Fraud is Overwhelming in the NDIS Sector

,

At the recent estimates in June, the head of the Fraud Investigations Unit revealed that the volume of fraud cases reaching the courts is so high that the country’s judiciary is overwhelmed. This significant issue is driving up the cost of services. 

I then enquired about the services provided to individuals with autism and was told that there are 200,000 people on the program with autism as their primary diagnosis. 

No commitment was made to increase allowances for care providers.

Transcripts | Part 1

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you to witnesses for being here today. We have been receiving a lot of phone calls and emails from constituents about the NDIA and the NDIS. What’s the fundamental need for having an NDIA and an NDIS as separate agencies? While they have different functions, the functions of NDIA and NDIS could be combined, doing away with a whole department and host of bureaucracies currently costing the taxpayer millions of dollars. It’s confusing to people. Could you please explain them?  

Ms Falkingham: Yes, Senator. We have a scheme that’s set out under the act. There is only one agency, which is the National Disability Insurance Agency. We also have a commission. That might be what you’re referring to—the National Quality and Safeguards Commission. But the NDIS is not an agency, it’s not an entity of any type; it’s a scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are people so confused about it?  

Ms Falkingham: I think that over the course of the last 11 years we haven’t necessarily done the greatest job of explaining and communicating about the scheme—who it’s for, who it’s not for, what type of supports you can get on the NDIS and what supports you can get from outside the NDIS. Some of the confusion you might be speaking about goes to whether people have got an issue with their provider. If they have an issue with their provider, often it’s the National Quality and Safeguards Commission that they can make a complaint to, if it’s a registered provider. But, obviously, we also have things called local area coordinators. That’s a partnership we have with the community sector, which is often when people go in the first instance to speak to someone about getting onto the scheme. There are a lot of people involved in this scheme. One of the review’s recommendations is to really streamline that and have this concept of a navigator, and so we can start to have one person walk with a person with disability in an end-to-end kind of way along the planning process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s being done in relation to auditing agency service providers who are sucking the scheme dry through fraudulent claims for services overcharged or not actually even provided?  

Ms Falkingham: It’s an excellent question. I might ask John Dardo to come to the table. He can take you through all the work we’re doing on our crackdown on fraud.  

Mr Dardo: I’m the deputy CEO and I look after contact centres and the integrity functions as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what are the functions?  

Mr Dardo: The Integrity functions—things like compliance, fraud and integrity checks.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Mr Dardo: Before I give a bit of a summary about the work that we’re doing, there are a couple of things that are really important to note. The No. 1 priority we have when we do integrity work is to make sure that participants’ safety is looked after. As we talk about the stuff today, it’ll be easy for some people to assume that participant safety is not the No. 1 thing we do, but participant safety is actually the most critical thing we do as we do our integrity work. As we do that integrity work, obviously we also look at things like sustainability of the scheme and making sure that the community can have confidence that people are getting the right services from the right providers. If we do it well, we get a level playing field for the providers, because the good providers can compete on a level playing field; they don’t have to compete against dodgy providers. The work we’re doing has lots of layers. There is a lot of work that we doing to identify, with intelligence, the providers or the things that are bad for the scheme. As we do that work, we’re working with other agencies to build layers of defence. That is because there is no silver bullet to getting integrity right within the scheme. One thing that we have is the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. It’s now 19 agencies.  

Senator ROBERTS: The what taskforce?  

Mr Dardo: It’s the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. There are 19 government agencies. It includes us, Services Australia—we co-chair it—the tax office, Attorney-General’s, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and a raft of other delivery agencies that do government payments and programs, such as Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, ASQA, who look after registered training organisations, professional standards that look after the quality of the medical professionals, Health and Ageing—there are a lot of agencies involved. The reason we partner with those agencies is that the people that are doing the worst things against the scheme and the worst things against participants don’t just work against the NDIS; they rort other systems as well. They rort the tax system, the Medicare system or the VET, vocational education and training, system. The patterns they use to defraud the scheme are similar across those systems. So, when we work with the other agencies, we’re more likely to detect those people, and we’re building a preventive architecture that doesn’t just stop fraud against the NDIS; it is also reusable to stop fraud against Medicare, vocational education and training, family day care or child care. So that taskforce is going brilliantly. It has a regular rhythm. We do a lot of work together to develop intelligence. We have intelligence alerts that come out to all the relevant agencies about providers or schemes that seek to defraud. We then act on those to stop payments or we work with the commission, who are also on the taskforce, to prevent bad players from being registered providers. In some cases, we do operations together. ASQA, the guys that look after registered training organisations, only came on board in the last month or so. Within a week or two of coming on board, we worked with them, and the tax office provided some support and the commission provided support, and warrants were executed on a provider that was problematic. So we work together really well. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many service providers have been charged for falsely claiming fees for services not provided?  

Mr Dardo: There are many, many dozens. Right now, there are approximately 20 prosecutions in progress, as in right in front of the courts right now.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s across Australia?  

Mr Dardo: Yes. There are also several that are imminent. The affidavits have been produced. The work has been done with law enforcement. It’s been done with CDPP to result in either search warrants or charges. So there are more in the pipeline that are imminent. In addition to that, we’ve got to keep in mind that prosecution is the last resort. What we want to do is build a scheme where they can’t even get to the point of doing dodgy claims.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I have seen and what I’ve concluded is that the NDIS was started as an election promise, it was cobbled together and flung out there—it wasn’t ready to go—and as a result there have been two things. Initially, there was a lot of corruption because the systems were loose, which is understandable, and then, as they tightened up, some people were missing out on services. Could you give me on notice, please, since the inception of the NDIS, the number of people charged for falsely claiming fees for services not provided, on an annual basis. I’d like to see if there’s a trend—if there’s a pick-up or a decrease. I mentioned the fact that, when you have a trend, it may be due to better enforcement or due to more—  

Mr Dardo: Keep in mind the charges that are laid aren’t phrased exactly the way you described them, but certainly we can give you, on notice, the trend. What I will say is we are detecting now more than we could ever detect before, because the systems were not mature. They have been matured as we invest more in building more mature systems. For example, certainly in the last six to eight years, payments would be going out the door, and there were some periods through the day or through a weekend where payments were being processed with no NDIA eyes, or human eyes, looking at those payments. So payments were walking out the door without any system knowing that the payments were going out the door, because the systems were not mature enough or built in a way to prevent those payments.  

Senator ROBERTS: We all know that the minister has been talking a lot about tightening up because ultimately the cost is getting out of control. What that means is that people who deserve good care don’t get it. So, by holding back the fraudsters, we’re protecting people to ensure they get their care in the future.  

Mr Dardo: Absolutely. To give you examples, there are the prosecutions, but, even more important than that, in terms of the volume of the response that we’re implementing at the moment, there are the stoppers. There’s the stopping of payments where the providers are problematic or the claims are problematic.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re making them jump through more hoops?  

Mr Dardo: We’re stopping the claims, and we’re saying, ‘We’re not confident that this claim is legitimate; you need to provide evidence that it’s legitimate.’ In some of our stopper work, we’re hitting 50 to 87 per cent stop rates on claims. We have providers that have put claims in. We’re saying, ‘Sorry; that doesn’t look quite right,’ and they’re either withdrawing or cancelling their claims, or not responding at all—they’re walking away completely, and in some cases they’re shutting down their businesses and walking away because they’ve realised the game is up. And we’re not talking at the margins for these claims. Some of these claims are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars—  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard about them.  

Mr Dardo: or in the millions of dollars. Our ability to now detect it is allowing us to stop it before it goes out. If we can stop it before it goes out, we then don’t have to try and recover the money or raise a debt to recover the money. We need to get better at stopping it. Before they even exist to make the claim, we need to get better at bringing that further forward in the supply chain. As we look at many of these claims and many of these providers, what we’re seeing is that the behaviours have been going on for years. It’s just that we’re better now at seeing them and preventing or stopping them. It is generating some angst, and I’ll describe that in more detail. There are providers that have been really bad in setting up their business model to take funds out of the system, with an understanding with participants or nominees that they would provide a certain set of services which maybe should not have been provided by the NDIS, whether it be rent subsidies, alcohol or other lifestyle expenses, gift vouchers or gift cards. The participants or their nominees have grown accustomed to a standard of living—they may have signed leases on the understanding that that was the lifestyle they would enjoy—and we’re now identifying that those providers are problematic, and we’re saying, ‘Sorry; you can’t keep claiming that money to subsidise that type of spend.’ You can imagine that some of our participants are having their standard of living disrupted. 

Senator ROBERTS: That is a recurring theme in some of the questions constituents put to us—that genuine care is not being considered but lifestyle choices are, and so money is going on that. This is another one that’s recurring: when will families or friends supporting a person with high-level needs be appropriately supported? They’re not adequately supported, but care providers are being overly supported.  

Mr Dardo: There are certainly some really black-and-white spaces. There are providers that are just providers—they’re brilliant and they’re awesome, and what they do is fantastic. There are some providers that have a mixed business model—they do some good work, but they do a whole bunch of dodgy stuff to supplement their income, their lifestyle or their business. There are some providers that are really just fraudsters, criminals or criminal syndicates, and they’re using the NDIS for cash flow. There are some participants and providers that are the same thing. We have participants who have set up businesses to pay themselves to look after themselves, or nominees who have set up businesses to look after their kids. We have examples of cases where it’s not clear that it’s a provider or a participant or a nominee, because it’s all intermingled. The family group has set up three entities, and they’re paying each other to look after each other, or a mother has drawn down $100,000 a year as an income to pay herself for looking after her child with disability. There are some things there that are very intermingled between a provider and a participant. The conflicts of interest are pretty extreme. Then you have participants who have not understood what they can and can’t agree to with a provider, so they’re accepting things that they shouldn’t be. Examples just in the last week: a $20,000 holiday, a $10,000 holiday. There are participants who are claiming things that they shouldn’t and in the past would probably not have been detected. We had a participant that bought a car, brand new, for $73,000. The money was processed overnight. Fortunately, when we were able to approach them, they understood that they shouldn’t have done that and they were willing to repay the money. We have other participants who haven’t understood what they should be claiming and when we approach them they cease contact and refuse to engage. Then there are the vast majority of participants that are trying to do the right thing, and we have to figure out how we get the balance right so that we help the people who are trying to do the right thing get it right more often. For the providers that are doing an awesome job, we need to help them survive and flourish. For the ones that are running mixed businesses, we need to exit them from the scheme, and, for the providers that are dodgy, we need to exit them from all government services, not just the scheme—we need to exit them from Medicare, AHPRA and everything else that they’re involved with.  

CHAIR: Senator, this will need to be the last question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give us the number of providers per year, for the last five years, who have been exited from the system please.  

Mr Dardo: We can. There are some different metrics there, but we can see what we can get for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like the agency is waking up to what’s happening, so thank you.

Transcript | Part 2

Senator ROBERTS: Before I continue with my questions—I think they will be to Ms Falkingham—Mr Dardo, I want to say I appreciate your candid nature and your openness. I’ve rarely seen someone in your position who, when confronted with a senator telling them about a problem, says: ‘That’s not the end of it. It’s worse than that, actually.’ It’s only by us understanding it and what you’re doing that we can help you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Ms Falkingham, why have many persons with autism or on the spectrum had their services cut, often with little explanation provided?  

Ms Falkingham: I am not aware of any evidence to support that claim. I will get the scheme actuary up and he can talk about the amount of money we invest in participants with autism.  

Mr Gifford: I don’t have the precise figure with me but I believe it would be more than 200,000 participants in the scheme who have autism as their primary disability. There’s no data that would suggest that people with autism are having their services cut. The growth in plans of participants with autism is different to the scheme population more broadly.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the plan to support older people currently receiving a support package that far exceeds the age pension yet their package will cease when they reach retirement age? Their needs will not diminish and may become more acute yet their support will be slashed.  

Ms Falkingham: It might be a question for our colleagues in DSS. The NDIS review has made a number of recommendations in relation to the interface between aged care and NDIS, so we can absolutely do better for ensuring that people are receiving that continuity of support if they have been on the NDIS, which we do now for people under 65. The NDIS review has made a recommendation around the interface and how we can improve upon that, but I will check if my colleague wants to add to that. 

 Mr Griggs: If you qualify before you’re 65, you don’t come off the scheme at 65.  

Senator ROBERTS: What happens? When they go on the pension, don’t they come off the scheme?  

Mr Griggs: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not at all?  

Mr Griggs: No, not if you qualified before 65.  

Senator ROBERTS: Remember, these are coming from a lot of our constituents via emails and personal calls. Are you aware of clients who own their own home being pressured to sell their own home by the service providers to move to group care?  

Ms Falkingham: I will check whether Deputy CEO Penelope McKay has any evidence. I do hear that anecdotally, but I’m not aware of whether we have any current cases. We can take that on notice for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the focus seemingly moving away from providing support based on practical needs like assistance with cooking, cleaning, showering and hygiene to non-essential services that are routinely overcharged? We’ve heard stories of fishing and so on. Is there a switch there from genuine need to—  

Ms Falkingham: Every decision we make is based on reasonable and necessary. The things you have outlined are absolutely the core of the scheme in terms of daily living and supporting daily living expenses, so I’m not sure. We can follow up for you, but some people will have goals in their plans that go to recreational goals and achievements, so obviously we will try to support a participant to achieve that goal by providing appropriate disability supports to enable them to do that. But things like building capacity, that’s what you’re speaking about in relation to cooking and cleaning and supporting people to live a good life. They are the core of our scheme and that’s predominantly what we fund now.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard from constituents saying they have someone who will take them fishing but he comes in, does a quick look around—that’s a welfare check—and leaves. Is that the kind of thing some people are paying for?  

Ms Falkingham: If you have evidence of that, I’m really happy to follow that up.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do agency service providers apparently get priority to receive payment over actual care givers who do massive amounts of unpaid work? In other words, personal care givers, family, do a massive amount of work and don’t get paid but agency service providers do. 

Ms Falkingham: Obviously informal supports are a critical part of someone’s life and it is one of the things we discuss as part of the planning process. We fund paid supports under the scheme, but informal supports will always be a critical part of our community, and having family to be able to support loved ones is a really critical part of that. We obviously always provide respite services for families as well, who do provide a lot of informal supports, but that is the nature of our scheme. It is what we are funding under the NDIS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the carers allowance so pitifully small relative to paid agencies when many carers provide ongoing personal support 24 hours per day all year?  

Ms Falkingham: I think that might be a question for DSS.  

Mr Griggs: Carers allowance is part of the social security system. It’s not part of the NDIS. We can talk about that tomorrow in outcome 1 of DSS, when my team will be here, and they can take you through that.  

Senator ROBERTS: When will care providers be remunerated appropriately because they put in more needed work hours than agency service providers? We’ll talk about that tomorrow. 

/by

Questions Remain Unanswered on Strike Rate Against Doctors

,

During the June Estimates, I asked the Professional Services Review Scheme (PSRS) why there was a 100% strike rate against doctors. I was informed that only a small number of cases make it to the Committee stage after several preliminary steps.

The representative assured me that the system is fair, although she admitted that appeals are restricted to procedural issues and cannot address the merits of the evidence.

While she mentioned that the Committee consists of the doctor’s peers, she did not address my concern about the 100% strike rate.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. At previous estimates, I was told that administrative investigations of doctors conducted by the Professional Services Review Scheme were done in a completely fair manner. Your annual reports reveal that, since 2008, there have been 173 doctors who faced administrative investigations by committees leading to sanctions. How many of those prosecutions were successful, leading to sanctions being placed upon doctors, including suspension of practice?  

Mr Topperwien: The 173 practitioners that you refer to were the ones who were referred to committees after a long process. We’ve in fact been asked to look at over 1,800 practitioners. Those 173 were ones out of the 1,800 that we’ve looked at that the director would have had concerns that there was a possibility that they had engaged in inappropriate practice. That concern that the director would have had for each of those cases would have followed an exhaustive process by which they would have looked at samples of their patient records, interviewed the practitioner, looked at the submissions that had been made and then formed the view that for each of those practitioners there was a chance that they had engaged in inappropriate practice. They were not prepared, probably for most of them, to enter into an agreement or the director was so concerned about what looked like their conduct that they thought it ought to go to a committee of their peers to fully investigate what had actually gone on. So the small number of practitioners who end up going to a committee have gone through an exhaustive process prior to even getting there. And, as I said, they came out of 1,800 practitioners.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. As I said, there have been 173 doctors who have faced administrative investigations by committees, which is what you’re confirming. I’ve asked you how many were successful. You said 100—  

Mr Topperwien: I’m aware that there have been practitioners who have gone to committees where there has been no adverse outcome for them.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that the number of those who were suspended were 171, not including two doctors who passed away.  

Mr Topperwien: I’m unable to confirm here and now what those numbers actually are, but I can take that on notice and get back to you with the actual numbers of cases that have gone to committees and, in broad terms, the nature of the outcomes of those cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d be happy with that on notice. But my understanding is that, as I said just then, the number of prosecutions that were successful for the review scheme, out of 173, were 171, not including two doctors who passed away. So that’s a strike rate of 100 per cent against the doctors.  

Mr Topperwien: Of those who went to committees.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’m—  

Mr Topperwien: Of the 1,800 that we started looking at in the first place, those 1,800 came from many thousands that were first examined by the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. I accept the 1,800 and 173. But, of the 173, there was a 100 per cent strike rate against the doctors. I went to a barrister to check this out—a reliable barrister who used to teach in constitutional law as well as practice and worked in administration for governments. This finding is an extraordinary result, because no court system goes even close to a 100 per cent conviction rate. How can the scheme claim a fair system with a 100 per cent rate of finding against doctors?  

Dr Mahoney: Would it help if I gave some extra context around the cases that come to Professional Services Review?  

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know the answer to the question. How can a system claim to be fair when it’s a 100 per cent strike rate?  

Dr Mahoney: If I give you the context around it, that will explain it. The department may wish to add to what I’m saying, but there are a whole range of compliance activities that are undertaken by the Department of Health and Aged Care. We talk about a pyramid. You may have heard of it. At the bottom of the pyramid, the very largest number, are the practitioners who get an educational activity helping them to understand why their billing might need to be looked at or how to bill correctly. The next step above that are what are called targeted letters, where practitioners who have been identified as perhaps needing a little bit more help will get a letter that gives them some information about their own data and just asking them to look at it. That’s really all those letters do. The next step that the department has in place is an audit program. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s it called?  

Dr Mahoney: Audit.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Dr Mahoney: That sometimes gets confused with other activities. But the audit program, again, is very specific. It’s done by the department. I can talk about this because my previous role was exactly in doing the work with the compliance section of the department. With audit, it’s very specific. Again, it’s particular Medicare item requirements that can be audited, as in, ‘Did you do a specific thing?’—was there a referral, for example, for a service that requires a referral. The team that do the audit work, that’s what they do. They ask a practitioner to send in a set of documents with the proof that they’ve met a requirement. That’s a compliance activity. They’re the next level up in the pyramid. Then we come up to what’s called the Practitioner Review Program. That Practitioner Review Program is going up the pyramid where the concerns about the practitioner’s billing data or prescribing data is of more concern than any of those lower levels. That, again, is a much smaller group. For those practitioners, their data is looked at very thoroughly by senior medical practitioners who are experienced in practice as well as in looking at this data. If those practitioners think that there needs to be some intervention—the department’s medical staff—then that practitioner is contacted. They are given their billing data. They are given an opportunity to have an interview with one of the medical advisers in the department. The outcomes of those—there are three possible outcomes. The first is that the practitioner has explained their billing data, it makes sense and there is no further action taken. The second, and this is by far the largest group, is where there is some concern. The practitioner is given education about why there is concern with their billing and they are given what is called a period of review to change or to make changes to what the issues are. Then their data is looked at again. Again, the majority of practitioners understand that. They take that on board, they learn it and there’s no penalty. This is all what’s gone on before anybody gets to PSR. The third possible outcome for cases that are of really serious concern to the medical advisers in the department is that those cases are referred to Professional Services Review for the next stage up the pyramid. So we’re getting quite close to the top now. The only ones above us are those that are outright fraud that we don’t deal with. That’s not compliance. I need to add a little bit to that. After interview, a very small number of practitioners will go straight—will get referred to PSR because of the level of their concerns. A small number of practitioners who are given that six-month period of review do not make changes and they may go to PSR as well when their data is reviewed after six months. Then there’s the third group of practitioners that are referred to Professional Services Review. As you would know, under the 80/20 and 30/20 rules, if a practitioner breaches those then the department’s required by law to refer those cases to Professional Services Review. So the only cases that we are looking at in Professional Services Review are those that have already been through all of that and they are near the top of the pyramid. So that’s the context around the numbers that you’re talking about. The further context, as Mr Topperwien has said, is that even of those that get to Professional Services Review, only a small number go to committee. So I hope that helped.  

Senator ROBERTS: That has. It’s confirmed some of my fears, but I’ll explain that in a minute if we need to. Isn’t this strike rate of 100 per cent of those who get referred to a committee indicative of a system loaded against doctors with little or no chance of a doctor being able to raise a fair defence to allegations made?  

Dr Mahoney: No. They have chances right through the whole process, as I’ve described, or all the processes at the department of health.  

Senator ROBERTS: I got that. You’ve given me the answer—it’s no, in your view.  

Dr Mahoney: At Professional Services Review, they again have chances to explain, describe and discuss.  

Senator ROBERTS: The system is loaded against doctors, in our view, having listened to some doctors and consulted legal advice. Is it because in the process there’s no meaningful opportunity to challenge or explain the evidence being given against the doctor? My understanding of legal practice, which is pretty limited, is that there are two aspects. A case has to be taken through the process properly. If it’s not taken through the process properly, it’s dismissed. But if it’s taken through the process properly, then they consult the evidence. If the evidence is sound, there’s a conviction. If the evidence is not sound, it’s dismissed. So process has to be followed and evidence has to be strong. Now, doctors cannot appeal the merits of the evidence. They can appeal the process. So your process is fine, but they can’t appeal the evidence. Is that correct?  

Mr Topperwien: I’d just say here that the practitioner has multiple opportunities at the PSR end of the process to challenge the evidence, bring their own evidence and have their own witnesses. They have a lawyer in virtually every case, and the evidence that is the—the substantive evidence on which the committee makes findings is the doctor’s own practice notes. It’s the doctor’s own evidence that shows that they have engaged in inappropriate practice. They have every opportunity to put other evidence if they choose to. 

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it correct that a result of the process is that appeals are limited to arguments about process and not about merit or evidence of the case?  

Mr Topperwien: They have an opportunity to take an action in the Federal Court at any stage of the process about whether we have acted fairly and have taken into account irrelevant considerations. We’ve not taken into account irrelevant considerations. Those are the bases on which a challenge may be made in the court.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, as I said, the doctor can appeal the process but not appeal the merits of the evidence.  

Mr Topperwien: That’s right.  

Ms Shakespeare: Senator, perhaps I’d add some more context about the scheme—the PSR. Where people are referred to committees, that’s a committee of their clinical peers that hears evidence and makes recommendations and determinations about their clinical practice from a place of clinical expertise.  

Senator ROBERTS: In theory that’s correct. But in practice it’s not.  

Ms Shakespeare: I don’t think we would accept that either.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. At the next Senate estimates maybe we can talk further—or maybe before then if you’d be willing to. Would you be willing to engage in a conversation before then?  

Ms Shakespeare: About the makeup of committees for the PSR? I think that’s probably something that we would be able to engage in.  

CHAIR: Senator, via the minister’s office we can seek a briefing for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, an earlier review of the scheme said the scheme must be overhauled to make it fair and allow appeals to be made on merit. What’s your government’s timetable for a review of this system?  

Ms Quinn: Senator, there have been a number of reviews conducted around the Professional Services Review. You would understand that it’s established under the Health Insurance Act, so it is a lawful—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no doubt it’s lawful.  

Ms Quinn: And considered by the parliament of the time. Concerns about possible inappropriate practice, as you said, are able to be elevated to the courts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that perfectly. I’ve had it explained before and now again today very well. I understand that it was recommended earlier in a review that the scheme must be overhauled. I want to know the progress of that and when is it going to be done.  

Senator Gallagher: Let me see if there’s—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I also make it clear that fraud hurts the taxpayers. I detest it and it must stop. So we’ve got no problems there. I also can see that a doctor who stands up and has got the courage of his or her convictions can go right through that process and won’t buckle. I can see some doctors will buckle because it’s just too much. They’ll let go. So some strong doctors, I believe, are being punished. That’s what I would like to talk to. I don’t want to raise individual cases with you. That’s not my position. I’m not an advocate for individual cases. I just wanted to understand the process better. So I look forward to a conversation.  

Mr Topperwien: We are happy to talk to you in general terms about how the process works, the way that the scheme is structured, the qualifications of the practitioners who are on our panel and who are appointed to committees and how that appointment process works.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/by

One Nation’s Vision Promises Growth and Prosperity for a Secure Future

,

Inflation, unemployment, mortgages, rents, and the cost of living—including energy and grocery prices—are all on the rise.

One Nation policies promise growth and prosperity for everyone, ensuring a secure future.

Transcript

The response from Treasurer Jim Chalmers to yesterday’s increase in the inflation rate was, ‘There’s more work to be done.’ Oh, really? I would think the Treasurer has done quite enough already, thank you very much. Inflation is increasing, unemployment is increasing, mortgages and rents are increasing, the cost of living—including energy prices and grocery prices—is rising, and building costs are increasing. Bankruptcies are at a record high, with construction companies heavily featured. GDP per person is falling, and the economy as a whole is almost in the red.  

Taking these indicators together shows that Australia is in the early phases of stagflation, the scourge of the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments. A One Nation government would immediately reverse the economic mismanagement of recent Liberal and Labor governments. We would grow Australia out of stagflation. We would shut down the department of climate change, withdraw from the UN Paris Agreement and rebuild our energy infrastructure with the lowest-cost power generation: hydro, coal and nuclear. We would terminate environmental and economic vandalism coming from pumped hydro and offshore wind by refusing industrial wind and solar generation on productive farmland and in native forests. We would take the government’s jackboot off our farmers’ throats and support our agricultural sector to once again feed and clothe the world. 

We would immediately freeze the issue of new permanent visas and review the skills list, to ensure those who arrive have the skills we need to support economic growth, and we would send home some people who are currently on resident visas. We would build Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, build a national rail circuit and a national shipping fleet, and push steel parks at Abbot Point and Port Hedland. We would close down insane pumped hydro projects and green energy subsidies. We would use the east-west rail line to support Aboriginal communities, mining and agriculture across the Top End and Central Australia. 

The government can only offer stagnation and decay. One Nation policies, though, represent growth and prosperity for all, for a secure future. 

/by

Digital ID Repeal & COVID Response Commission Bills Introduced

It’s been a big week for cross-party collaboration on issues we’ve been strong on from the very start.

Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024

I co-signed the Digital ID Repeal Bill alongside Senators Antic, Babet, Canavan, Hanson and Rennick, which was introduced into the Senate Wednesday, 26 June 2024.

This Bill aims to repeal the government’s dystopian and ill-conceived Digital ID Bill.

What everyday Australians need is a Bill that protects their privacy, not one that removes it.

The way this Bill was rushed through the Senate without debate was reprehensible and an abuse of Senate process.

COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024

2 years ago I promised to hound down those responsible for the damage our COVID measures caused to Australians.

On Tuesday, in company with Senators Antic, Canavan, Rennick and O’Sullivan, a Bill was introduced to immediately commence a Senate Select Commission of Inquiry into our COVID response. The Terms of Reference in this Bill includes the recommendations from my recent committee inquiry.

/28 Comments/by

The Threat From Lab-Grown Meat is Lost on FSANZ

,

I have asked, over multiple estimate sessions, about the approval process for lab-grown meat. While I acknowledge and understand Food Standard Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) need to take their time with this decision, the process seems more about ticking the boxes rather than conducting a serious investigation into the potential health impacts of this Frankenstein food product.

Australia has the highest quality farm produce globally, with the capability to both feed our population and export protein. There is absolutely no need for lab-grown meats. The process of cultivating muscle cells from live cattle via biopsy in a bio-reactor to create meat, bears a resemblance to how cancer cells replicate.

Lab-grown meat has the nutritional value of whatever it has been cultivated in. There’s no chance this product will match the nutritional value and safety of real meat.

One Nation believes that before lab-grown meat is approved, extensive generational testing must be conducted to assess the impact of this product on human cells, including testing for potential damage to reproductive capacity and to the development of cancers – a process known as genotoxicity testing. If such testing were performed on rats (a perfectly valid method), it would have been completed by now. The lack of such testing is alarming and begs the question – why has it not been conducted?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. At last estimates, I asked about genotoxicity of products grown in a bioreactor—lab meat. Your answer on notice—and thank you for providing this—was: ‘There are no safety concerns, including genotoxicity.’ Is that still your position?  

Dr Cuthbert: Yes, it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your answer doesn’t address my question. I didn’t ask if you had no genotoxicity concerns. I asked, and now repeat: have you received genotoxicity testing on this or a similar product from a suitable jurisdiction?  

Dr Cuthbert: I’ll pass to Dr O’Mullane, who is the general manager for risk management and intelligence and is managing the assessment.  

Dr O’Mullane: Thank you for the question. If I could just go back to a statement around genotoxicity or carcinogenicity, and that is that the starting material for these types of cell based meat products are cells taken from healthy animals. They are not cancerous cells and they are not cancer cells. They are cells that are harvested from connective tissue, from muscle tissue, from skin tissue. They are then taken into a bioreactor and they are selected. There are natural variants that can live for a reasonable period of time in that bioreactor under very specific and controlled conditions, along with tissue culture media components. Taken outside of that bioreactor, they are not capable of surviving. They are not going to survive food processing activities or cooking; they would certainly not survive through the human digestive tract. So our position very clearly is that the cells that are used in terms of the quail application that we’re currently looking at don’t pose any cancer concerns. They’re not cancerous. That view is held not specifically for these quail cells but certainly in a more general sense via the US Food and Drug Administration who have made statements in this effect and also the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, who provided a report last year around cell cultured foods, and they have made similar statements. To your question on genotoxicity data, I don’t believe that genotoxicity data was provided as part of this application. I will confirm that. So the characterisation of the safety risks are very much around the molecular characterisation of the cells and what is involved with the actual culture media. So we are confident that these cells and the actual products that are generated from those cells aren’t going to pose a human health and safety concern. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you have not received genotoxicity testing on this or a suitable product from a suitable jurisdiction?  

Dr O’Mullane: I don’t believe we have. But I will confirm that on notice if I may.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How can you say then that you have no genotoxicity testing concerns if you haven’t done or seen genotoxicity testing?  

Dr O’Mullane: Based on the points that I’ve already made. It is based on the actual characteristics of the cells. These are entirely normal cells that have been taken out of healthy animals. So there is no plausible reason to consider that they would have any sort of cancer or genotoxicity potential.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re relying upon the FDA in America?  

Dr O’Mullane: We are not relying on the FDA. As part of this particular application, certain data have been provided. We are still going through an active process of scientific evaluation which is still running for at least another six months. On the basis of what we have seen to date, we went out with a first public consultation ending in February this year. The risk assessment that we put out very clearly said that there were no human health and safety concerns. If there is any additional information that might be available, either from yourself or others, that could be submitted, we would certainly be happy to look at that and see whether we needed to make any sort of adjustments. But, based on the evidence that we’ve seen to date, we are confident in the safety of this particular cell based quail.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you’ve done no genotoxicity testing. What is the state of approval for Vow Group’s application to produce imitation quail meat in a bioreactor for human consumption?  

Dr O’Mullane: I mentioned that there was a first public consultation round earlier in the year. We’re due to go out with a second public consultation round in July. Then there will be a period of time where we will evaluate any submissions. That second so-called call for submissions report will include the proposed legal drafting: things like labelling that will appear in the Food Standards Code. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on our legal drafting in terms of its clarity and enforceability. We then go through a period of proposing a so-called approval report for the FSANZ Board to make a decision. At the moment we’re looking at around the end of the year, probably in December. Once the FSANZ Board has made a decision, there’s a 60-day window where that decision is notified to food ministers, who then have the opportunity to call for a review of that decision or not. Following that, if everything goes smoothly, it would be gazetted and then go into food law.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve in embarked on consultation?  

Dr O’Mullane: This is considered a major application, so we’re required to undertake two rounds of public consultation. We’ve undertaken one round, and we’re about to take—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve finished the first round. You’re about to start the second.  

Dr O’Mullane: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Then the approvals will continue without any further testing, and, even if you give approval, it will be the subject of the health ministers and the states to object if they want to.  

Dr O’Mullane: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they got the capacity to do their own testing? They’d be relying on you.  

Dr O’Mullane: Yes. They would certainly provide us with very detailed commentary around why they were calling for the FSANZ Board to review its decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who decides use of the word ‘meat’, which the public rightly associates with an animal product, not a laboratory product? 

Dr O’Mullane: In relation to the current quail application, as part of the first public consultation we’ve looked at possible options for labelling and what it may be called. Where we are heading to at the moment is either ‘cell cultured’ or ‘cell cultivated’ quail. Based on the consumer feedback that we’ve had, that seems to be best understood by consumers. In terms of the use of the term ‘meat’, you’re right that there is a specific definition of meat in the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code, which is defined there. But if the term ‘meat’ is used in an accurate context so as not to mislead consumers it could potentially be used in a different context.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean?  

Dr O’Mullane: For example, use of the term ‘milk’. Milk is defined in the Food Standards Code, but milk can also be used in the context of soy milk or oat milk. In that context it’s not misleading because consumers generally know that it’s not from an animal, similar to the use of the term ‘beer’ in ginger beer or ‘bread’ in shortbread. It’s around the context of use that we need to look.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your reply also states that FSANZ is a member of the World Health Organization’s technical working group on cell based food as well as an OECD expert group on cell based food. Can Australians have confidence this decision is all your own work instead of being guided by foreign commercial interests?  

Dr O’Mullane: We’re still going through an active process at the moment. The food hasn’t actually been approved. If it is approved by the FSANZ Board, it will be because there is a scientific weight of evidence supporting the safety and suitability of the cell cultured quail. If it does end up on supermarket shelves, consumers can be confident that that’s the case and that the food will be labelled appropriately so that consumers can understand the true nature of the food and that they can make informed purchasing decisions. Senator ROBERTS: But you’re doing no further testing, including no genotoxicity testing.  

Dr O’Mullane: We don’t specifically do testing. We rely on the evidence that the applicant has provided, and there are—  

Senator ROBERTS: You rely on the evidence the applicant has provided?  

Dr O’Mullane: We rely on the evidence the applicant has provided in the context of the legislative requirements to provide certain information, data and studies. That is supplemented by our own scientific searches of the literature.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is a new field, yet you’re relying on regulations or legislation made in this building?  

Dr O’Mullane: We’re relying on scientific information. It’s a weight of scientific evidence that will then support the decision one way or the other about whether to permit this cell cultured quail product. 

/7 Comments/by

Wetlands Bulldozed: Coomera Connector 2 Environmental Application Expected Soon

,

I’ve been closely watching the progress of the Coomera Connector Stage 2 project between the Gold Coast and Brisbane. Original proposals included plans to completely bulldoze sensitive wetlands that were brought to my attention by community members at Eagleby. After the previous Estimates, meeting Minutes revealed that the Queensland Government wanted to advance the environmental approvals through a secret, non-public pathway rather than what’s called a public environment report (PER).

There are still huge environmental impacts from the proposed route, while a suitable alternative is available just a few kilometres away. I’ll be watching for the imminent referral that will detail the full extent of these environmental impacts to the Eagleby community.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. This is about Eagleby and Coomera Connector 2 up in Queensland. Can you please provide an update on any progress of an EPBC referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?  

Ms Parry: We can. We’ve just got officials coming to the table.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Mr Edwards: It’s my understanding that we have not yet received a referral for that stage of the Coomera Connector.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s from the Queensland government?  

Mr Edwards: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the meeting minutes you gave in SQ24-000073, you mention the potential likelihood that the referral would have to be subject to a public environment report—PER. That would be usual for a project with this level of complexity, public interest and controlling provisions. Did Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads preference bypassing the PER and have the project dealt with only by referral information?  

Mr Edwards: They don’t actually get to dictate the assessment approach.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s under your authority, is it?  

Mr Edwards: That’s right They refer it and we look at things such as complexities you’ve mentioned and determine what we believe is the right assessment approach to take.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any further expectations on when you expect a referral to be made?  

Mr Edwards: I’ll just ask my colleague Mr O’Connor-Cox. 

Mr O’Connor-Cox: The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads are aware of their obligations and they have indicated to us that they will refer. I can’t give an exact date about when that referral might occur, but my understanding and best guess would be that it would be a matter of weeks.  

Senator ROBERTS: Imminent?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: Imminent.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you provide any minutes of any further meetings you’ve had with transport and main roads Queensland on Coomera Connector 2 on notice?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: I can take that on notice. I’m not aware of any further meetings, but I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t be an expert on every topic—none of us can be—so pardon my ignorance, but in the answer you gave in the previous minutes, what’s an offset site and what’s an advanced offset site?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: After a proponent has avoided and mitigated impacts to matters of national environmental significance, there might be still a residual impact, and they’re required to offset that. They go to a site that has comparable values and they protect that site and improve that habitat, to square the ledger if you like, to compensate for the residual impacts that they have.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s an advanced offset site?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: An advanced offset site would be one where they’ve commenced work before the approval is granted and they can then claim credit for the improvements they have made prior to the approval.  

Senator ROBERTS: Under what conditions would they start work before approval?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: That would be something that’s before the approval. It wouldn’t be something we condition. They would then do that on their own volition and do so at their own risk, I guess, because they haven’t been granted an approval where we’ve said ‘Yes; that’s the appropriate offset.’  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, so they’re just taking a risk that you will approve it with the right conditions, so they’re starting work early.  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: I should add I’m very much talking in the general sense. I haven’t been involved in any of those discussions. It’s likely that discussion was around the prospects or potential rather than us getting involved in any detailed discussions about any actual advanced offset site. But generally that’s how it works.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not raising a flag up the pole for everyone to start work without permission—I can see Mr Knudson shaking his head vigorously.  

Mr Knudson: No, advanced offsets don’t have a negative impact. It’s basically taking actions to improve environmental outcomes and then using that, as Mr O’Connor-Cox talked about, to balance the ledger later on. ‘I’ve already done this beneficial action in terms of an offset, therefore any residual impacts can be dealt with by something I’ve already secured in an offset.’ That’s the point of an advance: you’ve done it in advance of the impact.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you both. 

/2 Comments/by

Port of Gladstone Key to Inland Rail’s Success

,

Inland Rail is a multi-billion dollar project aimed at extending the existing inland railway line that currently runs between Melbourne and Parkes, and up to Brisbane.  This will be a combination of existing and new sections of rail.  The idea is to have a north south connection between Brisbane and Melbourne that can shift hundreds of thousands of movement from road to rail freight. This line will need to be upgraded to accommodate double-stacked container trains that are 1.8 km long.

One Nation supports rail transport over road transport, but for this to be effective, the rail service must reflect the needs of the industry. This means trains need to depart according to industry schedules, reliable connections need to be maintained, and fair pricing offered. Inland Rail, in its current form, will provide none of those things. The current alignment (route) in QLD takes the line across the Condamine floodplain, which is, quite frankly, a stupid idea. The deep clay soil in that area cannot support a railway line without horrendously expensive supports, which will then act as a dam during a flood. The Brisbane Port access is constrained, meaning the railway line across Brisbane and into the Port is running close to capacity, with no easy way to extend it.  The Port of Gladstone offers a much better option.  The line can go inland up the Mooney Highway, then through Wandoan to Banana and onwards to Gladstone. This direct, flood-free alignment will provide a cheaper and more reliable transit option.

A new container handling facility is being built in Gladstone, with an intermodal connection to the railway. Gladstone is perfectly positioned to serve as Australia’s gateway port for container traffic from Asia. Best of all, the Port is located away from the city and is strongly supported by local councils. Despite inquiring about this option, it appears the floodplain alignment remains the preferred option. This is not good enough!  One Nation will continue to campaign for Inland Rail to run through to the Port of Gladstone.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. I have a number of questions, but I think they’re fairly short and straightforward. Recommendation 1 of the Schott report into the ARTC was to address skills deficiencies in the ARTC. I note that you’ve hired a new chair, Mr Peter Duncan. Has Mr Duncan ever built a railway?  

Mr Johnson: Mr Duncan is the chair of the board. His skills go to requisite skills to be able to lead a board and our organisation. He is certainly familiar with long linear infrastructure, the engineering infrastructure. He’s very familiar with that from his prior roles.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sort of long—  

Mr Johnson: Roads and water. It’s really not a matter for me to comment on the appointment of other directors and Mr Duncan in a role. What I would say is that the board are working really well with myself and holding me to account to make sure we’ve got the requisite skills to operate, maintain and create the network. Further to the recommendations, a key recommendation from Dr Schott’s report and the review was the establishment of the Inland Rail subsidiary and the establishment of the board in parallel. That’s why we sit here today. Nick is the new CEO to Inland Rail. That subsidiary is now fully fledged. They have both a chair and a board in place for the construction of Inland Rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate and understand the distinctions between governance, management and trusteeship, if you like. He has not built a railway, but he has done other long infrastructure. The other new senior hire is Dr Collette Burke, who is a qualified engineer. Can you confirm her engineering qualification, please?  

Mr Johnson: I know that Collette is an esteemed and qualified engineer, but I don’t have those details in front of me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get it on notice, please?  

Mr Johnson: No problem.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are reports—these may be old—that Dr Burke is also contributing to the Marinus Link from Tasmania to Victoria and Snowy Hydro 2.0. At these still current appointments?  

Mr Johnson: Like all directors, Collette as a director on the board has made clear what other commitments she has and whether are any conflicts at play. I can confirm that is the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: So she is still on the other two boards?  

Mr Johnson: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, has the government made any other appointments to ARTC that address the skills deficiencies identified in the Schott report?  

Senator Carol Brown: I don’t have that information with me, but I can take it on notice.  

Mr Miller: Of course there’s a secondary board now, the subsidiary board of Inland Rail, whose directors all have extensive infrastructure experience.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the earlier discussion on Inland Rail, I asked about what has been called the Goondiwindi to Gladstone alignment. I was advised that this is in the hands of the Queensland government. I find that surprising, when the Commonwealth government is paying for the project. It sounds like the Queensland government is going to decide how the Commonwealth spends the money. The Goondiwindi to Gladstone route is substantially cheaper, and I know there is at least one private partnership trying to get the attention of government with extensive expertise in railroads, freight, construction and shipping. They have money to spend. They’re willing to make a commitment, especially on the Surat Basin link from Moranbah to Banana. I don’t understand why, when the government is juggling budget deficits moving forward, it’s proving so hard to get even a meeting about a public-private partnership happening on this alternative route.  

Mr Johnson: Just to be really clear, there are a few things happening there in parallel. Inland Rail Pty Ltd, headed by Nick, are continuing the work around the design of the route that heads over the Toowoomba range to Ebenezer, and working closely with the National Intermodal company on the connection at Ebenezer. That’s what Inland Rail are focused on. I am aware that there is some early business case development for other alternative options—Goondiwindi or Toowoomba to Gladstone—that the Queensland government have had some insight into.  

Senator ROBERTS: So both Goondiwindi to Gladstone and Toowoomba to Gladstone are being considered as alternative business cases?  

Mr Johnson: I have heard that both are. That’s right. I am acutely aware of the private interest that you’ve mentioned, and we’ve made it clear to the proponent—as we would for anyone who was interested in either developing, adjoining or working around the network, given we’re really the national rail network manager—that, when they get to the point that they’re at an EIS, an environmental impact statement, we’d be happy to support what type of views or impacts that would have, in a practical sense, and suggest what they might consider in that input. We have met, so I’m a little bit lost with the statement that it’s hard to get that meeting.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve already been working with them?  

Mr Johnson: We’ve had a couple of meetings about what we can do at different stages, as they progress their development, to offer them whatever practical support we can, as we would for any other adjoining infrastructure manager.  

Senator ROBERTS: So would you be willing to meet with a private investor who’s willing to fund the railroad construction from Surat Basin, from Moranbah to Banana?  

Mr Johnson: We meet with a number of proponents. That one is a long way from our network, but nationally we’ve met with a number of people who are looking at different things, mostly where it’s connected to our network.  

Senator ROBERTS: How about Inland Rail? Would you be willing to meet the investor to consider this?  

Mr Miller: We’d be willing to meet to assist with indicative pricing that we have experienced per kilometre. It’s outside our scope in terms of our current remit. We’re going from border to Toowoomba and then down to Kagaru, and that’s where our focus is, around the environmental approvals and land acquisition, at present.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the vast majority of the cost of Inland Rail—from Toowoomba to Brisbane—as I understand it.  

Mr Miller: It’s a significant part of Inland Rail. It’s not the vast majority.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We can argue about that at another time. Does the ARTC have any other publicprivate partnerships in place for Inland Rail? By ‘private’, I mean actually contributing private funding to the project.  

Mr Johnson: No. The private partnership contract has ceased.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the ARTC have any signed agreements in the Queensland leg of Inland Rail? If so, which?  

Mr Miller: Signed agreements?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Miller: With agencies or—  

Senator ROBERTS: Any agreements committing Inland Rail to— 

Mr Miller: Yes, we do. We have multiple land agreements in place. We are well developed with our environmental approvals.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s for the Toowoomba to Ebenezer route?  

Mr Miller: That’s from the border to Toowoomba—the Gowrie route.  

Senator ROBERTS: Across the Condamine?  

Mr Miller: Across the Condamine. We expect to be in a position to go to public exhibition No. 2 in the last quarter of this year with that EIS approval.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the sunk cost of Inland Rail specifically for the Queensland sections? You can do that on notice.  

Mr Miller: I will do that on notice. I can advise the Senate that to date—or to the end of March—we have spent $4.3 billion on the entire program.  

Senator ROBERTS: In Queensland?  

Mr Miller: No, across the entire program.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could I have the—  

Mr Miller: The sunk cost for Queensland?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. The rail line from Ebenezer to the port of Brisbane is constrained. The available capacity on that line does not allow for the volume of freight necessary to ever get the construction costs back. The cost of the tunnel down the mountain is without a doubt $20 million, and it won’t be necessary if the rail line terminates in the port of Gladstone. Are they considerations you’re working on in the back of your mind?  

Mr Miller: Our current scope of work is to take double-stack container trains to Ebenezer, and then they are transitioned to single-stack to Kagaru. That’s our scope.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I don’t understand why this economic reality has not been seized upon to reset the planning towards the Goondiwindi to Gladstone route, with freight destined for the airport at Wellcamp coming down from the Miles intermodal to Wellcamp. Are you considering that as part of the alternative?  

Mr Miller: We’re not considering an alternative, but what we are considering is getting the environmental approvals and land acquisition to Toowoomba as a priority, and we’re continuing with the Kagaru section, with three EISs concurrently in that space.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware of the massive concerns about the Condamine crossing?  

Mr Miller: Yes, we are, and we’ve undertaken very significant hydrological studies. Those studies have been to a flood panel and have been accepted as part of the EIS process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the foundations for the elevated section of that line, which will be fairly lengthy?  

Mr Miller: Yes, there is going to be an elevated section through the Condamine to improve resilience and reliability during flood periods.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the cost?  

Mr Miller: We are working through the costs. The costs will be subject to the conditions that, ultimately, the EIS from the Coordinator-General’s office in Queensland puts upon us, plus the timeline, in terms of when that’s going to be built with inflation and the like, and the design and geotech that’s going on. We’re also doing some embankment trials in that area to ascertain what settlement impacts there will be, and what that means from an engineering perspective, so we can more accurately define the cost and scope.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the outcome of this review by ARTC and the Queensland government of the Queensland leg, in my opinion, must lead to the abandonment of the Condamine floodplain crossing of this railway line; otherwise the railway line won’t be built. That’s my opinion. I’d like to know your feedback on that. What are you getting in the way of reassurance from Inland Rail?  

Senator Carol Brown: We take our advice from the experts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are they outside Inland Rail or inside?  

Senator Carol Brown: Thank you for your view.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you getting experts from inside Inland Rail, as well as outside Inland Rail, especially on the Condamine crossing? 

Senator Carol Brown: We get our expert opinions from Inland Rail, as well as our departmental people, but thank you for your view. I’ll pass it on. 

/4 Comments/by

Chris Bowen Says the Quiet Part Out Loud on Nuclear

The media, Labor, Greens and lobby groups are scared of Nuclear power because it threatens the massive subsidies wind and solar billionaires like Mike Cannon-Brookes, Simon Holmes à Court and Twiggy Forrest are getting from Australians.

With reliable baseload power, there’s little need to tip billions into the wind and solar pipe-dream and that’s the reason they are scared of nuclear and coal.

/6 Comments/by

Government Can’t Prove What Their Climate Change Policies Actually Do!

,

An independent audit office found that the Government’s Climate Change Department can’t prove how much by, or even if, their policies are affecting the climate.

In my opinion, it’s all a scam designed to transfer money out of the pockets of Australians to wealthy billionaires, while doing nothing with a measurable impact on the environment.

It’s time to abandon the net-zero pipe dream, which has no accountability and zero ability to demonstrate its effect on anything. Thankfully we still have a handful of independent agencies like the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) who are prepared to provide an objective analysis of the government spin.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. I want to ask about the performance audit report you did on governance of climate change commitments for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. You concluded in paragraph 12:  

DCCEEW reports annually on progress towards targets, however are unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian Government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction.  

I asked the department about your conclusion in estimates in February and again yesterday. I’m not sure if you saw that. Did you see it?  

Ms Mellor: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: They were very forceful in saying that they didn’t agree with your conclusion, and they maintain they do measure the specifics. Can you please elaborate on exactly what you found in terms of the specific policies and programs measurement?  

Ms Mellor: Yes. I think we’ve got the relevant audit leader here to do that for you. Ms Horton: As you’ve correctly characterised, within the overall conclusion, we concluded that DCCEEW, or the department, do measure—broadly and overall—Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, but we weren’t able to determine the specific contribution that individual Australian government programs made towards that. So it was reported overall, but that further breakdown below.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not trying to put words into your mouth. I’m just trying to confirm my own understanding and clarify. They have a number that represents what they estimate to be Australia’s overall greenhouse gas production, but they cannot tell anyone what specific contributions from various sectors or various— 

Ms Horton: They do do a breakdown of various sectors, and that’s in ‘International’ under broad reporting that we provide, and that’s provided there. There have been a number of new measures and additional measures that have been announced under the government. We could see some of those had the specific measures broken down underneath but not all of them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are there any specific measures or are they projections based upon calculations?  

Ms Horton: They’re projections.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding around the world.  

Ms Horton: They have projections where they’re looking forward to what we are aiming towards achieving, and they also report on what we have. So they do both.  

Senator ROBERTS: But again, they’re are not direct measurements because it’s very hard to directly measure carbon dioxide coming out of any—  

Ms Horton: There is that broad process we have in our international reporting arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who seeks audits? I’ve been through this before, but I can’t remember. Who asks you to do an audit?  

Ms Mellor: Nobody. People can, but the Auditor-General can’t be directed to do an audit.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, no.  

Ms Mellor: We develop a forward work program. We’re required to consult with the parliament. That’s managed through the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The Auditor-General’s required to take into account that committee’s view of priorities. My understanding is that that committee writes to other committees and gets views about what’s on the mind of those committees as priorities for audit. Individual members of parliament sometimes write and seek an audit.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve done that, and we’re very happy with the way we were treated.  

Ms Mellor: The program is really at the discretion of the Auditor-General. In deciding to undertake an audit, we do look at the coverage across the sector. We look at the sorts of activities that are being undertaken, whether it’s service delivery or asset management, procurement, grants administration et cetera. And then we have to look at our capacity to do it. Do we have enough people with enough skill in the particular area? Do we need to supplement the skill from elsewhere? So it is all at the discretion of the Auditor-General, and we do seek to get coverage across the sector of a wide variety of policy and program areas.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re continuing your predecessor’s fine habit of being very clear in your answers, so thank you.  

Ms Mellor: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is size or potential impact of an error in a department one of the factors for consideration that you would use? In other words, if there’s a huge cost that may be incurred as a result of a mistake in that department, would that be a consideration?  

Ms Mellor: We do take into account risk in different areas, in activities of the public sector. Risk can manifest itself in the size of expenditure, but we also do small things because they’re important and they also provide information to the parliament as well as an opportunity for the public sector to learn from our work.  

Senator ROBERTS: So risk is a consideration?  

Ms Mellor: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re minimising risk—or exposure—to taxpayers.  

Ms Mellor: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your response to the department rejecting your conclusion that they can’t demonstrate the specific effect of these policies?  

Ms Jago: We actually included in the report at the end of appendix 1 our response to the department’s response to us, where we outlined why we came to a different conclusion than what the department outlined in their response.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the number of that appendix?  

Ms Mellor: It’s in appendix 1. Ms Jago: It’s at the very end of appendix 1. There isn’t actually a paragraph number. It’s headed ‘ANAO comment on Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water response’.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is important. I’m going to come back to something in a minute. This is discussing understanding or measuring—no, it’s understanding; it’s not measuring, because it can’t be measured—overall emissions reduction. I’m going to come back to another point later that is separate from your report. In the meantime, it’s important to actually know how policies are or aren’t affecting measurable outcomes. Is it right to assume that that’s why you focused on this issue in your report? If not, what was the reason?  

Ms Mellor: It’s typical for us to look at a program. In this case it was a set of activities that are done by the department of climate change et cetera. Then we generally look at the governance, the activity and then the monitoring of the activity. So reporting on the success of a set of activities or an activity is typically what we do, in looking at whether or not the expenditure—the activity—is meeting the outcomes required. It’s not unusual for us to have a criterion that says, ‘Is this being monitored and reported effectively?’  

Senator ROBERTS: But you’ll go beyond that and look at the overall governance of the monitoring and everything.  

Ms Mellor: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: If the actual specific effect of policies isn’t being measured, then surely it’s very difficult to measure success or failure, and that’s what your report found—that the department can’t demonstrate those specific effects.  

Ms Mellor: Our report found, as I think Ms Horton has said, that we couldn’t see that line of sight across each of the measures that it was monitoring and about what the measurement showed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Now I’d like to come back to what I foreshadowed a minute ago. There are two measurements that should be in place, I believe. One is the measurement of the amount of carbon dioxide produced from human activity. That’s one thing. But then surely we should be measuring the effect of that carbon dioxide from human activity on a climate variable such as temperature, snowfall, ocean temperature or whatever. Do you see what I’m getting at?  

Ms Mellor: I can, but it wouldn’t be for me to comment on a government policy on those things, no matter who the government is. It’s our job to audit whether or not people are doing, within that policy, what they said they would do. It wouldn’t be for me to strain to what’s appropriate policy or what’s appropriate measurement. It’s whether or not what’s in the policy is being delivered and being measured.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me just check my understanding there again, Ms Mellor. If the policy said that the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity is this quantity and we need to therefore cut the production of carbon dioxide by this quantity, then you would measure or assess both. But, if they don’t have one of them in there, then you’ll only measure what’s in the policy.  

Ms Mellor: It’s very hard to speculate. In a government policy, we would look at how it’s being implemented; whether the implementation is being monitored; what the monitoring shows; and, if there was an outcome overarching that, how that measurement contributes to that outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want to engage in a conversation, because that’s not correct nor appropriate for Senate estimates. It strikes me, though, that to be able to have a policy on emissions reduction you need to have the specific effect of those emissions on some climate variable: temperature, rainfall, snowfall, drought, storms or whatever. Then you measure against that. Without that specific effect quantified, it would be impossible to actually assess different alternatives to implementation, different strategies, and would be impossible to assess or track progress towards achievement of the goals. Am I on the right track?  

Ms Mellor: The ANAO can only audit what’s in front of it. If we go in to audit something of that broad nature, we have to look at what’s in place, how it’s being managed, how it’s being reported and whether that meets the outcome—and not whether the outcome is right.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. In your work for various departments, has anyone specified the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate or any part of climate?  

Ms Mellor: It’s not something we’ve audited, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?  

Ms Mellor: Not specifically.  

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think so, because no-one has been able to tell me that amount.  

Ms Mellor: Not specifically that we’ve audited.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?  

Ms Mellor: We haven’t specifically audited in that space. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.  

/by

Reality Check Radio

,
/by