Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 4:46:12 to 5:08:48
The department outlines emerging priorities in counter-fraud capability and addresses conflict of interest assessments regarding modern slavery risk audits.
Topics: Integrity, Procurement, Artificial intelligence
Speakers: Joanna Virtue, Leah Blyth, Sarah Chidgey, Senator Lisa Darmanin, Katherine Jones, Senator Don Farrell, Senator Jana Stewart, Senator Michaelia Cash
>> Thank you. Um, I've got some questions about fraud prevention and
>> Just get the right officers to the
uh so I understand one of the attorney general attorney general's department uh one of the key activities is around building counter fraud capability across government. Um, so I just wondered if you could talk to us a bit about the emerging priorities that the department has um in supporting uh entities ac across the Commonwealth um in improving their counter fraud and anti-corruption activities. if you could please.
>> Uh certainly, Senator, do you want me uh Joanna Virtue, assistant secretary, fraud prevention and anti-corruption branch? Uh the Commonwealth Fraud Prevention Center within the department uh has been around since 2019 and received ongoing funding in the 2026 27 budget. Um our uh immediate priorities are to continue our exist existing work supporting capability of Commonwealth entities to prevent and address fraud and corruption risks in their entities and we do that in a number of ways. Um we have a fraud practitioner training program which is actually underway as we speak in CRA. Um we lead cross-system collaboration between entities involved in countering fraud. uh in particular to improve maturity in respect of uh fraud measurement, data collection um prevention of fraud uh fraud risk management and response. We administer the Commonwealth fraud and corruption control framework which sets key requirements for entities um in respect of fraud manage fraud risk management within their entities and corruption risk management I should say. um and we provide uh support, guidance and advice to entities in meeting the requirements of that framework. Um our focus at the moment is improving uh measurement capability both in terms of measuring fraud losses and savings that can be gained from prevention um and improving our understanding of the level and nature of fraud across the system. um progressing policy and legislative reform where appropriate to support better fraud prevention and response um and improving uh awareness and uh understanding of fraud risks across the full uh commonwealth uh uh spectrum in terms of uh various functions. So we have fraud awareness week coming up in November and the theme is uh understanding uh the hidden uh impacts of fraud.
>> Um can you talk about um like what successes that you're seeing across government from the work that you're doing and I guess maybe make some comment on level of maturity um that arises out of the work that you're undertaking.
>> Uh uh certainly
>> and how that might vary across
departments too. M maturity does vary across um departments and the Commonwealth fraud and corruption control framework does recognize that. It talks about um entities putting in place reasonable and appropriate measures for their entity. Uh obviously there are wide range of Commonwealth entities. Um they vary greatly in size and uh role and operating environment. So the uh the framework is designed to be uh responsive to that. So is our service officer office with service sorry service offer within the department. Um and so we support um large mature entities to continue improving their existing capability. We support smaller entities to have consistent uh fraud risk assessments in place um and control frameworks that are appropriate to their entity. um over time uh with the guidance and products and support that the center has offered and also the training program which I mentioned uh we're seeing a more consistent application of those concepts across the board and I think with the update to the Commonwealth fraud and corruption control framework in 2024 uh there has been a a really significant increase in awareness across the Commonwealth public sector of the requirements of that framework and um
Um could you to be a bit more specific could you um like do you have a specific example that you could point to that um you know in terms of a success um where you've you know worked with a department and you and then you've seen you know the outcomes of that in a quite tangible way. I think that would be useful
>> to understand. Uh yes, I I think we uh we are working with entities across the Commonwealth in an ongoing way and we see many examples, Senator. Um one that I would particularly highlight is the Department of Education have significantly improved their payment accuracy in uh child care subsidy. uh in the context of child care subsidy which has led to significant savings to government um as a result of you know fewer inaccurate payments and um better targeting of those payments towards where they're more appropriate under the program guidelines.
>> I might just add senator that we work very closely with the fraud fusion task force. So um both in understanding what they see at an operational level and then looking for those opportunities for whole of Commonwealth legislative settings or other arrangements that we can assist with um to support um protective measures across a range of
>> Thank you. Um and like a AI is kind of the theme of the moment. what sort of risks um are you seeing emerging as a result of the increasing use of AI in the community um and how are you kind of monitoring that in terms of the response in your support to agencies that you work with?
>> We're looking at AI from a number of different um lenses. So one is to consider how uh AI tools could actually assist in mitigating um fraud risks. Uh, another is thinking about how entities adoption of AI um as part of their activities may then change their risk profile in relation to fraud and corruption or indeed create um opportunities to do it better. So uh our advice to entities under the framework is to consider uh if there is a the framework requires if there's a significant change to the activities of the entity then they should um re refresh their fraud risk assessments and control frameworks. So we're providing that advice now that to think about whether the use of AI might give rise to that. And then of course uh the third angle is the uh changing uh threat environment from um the use of AI the potential use of AI by bad actors. Um and uh we are you know working with counterparts in government to consider how uh kind of overall frameworks for responsible use of AI in government and um uh technical upgrades can be used to consider fraud and corruption risk mitigation as well.
how do I put this? um you know the fraudsters are always acting much more quickly than you can respond and um detect and then improve like how do you deal with that challenge and um I I know that's a big question and like how are different departments kind of thinking about you know that sort of being thorough um and fast
>> and responsive. You're absolutely right, Senator. Um, uh, fraud, what we say is that, um, there is always going to be fraud and it is a hidden crime. So, it is a continuing challenge to stay ahead of fraudsters and to understand kind of the nature of the battle that we're fighting. Um, we work really closely with international counterparts as well to understand uh, how they're looking at the problem. Um and we uh facilitate conversations between entities uh as I think I mentioned and communities of practice to uh consider what what are the emerging risks and um what are some uh shared insights and lessons in terms of uh combating those. Um, I think what that looks like will differ from from each entity's perspective, but again, the the requirements of the Commonwealth fraud and corruption control framework are intended to be um sort of principled based and uh technology agnostic. So they reply they apply uh in changing threat landscapes as well and it's a responsibility of entities to consider how their risks may u be evolving and changing all of the time.
>> Thanks very much. Thank you, Senator D and Senator Cash. Oh, sorry. >> Senator Black,
>> thank you uh very much, Chair. And I'm just going to pick up um along the same lines of Senator Cash's questioning. So, I know that the previous officials will need to come back um where I just wanted to speak a little bit more about the giggle uh v tickle decision. >> Thank you. Um, if I could ask, you mentioned that you um provided some advice to the attorney general in terms of a summary of the case. Are you able to table that for the committee?
>> We'll need to take that notice um just to consider whether it contains legal advice or other um content. Okay. Which,
okay, that's fine. If you could take that on notice and then provide what you can from that that that doesn't um breach breach any of the um requirements of that. Um, and I guess following on from from what Senator Cash was asking without asking for legal advice and and I'm assuming um and it seems like the attorney general hasn't necessarily asked for information from you, but are there have you provided any advice to anyone in terms of what the implications are for businesses in Australia following um that high that federal the court
>> No, we haven't.
>> You haven't? And no one's asked you to? >> Would that be something you normally would be asked to do on on a case such I mean this is this is quite a landmark decision. Um and it does change how businesses run. It's it changes how schools operate. um if if you had something of that size and and a case of that magnitude, would that be something you would normally in the course of your
>> be asked? Senator, um uh I've been around way too long, but over the course of many years and different issues that have arisen, sometimes we get campaign campaigns of letters of uh issues. Um uh sometimes it's just a a few um uh letters that come in. Sometimes it's quite significant. Um I'm not aware at at this point that we've received any significant um numbers or any correspondence. I'd need to check that. Um it's possible there's some, but um we've not se received a significant
volume. No, but I mean in terms of advice that say an attorney, the attorney general of the day would normally seek or or ask for what the implications are of a of a landmark decision.
>> No. So I don't think we would say that.
So that wouldn't you wouldn't normally do that in course of your
>> I think it just department variable but I wouldn't say we would normally >> in a case of this type be asked for further advice beyond what we've provided.
>> What would you say this case type is? Would you say it's a landmark decision in in the Australian context?
>> An opinion. >> Yes. We'd be giving an opinion to characterize the case. We provided a
summary. So I'm just trying to figure out what is what you would normally do. So you're saying you wouldn't normally in a case like this. So obviously you classify them in in particular terms. So you you've never had um within your department and and I guess you you've mentioned you've been there um a long time. So you've never had a sort of significant case where the attorney general has asked or you've been asked to provide um information in terms of what implications this will have in the Australian context and broader society on businesses on school whatever it might be that the case impacts.
>> I'm sorry Senator I misunderstood your previous question. So um I was uh um >> uh answering the wrong question or not answering the right question I should say. Um from depending on the matter if it's a high court matter um uh we might um uh that raises novel issues or different issues we would uh either at the request of an attorney general or or of our own valition uh provide advice. So that that is um certainly um something that does happen from time to time. Not every case. It really does depend on on the matter
>> and it didn't happen in this case. So I can just confirm that you haven't provided it of your own valition and the attorney general.
>> We provided a summary as Miss Mills. Uh
>> but that sounds like that's routine. That happens on everything.
>> Not every case. Not every case.
>> Important cases. Okay. So it was important enough to do that but not necessarily to go further.
>> Well cases vary a lot. So obviously if the attorney general him or herself are intervening in a matter or it's a constitutional matter there'd be cases on which uh the department and the Australian government solicitor are closely involved on which we would provide a lot of briefing. Um in this matter we provided a summary um of the outcome and as I think Miss Mills has said um the it is an articulation of the law as it has stood for some time.
>> Do do you think that the erosion of biological rights for women which are you know 50% of the population here in Australia is significant?
>> Again that's you're asking for an opinion from the officials.
Sorry, that sorry
>> you're asking for an opinion of of the
>> Um, okay. But it could be framed in another way. So, you've got to use your um your ability. So, so that's an implication of the case is that the biological rights of women have basically been eroded and do no longer exist in Australia. That that's a result a direct result of this case. Um, so I'm not asking for your opinion. That's that's legal fact now.
>> Well, we we wouldn't necessarily accept that characterization.
>> How would you what would you say the result of the case is then sorry let me just understand because we we can't get legal advice from you >> but you seem to have have a view on this. So
>> Uh so I had indicated earlier that the finding of the full federal court was that Giggle and Miss Groves had engaged in unlawful direct discrimination against Miss Tickle by treating her transgender woman less favorably than a person assigned female at birth. So that that was what the court found.
>> So is it fair to say though that the court has found that a biological female so a a assigned female at birth and a man biological man who identifies as female. They are essentially the same thing now
>> Well, the court was considered
>> that's what the courts found. Miss
Tickle's status as a transgender woman in that judgment,
>> but it's a biological man who identifies as a woman. So, that's what the courts found. So, I'm just I'm I'm just trying to understand um where where do women's biological rights exist in that?
>> Well, Senator, I think I've described what the court's decision was. Um I sort of can't go further into giving legal opinion. Um
>> no, and I'm not asking you to. It's just that you said that women's biological rights still exist in Australia. So you said to me >> I don't your understanding.
>> I don't think we did say that. So what I said was that the court found that Giggle and Miss Groves engaged in unlawful direct discrimination against Miss Tig.
>> We're going to go around in circles here. So do women and I guess this this is what I was saying is that the biological rights of women no longer exist in Australia. Is that a significant finding?
>> That that's not an accurate description.
>> But I'm trying to understand how that's not accurate because >> because biological women's rights >> are now inferior to a biological man. And that and that's what the court has
found. I >> I think I that that uh is the interpretation that you're putting to it. Um uh but I I think that would be contested by others.
>> How is it clarification question. >> I just I just I'm also now confused again. >> I'm really confused. >> The nuns clearly haven't taught me this either. Can I just confirm then in relation to the status of law under the Sex Discrimination Act and men who identify as women? Would it be possible therefore if every man in this room identified as a woman at law? We need to accept that we therefore have 100% gender equality in this room when it comes to female representation.
>> That is a hypothetical.
>> How is it a hypothetical? Again, we're asking what the law says.
no, you framed it as in if every man in this room,
>> well, what does the law say in relation to that?
Oh uh the sex discrimination act itself doesn't define woman or man or no that
would be a small problem I would put to
>> consistent with the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls.
>> Senator Farrell, do you know a very easy way to clean up this mess?
>> Tell me.
>> Yes, exactly. Support my bill to bring common sense back to Australia. recognize the biological rights of both women and men in this country. You don't need to discriminate against transgender people, but by God, you do need to recognize biological reality. That is not ideological. It is merely common sense. Senator Farrell, why won't your government recognize the biological rights of women in this country?
Well, um, don't support your bill. I
>> It merely recognizes Senator Farrell the biological rights of women and men. >> Ironically, and men as well for the men in this room.
>> Senator Cash, I've I feel like I've um reminded senators a few times. Sorry, Minister. I'm just going to
>> one of the men in the room here, but um >> I'm I'm not asking you to defend my rights. Um Senator,
>> but I will as a biological man
>> with all with with all due respect. Um I'm not asking you to uh to uh to do that. Um um look, the Sex Discrimination Act has by and large been supported by both the government ALP and the coalition over a long uh period of time. You're talking about a particular case uh which has made some uh some determinations uh and you're proposing a way forward. Uh the government doesn't support um your way forward nor does it I think I think there are more than one bill in this area. Senator
>> I'm talking about my bill. No, I know. I
know. I know. But um I'm I'm indicating to you that there's more than just one bill in this uh this area. I think uh Senator McKim also has a piece of legislation. so um the short answer is we we we don't accept that your solution is the way forward here. Um Senator Cash. Um and uh I'm happy, you know, to refer the issue to the attorney general to get a formal response uh for you. >> have we have we voted on your
>> Yes, you have. You voted against the protection of biological rights because you didn't even allow the bill to be introduced into the Australian. You allowed it to be introduced and you denied its first reading. So effectively, yes, you voted against >> allowing the parliament to even debate whether or not, for example, biological lesbians are at law allowed to meet as biological lesbians.
>> I I do need to rotate the call. I'm just seeking an indication how much longer we're going to
>> if I can. >> Yeah, a few more questions. Happy for you to rotate and come back if that's
>> okay. No worries. I will do that. Thank you very much, Senator BL. Senator Polley.