Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 44:25 to 1:46:11
Senators question officials regarding internal integrity investigations, NACC referrals, and significant delays in answering parliamentary questions on notice.
Topics: Integrity, Grants administration, Freedom of information, Orders for documents
Speakers: Stephanie Foster PSM, Speaker 3, Susan McDonald, Unknown Speaker, Dr Jill Charker, Clare Sharp PSM, Dorinda Cox, Hon Jonathon Duniam, Jana Stewart, Ross Cadell, Sanandan Dasgupta
from 2019. I'm more than happy and I will commit to um assembling that group together and I'll certainly pass that message on. Senator, >> thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you, Senator. Senator Cadell, >> um just on your point that what she said about me health is so great. There's a strange analogy here. We were up there saying where the minister was looking at some of the Brahas and they've got to stay on their feet and keep active otherwise they lie down and give up and it's so many of the farmers are similar. We got to keep them going otherwise they'll do similar. So, thank you for that. Um going back now just on uh thank you for your question on notice regarding the knack stuff from last time. I've I've got the answer there. Can I ask without substance of any what the referral is about? Who is the is there a process that goes through
internally as to what meets a bar to make a referral within or is that your judgment call alone? How does that process work? >> Senator, thank thanks for the question. Um we do have an internal um process process as part of our integrity team. We have a a dedicated uh investigative uh capability who will make an assessment of a particular issue with all the information that is available at
a particular point in time. We also um
We also have an external capability as well. We use deote to assist us with
specialist investigative uh capabilities on occasion. Um an initial assessment of any complaint that is raised or any uh issue is then is then made and it is it is basically and it can involve engagement with the National Anti-Corruption Commission in terms of the thresholds for severe and systemic conduct and then advice is provided to me in terms of has it reached that threshold? Who we've engaged with? what's the nature of the um uh of the allegations and then I'll make a determination uh on the referral senator. >> Okay. Is that a a documented or formal policy or that's uh how is that within
managed within? >> Uh uh thanks Senator. So yes so we we do it through a very sort of uh so we go through the policy uh we discuss uh it with as well and then finally we prepare a decision minute which is sensitive uh and then then it is go we go through that process. >> No problem. The process is a documented policy. >> Yeah, it's it's a documented. Yeah. >> Okay. Um once the so as part of that process, do you look at potential alternatives you you that threshold point you get you look at um internal change of procedures? You look at um other things internally before we reach that process or does that happen concurrently? What what's the process there? There will be there will be outcomes of an investigation which are essentially an observations um and lessons learned process. Yeah. >> Um that will inform our governance arrangements, our internal policies uh learnings from the from the um very early uh days within NEMA was the value of having an external investigative um uh capability senator given the given the scope and the scale of many of the grant programs that we currently manage. >> Okay. Going back and just pitch patch because I know time we're going to be all over the spot going a bit on culture again. Uh last time we raised that uh the NEMA's leader survey shows only 49% of respondents believe SCES work as a team. Um you've spoken before about transitional and setup and bringing in and that sort of thing that is still a concern that less slightly less than half I'll give you that >> is that improving are you seeing even in estimates different personnel every time acting cos what is happening in the SCES level what's happening with at that
>> so so senator bearing in mind we are a young agency and and I I I accept I accept your proposition we are maturing as as as an agency. Um I I have made in a number of estimates uh appearances an observation that certainly the operational environment in which we in which we work puts pressure on all staff but we don't use that as an excuse. It's just a recognition of what's driving um particular behaviors, what drives and informs the leadership required for this particular um agency. And so we have a number of a number of initiatives in play not only to develop the capability of our senior leadership team and they are all committed to this but our SCES teams and across the agency um um more broadly um it's going to be a journey um Senator and and as I say our efforts are always on having a fitfor-purpose organization where the leaders have the capability but also embody the values and the cultural aspects that we need in this agency. >> Okay. And I I will be a bit all over because trying to get stuff done on time. When uh we talk about thing one of the people that came to our office said that um under the pre the someone not here defend under the COO previously money was allocated on a semi-ad hoc basis to fix shortcomings. specifically um the allegation I have no truth about this 7 million taken from um the uh national messaging emergency messaging service the education program to fund other operational goals short term are you aware of things like that happening are we moving money from one budget to another not you definitely not you someone else um are we aware of the COO moving money around to different things to keep keep the lights on in different programs >> um look look we we manage the budget holistically there and I I might ask the um uh the chief op acting chief operating officer to get into this in more detail. Um but there are short-term pressures that do arise. Um and for example um Senator, you know, um over the last three estimates, we've spent a um a uh a fair degree of time talking about the payroll situation um and getting an understanding on that. we and and I made the decision that we needed to understand the true scale and scope of that because that was not clear to us. And so there will be short-term funding pressures where we do have to allocate resources that are part of our overall departmental budget to actually address some of those because they are agency priorities. I might just have talk about the allocation of funds.
>> Uh thanks uh coordinator general. So in terms of allocation of resources, so we have a funding envelope. We go through uh look at [clears throat] you know how many people are there and and how supplier committed spends. So we look at all the costs allocate it across groups. Then we work with the groups and the cost center managers to devi it up right at the sort of right to the cost center level. That's how internal budget works and we have allocated a balanced budget. Then what happens is every month they go through and and what the actuals are and what the forecasts are and often when coordinator general was referring to the pressures the forecast often keeps changing based on the high-risk weather events. As an example, we we have taken this payroll review where we had to bring in you know KPMG cord to undertake and team from home affairs to assist us. So obviously it is it is a pressure then we look at all our costs and see how we can manage the fiscal pressures. So that's how we manage the internal budget and it is it is it is on a monthly basis we look at it what are our priorities in certain instances we might decide that we will not go ahead with a certain supplier forecast costs because that can be undertaken through another panel arrangement from another agency. So, so that's how we manage because our our main aim is to make sure we support the communities, we support staff during, after and uh the disasters. Okay. >> Um keeping up with my WhatsApp messages which are increasing the more questions I ask. Um the can we expand the question I noticed regarding the costs around Harvard to any other cost for trips to Oxford as well if there was some there which is an interesting one. Um and when we're talking about HR uplift and the changes we're doing in HR and things we're going forward specifically uh someone's come forward and said uh when they questioned about their payroll issues which you addressed in sometimes they were told that it is just the icing on top because it was their overtime and extra allowance by your HR department that they shouldn't be complaining because they got paid but the extra money was just the icing on top. That's not an attitude of a HR department that I would like to be looking after my people. Is that condoned by you? >> Absolutely not, Senator. We are absolutely committed as a leadership group and as an agency to remunerating our people in a timely and a fair manner. Um, no, no, it certainly isn't. Um and certainly in relation to the functions that our our people team perform um as part of this payroll review, we're actually expanding the capacity of that team to actually address address some of those outstanding matters. Senator >> Okay. Um looking at the time, Minister, if I can ask you a question, the Culvin report was done some or handed in 18 months ago. When can we expect a government response to the Culvin report? And is that imminent? Is that close given the importance of having it done in the first place? >> I'll take the specific question about timing on notice, Senator. Um, but I would make the observation that since receiving the report, uh, there's been quite significant reform consistent with the observations made by Mr. Colvin in that in that review. >> Okay. I'm happy if you want to go somewhere else or I can keep going, >> Senator. Um can we just turn around back to um Mr. Adescopter to finish the um the question in relation to um funding from time. Yes. >> Uh thanks coordinator general. Uh
Senator I took a view from a departmental budget perspective. So uh I'm just I would like to elaborate from an administered budget perspective. So there are two components of the budget. So when we are talking of cups and those sort of stuff, these are departmental budget. But if I'm looking at administered budget, we cannot move the administered budget until and unless there is a specific decision through either like a movement of funds or reallocation through department of finance through the proper as per the budget process operational rules. As an example, if I am looking at uh NMS and
campaign which is an administered funding, we cannot touch it. So so so I'm looking at departmental versus administered. So that that's the administered sort. I wanted to clarify that we don't have that. So just to follow up, so the education and communication campaign around NMS is unchanged from what it was the budget allocation in the program. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So So yeah, so this this has been allocated in the in the current uh in the current uh pays document. You'll see that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Senator Cadell. Senator Cox, >> thank you very much. Um just wondering if you might be able to give us um or
inform the committee of the projects that are being funded under the DRF rounds one and two that are directly supporting First Nations communities. >> Yeah, thanks Senator for the question. Um as you'd be aware, the Disaster Ready Fund or DRF is the Australian government's flagship uh disaster resilience and risk reduction initiative and it commits up to $200 million per year from the Commonwealth government side. um for those projects and it started from 1 July 2023 so a billion dollars over 5 years. Um we have um uh the outcomes of round three of the disaster ready fund. Um but in relation to funding for First Nations specifically across all rounds one, two and three of the DRF a total of 290.7 million in Australian government funding has been committed under those three rounds to 199 projects which have selfidentified as providing benefits to first nations people. Um the breakdown of that is under round one there were 76 projects awarded uh which related to
more than $95 million from the Australian government in funding. In round two, 104 projects were funded more
million. And then in round three, the recent round, 19 projects which were awarded more than $57 million in Australian government funding. >> That's great. Thanks, Dr. Chaka. Um can you maybe just give us a bit of a status update on some of those projects like
the positive impacts that they're having particularly on first nations
communities?
um uh a project which um was funded um 11,873,520 uh of which um the majority of that was Australian government funding. That funding was awarded to the Javalina
Yalangi Aboriginal Corporation in Queensland to deliver a micro grid in Woodul Wood in far north Queensland. So that funding is being used to deliver a solar and battery micro grid that will provide communitywide backup power when the Urggon network connection is lost during disaster events which obviously critical issue for connectivity. Um the project currently in pre-construction. It is estimated to complete uh 12th December 2027. Second example, Senator, um is funding of $135,269
which was awarded to the Toouristrait Island Regional Council. That was to deliver secure power access for five remote islands in the Toourist strait. Um the funding's being used to install five backup generators at Peruma, Dawan, Arab, Boyu and the Maags to provide emergency backup for the fuel pumps which are operated by the tourist rate council again in the event of power failure at the standalone central power stations on each island. So again critical asset um in that community.
This project is in the construction delivery phase at the moment, estimated to complete May this year, end of May, 31 May this year. And finally, uh, Senator, an amount of $381,000, uh, sorry, 381,600, all of which is Australian government funding has been awarded to the Napinum Aboriginal Shire Council. Um, that's to deliver the Neapron multi-purpose place of refuge, the detailed design for that place of refuge. Um, so the funding is being used to develop, as I said, detailed designs for a multi-purpose place of refuge for extreme hazard events such as bushfires, coastal hazards, cyclones, heat waves, and storms. And this project is currently in the planning and design phase, estimated to conclude end of May this calendar year. Thanks, Senator. >> Thank you, Dr. Taka, and thanks to Nema for some really important work in First Nations communities. Thank you. Thanks, J. >> Thank you. That concludes the questions we have for you this morning. Uh thank you for your time and you are now pleased with the committee's thanks. We'll take a very brief suspension while we welcome uh Department of Home Affairs
matters to the table.
Senator the Honorable Mari Watt representing the Minister for Home Affairs. I also call officers from the Department of Home Affairs in relation to cross portfolio, corporate and general matters. Minister, would you like to make an opening statement? >> No thanks, but good to see you all. >> Music to our ears this early in the day. Miss Foster, uh, I understand you provided your opening statement to the committee. Uh, and I'll table that, but also invite you to to speak to your opening statement as well. >> Thank you, chair. Um, since we last met, Australia has been shocked to its core by the devastating terrorist attack against Australia's Jewish community of Bondi. Our thoughts remain with the families, friends, and communities impacted so horrifically by this attack. Home Affairs staff have worked tirelessly since 14 December to respond to the tragedy. They've engaged with the Jewish community to understand its needs. They have prior prioritized visas for families and loved ones. They've
organized immediate financial assistance to facilitate medical treatment, family reunion, and other essential needs. They supported the finalization of the
government's response to Miss Seagull's report and commenced the roll out of anti-semitism training recommended in that report in close collaboration with
department and others. They were
integral to the successful package of the combating anti-semitism, hate and extrem extremism bills on criminal and migration laws and on firearms and custom laws. And of course, they're now working hard to support the Royal
Cohesion. I want to acknowledge also the work of Australian Federal Police and Western Australian colleagues in response to the failed terrorist attack against the 26th January invasion day rally. Again, our thoughts are with our First Nations colleagues and all who joined that rally who have a right to protest without risking their lives. Much else has been achieved across Home Affairs since we last appeared in early December, but today is not the day to detail these achievements with our focus rightly on the terrorist attacks described above. But those staff who have continued to progress outcomes as diverse as countering violent extremism programs, cyber security, expedited access to the US for Australian citizens, enhanced citizenship processing, combating migrant worker exploitation, elicit tobacco and prohibited drugs should be in no doubt that their efforts are seen and greatly appreciated. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you, Secretary. Uh we'll proceed to questions and uh begin with Senator Duniam. >> Thank you chair and thanks secretary for your opening statement there. Uh if I can just start with uh a line that was in the uh special envoy on anti-semitism's plan which referenced
uh in particular public servants having access to training to recognize and address anti-semitism in public settings. That's part of Jillian Seagull's plan. I just wonder uh has the
department uh put in place any settings or is in receipt of formal training arrangements for officers of the department when it comes to anti-semitism. Uh yes, we we have and we are senator. And so in uh immediately before the Christmas um period, we commenced um anti-semitism training with uh a group of our decision makers um visa decision makers. Um uh there were two components to that training. um an online self-paced module and then a a 90-minute session facilitated by uh an expert from the Sydney Jewish Museum. Um and uh that was obviously targeting a group of people who um are making decisions uh where um anti-ism anti-semitism could be a factor in their decision-m. We then uh over the course of a couple of weeks in January um rolled out the same training to a pilot group of our senior executive service officers um with the same format, the the online sort of self-paced introductory uh module and then a 90-minute session with the facilitator. And so both the online module and the um session with the individual the facilitator uh were uh works provided by the Sydney Holocaust Museum. Is that who you said? >> It's it's the Sydney Jewish Museum. >> So we've worked very closely with Miss Seagull in the development of that training. She has been um both very keen to assist us um uh in the design of that um and also very helpful um in the in the um segment that we're doing with the Sydney Jewish Museum. Um we and they are using that as a chance to to give feedback. So at the end of
each session of the SCES groups um and I think also of the decision makers,
people were asked to provide any feedback on what was resonating, what did or didn't make sense to them, how it was assisting them to understand um the uh implications, the impact of into one. Uh has any office refused to participate in the training and is training going to be mandatory or is it a voluntary exercise for officers of the department? So uh Senator no one uh has refused to do the training um uh in part because we have approached people to opt in to it at this stage. One of the things that I'm very conscious of is
that um for for different folks um coming from different perspectives in the organization um for example for our Jewish community um the training could be quite triggering and so I'm trying to be really sensitive about how we approach the question of who does it and when they do it. Um so when I did the pilot with our SCES group, um if I think about Miss Sharp's figures, that would be about half the SCES group who opted into the very first pilot. So I'm not anticipating a problem with willingness, but I am going to be really sensitive about how how I roll it out to to all staff. >> Okay. And so just on a final clarification, so no intention to make it mandatory training. I haven't yet made that decision, Senator, because I'm trying to work through how um how I can achieve my joint goal of having all staff who are, for example, in senior leadership positions or making decisions where this is important. complete the training without putting people into situations that are uncomfortable or or traumatic for them. And the other thing that's on my mind, and this is is getting a bit more esoteric in terms of of training um philosophy, is that there is a particular reaction that you get to mandatory training that causes a resistance. If I can get the outcome that I want without triggering >> sure >> that reaction then I will do so. >> Yes. Thank you. Thanks chair. >> Thank you. >> Um oh thanks chair and nice secretary.
I asked um I think through you your
department on the 4th of November 2024 2024 we're talking a [clears throat] question about the breakdown of people seeking asylum who have been transferred to Australia from offshore detention. Um that question is now one year um and three months. Um it's been waiting one year and three months for an answer. It's SE 24358. How do we wait one year and three months for an answer just about some basic data of people who have been transferred out of this country? >> Senator U. Mr. Hickey may be able to
help me with the status of that question. >> Morning, Senator. Uh Brian Hickey, acting deputy secretary executive. Um, the team is just getting that information for you, but I understand that is with the minister's office at the moment, Senator. >> And And when when was it sent to the minister's office? >> I'll get that information for you, >> All right. So, we can expect an answer. >> Yes, senator. >> Um, all right. Um, a year ago now, um, I asked questions about Secure Journeys and MTC, Management Training feeder that this government has given multi-billion dollar contracts to to jail people in the country. Um, I was going to ask some questions about that today, but then I was shocked to see that we still have questions unanswered from February 2025. Um this included about ABF's awareness about the solitary confinement of Carlos Vega by MTCUS alg questions about the um department's knowledge of multiund million um settlements for bribery um that MTC had had to pay before entering into the contract. A year ago I asked these questions. Why no answer?
Senator, um if you have the um numbers handy, we'll be able to >> 2591
about you know the awareness of the department and ABF about the unlawful solitary confinement of Carlos Vega in the United >> Um A25010. [clears throat] Um sorry, we're coming to that one next. Um AE25089 about whether or not the department knew about the $712 million in damages that MTC had to pay because of major fraud, bribery, kickbacks, and misrepresentations and concealments. >> Mhm. Why are we waiting more than a year to find out whether or not your department did due diligence about the notorious corruption of this entity before you entered into a contract? Why does that take more than a year? >> So, Senator, again, we'll check the specifics of those um questions, but I think of the group from February 2025, all but three have been progressed by the department.
>> Are they with the minister then? They're either with the minister or they're lodged, senator. >> All right. Well, I have more than three awaiting answers. Um, but would it be possible to get an answer on that today? >> We're checking as we speak, Senator. >> Thank you. And then um there are series
February, so it's slightly less than a year. Um, also on the 24th of February, I asked a series of questions of your department about the Dural Caravan incident. um which included
when the department knew matters um uh any calls to the national hotline.
Um uh when the department knew that the um um the allegations about explosives were true or false um and indeed also to you minister about your personal knowledge of matters more almost a year now we still don't have an answer. Is there an explanation?
>> I'll give you the numbers. A2511 A25012 A25013 A25014
[clears throat] >> So Senator we will check those last group but um I can tell you that Um, all four of the first nominated uh with the minister's office. The first was sent on the 6th of December, 2024,
and I'm just checking the dates that the others were sent. >> Well, once you clarify that um the department's actions and perhaps you could explain the 10 months it took
minister once we have that if it if it's if the issue is it's been sitting with the minister who is refusing to provide the accountability um we we might address that through both you minister and the department once we find out what's happened. >> Happy to do that. I mean as I've pointed
out before [clears throat] there has been an absolute explosion in the number of questions on notice asked in this parliament and the previous parliament compared to previous years. I think I
was looking I think it was 1,700 questions on notice were asked at the last estimate session. So um you know I think you'll find that the the data shows that this minister and this department has responded to well over 90% of the questions of notice that
they've been asked but senators need to take some responsibility also for the sheer number of questions that are being asked. Mi Minister, these were questions about one of our federal security agency's knowledge of a high profile. It ended up being a a hoax terror incident that
created enormous enormous unease and indeed led to some knee-jerk legal reforms in New South Wales. These were questions that relate to the department's knowledge about notorious that had to be made by a corporate a US prison corporation that the department then entered into a multi-billion dollar contract with. These are matters of significant public interest and they deserve timely answers. Well, with respect, Senator, every senator thinks that their [clears throat] questions on notice are important and are significant, and I'm sure that they are, but the sheer number of questions on notice that are being asked of ministers and departments takes time to resolve in addition to the other very important work that this department does. other outcomes for the department in a bit. Um, these are matters of significant public interest. There's an obligation under responsible government. Y >> um to provide these answers and just simply saying there's a lot of questions is not an adequate answer. >> No [clears throat] no what's different is the explosion in the number of
questions that has occurred this parliament and the previous parliament. >> Um I remember this because when I was in opposition we were much more responsible about the number of questions on notice
that we asked. So um for example um the figures I've got are about the oppositions but the same same principle applies to greens and crossbench questions as well. In February 2022 when [clears throat] we were in opposition 104 questions on notice were asked at the estimate session for home affairs. By 2023 it had jumped to 620
February last year 967. So, if senators are going to be frankly over the top with the sheer number of questions on notice that they're asking, that's going to take some time to to answer them all. >> And Minister, you well know that multiple civil organizations. the Center for Public Integrity um and a variety of other civil organizations have analyzed your government's lack of transparency in FOIS, in answers to questions on notice, in responses to um uh orders to produce
documents and the um across the board transparency, not according to my metrics, but according to metrics from incredibly credible organizations like the Center for Public Integrity >> and and with the respect to those
prosecute arguments about transparency with respect to those organizations, it is never acknowledged by them, by you, by opposition senators that the number of questions on notice has exploded, that the number of orders to produce documents has exploded. Um uh so can to respond to those matters in a timely fashion, but if senators system with ridiculous [clears throat] >> No. No. But why was it possible for the Labor opposition to ask 104 questions on notice >> and this opposition asks 967 nearly 10 times the number? I mean, you clearly you clearly don't have the capacity to read them all the answers because you're too busy doing the numbers on each other. So, how about you be a bit more responsible? >> Well, these are about these minister. Minister, these I'm asking you questions, not about the opposition. >> Sorry, Senator Shu, this seems like an appropriate juncture. We are uh past our 10:30 mark for morning tea. So, I'm going to call a morning tea break now and we will resume at 10:46.