Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 1:28:48 to 1:37:45
Senators debate the decision to stop funding for Disaster Relief Australia following fraud allegations that were later found to be unsubstantiated, and the impact on veteran-led recovery.
Topics: Drought and disaster support, Integrity
Speakers: Senator Susan McDonald, Hon Jenny McAllister, Unknown Speaker, Senator Jana Stewart
Thank you very much. Just turning back to disaster relief Australia. I want to understand you've identified a couple of existing groups which may or may not have the capacity to step into the shoes of the thousands of veterans who were previously undertaking the work of disaster recovery.
Um given that the government has stated that they will not be uh relying on the ADF following actual disasters, so that defence personnel can remain focused on their primary role of protecting and strengthening Australia's national security.
Uh how do you reconcile that and NEMA's capacity to deliver boots on the ground? I think your characterisation of the government's position is not entirely accurate.
We have also said that we need to make investments to uh supplement the capabilities that are available to local communities during and after a disaster. It was on that basis that we made the investment that we did in Disaster Relief Australia. And as I have done previously, I do want to acknowledge those volunteers that provided their commitment and their effort to that organisation. I saw some of those volunteers, I saw the work that they did, and I heard from local communities who benefited from that work. I think everyone in this room thinks that the people who committed to that organisation were good people trying to do good things for their communities. And Senator McDonald, if I may just conclude, and then you should ask another question if you would like to.
You've already heard from officials that they are actively considering options to further develop capability of this kind. Now, officials are not in a position to get ahead of a decision of government, but officials have indicated to you that we recognise this is an important area of policy work and they are undertaking that work.
So I will table a press release from Senator the Honourable Honourable Murray Watt, where he says that the independent findings of the Defence Strategic Review recommends that the Australian Defence Force should only be used as a last resort and will not be available for disaster recovery as normal.
I don't think that's inconsistent with what I just said. We've always indicated that they will be available.
It's just that it ought not be the first point of call. Well and that is why we have made the investments that we had in disaster recovery, investments that were not made under the previous government. We've built a substantial national capability to supplement what's on offer from states and territories and indeed from local government. Well, Minister, that's the bit. That's the point that I think is contested is under the Coalition. The funding for disaster relief Australia was funded. This government stopped that funding and is now seeking advice from government on how to replace exactly the work that disaster relief Australia did. The capacity, the expertise of the volunteers, the ability to harness defence-trained veterans to go into places that are not well served by the sorts of alternate organisations that might be flagged. And so I think that it is the kind of capability that cannot be replaced by humans going into human situations to restore trust. Every estimates we talk about how great disaster relief Australia was. Give you an example in Townsville of an elderly man, over eight-year-old man who rang me and wept because Disaster Relief Australia provided a lawn mower for him to go and mow the lawns of widows of veterans. And with the demise of disaster relief Australia, he could no longer offer that service. That is a very small human example of the disaster that has occurred since the government allowed disaster relief Australia to fold. And I can't understand how it would ever be the point of government that Disaster Relief Australia would be some sort of standalone organization when, like defence, like so many other government organizations, of course it should be funded by government. There is no other body who is going to fund it.
Senator Senator McDonald, that's obviously a very long statement. Perhaps I can deal with a couple of matters. On the 31st of December 2023, that organisation reported that milestone two of the agreement had been achieved. And that was that they said what they told government in 2023 was that they had established a sustainable funding model, including staffing and financial diversification to support long-term organizational viability. That was the advice to government. We've been through this in previous estimates, but in November in 2025, NEMA received serious allegations regarding management of disaster relief Australia, including the possible misuse of Australian government. And Senator McDonald will appreciate that any responsible public sector organisation on receipt of serious allegations of that kind needs to address them. NEMA commenced a formal investigation under the Commonwealth Fraud and Corruption Control Framework. In the final report delivered on the 26th of May, there was not enough evidence to substantiate allegations of fraud and corruption against DRA, and NEMA then instructed the business grant hub to release their final milestone to release their milestone payment on the May a creditors' meeting. But it was too late where it was decided that the government failed to be wound up. Well, Senator McDonald, you may wish to assert that upon receipt of serious allegations of fraud, government should ignore those and continue to pay an organisation. I think Senator McDonald, most reasonable observers would say that that is not a reasonable position.
From an organization that can't pay its own staff properly that has spent millions of dollars in consultants to be able to pay staff and still fails to do so for them to not continue to allow for payments to be made to disaster relief Australia to keep the lights on and to then say, oh, we're investigating fraud, where no substantial no uh evidence to substantiate that was found. And then to f I mean anybody who's run a business knows that was the very predictable outcome was that that organisation would fold along with the thousands of volunteer veterans, along with the expertise, and now government seeks to fill that hole by finding somebody else to do the work that government had identified already in disaster relief Australia, was doing an exceptional job as agreed by everyone, and it was government's failure to understand cash flow and the very basic commitments of business that allowed it to fold. Now that's a statement. I don't expect you to respond to that.
I will respond to it, Senator McDonald, because I think what I can inform the committee is that the government will continue to apply the Commonwealth fraud and corruption control framework. But may I finish my answer? That's a non-negotiable position for this government. Now, should you be elected to government, you may take a different approach. You may consider that the Commonwealth Fraud and Corruption Control Framework isn't important. That's up to you. And I encourage you to go to the Australian people with that position. This government takes fraud and corruption allegations seriously, and we do have to deal with them. But it is the case that very substantial time. Very substantial investments were made in disaster relief Australia. And we do acknowledge the very important work that was done by the volunteers that work within that organisation.
Unacceptable.
Thank you, Senator McDonald. Senator David Ocock.