Watch as these climate change bureaucrats deflect and squirm when trying to answer basic questions about what their department has been doing.
This session looked at why they sold millions of barrels of oil held in the United States and Labor’s new tax on petrol and diesel cars. Like always, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is completely out of touch with reality while trying to tell you what you can and can’t do.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Can we just continue with this strategic reserve? So Australia sold all of the oil reserves in the United States strategic reserve?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels, around June 2022?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the sale amount? $220 million?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to take that on notice. I don’t have that in my folder.
Senator ROBERTS: Who was the oil delivered to?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to also take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How much was paid in seller’s fees, commissions or whatever it is?
Mrs Svarcas: I’m happy to break that down for you on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How much is the continuing empty lease in the US strategic reserve costing?
Mrs Svarcas: We do have an ongoing contract for that. I will, again, come back to you with the leasing costs on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all I had there. I’d like to move to the ute tax, please.
CHAIR: I think you’ll find it’s not called that, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
CHAIR: We don’t have such a thing. Would you like to refer to the correct program?
Senator ROBERTS: Your new car tax.
Senator McAllister: We don’t have a new car tax, either.
CHAIR: No new car tax?
Senator ROBERTS: You know what I’m talking about.
CHAIR: How about you just say it, Senator Roberts, so we can get the right people to the table.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know the new fees for petrol and diesel vehicles.
Senator McAllister: It’s possible you’re referring to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
CHAIR: Yes, that sounds a bit more familiar.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s another way of saying it. Minister, why were you so secretive about it? You passed it under guillotine with no debate. Yet again, another bill with no debate.
Senator McAllister: The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard brings Australia into line with the very significant majority of the international vehicle market. It’s a policy—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Minister. The people of Australia elected your government to govern. They didn’t elect the United Nations World Economic Forum, the United States, Great Britain, or other global players. They wanted you to govern this country—not on behalf of others.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, could you allow the minister to finish answering the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Chair.
Senator McAllister: The government was very clear and we had extensive public discussion about the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. I believe there were Senate hearings, although I did not participate in them. We discussed it here in the estimates forum and also in the neighbouring committee at the last estimates hearings as well. Officials can talk to you about some of the public consultation that took place, including the position papers that were released. And senators had many opportunities to express their opinions about this particular policy initiative through the course of the Senate’s work.
Senator ROBERTS: So we don’t need to debate anymore in the Senate?
Senator McAllister: We do need debate in the Senate, Senator Roberts. These were important—
Senator ROBERTS: Second reading, third reading and committee stages?
Senator McAllister: I thought you had asked me a question.
Senator ROBERTS: I am! But I was continuing—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to ask you again to allow the minister to answer the question you have just posed and to not speak over her.
Senator McAllister: The government’s view was that this was an important reform, and that there was some urgency to this reform. It was a reform that had been proposed under a previous government, during a previous parliament, and not progressed. The consequences of that were that Australians continue to pay more than they need to at the bowser because the vehicle fleet in Australia is less efficient than it could be, because the range of vehicles available to Australians is considerably less than we expect it will be under the standard. We think it’s an important policy. We wanted to progress it, and we judged that there was a majority of support in the Senate for that, so we brought it on for consideration.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re afraid of letting the people participate through their views, expressed through senators in debates in second reading and third reading and committee stages, and assessing amendments?
Senator McAllister: I wouldn’t characterise it like that at all.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, are you aware, with an increasing amount of smart metres being installed—despite some people saying they don’t want it—and electric vehicle charging happening overnight offpeak, that’s when coal-fired power is supplying most of the electricity. So there’s potentially going to be an increased demand on coal-fired power stations as petrol and diesel vehicles are set aside in favour of electric vehicles. So you’re actually increasing the carbon dioxide intensity of energy.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I will ask some of the officials to talk you through the expectations that we have for demand on the grid. But the Integrated System Plan, which is produced by the AEMO, includes demand that is predicted to arise from the introduction of greater numbers of electric vehicles into the Australian fleet, along with a range of other changes. It also, as you know, shows a very significant shift to renewable energy, so the emissions intensity of the National Electricity Market is expected to decrease over time, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: So, are they like the projections where you told us we would be having lower power costs, and instead we’ve got far higher?
Senator McAllister: Do you want to talk about the issue that you originally asked me about, or do you wish to move on?
Senator ROBERTS: I just wanted to know what your projections were like and how accurate they are.
Senator McAllister: The Integrated System Plan is a long-established piece of analysis undertaken by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Officials at the table can talk to you about the expectations there and any other information we have of that expected demand on electricity.
Mr Ryan: To start with, I’ll talk about some of the different charging solutions we’re seeing and what impact that’s having. ARENA, who I know will be appearing, will certainly be able to tell you about some of the investment and some of the innovations they’re looking at in charging. You’re right, a lot of charging is done at home—80 per cent, we think—but that’s not just from the grid. A lot of those people—not all, but a lot of them— actually have batteries that charge and store solar energy from during the day. So when they’re charging overnight—it might be from a battery but it also might be from the grid—note that the grid is slowly decarbonising as well. So that’s increasing, day to day. There are other innovations where we’re seeing EV charging being provided at places people visit on a regular basis, whether that’s at carparks during the day or the workplace during the day, whether it’s at the kerbside, at the local gym, at the movies—places where there’s charging, more and more. Sometimes that’s in the evening, but a lot of the time that’s during the day. So we’re seeing some innovation, and there’s certainly been funding—not just from the Commonwealth but from the states and territories—to develop that innovation and look to maximise the solar in there. The last thing I’d say on the projections is that I do know that they take into account the grid and the impact on the grid for the uptake of EVs. So they are in the figures that are provided each year when they do the projections.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
Mr Fredericks: Senator, sorry; could Ms Rowley just give you 30 seconds on that, because it is quintessentially the answer to your question about how all of the emissions impacts are brought to bear.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms Rowley: In relation to the annual emissions projections, we look at the change in the vehicle fleet, including the uptake of electric vehicles, which is helping to reduce the direct emissions from transport. But we also take account of the electricity required to meet the growing share of electric vehicles. Just by way of example, for 2030, in last year’s emissions projections, we estimated that there was a seven-million-tonne reduction in transport emissions and a one-million-tonne increase in electricity emissions to meet that additional demand from electric vehicles, so the net effect in 2030 was an estimated six-million-tonne reduction in Australia’s emissions, taking into account both transport and electricity.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure, but I remind you you can’t tell me the impact on climate of that, so you’re basically going with a policy of spending money but not realising the benefit. Minister, do you still maintain—
Ms Rowley: I would note that the new vehicle efficiency standard is projected to save consumers money and reduce the impact of things like health costs on the Australian economy.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question?
CHAIR: Last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still maintain, Minister, that punishing manufacturers of petrol and diesel vehicles won’t reduce the number of petrol or diesel cars available to Australians?
Senator McAllister: Senator, I don’t accept that characterisation of the policy setting.
The wind and solar billionaires are going to leave a trail of environmental destruction across the country. Coal mines, which are unfairly demonised, have to pay an environmental bond before they put a shovel in the ground. When the mine is finished, that money is used to restore the land to how it was before the mine was ever there. Unlike coal, wind and solar do not have to pay environmental bonds.
We’re going to be left with a toxic wasteland of old wind turbines and toxic solar panels that no one will have the money to clean up. Wind and solar aren’t going to save the environment, they’re going to ruin it.
Transcript
CHAIR: Thank you. We’ll take it on notice. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?
Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money.
Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.
Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?
Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?
Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?
Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?
Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.
Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.
Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?
Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.
Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—
Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.
Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.
Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.
In a recent senate estimate session, I highlighted the alarming ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates. Australians from the Middle East died at three times the average death rate, those from Southern Europe twice as high, while sub-Saharan Africans had lower mortality rates.
What’s driving these disparities? The health experts suggest that low vaccine coverage and socioeconomic factors played roles in these differences. As vaccination efforts improved, mortality rates began to align more closely with the general population.
These are just theories, not explanations, and it comes across as a lazy response. There’s no justification for not making an effort to understand the reasons behind such a serious medical issue.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Kelly, you previously brought someone forward to talk about the differences in incidence and severity with a low-socioeconomic profile.
Prof. Kelly: Mr Gould, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Australian residents from the Middle East died at three times the population mean, those from Southern Europe were twice as likely to die and those from North Africa were almost three times as likely to die; however, sub-Saharan Africans were less likely to die. Why are we seeing ethnic differences in COVID mortality in Australia? I understand that ‘ethnic’ is to do with culture.
Dr Gould: Yes. Just talking around the numbers involved, as you say, the ABS has reported, during various stages of the pandemic, mortality rates for people born in different countries and, as you’ve said, there are higher mortality rates for people born in places such as the Middle East. There are a number of potential reasons for that. One of the areas that I discussed in my previous answer, which I think is relevant, is that, for a lot of those communities, initially, vaccine coverage rates were low. So significant work was done during the course of the pandemic to work with those communities to increase the coverage rate, and we really saw quite a dramatic shift during the course of the pandemic in the variation in mortality rates between these communities in the general Australian population; to a large degree, they came into line with the general population experience, so that was a positive outcome. Certainly, there’s an indication that the vaccine rates would have had a role to play. We did talk as well about socioeconomic status. We do know that, for some language groups or groups born in different countries, those rates may correlate with different socioeconomic status as well, so there may be some relationships there.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s an overlap, potentially, in some areas?
Dr Gould: Potentially, yes. It’s not broadly always the case. We find that a lot of recent, skilled migrants live in high socioeconomic areas, so it’s difficult to make a broad generalisation there.
The government’s lies about how many foreigners are buying houses during a housing crisis are coming back to haunt them.
Firstly, the government claims ‘foreign buyers are barely making a dent in the market’. The truth? 11% of new houses in Australia were bought by foreigners (Q4 2023). Secondly, ‘foreign buyers only go for luxury homes’. Reality: the average price of a home bought by foreigners is almost the exact same as the average house price across capital cities. That means foreign buyers are directly outbidding average Australians for an average house. Thirdly, despite saying the don’t make an impact on the housing crisis, the government is now implementing small fines for vacant homes.
Why does the government go through all of this deflection and lying when they could just take One Nation’s policy: BAN Foreign Ownership completely.
That’s just the problems with foreign ownership of housing! Never mind the next topic I asked about: letting a foreign company takeover Australia’s military warship builder…
Does this government understand anything about putting Australians first?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table the transcript of a broadcast by Ben Fordham. Reporting from radio station 2GB indicates that foreign buyers bought 11 per cent of all new housing stock in this country. How are you letting this many foreign buyers snap up houses out of the hands of Australian homebuyers?
Ms Kelley: As we’ve talked about previously, our latest statistics show that foreign investors purchased around 5,360 houses in the 2022-23 financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s been claimed by some that foreign buyers don’t make a material impact on the average Aussie because they’re only buying trophy homes—$30 million mansions down at Point Piper and so on. Looking at the $5.3 billion for 4,700 properties purchased by foreigners, according to these figures, that’s an average price of $1.1 million. The combined capital cities average median house price is $1 million. Those foreign buyers are actually directly competing in the middle of the market, aren’t they?
Ms Kelley: I should note again that the level of foreign investment in residential real estate is under one per cent of the total purchases that occur in Australia. In terms of residential properties with values under $1 million, that accounted for about 78 per cent of the purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, your government is increasing the fines and fees for foreign buyers of Australian houses. You’re acknowledging that it needs to be controlled. Why don’t you just stop fiddling around and ban foreign ownership of Australian houses altogether, like we’ve advocated, like the Canadians are now doing and like the Kiwis are now doing?
Senator Gallagher: We welcome foreign investment in our country. It plays an important role across our economy. But those changes we have announced to foreign investment, both for the application fees and double vacancy fees, are about ensuring foreign investment aligns with our agenda to lift housing supply. It’s aligning it with the other work we’ve been talking about this morning in Homes for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Working families who are returning home at night to sleep in their car won’t be encouraged by that. But let’s move on. How does the Foreign Investment Review Board treat defence-related companies in its approvals? If a company is producing a defence-related product, how is it treated?
Ms Kelley: The foreign investment review framework takes a case-by-case risk based approach. On 1 May the Treasurer announced a range of reforms to the framework. Under that framework we were very clear about the areas we would scrutinise more strongly. The government has made some decisions around those areas, and we are now actively implementing them.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound like being a part of the defence industry enlivens a specific criterion in your approval process.
Mr Tinning: Yes. If it’s a national security business, which includes defence industries, then it’s subject to a zero-dollar threshold under our framework. So all foreign investment approvals—
Senator ROBERTS: So shipbuilding would be part of that, if they’re building defence vessels?
Mr Tinning: Correct. That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Do the current rules ever allow you to approve the sale of a sovereign defence industry asset to a foreign buyer?
Ms Kelley: That would depend.
Mr Tinning: As Ms Kelley said, it’s on a case-by-case basis, so we would need to see a specific application.
Senator ROBERTS: Why would we ever allow that?
Ms Kelley: As the minister has said, foreign investment is essential to our domestic economy and has been for decades. What the framework does is—we assess every foreign investment application in terms of our national interest and in terms of national security.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the potential sale of Austal to a South Korean bidder, Hanwha, had pretty much fallen off the radar. Then Minister Marles reignited it by saying, ‘I don’t see why there’d be any concerns.’ Does the defence minister’s view factor into your assessment at all—that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem?
Ms Kelley: We take into account a range of factors when foreign investments are assessed, and the national security aspects are very important. We liaise across government for views on the issues associated with a foreign investment application and then the advice is then put forward to the Treasurer for a final decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why would the defence minister say that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem? He’s the defence minister and he’s looking at selling a maker of some of our warships.
Senator Gallagher: I haven’t seen those comments, but the defence minister would be very well briefed on all matters relating to that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to the Treasury after the opposition asks questions.
Australia co-operated with the Wuhan Institute and America’s NIH on gain-of-function research on COVID, which led to the COVID pandemic. Subsequently, both of these institutes conducted similar research on bird flu and now we have a mutant bird flu outbreak.
When I asked the Health Department if this was a good reason to discontinue gain-of-function research, their response was NO and instead, indicated a focus on refining messaging to deflect criticism. Even more troubling is the admission that gain-of-function research into pandemic-potential pathogens is being conducted in level 3 labs rather than level 4.
One Nation opposes gain-of-function research and believes that the “scientists” responsible for developing the novel COVID virus should be held accountable for the deaths it caused. Gain-of-function research for pandemic-potential pathogens does not pass a cost-benefit-risk analysis and should be halted immediately.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, China did gain-of-function research in Wuhan on COVID, and we had a COVID outbreak. Then China did gain-of-function research on bird flu, and now we have a bird flu outbreak, so I’m told. Minister, will your government ban Australian involvement in gain-of-function research?
Senator Gallagher: I think Professor Kelly has stated the Australian government’s position in relation to reviews that are underway. I don’t know whether there’s more that he can add to that.
Prof. Kelly: I’d just suggest that be directed to the CEO of the NHMRC, who’s undertaken some of these processes previously, and we’ve had a recent discussion about what else we might need to think about.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Prof. Wesselingh: Gain-of-function research is an important component of genomic research across the board and leads the development of a whole lot of things, like drugs and vaccines et cetera. I think the issue that you’re talking about is the gain-of-function research on pandemic potential pathogens and, obviously, that does need to be closely regulated. Australia has a very strong regulatory environment to do that, particularly through the OGTR, biosafety committees across the country and, obviously, the facilities we have, which are PC3 and PC4 facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they levels or standards for infection security?
Prof. Wesselingh: Yes. PC2 is a sort of standard laboratory, PC3 is additional security and PC4 is very high security.
Senator ROBERTS: And ours are 2 and 3?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. All of the work done on gain-of-function in PC3 and PC4 is on pandemic potential pathogens. We have, I think, a really strong regulatory environment to control gain-of-function research in Australia. But as Paul said, we’ve had some additional conversations between the Chief Medical Officer, the OGTR and the NHMRC, in terms of whether there are additional assurances that we should apply to the very small number of gain-of-function activities that occur with these pandemic potential pathogens. We’re certainly looking at that to see the risk benefit and the public benefit of those aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Has research stopped while you’re doing that review?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. We did a very big review of gain-of-function activities, and that has been reported to this committee previously. There were 17 projects that were being conducted. Only four were being conducted with pandemic potential pathogens, and they were all conducted under the controls of the OGTR in PC3 and PC4 facilities; none were being done on COVID; and we continue to use the current regulatory processes in regard to that.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the status of gain-of-function research in the United States? I understand that it was outlawed under Obama.
Prof. Kelly: I’m not really able to talk about what may or may not be the regulations in a foreign country.
Senator ROBERTS:Do you do much benchmarking with other countries?
Prof. Wesselingh: I can comment on that. Gain-of-function research still continues in the United States. We have been watching, with interest, recent developments in the United States, and they have developed a system, similar to the one that I was saying we are currently discussing with the chief health officer, where gain-offunction research can continue; but increased assurances, in terms of the risk-benefit and the public benefit of those activities, are conducted through the US agencies. We’re looking at that carefully, and that’s the basis for our ongoing discussions with the OGTR and the Chief Medical Officer
The Government made an election promise to address PFAS contamination around Defence bases. Instead of taking direct action, they opted to call for yet another inquiry, consuming their entire term without providing any assistance to those affected.
Mr. Jim Varghese AM conducted an independent review of land use near key Defence bases impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Throughout the process, the team consulted with me on several occasions and I’m hopeful that their recommendations will reflect the outline I was provided.
I am concerned that the issue has been referred to Cabinet, where Cabinet confidentiality rules prevent any further discussion. There was no reason for this to be treated as a Cabinet document, and I suspect it was done to bury the findings.
I remain committed to getting the report released and seeking justice for residents affected by PFAS contamination.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My initial questions are about PFAS. Do we have those people here?
Ms Perkins: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. The PFAS Investigation and Management Program’s 2024 Snapshot document shows that Defence invested $706 million to remediate PFAS contamination on Defence sites. Defence has also been responsible for two class action settlements at $212.5 million and $132.7 million. Are those included in the $706 million, or are they additional costs?
Ms Perkins: That’s a terrific question, Senator. Defence—in fact, the Commonwealth—has settled five class actions, including the ones you referred to there. It’s my understanding, but I’ll confirm this over dinner, that the first figure you referred to, which is our expenditure on—
Senator ROBERTS: The $706 million.
Ms Perkins: the remediation program is separate to the legal settlements that the Commonwealth has made. But I’ll confirm that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What about Defence’s total legal cost to fight the class actions? Are those included in the $706 million? Probably not.
Ms Perkins: I would have to get my colleagues from Defence Legal Division to confirm that for you. I manage the investigation and remediation program, not the legal settlements.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we have expenditure of over a billion dollars so far? That’s $706 million plus the class action settlements—
Ms Perkins: But, as I said, I’ll take that on notice and confirm the elements of the spend over dinner.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I acknowledge the extensive work and resources that Defence is putting into treating the 27 PFAS contaminated sites within the Defence bases, but the remediation will not solve existing contamination in farmland. These are the residents who have been affected the most: what was previously prime productive land—and I’m thinking, for example, about people who I’ve met at Oakey in Queensland—is now unusable for agriculture. Their properties have been depreciated to the point of being impossible to sell. They can’t get out of there and so that’s where their super is tied up and everything—they’ve lost it. This is why the Independent review of land uses around key Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination was commissioned. I thank the department for including my office in the consultation process—from memory, with Mr Varghese. I understand that the report is complete; when will that report be made available?
Ms Perkins: The report was completed and delivered to the government in early April. We’re working now across the parts of government that contribute to the work on PFAS, and the government will consider that review and its recommendations in the coming months.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include whether or not it will release the document?
Ms Perkins: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The report suggests grading land—not grading as in bulldozer grading—and categorising land based on contamination and rezoning so that residents can sell agricultural land as, say, industrial land, which is how many residents along Cabbage Tree Road in Williamtown have been able to get out and start over again. Newcastle Airport is now extending over contaminated land—another sensible use. This isn’t a big-ticket item, and it doesn’t need a large pot of money. There’s no reason to send it to cabinet unless the intention is to let it die under cabinet confidentiality. Is there any reason to send it to cabinet?
Ms Perkins: As I mentioned, the report has been delivered and makes a series of recommendations. I think some of the points you’ve just referred to were the issues that Mr Varghese canvassed in consultation in affected communities and with other stakeholders like you. One of the challenges we’ve always had with the management of PFAS remediation is that accountabilities exist at all three tiers of government and across the community, and we’re very mindful, as we move forward, in both the Defence remediation program and the broader Commonwealth approach, that we consider how we activate across state and local governments and industry integrated responses. That will be the work we take to the Commonwealth government to consider.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s what you’re considering now before you take it to government?
Ms Perkins: As is normal in an independent review, Mr Varghese has done a really valuable body of work— great consultation—and made recommendations. We’re working with colleagues in other parts of government, as you can appreciate from your question—the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the department of agriculture, the department of health and so on—so that we can continue to advise government on an integrated Commonwealth response in affected communities.
Senator McAllister: I think, Senator Roberts, in fairness to the officials, because the report is before the government there are some limits on what they can tell you about the advice that’s been provided. I think Ms Perkins has indicated that there is a process underway but she won’t be able to give you any further information about the particulars of the advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. I’ve worked that out from what Ms Perkins has said quite clearly. I want to commend the way Mr Varghese approached us. We have checked with residents, and he approached them with a very open mind and took good notes, apparently. These are not characteristics of the past ways that Defence has tried to address this, so we can see a change going on. It seems genuine, so we’re looking forward to the report. Minister, was there any additional funding in the budget for measures recommended in this report as opposed to the ongoing remediation report?
Senator McAllister: The answer I’ll provide is probably similar to the one I’ve just given, which is that the report is before the government, and that response is being developed.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, has any consideration been given to suing the manufacturers of PFAS for the damages they’ve done to the community and the environment and added costs to the Australian defence forces? We’re talking billions of dollars here, and these people—DuPont, 3M and others—seem to be just getting off the hook.
Senator McAllister: I’m not trying to be difficult, but I am very reluctant to speculate about how the government might respond to the report that’s before us. So I really can’t provide answers to questions that go to the specifics.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have two final questions on a different matter. There has been reporting that the partner of Lieutenant Nugent, who died in the Whitsunday helicopter crash, was told in the weeks after the crash, by a senior officer from Defence, that she would be able to find someone new. Have you made any efforts in the Army to locate which officer made these absolutely horrific comments to the partner of a soldier who had just died, telling her she would find a new partner? And have you done anything to reprimand or punish them for such heartless comments?
Lt Gen. Stuart: The short answer to your question is yes. We have followed up on that matter, and we remain closely involved with all of the families who lost their loved ones on 28 July last year.
Senator ROBERTS: So that has been rectified with the widow?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes, we remain in close contact. It is a very, very difficult time for everybody involved, and we want to make sure that they’re properly supported throughout this process.
Senator ROBERTS: And the officer has been either reprimanded or punished; what he said has been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: As you know, I can’t go into individual matters, but—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t want the names.
Lt Gen. Stuart: we’re taking it seriously, and we’re making sure that we are addressing all of those kinds of issues. I can certainly assure the committee that all of our efforts since the evening of 28 July last year have been focused on making sure that the families, loved ones and teammates of those that were impacted by the loss of those four soldiers have been and continue to be supported for the long term.
Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you say the officer ‘will be’ addressed or ‘has’ been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Has.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question. General Campbell, you posted on social media congratulating the 2024 Napier Waller Art prize winner, Kat Rae, for her piece Deathmin. It is a 157-centimetrehigh stack of post-death paperwork that Kat Rae revealed after her husband committed suicide after dealing with the PTSD he had from his time in the Defence Force. General Campbell, you have been the commander of the entire Defence Force for six years. You’ve been in the highest positions of the organisation for at least 15 years. You’ve congratulated a widow who is talking about the complexity of the defence and veterans’ bureaucracy. You’ve been in charge of that bureaucracy. What have you done, specifically, to fix her problems?
Gen. Campbell: There has, I think, been a great deal of work done, both within Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and I acknowledge the work of the interim national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide and the work of the royal commission, which is ongoing but which has provided both some harrowing testimonies and also extremely useful insights into how to continue that work to improve our organisation. I am, as are the senior leaders of the ADF and more broadly Defence, committed to ensuring that continues to be the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please give me some specifics of what you’ve implemented to fix these problems?
Gen. Campbell: We are seeking to see a much more trauma informed approach to the way in which we deal with people. We are now much more conscious of and are seeking to embed an awareness of psychosocial risk in the way we work with our people and our people experience service in the military. We’ve greatly strengthened the experience of transition for everybody in the force, and we’ve very substantially enhanced the integration between Defence and DVA. We’ve introduced personnel policies that seek to wrap those policies around the lived experience of an individual from before joining all the way through to beyond transition. They are some examples of our efforts. They are very wide-ranging, and I think that they are fundamental to developing our people, supporting our people and seeing the capability that they create emerge.
Senator ROBERTS: What about transitioning people who are leaving the defence forces out of the workforce? I have enormous respect, as a result of conversations I had with veterans 40 years ago, for the way the Australian recruits, the intake, are actually introduced to the Army and they’re—I mean this in a very positive way—stripped of their past associations and they join into the culture of the defence forces. It’s extremely important, because that is the key to the success of the Australian defence forces. But, as someone said to me, we send them, we bend them but we don’t mend them. We just turn them loose when they’re finished, and apparently that’s causing a lot of strife.
Gen. Campbell: That was my point with regard to the work of the Joint Transition Authority and the fundamental reconceptualisation of how we see transition from military service to beyond military service, and see it as a period rather than a moment. Could I note that, at a graduation for soldiers into the Australian Army a few weeks ago, I was really pleased to see how enthusiastically they spoke of their training and were looking forward to their service, not just saying that to me but saying that to the junior officers and the NCOs who were with me and variously moving around the audience. It was a very positive expression of an introduction to service and it’s exactly the same outcome that we want for transition from service. We are seeing work done that sees that period being about a two-year transition, with the idea that, while you serve today and you serve for a period of time, the transition is seeded at your induction into service in your recruit training. I think it’s a very healthy way to look at service and to then encourage people to start having conversations about transition before they move into that period of transition, with Defence reaching out in support of those who would wish it following two years from transition, typically seeing a glide down of Defence’s engagement and a glide up of DVA’s engagement where the individual would seek it.
At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator Watt why Labor is not deporting unsuitable and dangerous non-citizens from Australia. He explained that those who had been in detention could not be deported, citing two distinct groups affected. The first group consisted of approximately 150 detainees released into the community following a recent High Court decision, 29 of which have re-offended since release and include individuals convicted of serious crimes like murder, rape, and child sexual offences.
The second group comprises individuals whose visa cancellations were overturned by the AAT due to issues surrounding the Giles Directive 99 scandal. Despite subsequent visa cancellations for some in this group, there have been no deportations from either cohort since the mishandling by Labor.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. My questions are concise and straightforward, and I hope the answers will be similar. In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?
Mr M Thomas: All of the releases from detention that we’re talking about with NZYQ were as a result of the new High Court test set in that case around the real prospect of removal from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 37 of these men released into the community have a history of sexually offending, including against children?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April 2024, 39 of those individuals did have a previous conviction for sexually based offending.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that seven of these men were convicted of either murder or attempted murder?
Mr M Thomas: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 72 of these men had convictions for assault or violent offending, armed robbery or kidnapping?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April that number is 73.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of these released detainees have now illegally reoffended?
Mr M Thomas: I believe the deputy commissioner answered that question earlier today.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the number?
Ms Holben: 29.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What offences have been included in the range of charges, including the senior citizen brutally bashed and allegations of a sexual predator being active here?
Mr Outram: We did provide that evidence before the lunch break.
Senator Watt: We went through that in some detail before the lunch break.
Senator ROBERTS: You are aware of Mr Emmanuel Saki, a Sudanese man who was recently released from immigration detention. He has just been charged with the murder of another man here on 12 May this year. That was two weeks ago. Are you aware of that?
Ms Foster: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s now being done to deport these men?
Senator Watt: You’re mixing together a couple of different categories of people here.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want them here.
Senator Watt: I’d point out to start with that, for all 153, I think it is, people who were released from detention as a result of the High Court decision, the government actually had those people in detention for a reason. We don’t want them roaming the streets either, but the High Court has made a decision and we are bound by the law.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you deport these men?
Senator Watt: For starters, as we have gone through before, there are a range of protections in place for the Australian community surrounding these people, such as electronic bracelets, curfews and a range of other requirements that no government has ever imposed on a cohort released from detention. Obviously, in relation to the NZYQ cohort, the government is in the process of applying for preventative detention orders, which would effectively see those people returned to detention. Before the lunch break, there were some questions about where that was up to. That’s the NZYQ cohort.
Senator ROBERTS: But there has been nothing done to deport them?
Senator Watt: No. I would say that one of the reasons is that the reason for the High Court decision is that the High Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of those people being deported, because, for example, they were stateless. They don’t have citizenship in any country. It is not legally possible to deport them. Again, I’m paraphrasing. Officials can jump in if I explain some of this incorrectly. That’s the reason why those people haven’t been deported. That’s the reason why they are now not in detention but subject to all those other protections.
Senator ROBERTS: All of the 150-odd are stateless?
Senator Watt: I don’t think all of them are, but there were other reasons that it’s not possible to deport them. The officials might be able to explain it to you.
Mr M Thomas: It might be because we have protection obligations for them. It could be because they’re stateless. It might be because there are issues with identifying their identity or their country of origin. All of that culminates in there being no real prospect of their removal from Australia in the foreseeable future.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you asked about the Saki case. That is a separate situation. As far as I’m aware, Mr Saki is not one of the NZYQ cohort. He was someone who had come to Australia and was given a visa at some point along the line. The government cancelled his visa because of character issues or criminal offences—whatever the reasons were. He appealed that decision to the AAT. The AAT overturned the decision to cancel his visa. He was therefore—
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is that because of any influence of Minister Giles’s directive 99?
Senator Watt: We’ve spent the best part of two days discussing this. What I have been saying is that the direction that Minister Giles gave did ask government decision-makers and the AAT to take into account the length of time someone had been here in Australia—
Senator ROBERTS: And their ties.
Senator Watt: but not at the expense of the seriousness of their offending. But the AAT has done what it has done, and for that case and other cases they have overturned the government’s decision to cancel those visas, despite the fact the government, in the AAT, argued for the cancellation of those visas. Now Mr Saki’s visa has been cancelled by the minister, and he is seeking urgent advice from the department about the range of other cases that have come to light in the last couple of days.
Chair: I don’t want to be too hardline about this, because I know that there are different sections of the department that deal with both of these issues, but, Senator Roberts, just for your information, we have moved on to outcome 3. I know that there might be some crossover and that the department will seek to answer your questions when they can. We did have extensive questioning about outcome 2 from yesterday onwards. We’re now in outcome 3. If that needs to be clarified at the table for senators, then, if you can, assist Ms Foster when questions arise. I know dealing with the different cohorts is difficult, but we’ll do our best to try to keep on track in that way. Senator Roberts, have you got a question?
Senator ROBERTS: Was the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 simply to ensure incarceration as an alternative to being detained for these men?
Senator Watt: Again, I might begin the answer and let officials explain further. The removals legislation, which the government has introduced and which has not yet been passed by the Senate and which the opposition has not agreed to pass yet, is for a different purpose. It was to deal with a different gap in our legal system. So maybe officials could pick up at that point with some more detail.
Ms Foster: There were two primary purposes to the removals bill. The first was to give us the power to compel people who had exhausted all legal avenues of remaining in Australia to cooperate with their removal so that people couldn’t frustrate our efforts to remove them—by, for example, refusing to fill out applications or come to interviews—and to make it an offence should they not do that. The second element of the bill was to allow us to declare countries who frustrated our attempts to return their nationals to them countries of removal concern and to enable us to take actions about how we manage applications to come to Australia from those countries.
Senator ROBERTS: Surely, Minister, there was a way that the government could’ve addressed this issue before the decision in NZYQ was handed down. Why didn’t you?
Senator Watt: The High Court’s decision in NZYQ essentially went in a different direction to what the law in Australia had always been.
Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t pre-empt that at all.
Senator Watt: Look, we’ve gone over this at length in previous estimates hearings.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on to border security then. Why is our border security policy being made on the run? For example, why has the number of surveillance flights by Border Force of our northern borders by aircraft been reduced over the last year?
Senator Watt: Can I just say one thing. Of course, I don’t accept the proposition that our border security policy is being made on the run. We have increased funding for Border Force and border security to a level that no government has ever provided, and Admiral Sonter, in his role heading up Operation Sovereign Borders, has pointed out that—I can’t remember the exact words—essentially, there has been no change to the policy settings for Operation Sovereign Borders. But the officials can talk to you about surveillance flights.
Mr Outram: Specific to surveillance flights, I have Deputy Commissioner Dale with me. There has been a reduction in hours flown. That has been for two reasons. The first is persistent mechanical issues with the fleet of Dash 8s that the Border Force has. The second, with the contractor that we employ, is their ability to bring on pilots. There’s a global shortage of pilots, and they’re affected by that. I might hand over to Deputy Commissioner Dale to give you more details.
Ms Dale: The commissioner has flagged that there has been a reduction in flying hours this year and the commissioner has already outlined the causes. I think the rear admiral will go to the point that, notwithstanding the reduction in hours that we have had in the Australian Border Force, aerial surveillance has been maintained to the standard he requires—fortunately, through the augmentation of flights through the Australian Defence Force.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that signalling a decrease in hours flown in the future, then, if it meets the standard? Or is it going to be that, in the future, standards are changed?
Ms Dale: No. We’re working very closely with the provider to better understand the barriers. The commissioner has spoken to the issue around crew. There is a global shortage of crew for the fixed-wing aircraft that we’re operating. It’s also true that from time to time we have mechanical issues that are reasonably frequent with any sort of piece of machinery, so they can sometimes be a factor.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the reduction in hours flown a reason for the recent increase in the number of successful arrivals into Australian waters of foreign people smugglers and their human cargo?
Rear Adm. Sonter: There’s no direct correlation there. On a regular basis, I look at what is the threat and risk, and I adjust the posture accordingly. As Kaylene Dale indicated, one of the beauties about this role and the coordination role is that I have both ABF and Australian Defence Force assets to pull on for this mission. While she’s articulated the decrease from the ABF funded actual air surveillance, we’ve increased the ADF air surveillance to ensure that we have an enhanced posture in the north-west.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it the soft policy of Labor Party governments in the past, enticing people smugglers to be prepared to risk the boat and cargo for such rich profits as a full boat of paying passengers for the Aussie Express?
Senator Watt: No. Never has been and never will be.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware, Minister, that Australians now feel unsafe personally in their own country due to this failed migration policy? We’ve got boats arriving, we’ve got people who are murdering people.
Senator Watt: I’m sure there are some people in Australia who feel unsafe. What I can say is that this government is spending more money on border security than we’ve ever done before. Unlike certain others, including people in the room, we are not running down and disparaging our border security policies—which is an incentive to people smugglers—and we are taking action to deal with court decisions that are not of the government’s making and that the government opposed.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t quoting of spending more money just a lazy way of saying you’re trying to do something? I look at your energy policy and never before have we spent so much money and we see the highest price of electricity.
Chair: Senator Roberts, that is not relevant to this instance.
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that money does not equate to success.
Senator Watt: You might say that spending $569.4 million more in this year’s budget on things like more boats, planes and unmanned vehicles for Operation Sovereign Borders is lazy. I wouldn’t put it that way.
The Banking Code of Practicewas originally designed to safeguard consumers from bad banking practices, however since the first code was issued, there has been a continual watering down of these protections, effectively rendering the code meaningless.
Currently, ASIC is conducting a review of the code. During the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired whether certain protections would be included, such as protections against de-banking, ensuring access to cash, and maintaining in-person banking services at branches.
Unfortunately, the responses provided were not encouraging. If this review fails to restore consumer protections to the Banking Code, One Nation will pursue a legislated response by way of a mandatory code.
Additionally, I inquired about ASIC’s handling of the recent crypto scandal, where Australian investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to ASIC failing to advise of the risks. This contrasts with the Mayfair scandal, where ASIC’s enforcement action actually caused the company and their investors to undergo a loss that would not have occurred without ASIC’s actions.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Last estimates I raised a series of concerns regarding the Banking Code of Practice, and Ms O’Rourke was very forthcoming in her answers; thank you for that. At one point, Ms O’Rourke, you said you would update me if there was any progress on the negotiation for the new banking code. Could you provide an update now, please, in respect of these four matters. Is ‘prudent and diligent banker’ still in there? It’s a meaningless phrase.
Ms O’Rourke: Yes, we had that discussion at the last hearing, about the code of practice. I’m happy to update in relation to the discussions we’ve been having. To step back a moment—
Senator ROBERTS: On those specific four points: is ‘prudent and diligent banker’ still in there?
Ms O’Rourke: I think, prior to that particular question, you said, ‘What’s the state of play?’ The state of play is that there’s not yet a final code that has been finalised by the ABA to put to us for approval. The answer is that it’s not yet determined whether or not that phrase ‘prudent and diligent’ will or will not be in the final code. Can I give a little bit more detail?
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms O’Rourke: It is in the existing code. In the draft code published by the ABA last year, in relation to which we’ve had a consultation process, there was a proposal to narrow the application of ‘prudent and diligent’ to very specific circumstances and for other circumstances to rely on other legal provisions. That has been something through the consultation process we have had submissions in relation to, and it is something we have been speaking to the ABA about. The ABA is still considering its position, and there isn’t a final outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a guarantee of face-to-face banking services?
Ms O’Rourke: That is not in either the existing code or the proposed code from the ABA. Like I say, there is no final position in relation to what the final code will look like but that’s one that’s not been proposed, nor was it particularly raised in the submissions we received.
Senator ROBERTS: This is not a comment aimed at you, Ms O’Rourke, but we’re not interested so much in whether or not something was in there or will be in there; we’re interested in—purely, that’s something we believe is necessary. Is there a guarantee of access to the King’s currency of cash?
Ms O’Rourke: The current code does not have that, nor does the proposed code.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a guarantee not to debank a customer for competitive or social reasons like, ‘We don’t agree with your politics’?
Ms O’Rourke: That’s not in the current code nor is it proposed to be in the revised code.
Senator ROBERTS: I believe you took on notice the debanking issue, but the response only answered ‘other matters’. Has ASIC considered the debanking issue? It’s a device by which the banks harm the business of their competitors and manipulate the markets to their financial advantage—as they have, for example, with cash in transit. This says misuse of market power to me. Has ASIC considered the debanking issue?
Ms O’Rourke: ASIC has been part of discussions around the cash-in-transit issue you referred to. I’m not sure whether you’ve had an opportunity to speak to other agencies, including the RBA, Treasury or others involved on the government side, or, indeed, if you’ve had opportunities to speak to the ABA or others. We’re more interested observers than participants in relation to cash in transit. We don’t have any regulatory hooks or provisions that particularly go to the provision of cash or its transportation.
Senator ROBERTS: What about debanking?
Ms O’Rourke: Similarly, there is no requirement to bank or to take steps in relation to debanking in relation to which we could take action.
Senator ROBERTS: On the crypto scam: Senator Hume asked some very fine questions today. Your testimony was that you were aware of this scam for quite some time, yet the scam companies Infinity CapitalG, Topmarketcap, Iron Bits and Richmondsuper were added to the scam list just yesterday. Why did it take so long to get those companies onto the scam list?
Ms Court: As I said in my answers to Senator Hume, when that information came in to us it was for the purposes of a continuing criminal investigation at that time. At that time, in August 2023, we didn’t have up and running the investor alert list we have now; that commenced in November 2023. We hadn’t received any reports of misconduct or any indication that any of those entities referred to in the article—that consumers were continuing to invest or lose money as a result of investments in those entities. However, following the media reporting, we went back and had a look at those entities, and I think we took a decision that we would put four out of the five—even though we had no information about continuing losses to investors—on the investor alert list, for completeness.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. On Mayfair 101: ASIC went after a company that appears to have been trading *legally. Mayfair 101 were up-to-date with repayments to lenders and, as demonstrated over the last three years, had financial resources as they fought your action. ASIC considered Mayfair’s advertising misrepresented their investment product and took immediate action to freeze the company’s asset. By doing that, ASIC almost cost 500 Australian investors $200 million but the company has survived. ASIC’s actions have, however, caused a lot of damage to investors and the company for no good reason we can see. One Nation, I must mention, as I previously stated, is one of those investors. This matter has been dragging on for three years and now ASIC is going for another round. What’s the state of play now?
Ms Court: I gave quite a long answer to Senator Bragg earlier, when you weren’t in the room, about the status of Mayfair—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; we’ll leave it. I want to get on. Thank you for that. Your actions were ostensibly to protect investors, yet the investors in Mayfair have not had access to their funds or a return on their investment since you started your action, despite the entity they invested in still being viable. Why are you hurting the people you profess to protect?
Ms Court: As I said in my response to Senator Bragg earlier, ASIC acted quickly in relation to the Mayfair matters for the purposes of protecting future investors. The matter’s been before the court, and Mayfair has been found to have engaged in misleading conduct. The court has imposed a $30 million penalty on Mayfair, which I understand remains unpaid. There are still several matters currently before the courts, and the courts are testing ASIC’s claims and the defences to those claims. That is an appropriate place for them to be determined now.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ASIC.png?fit=1297%2C750&ssl=17501297Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-04 13:16:322024-07-18 08:34:37ASIC Grilled on Banking Code of Practice and Crypto Scandal
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/4iP2O7jiyyw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-28 17:37:042024-09-11 17:38:08Fraud is Overwhelming in the NDIS Sector
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.
