Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 0:02 to 20:30
The hearing begins with inquiries into senior public service staffing changes and ministerial travel expenses to New York. Officials clarify the circumstances surrounding executive leave and the procurement of business class airfares.
Topics: Public service staffing, Travel and event costs
Speakers: Jim Betts, Hon Sarah Henderson, Varun Ghosh, Hon James McGrath, Nita Green, Dean Smith
I declare open this hearing of the environment and communications legislation committee into the 2025 2026 additional estimates. I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to elders past and present. These are public proceedings being video streamed live via the parliament's website and a hands transcript is being made. If there are no objections, the committee authorizes media recording and photography of the committee's proceedings in accordance with Sen Resolution 3. I remind the media that this permission can be revoked at any time and the media must follow the directions of secretariat staff. The committee is fixed Friday, April 10, as the date for the return of answers to questions taken on notice. Um, the committee's proceedings today will begin with corporate matters and general questions of the communications and arts portfolio. Under Standing Order 26, the committee must take all evidence in public session. This includes answers to questions on notice. I remind all witnesses that 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 of 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. 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 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 a reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked to 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 a claim of public interest immunity should be raised. I incorporate the public interest immunity statement into the handset. An officer called to answer a question for the first time should state their full name and the capacity in which they appear. Uh mobile phones, if not already done so, should now be switched to silent. Uh senators are aware of that one of the roles of the committee chair is to ensure that proceedings are conducted in orderly way. This is not intended to prevent rigorous questioning witnesses, but to help ensure that senators exercise their rights and privileges in a careful, civil and responsible manner. I remind senators of their obligations under the behavior code for Australian parliamentarians to treat witnesses with dignity, courtesy, fairness, and respect. And as chair, I intend to uphold these standards. Uh I now welcome Senator the Honorable Nita Green, Assistant Minister for Northern Australia, Tourism, and the Pacific Island Affairs, representing the Minister for Communications and the Arts. Minister, do you wish to make an opening statement? >> Thanks, Chair. >> Thank you. Um I also welcome Mr. Jim Betts, Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, and the Arts. Welcome, Mr. Betts. Do you wish to make an opening statement?
>> No. Thank you, Chair.
>> Okay. Uh before we commence with corporate questions, 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 subsequent sessions. Uh with on that note, I will turn over to Senator Henson. Uh thank
you very much chair and good morning to you. Thank you very much your appearance today secretary. I wanted to start by asking you some a staffing question. Uh and I refer to an article by John Buckley in the Sydney Morning Herald dated the 5th of February and entitled Michelle Rowland Taps bureaucrat of Optus debacle fame as chief of staff. And I also note the print A title as printed in the newspaper was Roland picks comm's flop boss to run the office. Uh are you familiar with those articles?
>> Uh I'm familiar with the general media coverage which just occurred here.
>> Uh I'm happy to table them. I just don't have a copy of them. I've only got an e copy of them.
>> I get the gist.
>> Um secretary, when advising departmental staff of Mr. Chisum's departure. You sent an internal email noting that Mr. Chisum would be taking a period of extended leave. >> Can you confirm what date that email was sent? And could we could you table a copy for the committee?
>> Uh, I'll need to check exactly uh what the date was. It was um early in the new year. Um, and there's no secret about that um internal communication. So, we'll see if we can source a copy for
you. >> Thank you. Thanks, Secretary. Uh, can you confirm the exact date on which the former deputy secretary, Mr. Chism was placed on extended leave.
>> Uh so he had already uh booked leave um uh through to from memory around the 13th or 14th of January. And we had a conversation early in the new year. I'd made a decision at that point that um as is as happens from uh time to time I wanted to make some adjustments in the senior executive ranks of the department um and that um uh having done that that um a good um opportunity for him to take some extended leave. Obviously uh Mr. Chisum had overseen a big and ambitious program for a period of 18 months. it was a good opportunity for him to take a bit of a breather while we reorganized internally and uh subsequent to that he um uh landed the position as chief of staff to the attorney general which is a great outcome and to the extent that you're giving me an opportunity to make a comment on this I'd like to commend Mr. which isn't for his notwithstanding that adverse media comment outstanding record in overseeing a whole series of reforms whether it's the review of the online safety act media reforms the news media assistance program journalism assistance fund the 3G transition uh the uh development of the universal outdoor mobile obligation USO reform and obviously most recently the social media minimum age it was an outstanding record of delivery for the government and I think Mr. which isn't can be very proud of its time as deputy secretary.
>> Uh thank you secretary. Uh well there was a scathing article and I'll just read the first part of it. It was only in October last year that James Chisum then deputy secretary of the department of communications was torched by senators for his department's failure to set up automatic email replies after OPTIUS emailed the wrong address to notify them of a catastrophic triple0ero outage. You might al also recall and I didn't name Mr. Chisum, but I uh I made a speech in Parliament where I raised concerns about the way in which Mr. Chisum over period of hours declined to answer our questions about when uh the Minister for Communications first knew about the Optis outage and there was I would say attempts to conceal the true nature of when that communication landed with the minister. And and the reason I I ask that is because um I wanted to ask you about the minister's whether the minister was consulted or informed before Mr. Chisum was directed to take extended leave.
>> Uh yes. So I'm the employer uh and it was my decision um uh to move Mr. Chisum and um to uh put him on extended leave by agreement with Mr. Chisum. Uh but obviously I inform the minister um and the minister's chief of staff as I go but it was my decision.
>> Okay. Uh so following Mr. Chisum's appearance at the OPA Senate inquiry, did the minister or her office raise concerns with you about Mr. Chisum's conduct or performance at that inquiry?
>> Uh no. So uh obviously we had a discussion around um uh how Senate estimates had gone at that time. um and uh but that was largely around making sure that we um were taking all the actions that were uh appropriate which I think we were. So I stand by the department's record and I stand by Mr. Chisum's record. we were legitimately held to account um by the committee. But to the extent that there was any reflection on how that went, it was about making sure that the custodian um was stood up with speed, which it was with the legislation um subsequently enacted and uh resource input into that function and happy to take questions and provide information during the course of today about um the steps that we have taken since that Senate estimate session in uh early October. So did the minister
or her office advise you at any point or anyone else within the department that the minister no longer wish to work with Mr. Chisum?
>> No. So um no that's not the case. So I uh I um am the employer as I say and it was my choice u to make that change >> and and as you know I write to um committees routinely in the run-up to Senate estimates hearings describing the changes in senior management teams and they occur frequently and it is the prerogative of secretaries to reshuffle their teams from time to time.
>> So no one in the minister's office or the minister at any time spoke with you or anyone else within the department saying that she no longer wished to work with Mr. Chisum.
>> Correct. So uh and and it it's my decision. So I obviously I'm constantly in contact with ministers and their officers about how the department is traveling. Um but um uh no it's my
>> Can you confirm whether Mr. Chisum was the subject of any formal or informal performance management process following that inquiry?
>> Absolutely confirm that he wasn't.
why was staff advisor Mr. Chisum was taking extended leave rather than he had been relieved of his duties or reassigned
>> uh because he is still an employee of the department. Uh and uh uh whilst he stepped out of the role of deputy secretary for communications and media, he was taking leave uh whilst he and I um would have discussions around what his next uh appointment will be within the department. It was at that point that the opportunity arose in the attorney general's office which um Mr.
>> uh did the department negotiate Mr. Chisum's departure while he was on leave, including discussions about future employment?
>> Did the department negotiate
>> negotiate Mr. Chisum's departure? >> So no discussions at all about where he might end up.
>> Uh correct. So
>> because it it looks to me Mr. Betts like he was sacked.
>> Well, he wasn't sacked. So that's the
information is that the minister was very unhappy with his performance and in fact there was a screaming match in her office. So is that the case? Did that
>> I don't even recognize that characterization. So >> the minister will speak for herself about her views on these things, but no.
uh and that the minister was so unhappy and I would put to you in to some degree quite unfairly because it's my understanding that Mr. uh given guidance that he should not be disclosing any incriminating emails which implicated the minister. Did that occur at all? Was there any sort of guidance or direction about this the form of the evidence that he should be giving in the inquiry
>> in the inquir which inquiry
>> in the Senate inquiry the off to Senate inquiry?
>> Uh no
>> there was no direction.
>> So Mr. Chisum was a deputy secretary who's very familiar with his obligations including under the code of conduct and required no reminder as to uh what is appropriate or inappropriate for public servants to disclose in line with their obligations.
>> Well that's what I was concerned about Mr. Betts. if there was any suggestion that that any public servant was being instructed as to how to give evidence.
>> Well, no. I mean, you were here, senator, and you saw that evidence was given in great detail under quite significant pressure uh by the communications and media team. Uh extensive questioning, quite legitimate questioning and extensive and detailed informative answers given by my team. So,
>> well, Mr. Betts, one of the concerns I raised and I raised it in parliament without naming Mr. Chism was that he over a it took us a period of hours to establish that in fact the minister's office had received the email in relation to the opt outage after he I would put to you misrepresented that um they had no knowledge of that email and then when we finally got that email we saw MO minister's office in the copy in the copy line and that's at that point only did we learn that the minister's office received a copy of that email. So I put to you that there was uh very very significant attempts to disclose to not to disclose what occurred and that we were led a merry dance during that particular hearing.
>> So I we're under corporate if you want to relitigate all of that that's your choice. Um I would point out that Mr. Chism not only referred to that email in his opening statement, provided copies of two emails including the second one from Optus uh which said that the issue had been resolved and there was nothing further to see and from memory only 12 people had been affected which was clearly uh not an accurate representation of the events which subsequently became apparent in the ensuing 24 hours where there was a much more serious breach as you know Senator where tragically people died. So, we can go over all that ground, but it was uh extensively rehearsed um in Senate estimates, and I don't think it's a fair characterization to say that um Mr. Chisum was anything other than forthcoming about that. You you may take a different view, but that's my view as secretary um commenting on the uh professional conduct of my deputy
Minister, are you aware of whether the the Minister for Communications took any issue at all or had any sort of altercation with Mr. Chisum?
>> Well, can I first of all, the characterization of the hearing that you are putting forward, I was in the hearing. I don't agree with that. Um, I I'm not aware of any issues that the minister took. I can speak to her and see if there's any information, but I think the secretary's expressed pretty confidently that um those allegations that you're making didn't didn't occur.
>> Well, I can say >> you've just taken it on notice, so we yet to determine.
>> Oh, because I'm, you know, for completeness, but
>> Secretary said he's not aware of aware of this. I'm asking Thank you for taking it on notice. Secretary, what date did Mr. Chisum informed the department he would cease his extended leave and take up employment with Minister Rowland's office.
>> Uh so uh the just to answer a prior question if I may, the email that I sent to staff about Mr. Chisum's extended leave was on the 12th of January um 2026 at 11:26 a.m. Uh on the 6th of February um I sent uh an email uh notifying the department that Mr. Chisum was taking up the um chief of staff role. Um I had a conversation uh with the attorney general who notified me um that she was intending to appoint Mr. Chisum and subsequently um uh a text exchange from Mr. Chisum to congratulate him on the role. I don't have the precise date of that.
>> If you could come back on those dates and also just table table those that correspondence. >> Uh so do you know the date that Mr. Chisum informed? So, sorry, just to clarify the date that Mr. Chisman informed the department he would cease his extended leave.
>> I'll have to check that for you. It's sometime obviously ahead of the email of the 6th of February. So, it would have been right at the end of January, I think, but I'll check that for you,
>> Okay. Thanks. Uh, chair, I've got more questions. Do you want to share the call around?
>> Well, perhaps with your colleagues if they have some some questions. >> I know Senator Smith.
>> Yes. I might just turn to the matter of the $1.2 million Perth Hills commitment that we talked about at the previous estimates. Is this the correct place?
>> I don't think that's a corporate matter. Happy to talk about that under outcome
five. >> Yeah, that's my answer. Thank you. Which which section would that be better?
>> The next section after corporate and then it's you can ask anything about communications and media after that.
very soon.
>> Soon as you
>> got some prior notice, Senator Green,
>> I've got some questions, too. Um, on international travel, what international travel has been under undertaken by the minister or her office since November 2025?
>> I believe that there is a question on notice which has u been answered recently on that. Um otherwise I will see if I can source the information for
>> Are there any I do do you have would you
>> of international travel international travel? >> I don't I don't think the minister has undertaken any international travel since November but I will need to um check that. I don't want to mislead the
>> Are there any planned international trips for the minister or her office?
Uh, I will have to um check that as
>> I see you'll take that one on on notice.
>> Yes, I will.
>> Yeah. In relation to the infamous New York trip, has the department established why the minister's deputy chief of staff's flights were $4,000 more expensive than the
know, uh the minister has referred all of this to the independent par parliamentary expenses authority and it is subject to review um uh by them. Uh they will no doubt look into um the costs of the travel and in uh in regard to specific tickets. Uh I can't make any comment in that in the sense that I wasn't part of the approval chain um other than to say that um uh the minister and uh and by extension her uh deputy chief of staff uh rearranged their travel um in the light of the uh Optus outage and impacts on triple0 so that she could ensure that appropriate direction was given um to the department and other agencies um before she traveled um to New York. Uh that last minute change um came with a cost, not least because um business class travel into New York during major events of this kind is intrinsically extremely expensive. But it's not for me really to provide comment on this other than to say that it is with the appropriate independent um parliamentary expenses authority um for scrutiny. The minister
>> What what about the the department itself? >> Yeah. Have there been any international trips for executive members or or staff since November last year?
>> Um, I will take that on notice, but I will also see if I can answer that in the session um this morning if I can get access to that information. Um as you know a single um uh staff member with the department traveled with the minister on that trip to New York uh an assistant secretary that was approved in accordance with standard departmental travel policies and that's fully documented um to the extent that departmental staff travel internationally. It's often for the purposes of engagement in international telecommunications union postal union representation of Australian interest in international forums. But I'll take that on notice or provide information sooner.
>> And are there any trips currently being organized or or planned?
>> I'll get you that information as well.
>> Thank you.
>> It's on.