Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 0:00 to 24:25
The committee examines departmental record-keeping practices and questions a $60,000 mobile phone bill incurred by the Minister.
Topics: Government spending, Procurement, Parliamentary privilege
Speakers: Hon Sarah Henderson, Hon Murray Watt, Varun Ghosh, Mike Kaiser, Luise McCulloch, Dean Smith, Sarah Hanson-Young
Good morning. Uh, I declare open the hearing of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee into 2025 2026 additional estimates. I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet and pay our respects to elders past and present. The committee has fixed Friday 10 April 2026 as the date for the return of answers to questions taken on notice. The committee's proceedings today will begin with corporate matters and general questions of the climate change, energy, the environment and water portfolio uh as flagged among fellow committee members. I will endeavor to keep that within that particular bounds and then we'll move to outcome two uh as quickly as possible. Understanding order 26, the committee must take all evidence in public session and this that includes answers to questions on notice. Um, I remind all witnesses in giving evidence to the committee. They are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence. The Senate has endorsed the following test of relevance for questions at estimates hearings. Any questions going to the operations or financial positions of the departments and agencies which are seeking funds in estimates are relevant questions for the purposes of estimates hearings. This is a broad test of relevance. I remind officers that the Senate has resolved that there are no areas in connection with the expenditure of public funds where any person has a discretion to withhold details or explanations from the parliament or its committees unless the parliament has expressly provided otherwise. The Senate has revol resolved that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a minister. This resolution does not preclude questions asking for explanations of policies or factual questions about when and how policies were adopted. Witnesses are reminded of the Senate order specifying the process by which claims of public interest immunity should be raised. I incorporate the public immunity statement into the hands. An officer called to answer a question for the first time should state their full name and capacity in which they appear. Uh at this stage, mobile phones should be switched to silent. Uh to my colleagues on the committee, senators are aware that one of the roles of the committee chair is to ensure that proceedings are conducted in an orderly way that is not intended to prevent rigorous questioning of witnesses, but to help ensure that senators exercise their rights and privileges in a careful, civil and responsible manner. I also remind all of us of our obligations under the behavior code for Australian parliamentarians to treat witnesses with dign dignity, courtesy, fairness, and respect. Um and as chair I intend to uphold those standards. I now welcome Senator the Honorable Murray Watt, Minister for the Environment and Water. U Minister, do you wish to make an opening statement?
>> Uh I do chair. There's a lot been going
>> Wonderful.
>> Including in this portfolio. Um thanks chair and thanks to the committee for the opportunity to appear here today to outline some of outline some of the fantastic work being done by the united and focused Albanesei government. In contrast to certain others, our sole focus have been on delivering for the Australian people and delivering for Australia's environment and water systems by protecting what's precious while powering productivity. Last year, we passed the most consequential changes to environmental law in this country for a generation. Importantly, it's a package that will be better for the environment and better for business. It included amendments called for by both environment and business groups. And the legislation passed sticks to the core principles of the Samuels review. Stronger environmental protection and restoration, more efficient and robust project assessments, greater accountability and transparency in decision-m. Uh this package will deliver the jobs, renewable energy and housing we need while protecting and restoring the environment for future generations. The new legislation will come into effect in tanches over the next year and there will be opportunities for all who are interested to engage on the development of the new national environmental standards that are the backbone of the legislation. One of the most significant changes we made in that reform package was to require land clearing that occurs in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area to be assessed and approved by the federal government for the first time in our history. It's a key step to improve the water quality of the reef through reducing sediment runoff. Late last month, I had the absolute pleasure of visiting the Great Barrier Reef in far north Queensland. I saw the benefits of the 1.2 billion invested by the Albany government alone in programs to restore the reef, improve its water quality, and other matters as well. And if you go back to about 2014, the joint funding between federal and state governments is approaching $5 billion. So, that's a very significant investment and it demonstrates our level of concern for the environmental value of the reef, but of course the economic importance of the reef as well, uh, given that it supports 77,000 jobs in far north Queensland and Queensland as a whole. The day before my trip to the reef, our government handed in our latest state party report to UNESCO on the status of the reef. And if you have a chance to look at that report, what you'll see is that we have delivered on every single commitment that we made to UNESCO around tackling climate change, investing in reef water quality, and in making our fishing practices more sustainable. And in fact, we've gone beyond the commitments we made to UNESCO in particular through those changes we made to our national environmental laws at the end of last year. I look forward to continuing to fight for the reef to not only be protected for future generations, but to be protected from being listed as in danger, which would harm jobs and tourism in regional Queensland. Last month, I also accepted a recommendation from the threatened species scientific committee to list the river murray downstream of the Darling River and associated aquatic and flood plane systems as critically endangered under national environmental law. The recommendation from the threatened species scientific committee noted the listed area has continued to face pressure from changes in water flows and quality invasive species loss of native vegetation and habitat connectivity across catchments and saltwater of flood planes. These threats are exacerbated by climate change including the increasing severity of heat waves, fire and drought. A 2025 evaluation showed that the Murray Darling Basin plan is now working to rebalance water use and restore the environment after a decade of neglect by the former federal coalition government. The listing, which will guide ongoing actions to combat threats to the river system, restores the 2013 listing, which was repealed just four months later by the Abbott Coalition government. One of the key objectives for our environmental law reforms was to speed up the project assessment and approval process. In the meantime, the Albanesei government has been getting on with the job, approving more than 130 renewable energy projects, which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of every passenger car in the country. The Albani government is doing its part by approving 132 critical clean energy projects at a rapid rate right across the country. We know that renewable energy is the cheapest and cleanest form of energy available and it will help us to meet our ambitious and achievable 20 2035 emissions target and to achieve net zero by 2050. After a decade of dithering after the under the coalition, the Albani government is also committed to addressing Australia's critical housing shortages. More homes, more speed, more scale. Since coming to government, we've approved 75 housing projects supporting 59,000 homes under federal environmental law. In August 2025, as an outcome of the federal government's economic roundt, the Albanesei government established a strike team within this department to prioritize housing approvals, committing to progress 26,000 approvals by the 30th of June this year. Happily, I can announce that more than 17,000 of those homes have been approved since the formation of the strike team. Housing projects have been approved in regional and metropolitan areas, ensuring that we are addressing the diverse geography of our housing needs. The reforms passed by the parliament last year will build upon this success and will streamline housing approvals further. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
>> Thank you, Minister. I now welcome uh Mr. Mr. Mike Kaiser, the secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water. Uh Mr. Kaiser, did you want to make an opening statement?
>> No, chair.
>> Thank you. Um before we commence with corporate matters and general questions, um I remind senators that this part of the program relates to matters concerning central departmental administration such as building services, ICT, staffing levels, and media procurement. Questions relating to individual policies and programs should be addressed to officials when specific programs are considered in the subsequent session um or in subsequent sessions. And on that note, I now will hand over to Senator Henderson. Um,
chair, thank you very much and good morning to you all. Uh, Mr. Kaiser, I just want to start by with an issue. We've just received literally minutes ago uh the department's response to question a question that I asked on the 1st of December 2025. The response to this question is overdue. It's probably 150 or more pages. Um it makes it very difficult for us to do our job when we've just received the answers. Are you able to explain to the committee why these were late?
>> Senator, um in the last session of the estimates, we received 359 questions on notice and the department did diligently work through the answers to all of those. I understand the vast bulk of those with a couple of exceptions were provided on time. Uh of course, ministerial officers play a role in this process. We consult with ministerial officers as is normal practice. Uh and so not all of the timing questions in relation to the response to questions on notice uh within the control of the department.
>> No, I understand that. So I'm referring to SQ26 2. Uh do you know when this draft answer was provided to the minister's office?
>> No, not specifically.
>> If you could take that on notice. Sure. >> Uh we will need to come back to this because clearly I haven't had an opportunity we haven't had an opportunity to to read it. Uh but we would just ask that every effort and I know that sometimes ministers across the board but ministers we've had many issues where ministers have held on to questions. So I'm not necessarily pointing the finger at the department, but in relation to this question and any other questions which are late, could you please provide us with a list of when those draft answers were provided to the minister's office for his or her approval?
>> Yeah, we'll endeavor to do that, Senator. I think if I'm not mistaken, the question um that you're referring to did involve us in a lengthy discussion about the the the nature of the answer in respect to what could responsibly be provided to uh to the to the committee. So there was a lengthy dialogue uh about that and it involved some complex matters in relation to what we could and couldn't disclose. Uh um uh but I'll take your question on notice. Um I do assure you though that the department devotes enormous resource and enormous time to meeting the time frames of the committee and as I said um 359 questions on notice were taken last time and the vast bulk of those were provided on
>> So I just want to quickly go to the first question that I asked. Did the department hold its own reform table? This is in relation to the treasur's economic reform roundt or equivalent meeting in the leadup to the treasurer's economic reform roundt. Uh the answer was yes and I sought the date the minutes and the attendees and the response was that no minutes are available. However, the minister for climate change and energy the honorable Chris Bowen released a media statement. Why are you not keeping minutes of these very important discussions?
>> Oh, it wasn't it wasn't a deliberative meeting or discussion in the sense that decisions were taken or recommendations made. It was a round table to discuss ideas in the leadup to uh the productivity roundt. So it's not it's not as though we had a responsibility to record decisions or record recommendations or take follow-up action. It was an opportunity for stakeholders to inform the minister of the productivity issues that they were experiencing and it was then up to the minister I think to make those representations within government to
>> but surely this is not best practice. This is your department running the round table. It seems extraordinary that minutes of minutes of those discussions were not recorded.
>> We were assisting the minister uh to run a round table. It wasn't a departmental round table. We were assisting the minister in the leadup to the productivity commission. Well, of
course, as as is normally the case, when the minister undertakes any activity, >> his department will assist in a whole range of matters, but it's very very unusual uh that minutes of a meeting as significant as this were not recorded. Was there a direction given not to take minutes?
>> Oh, not that I'm aware of, Senator. It just it was a it was a discussion of policy ideas. uh it wasn't a deliberative meeting as I' as I've said. So I think from memory there was obviously the minister's press release which talked about the outcomes of the meeting and from memory there may have been a communicate issued publicly but I'm only going by memory. So in that sense there was a record of the discussion of the meeting
>> a curated record I would put to you. uh if you could take on notice whether there was any direction made in relation to the taking of minutes a provide further details as to why minutes were not taken. I would put to you Mr. Kaiser this is not best practice for any
>> We can take that on notice.
>> Thank thank you. I want to move to the minister's the controversy out of the minister's telephone costs. Mr. Bowen spent over $60,000 on his mobile phone for a fortnight's use in November 2024. Uh he has uh expressed regret in relation to that bill. uh he said and this was reported on the 15th of December 2025 in the Australian he said that the bill is unacceptably high. It is an error. An investigation shows the bill relates to several mobile phones used by me and my office during COP 29 in Azaban. Could you please explain how such an astronomical bill was incurred?
>> Uh the department er the minister may have expressed regret but the regret is mine. um the department er in not arranging for his phones to be on the appropriate tariff for overseas travel. Um that's an error that we made. Uh he was not aware of it, nor were his staff. Uh and we've since been in touch with the telecommunications provider and have secured a refund of some portion of that bill as a result of the error that we that we made.
>> And how much was refunded?
>> I'll need to defer to my colleague for
>> Yes. So Louise McCullik, deputy secretary. So uh $30,000 was refunded.
>> And was it because the telecommunications carrier also made an
>> Uh because the telecommunications uh company agreed with us that had had we and the minister been aware that the international roaming charge had been char at the rate it had been charged, we could have actually acted on it. So why
was the and which telecommunications
don't want to go into which telecommunications carrier.
>> Well, you may not wish to, but I'm asking the question, so could you please provide that detail?
>> Can I take that on notice?
>> With all due respect, yeah, I think I mean there's three big communications companies in the country and one of them has a key contract with the Australian government. >> Let's see. Like we're not going to answer questions like that. Hold on,
back for a moment. Um, just to once again iterate as I have in the past that >> the basis on which someone can take a question on notice as if they don't know um the speed with which they come back is um obviously reflective of the nature of the question. I'm sure the officials will endeavor to come back on this one as quickly as possible, but if the official doesn't know the answer um then they're entitled to take it on notice and come back with an answer. Um, I
>> Sorry. Sorry.
required to disclose it.
>> And that's right. So that's that's the No, sorry. Just leave it with me for one moment, please. Well, no. Senator need assistance. Chair Senators Smith, Henderson, and Hansen Young. Politely I say um when I've got the call, please just leave it with me. I'm not seeking to cut across people, but this was devolving into a multiplepronged approach. I'm going to return to the official. If the information is available, I'll direct the official to
>> So, J, just sorry, just on that, I understand your role is to maintain the order of the committee, but I'm quite capable of doing the follow-up question. I understand Senator Hanson Young interjected, but I'm quite capable of asking that question. This was not a matter of keeping the committee into order. So, if I could just be allowed to continue my questions. So certainly and and you will be allowed
to Senator Henderson. But let me make clear that I'm also the chair of this committee and when there was an interjection I was attempting to deal with the issue and resolve the point of
order is what it was which is why I called your attention to that wasn't
stated and well in which case then
>> well you either want the information or you don't.
Okay. Okay.
>> So, chair, if
>> sorry,
>> within the standing orders, if I could just be permitted to continue my questions
>> and if Yes. And and you will be. Um, but let's let's take a moment and just say if it was a point of order and I understood I was responding to that issue and the notice question um that had been raised. Uh, Senator Henderson, I'm sure you were very capable of asking questions and you may continue now.
Thank you very much, chair. Uh, Miss McCullik, I am asking you to provide the committee with the information as to which telecommunications carrier it was, please.
>> Yes. And sorry, just to clarify my answer, I do know the answer. I'm um taking on notice whether it's appropriate for me to actually provide that information given the nature of the commercial contracts we enter into.
>> That's not a commercial matter. You've already disclosed that there was a $30,000 refund.
>> Senator Henderson. And sorry,
>> sorry, I just hadn't finished my
order. Sorry. Sorry, Chair. I I know another Senate. >> I know you're a bit um uh your attention was diverted there. >> Ms. McCullik has taken Senator Henderson's question on notice and has has essentially said that she wishes to check if there is an issue with disclosing the answer that Senator Henderson is seeking. that is entirely appropriate for commit for officials to take on notice a matter um to determine whether a public interest immunity should be claimed. So, Senator Henderson should not be contesting Ms. McCullik's ability to give that answer.
>> Um, thanks for your for your helpful assistance there, Minister. Miss McCullik, um if you could if you wish to consult with your um your other members of the department or the minister's office in relation to this answer. Um could you please return to the desk as soon as possible to address that question? Because I go, Mr. This goes back to if the refund was made when in fact the telecommunications company was not liable in any way and the fault was with the department then why was a refund made and why was it accepted?
>> Uh that may be a question for the telecommunications company. My understanding is that they acknowledged that had we have had we had not erred in failing because we failed to seek the appropriate tariff for the travel that was undertaken uh the the the bill would have been substantially less. I mean I think why they accepted that and why they offered the discount may be a question for them. We certainly sought it but it wasn't our decision to give it.
>> Um Mr. Kaiser, are you able to provide on notice the correspondence, any email or other correspondence between the department and the telecommunications company and the minister's office in relation to this matter, please?
>> Well, we'll add that to the question on notice. Um,
>> I've asked for it on notice.
>> Yep. Sure. Well, as my colleague have
>> to be taken to ensure [snorts] this sort of cost doesn't is not incurred again.
>> I would assure you, Senator, I'm very surprised given the current minister's attitude. I'd be very surprised if it ever occurs again.
>> And were were all the telephone calls in relation to the minister's responsibilities as the minister or were there costs incurred in relation to his other role with the cop?
>> Well, this related to a meeting that he had before he before he before he held that role. So it was in in relation to his responsibilities as a minister of
>> And have you um interrogated why I mean even though there was obviously the international roaming issues arose have you interrogated why such a large bill was incurred. It's a it's an enormous amount of money.
>> No, I'm not about to second guess the telephone use of my minister. Um uh it it's as large as it is because we heard we failed to be diligent in getting him onto the right tariff when he traveled
>> All right. We'll look forward to receiving that further information, including if you um Miss McCullik, if you can please come back to us as soon as possible in relation to the the identity of the telecommunications [clears throat] carrier. I am concerned about this because if there was no liability by the carrier, it just seems very odd. I mean, it would be brilliant if all Australians could suddenly get a refund on their telephone bill. Uh, under circumstances where they may have heard I mean, there have been plenty of Australians who've traveled overseas who've made probably a similar error. Have they received a
>> Well, I I'm personally aware of instances where telecommunications carriers have waved all or part of an overseas phone bill for their customers in a personal capacity. Thanks minister
for that helpful advice but I
>> it might not be the answer you want but
>> no what I'm what I'm concerned about it's very unusual >> that for the department excuse me where the minister >> where the department has made clear it is liable it made the error then what's the basis on which this money has been returned
>> do you object to departmental officials seeking a refund of public funds. Do you have a problem with that,
>> Minister? I am asking the questions and and my concern is um and it does go and I think as Senator Hanson Young may have mentioned, it does go to whether there are any other interests at foot here. Are there any other commercial contracts on foot? Uh are there any other um conflicts that that may have led to the telecommunications company saying, "No worries, we'll give you the
$30,000." So there's a conspiracy around a phone bill.