting that, during a committee process, a practitioner under review gives significant evidence and the committee then downgrades or chooses to ignore it?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Prof. Di Dio: I’m not aware of that occurring.  

Senator ROBERTS: Limited engagement with defence submissions and a lack of transparency?  

Prof. Di Dio: ‘Limited engagement with defence submissions’—again, practitioners under review can make submissions. Those submissions are welcome, and they are reviewed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Next question—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I interrupt you for one quick second. There are media in the room, and I need to give a short statement. The media have requested permission to film and take photos of proceedings, and the committee has agreed to this. I remind the media that this permission can be revoked at any time. The media must follow the direction of secretariat staff. If a witness objects to filming, the committee will consider this request. The media are also reminded that they are not able to take images of senators’ or witnesses’ documents or of the audience. Media activity may not occur during suspensions or after the adjournment of proceedings. Copies of resolution 3, concerning the broadcasting of committee proceedings, are available from the secretariat. My apologies, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. A former PSR director has been found liable in the Queensland court for misfeasance in public office for failing to perform her statutory duties. Given these matters raised, why should the PSR’s legislation, governance and current officeholders not be subject to a comprehensive independent review?  

Prof. Di Dio: We did have a comprehensive review in 2023 called the Philip review, which made findings. We have acted on all of those findings, including the appointment of associate directors to the scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: The former director was found liable for making a decision without adequately considering submitted materials. Isn’t that exactly what’s still happening?  

Ms Weichert: We do not consider that to be happening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What percentage of the department’s budget is spent on the committee review process, and how many cases per year go through a committee process?  

Prof. Di Dio: I can’t tell you the exact amount— An incident having occurred in the committee room—  

Senator RUSTON: You might want to turn your device off, Malcolm; you’ll have Bridget McKenzie after you! Prof. Di Dio: It might save us all a bit of time!  

Senator ROBERTS: Only if it’s in super-rational mode—other than that, it’s just filled with garbage. Can you take that percentage on notice?  

Senator CAROL BROWN: It hallucinates from time to time. You have to be careful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I might just turn it off.  

Prof. Di Dio: I woke up this morning, and ChatGPT told me I was going to have a stress-free day, so I think it was hallucinating! Without notice, I can’t tell you exactly what percentage of the budget is spent on committee hearings, but we can take that on notice and give you an accurate reading.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Prof. Di Dio: The second part of your question was—  

Senator ROBERTS: How many cases per year go through a committee process? Prof. Di Dio: It changes from year to year, but we get approximately 100 to 120 cases per year referred from Medicare, which in turn represents about 30 per cent of the cases that Medicare reviews. Of those cases, a ballpark figure of approximately 10 per cent get no further action under section 91, about 80 per cent get an agreement with the director or the associate director under section 92 and about 10 per cent get referred to a committee. So maybe 10 practitioners get referred to a committee in a year. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I need to put on record that we’re not debating whether or not the PSR should be there. They are process which I now understand are legislated. That’s what the problem is for us and for doctors. It is very concerning. Take this as a question on notice. Please table a log of the hours spent on each of the draft and final reports by the PSR staff combined and each of the committee members for the last three years of PSR committee matters. It’s expected that this log will table around 60 rows for each of the cases it reviewed over that period.  

Prof. Di Dio: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much for appearing. See you next time. 

/0 Comments/by

Illegal Tobacco Market Booming—Despite Millions Spent

,

The Albanese Government has appointed an Illicit Tobacco and e-Cigarette Commissioner to tackle the illegal cigarette market. I asked what impact the $188 million already spent has had, and where the additional $156 million allocated for the next two years will go. I have serious concerns about waste, and the response I received did not provide clarity. These issues will need to be revisited in future Estimates as accounts and outcomes are released.

What’s clear is that there is no baseline for the Commissioner’s operations. I would have thought that the first step should’ve been to determine the size of the market, identify the crimes being committed, and calculate how much revenue the government is losing in duty. Those fundamental questions have not been asked. The Commissioner suggested that seizures was the benchmark of success. I strongly disagree. If the illegal market is booming, then naturally, seizures will increase—this metric does not reflect real progress.

I will continue to push for hard data showing a reduction in the illicit tobacco market as a result of this role. At present, it feels like a mechanism to shift blame without holding anyone accountable. If that proves true, One Nation would abolish this position.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are about the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner. Is she in?

Ms Foster: Yes. We’ll just get the right officers up to the table for you. It will be a combination of the ITEC Commissioner and the ABF Commissioner.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll try to be brief. The budget allocated $156.7 million over two years from 2025-26, to expand programs to tackle the illicit tobacco trade. What programs are they, please?

Ms Shuhyta: I think I might defer that to the ABF Commissioner. That money was referred to—sorry. There are two amounts of money. Could you just repeat the budget year that you were referring to?

Senator ROBERTS: ‘$156.7 million over two years from 2025-26 to expand programs to tackle’—

Ms Shuhyta: Yes. I can go through the number of agencies that have that. Sorry, I was thinking about the previous budget year, which went to ABF. Just let me get that list for you. So $49.4 million went to the Australian Federal Police to expand the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce; $7 million went to support the Australian Border Force to utilise emerging technology to screen and detect more illicit tobacco at our borders; $19.9 million went to fund my office, the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s office; $1.4 million went to establish a new international collaboration for regional assessment of criminal network behaviours—that’s where we’ve engaged the UN office of drug control to conduct an Asia-Pacific/Pacific regional threat assessment; $40 million went to support states and territories to establish local-level capability; $31.6 million went to strengthen compliance and enforcement functions under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 and the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989; $4 million went to extend the national tobacco and e-cigarette public health campaign, to target motivations and behaviours of the people who use illicit tobacco; and $3.3 million went to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute contraventions under the public health act and the Therapeutic Goods Act.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s quite a wide net. You were allocated $19.9 million, as you said, of this money, to administer your office. What is that being spent on?

Ms Shuhyta: That’s being spent on the functions that my office was set up to deliver under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act. That includes activities that support intergovernmental governance functions, support national strategy development and implementation, support reporting on the size and consequence of the illicit market and support advice on new laws. It is staffing to undertake those functions.

Senator ROBERTS: How many staff do you have—full-time equivalents?

Ms Shuhyta: We are budgeted for 24 full-time equivalents at the moment. We have 12 APS staff and we are undertaking a recruitment process to fill the vacancies, and we have a number of contractors on board to assist with those functions.

Senator ROBERTS: How do the taxpayers know this cost is justified by the outcomes it generates? Have you got KPIs?

Ms Shuhyta: I have reporting obligations under the legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: What are your KPIs under the legislation?

Ms Shuhyta: I have to report on all enforcement actions and consequences undertaken in the last financial year and the size and nature of the illicit markets so we can monitor that year on, year out. It’s also on excise and customs equivalent duties evaded.

Senator ROBERTS: So you can track your effectiveness?

Ms Shuhyta: That should be able to assist us and monitor the intergovernmental activities that are responding to this issue.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know whether or not you are being effective?

Ms Shuhyta: It’s a good question. My role is to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and coordination to bring the efforts together across states and territories, across portfolios and across multiple points of the supply and demand chain. The value-add that the office brings is to support that force multiplication effect instead of all of the separate agencies working separately.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d make the comment that with the AFP there I would have thought they would be better equipped, knowing their expertise in criminology or countering criminology, to do that. Do you have a
starting point for your own measure of success? How many illegal cigarettes entered Australia in the last 12 months?

Ms Shuhyta: I think the ABF might have that data, in terms of cigarettes that they’ve seized coming into the border.

Mr Reynolds: To give an indication of how much we interdicted on the border, we interdicted 2.5 billion sticks of cigarette during the financial year 2024-25. We also interdicted over 439 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco,
and we interdicted six million vape devices and accessories during that financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Those are pretty impressive figures. Do you have any idea from that, extrapolating, how many came into the country?

Mr Reynolds: That is an assessment that will be in a report provided by the ITEC Commissioner to the government.

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible to get that number on notice?

Mr Reynolds: That is a matter for the government.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, would it be possible to get that number on notice?

Senator Watt: Which number was that?

Senator ROBERTS: The AFP man can tell you. It’s the number of cigarettes that would have come into the country illegally extrapolated from the number of captured or known cigarettes.

Senator Watt: I’ll take that on notice, and we’ll do our best to answer that question.

Ms Foster: If I could just revert to your last question to Ms Shuhyta, I think there are two points to make. The AFP has an incredibly important role in this mission, but it’s quite a specific role, consistent with their mandate. Ms Shuhyta’s role is to try and make the whole work as effectively as possible together. She’s got an example of the work she’s doing with police forces across the jurisdictions which will illustrate the kind of value that the office can add.

Mr Reynolds: May I also add that the Australian Federal Police is a member of the national disruption group, and their expertise is being used as a part of that group to break the illicit tobacco business model.

CHAIR: Final question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: In January 2024, Minister Butler announced:

The Albanese Government cracks down on illegal tobacco imports The Albanese Government has committed $188.5 million to crackdown on the importation of illegal tobacco.

It’s been almost two years now. There must be some tangible benefit for the money. Commissioner, what reduction in the importation of illegal tobacco has resulted from this initiative so far? I know of police in
Queensland—I know of good citizens in Queensland—who are now going to the illicit tobacco trade because they see that the excise is so damn high.

Mr Reynolds: I mentioned the metrics before. That’s a 38 per cent increase compared to the previous financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that what you’ve interdicted?

Mr Reynolds: That’s correct. I’ll just provide a very quick vignette from Queensland where, just recently, the Australian Border Force and the Queensland Police Service executed a series of warrants that resulted in one of the largest illicit tobacco and vape seizures in Queensland’s history. The total duty evaded for the combined seizures, of over 30.5 million cigarettes and 5.1 tonnes of tobacco, is estimated to be over $53.8 million with the estimated street value of over 4,000 vapes to be $20.05 million. It was an extremely successful joint operation between the Australian Border Force and the Queensland Police Service.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, we can only assess whether it’s successful or not by comparing it to the total quantity of cigarettes coming in—tobacco and vapes coming in illegally—and finding their way to the
market. Apparently that is still huge, and it’s causing crime around Australia with tobacconists getting firebombed.

Mr Reynolds: The fact that we’re able to conduct that successful operation—that breaks that particular criminal syndicate. It’s only through breaking the criminal syndicates that we can reduce the scourge of illicit
tobacco in Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Some people would argue that it’s only cutting the excise back to sensible levels that would break that, because people now find it’s worth going to the criminals to get their tobacco.

/2 Comments/by