3.1
This chapter sets out the available information on the Department of the Environment and Energy (the department) investigation into potential breaches of the EPBC Act by Jam Land Pty Ltd (Jam Land) at a property near Delegate, on the southern Monaro Plains of New South Wales (NSW).
3.2
This investigation was concerned with alleged illegal clearing of a large area of critically endangered native grassland protected under the EPBC Act's listed Natural Temperate Grassland of the South Eastern Highlands (NTG-SEH) threatened ecological community, which was discussed in the last chapter of this report.
3.3
This investigation commenced in late 2016 and is not yet concluded at the time this report is being prepared for tabling (early December 2019).
3.4
This chapter also sets out the available information relating to undisclosed interests and related activities that may have compromised this investigation. These mostly relate to the financial and familial connections between the Hon Angus Taylor MP, Member for Hume, then Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation, and current Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, and Jam Land. Most relevantly, Mr Taylor's brother and longstanding business partner, Richard, is one of the three owners of Jam Land; Mr Taylor also holds an indirect financial interest in Jam Land through his company Gufee Pty Ltd (Gufee).
3.5
This chapter also considers evidence of a potential connection between the Jam Land grasslands investigation and the Government's initiation of the Craik Review into the interaction of the EPBC Act with the agriculture sector.
3.6
Lastly, this chapter considers how these matters have been handled by the department, before setting out the committee's view and recommendations.
3.7
The evidence considered by the committee has been drawn not only from evidence obtained directly by the committee in this inquiry, but also Hansard records of Estimates, and House of Representatives and Senate chamber proceedings. It is also drawn from a number of documents obtained under Commonwealth and New South Wales freedom of information (FOI) regimes, the Parliamentary Register of Interests, and other public documents.
Investigation of Jam Land
3.8
This section sets out the available information on the investigation of potential breaches of environment laws by Jam Land undertaken by Commonwealth and state environmental agencies. Both these investigations commenced in late 2016. The then-NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW OEH) concluded its investigation in April 2017, whereas the Commonwealth's is still ongoing.
3.9
Information provided by the department states that both Commonwealth and state investigations had been triggered by a complaint regarding 'the alleged destruction of high quality native grasslands [that] triggered both state and national law'.
3.10
However, other departmental information suggests that the Commonwealth investigation was commenced following 'allegations from multiple parties', which leaves open the possibility of concerns over potential illegal clearing being raised by others.
3.11
NSW OEH noted its investigation was into the 'alleged broadscale clearing of approximately 200 hectares of native grassland vegetation' in contravention of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NSW) (NSW NV Act), and that Jam Land had only recently acquired the property. The OEH also noted that the Commonwealth investigation was into a smaller area, of 30 hectares of native grasslands protected by the EPBC Act, which was confirmed by the department in April 2019.
The Commonwealth investigation
3.12
The department has consistently told the committee that it does not release information regarding compliance cases that have not been concluded, including the Jam Land investigation more specifically. However, there are a number of facts regarding the Commonwealth's investigation that can be established from the available evidence.
3.13
In late 2016, the Commonwealth became aware that there had been potential contraventions of the EPBC Act on a property recently acquired by Jam Land near Delegate NSW, as outlined above.
3.14
The trigger for the department's investigation of this matter was an alleged illegal clearance of native grassland protected under the EPBC Act as a threatened ecological community, the NTG-SEH. As outlined earlier in this report, this ecological community was listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act in 2016, which means it is one of the most threatened ecosystems in Australia.
3.15
Significant penalties can be imposed for the alleged contraventions of the EPBC Act. The department has informed the committee that persons that take an action that has a significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES), without obtaining approval, 'can be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,050,000 for an individual and $10,500,000 for a body corporate, or for a criminal penalty of seven years imprisonment and/or a fine'.
3.16
Regarding the circumstances of this case more directly, the department stated that this Commonwealth investigation was being undertaken as it had affected a MNES, and so triggered the EPBC Act:
Normally the states and territories regulate land use, including changes in land use such as clearing of vegetation. The Commonwealth has a role specifically where it might involve a matter of national environmental significance and specifically where the clearing would have a significant impact on that matter of national environmental significance. So, for example, native temperate grassland is an endangered ecological community under our act and that would be an area where we would take an interest in that matter.
The investigative process
3.17
In December 2016, on a date the department declined to specify, the department wrote to Jam Land about the commencement of a compliance action.
3.18
The department stated that it 'received allegations from multiple parties and our investigation commenced on 17 November 2016.
3.19
As noted above, the department has repeatedly declined to give information about the case, as it is still under investigation. However, departmental officials have described the general investigative process:
Investigation can involve a range of things. It can involve site visits. It can involve ecological assessments. It can involve undertaking inspections under warrant. We can, for instance, seek independent expert advice. It can involve a range of things. But, as I said, I'm not in a position to be able to talk about the detail of this matter because it's still currently under investigation and we like to ensure the integrity of all of our investigations.
3.20
The department has confirmed it has met with Jam Land representatives in person on five occasions regarding the compliance investigation, and has had other 'ongoing communication throughout the investigation'. In confirming it had met with Jam Land five times, the department declined to give any information about these meetings.
3.21
However, according to the NSW OEH, one meeting between the department and Jam Land occurred on 7 March 2017. This meeting was held 'on site to discuss potential contraventions of the EPBC Act and seek [Jam Land] views regarding mutual compliance/environmental outcomes'.
3.22
Just over one month later, on 12 April 2017, a state government brief concluding the NSW investigation released under FOI, noted that the Commonwealth department was already discussing potential offsets with Jam Land:
DOEE is now in negotiations with Jam Land…regarding potential environmental offsets as a result of the destruction of approximately 30 hectares of critically endangered [N]atural [T]emperate [G]rassland of the South Eastern Highlands'.
Length of the Commonwealth investigation
3.23
Despite the indication that the department was already 'in negotiations' with Jam Land about environmental offsets in April 2017, the Commonwealth investigation is still ongoing, more than three years after it was started.
3.24
On 23 August 2019, the department suggested that it was still waiting for external consultants to complete work for the Jam Land case to be resolved.
3.25
The department then commented on 21 October 2019 that the case would be concluded 'very soon', and that it was yet to be determined if the outcome would be announced publicly.
3.26
The department suggested that a number of reasons are relevant to the length of this investigation, including: its complexity; the heavy caseload of compliance officers; the availability of experts; time spent waiting for reports to be concluded; and the length of time it takes to 'turn around and respond' to correspondence.
3.27
The committee asked a number of questions about the comparative length of this investigation, when compared to other compliance cases commenced at the same time. The department suggested in August 2019 that eight compliance investigations commenced in 2016-17 were still ongoing. In October 2019, the department explained that only 1 of the 41 investigations opened between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2017 was still under investigation.
3.28
By implication, this means that the Jam Land case is the only compliance action from 2016-17 that is still under active assessment.
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage investigation
3.29
As stated previously, the OEH commenced an investigation into this matter in late 2016, investigating a potential breach of the NSW NV Act by Jam Land. This investigation was concluded on 18 April 2017, as indicated by documents released by the NSW OEH under FOI legislation.
3.30
These documents state that the initial impetus for the NSW investigation was a report received by the NSW OEH on 6 November 2016 from a complainant regarding 'alleged broadscale clearing of approximately 200 hectares of native grassland vegetation' at the Delegate property recently acquired by Jam Land. According to NSW documents, this clearing involved the application of herbicide to a 'large percentage of the grassland'.
3.31
The NSW OEH conducted site inspections on 7 December 2016 and 17 January 2017, with a grassland expert, Ms Isobel Crawford. NSW environmental law sets the threshold for 'native vegetation' protected by the NSW NV Act at 50 per cent ground cover; Ms Crawford's inspections indicated the pre-clearing vegetation ground cover 'comprised slightly more than 50 per cent native grasses'.
3.32
The NSW OEH FOI document also outlines the evidence presented by representatives of Jam Land following Ms Crawford's inspections. It reveals that, on 10 March 2017, Jam Land advised 'it did not consider that it had contravened Australian or state environmental legislation, based on a report by Mr Stuart Burge, a qualified agronomist'. On evaluating this information, the NSW OEH found that Mr Burge's methods were 'consistent with NSW Government expectations as published in Local Land Services guidance material available to the public'.
3.33
On 3 April 2017, a further OEH-commissioned assessment of the property by another grasslands expert, Mr Kenneth Hodgkinson of the CSIRO, also found that 'it is possible' that there was about 50 per cent or less native grassland 'prior to clearing'. Mr Hodgkinson also considered that the pre-clearing assessment used 'appropriate' methodology, based on not only his inspection, but also reviewing Mr Burge's report, discussing Mr Burge's methods, and reviewing Ms Crawford's assessment.
3.34
The NSW OEH also observed that:
…both Ms Crawford and Mr Hodgkinson's inspections indicate that there are large areas that likely contain greater than 50 per cent native grassland immediately adjacent to those areas that have been recently cleared. These areas have not been subjected to any clearing as at the date of the most recent inspection'.
3.35
The NSW FOI document also contains information that has been excised as it relates to 'inter-governmental relations', presumably the ongoing Commonwealth investigation.
Letter from NSW OEH to Jam Land concluding the investigation
3.36
The Executive Director of Regional operations for the NSW OEH, signed a brief concluding the investigation on 18 April 2017. This brief appends a copy of a letter to Jam Land, which states:
While OEH's preliminary inquiries into the matter suggested that a possible breach of the NV Act had occurred on the property, OEH has decided not to continue its investigation or take any further action in response to this particular clearing.
In making this decision, OEH has given careful consideration to information and material provided by your company, including a farm lease management report and agronomist report.
Independent advice OEH obtained was that the vegetation in question met the definition of native vegetation. It noted that this vegetation was cleared without approval but that you engaged an agronomist [who] concluded that native vegetation was not present.
3.37
The letter suggested that Jam Land had acted in 'good faith', and noted some difficulties in assessing whether the vegetation composition met the threshold definition for grasslands:
Therefore, you appear to have acted in good faith on that advice. It is also noted that there is a history of pasture improvement that makes it difficult to determine whether the native vegetation is regrowth…[which] does not require approval to clear under the NV Act. Accordingly, I have exercised my discretion to discontinue the investigation.
3.38
On a cautionary note, Mr Hunter confirmed that the Commonwealth investigation would still be ongoing, even though the state investigation had been concluded. Additionally, he highlighted that the NSW OEH had noted that there was a significant area of high quality native grassland adjacent to the cleared areas, which should not be damaged by Jam Land in their future management of the property.
Mr Taylor's potential conflicts of interest
3.39
This section sets out the Hon Angus Taylor MP's familial and financial connections to Jam Land, and the ministerial positions held by Mr Taylor over this period. This detail provides important context for the information and meeting sought by Mr Taylor, or on his behalf, from the department regarding the NTG-SEH threatened ecological community, discussed later in this chapter.
Financial and familial connections to Jam Land
3.40
First, Mr Taylor has a clear familial connection to Jam Land: his brother, Mr Richard Taylor, is one of three directors of Jam Land.
3.41
According to Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) company records tabled in the Senate, Jam Land is a Registered Australian Proprietary Company with three directors, including Mr Richard Taylor.
3.42
Second, Mr Taylor has an indirect but clear financial stake in Jam Land.
3.43
ASIC documents tabled in the Senate show that the company Gufee holds shares in Jam Land. Mr Taylor's financial interest in Gufee is also confirmed by Mr Taylor's Registers of Members' Interests for the 44th, 45th and 46th Parliaments.
3.44
It has been noted that Mr Taylor's statement for the 46th Parliament reflects his indirect part-ownership of two agricultural companies 'via Gufee': Maclaughlin River Pastoral Pty Ltd, and Growth Farms Pty Ltd. However, this statement makes no mention of Gufee's stake in Jam Land.
3.45
The department has stated that Gufee did not hold Jam Land shares at the time of the alleged offence, but acquired shares on or about 18 May 2017. Public accounts also show that Angus and Richard Taylor have a long history of shared business interests, including as co-founders of the Growth Farm Australia in 1999. While Mr Richard Taylor remains a non-executive director of that company to date, Mr Angus Taylor is 'a silent shareholder' according to a 2015 media report.
3.46
Mr Taylor has stated that he has appropriately disclosed his connections to Jam Land to Minister Frydenberg and the Prime Minister. He has also commented that he has declared his interests 'in complete adherence to the rules' and that: 'I have never made a representation in relation to it [the compliance action]; I never would'.
Parliamentary and government positions held by Mr Taylor
3.47
Mr Taylor has been a Member of the House of Representatives since the Federal Election of 2013, representing the NSW electorate of Hume.
3.48
Mr Taylor has also held several ministerial positions. He was appointed Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation from 18 February 2016 to 20 December 2017. He was then appointed as Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity from 20 December 2017 to 28 August 2018.
3.49
Following this, Mr Taylor was appointed as Minister for Energy from 28 August 2018. Following the Federal Election of 2019, his portfolio was expanded to include Emissions Reduction from 29 May 2019.
Potential interference in the Jam Land investigation
3.50
This section examines the evidence available to the committee regarding potential interference in the department's investigation of potential breaches of the EPBC Act by Jam Land.
3.51
This evidence concerns information about the investigation sought from the department by the then-Minister for the Environment, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, and his office on a number of occasions. This included information on the Minister's powers, and whether the listing protections for the NTG-SEH could be revoked without expert advice, and without making a new listing public.
3.52
It also considers Mr Taylor's meeting with officials of the department, in which the Critically Endangered listing of the NTG-SEH was discussed, where his conflicts of interest from Jam Land were not declared.
Minister's Office requests 'urgent' talking points and further information
3.53
The department released a number of documents under FOI, which include a flurry of emails discussing the NTG-SEH listing between the department and Minister Frydenberg's office in February and March 2017. Redactions indicate that these emails also included discussion of the ongoing Jam Land compliance case. Some emails also indicate that Mr Taylor had been discussing NTG‑SEH‑related issues with Minister Frydenberg from mid-February 2017.
3.54
The department has stated that the Minister's Office first sought information on the NTG-SEH listing and the Jam Land compliance case on 15 February 2017. This information was sought directly from the department's NSW Assessments team. The department provided the following information:
A phone call was received by NSW Assessments team from an advisor at the Minister’s Office on 15 February 2017. The advisor sought information on the listing of a South East Highland Grasslands and a possible compliance action near the ACT/ NSW border.
3.55
At 9.35am on 16 February 2017, an officer from the Environment Standards Division of the department sent an email to a number of colleagues that requested 'urgent' talking points for Minister Frydenberg on the NTG-SEH listing. This email, which was released under FOI, stated:
…it appears that a NTGSEH case was discussed in parliament yesterday, and we have been asked to urgently draft some dot points about the listing. Can you please provide a point about the amount of engagement, consultation and education (particularly with the farming community) that was undertaken in the listing process.
3.56
The email also included a transcription of a handwritten record of the phone call with the Minister's office, which read:
‘Possible compliance action
South East Highland Grassland
- [the former Minister for the Environment] Hunt made a change (listing status priority)
- What was change, when, why, implications
ACT/NSW Border’
3.57
At 2.51pm on the same day, an officer from the Ecological Communities Section responded with some 'background and talking points' on these issues. A section of the email released under FOI was redacted under paragraph 37(1)(a), which indicates it related to an ongoing compliance investigation. This must have been a reference to the Jam Lands investigation, as it was the only relevant compliance action in this area, as noted earlier in this report.
3.58
The department was asked to provide further advice to the Minister's office in the following weeks. An email chain released under FOI indicates that on 28 February 2017, Ms Monica Collins, the then-Assistant Secretary of the Compliance and Enforcement Division, provided 'General Information on Grasslands' to the Minister's Office, including a lengthy section also redacted under paragraph 37(1)(a), presumably referencing the Jam Land case once more.
3.59
An email of 9.54am on 2 March 2017, responding to Ms Collins' email of 28 February requests, that the department provide further clarification of some information relating to grasslands. This email was from an unnamed staffer in the Minister's Office, to Ms Collins. It reads:
Can you please clarify the following:
Who made the decision to uplist the EC – Hunt, Frydenberg or Delegate?
We have received comments that implementation of the revised listing has been problematic. In particular, it can lead to a mosaic of protected and non-protected areas inside existing paddocks and regarding the exclusion of clover from the 50% threshold. Can you provide any comments around practicality of implementation?
Can you please provide overview of consultation and feedback from farmer groups regarding the uplisting?
3.60
Ms Collins forwarded this email to colleagues, stating that 'the Minister's office is seeking some quick turnaround on the questions below regarding the [NTG‑SEH]'. The department provided a response to these questions at 4.22pm on 2 March 2017. This emphasised that the listing was a Ministerial decision, made with broad consultation with a range of stakeholders, including the National Farmers' Federation, who raised some questions about farmers potentially needing further information to assess and identify grasslands reliably.
3.61
FOI emails also show that Mr Taylor was actively discussing the NTG-SEH matter with Minister Frydenberg and other ministerial colleagues from mid‑February 2017. An email from Mr Taylor on 22 February suggests that he was 'chasing up' a response from the department, which could indicate that his interest had motivated the recent requests to the department made by Minister Frydenberg's office, on 15 and 16 February, and 21 February.
3.62
On 22 February 2017, Mr Taylor wrote to Minister Frydenberg, cc'ing the Hon Greg Hunt MP, who was the Minister for the Environment that signed off on the NTG-SEH's upgrading to Critically Endangered. This read:
Josh
I’m following up on our discussion re the listing of the Grasslands of the Southern Tablelands under the EPBC Act
Obviously the NFF objected to the listing. I am chasing the response from the Department. It is clear that Department proceeded with the listing, despite the objections.
A growing number of farmers are becoming very concerned about the impact of the listing.
Cheers
Angus
3.63
A Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO) in Minister Frydenberg's office followed up the questions raised by Mr Taylor on 3 March 2017, including Mr Taylor's original email as an attachment. Writing to Mr Geoff Richardson, the Assistant Secretary of the Protected Species and Communities Branch of the department, the DLO asked whether a response had been sent to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) for their submission to the NTG-SEH listing.
3.64
Mr Richardson pushed back strongly against Mr Taylor's assertions in the attached email. He noted that the department had responded to the NFF submission, and that this response was also provided to Minister Hunt as part of the listing decision. He also noted that the NFF's submission 'does not oppose the listing it asks for further clarification on some issues', which were part of more general discussions between the department and the NFF at the time. In doing so, Mr Richardson indicated that the NFF had also informed and helped draft a guide to the updated NTG-SEH listing. Lastly, Mr Richardson noted that the updated listing actually removed some condition thresholds for landholders, which meant actions on many farms 'no longer require referral'.
Unanswered questions and concerns
3.65
On 15 February 2017, the Minister Frydenberg's office made direct contact with the department's NSW Assessment Team on the matter of the NTG-SEH listing conditions and ‘a possible compliance action near the ACT/NSW border’. It is established elsewhere in the report that this could only refer to the Jam Land case, as it has been the only such investigation undertaken by the department.
3.66
It is unclear to the committee why a Ministerial adviser would call a line area of a department responsible for assessments directly, and ask for information on an ongoing compliance case.
3.67
The committee notes that the request for 'urgent talking points' made by Minister Frydenberg's office the very next day, on 16 February 2017, suggested that the issue had been raised in Parliament.
3.68
The department confirmed that there had been 'nothing specific about Jam Land and grasslands' in the Hansard record of Parliament at that time. On this, Mr Knudson, Deputy Secretary of the Environment Protection Group, commented:
…the mention from the minister's office of it being raised in parliament, that could very well have been a conversation between two members of the government in a hallway.
3.69
Once again, the committee notes that the Jam Land case was the only
NTG-SEH compliance case that was active at this time. Additionally, the committee notes that the only concerns regarding the NTG-SEH in available evidence for this period, are Mr Taylor and Minister Frydenberg's 'recent discussions', as noted in Mr Taylor's email of 22 February 2017.
3.70
It is also unclear when Minister Frydenberg became aware of Mr Taylor's connections to Jam Land, and that a compliance action regarding potential breaches of the EPBC Act was on foot. Mr Taylor has stated that Minister Frydenberg was 'also aware' of his interests around this time, without clarifying how this happened.
3.71
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP said in an interview with Patricia Karvelas on ABC Radio that he became aware of Mr Taylor's interest when Mr Taylor asked for a meeting:
I became aware when he [Mr Taylor] asked me for a meeting. He was very up-front. And he said there was a family company which was subject to a compliance issue. And that he had an indirect interest in that company.
3.72
The department has clarified that it has no record of such a declaration to Minister Frydenberg, or this information being communicated to the department itself by Mr Taylor, his office, or the Minister's Office.
3.73
The department provided information that indicated Mr Taylor took on an indirect financial interest in Jam Land at or around 18 May 2017, shortly after his communication with Minister Frydenberg, his office, and the department.
3.74
It is unclear whether Mr Taylor’s decision to purchase shares in Jam Land, a company in which he already had a vested familial interest and which was still under Commonwealth investigation, was informed by information he had accessed in his conversations with the Minister, the Minister’s Office, or the department.
3.75
Moreover, it is not apparent to the committee whether this decision, to take on any financial interest in a company for which he had made representations to his parliamentary colleagues, was communicated to Minister Frydenberg and the Prime Minister.
3.76
There are also questions regarding the paucity of evidence for the 'growing concerns' Mr Taylor noted in his email, which will be discussed later in this report.
Meeting between Mr Taylor and departmental officials on 20 March 2017
3.77
Departmental emails released under FOI indicate that, on 8 March 2017, Minister Frydenberg's office requested that departmental representatives meet with Mr Taylor to discuss the NTG-SEH listing.
3.78
It should be noted that this request came only a day following the department's meeting with Jam Land held 'on site to discuss potential contraventions of the EPBC Act and seek their views regarding mutual compliance/environmental outcomes'.
3.79
Writing on 9 March 2017, Mr Richardson told colleagues that, in a conversation with a Ministerial adviser the previous day:
…[the adviser] raised the recent email traffic on the [NTG-SEH ecological community]. He started quizzing me on the changed definition, and I gave him some basic information on the thresholds that were applied in the new listing in 2016. He made the point that for famers in the Monaro this is the “number 1 issue” of concern to them.
3.80
However, on questioning, the adviser was unable to provide more clarity:
When I tried to draw him on how the “issue” was manifesting, ie. stopping them from doing stuff on their land, or confusion over the definition and therefore what might constitute a significant impact, he couldn’t really explain it.
3.81
The outcome of this conversation was that:
He is now keen for [name redacted] and I to meet with Angus Taylor to answer questions on the technical aspects of the listing outcome. Before agreeing to that, [name redacted] and I need a full picture of any departmental sensitivities, including any compliance action underway (that we would of course stay out of completely).
3.82
The department was acutely aware of the sensitivities of meeting Mr Taylor. As well as the email traffic of February-March 2017 discussed above, the department had known about Mr Taylor's connection to Jam Land, through his brother's directorship of the company, since November 2016.
3.83
On 15 March 2017 the meeting was confirmed for the following Monday, 20 March. The Ministerial adviser stated in his email that he required Mr Richardson there 'to discuss history, consultation, thresholds, practicalities, etc.', and asked Ms Collins, a very senior officer in the compliance area of the department, to be there 'if you can make it'.
3.84
A brief was prepared by the department for this meeting, covering the background, listing considerations, implications, consultation, guidance for stakeholders in identifying and managing, grassland, mapping, and the delisting process. An email from Mr Richardson confirming this with his colleagues states that the attending officers would 'confine our discussion to the EPBC Act listing process'.
3.85
The department outlined the attendance at the meeting as follows:
Present at the meeting were Mr Taylor, Mr Richardson, two other Departmental officers, and the adviser for Minister Frydenberg. The meeting was held in Mr Taylor’s office. The meeting was scheduled for 11:00–11:30 am.
3.86
Issues of compliance were not mentioned in the invitation, inter-departmental emails, or briefing materials. As noted above, Ms Collins was asked to attend, but did not. Instead, a more junior compliance officer attended in her place, but 'did not speak'.
3.87
Regarding the decision to send a compliance officer to a meeting with a Member of Parliament with clear connections to a company being investigated for breaches of the EPBC Act, the department commented:
The Department considered it appropriate that a Compliance Officer attended a meeting with Angus Taylor on 20 March 2017 following a request from Minister Frydenberg’s office.
The purpose of the Compliance Officer attending the meeting was to answer any questions that might arise about how the Department undertakes compliance and enforcement activities and to ensure that nothing was discussed about an ongoing compliance investigation on the Monaro Plains.
No compliance questions or issues were raised and the Compliance Officer did not speak at the meeting.
3.88
The department has stated that 'Department officials at the meeting knew of Mr Taylor’s familial interest [in Jam Land] but not if he was part-owner of the land subject to a compliance action'.
3.89
This awareness was from the department's routine media scanning, as outlined above. Most importantly, the department has also made it clear that at no point did Mr Taylor declare any interest in Jam Land at this meeting. It also commented that the Minister's office had not mentioned a potential conflict of interest to the department.
3.90
The department has also commented that no notes or minutes were taken at this meeting. Mr Richardson explained that the attending officers did not take notes as '[w]e were very focussed on answering the questions we were getting'.
3.91
Further information provided by the department indicates that no officer was directed to take notes at this meeting.
3.92
Following the meeting, on 24 March 2017, Mr Richardson circulated an 'Update on the Monaro grassland' email to his colleagues. This noted the department was 'exploring options to deal with the concerns raised' by Mr Taylor regarding the NTG-SEH. These included discussing potential clarification of the listing with the Local Land Services office, and the intention to have further conversations with agronomists to understand difficulties in assessing minimum thresholds for the updated listing. He also stated the department would look to consult further with the NFF, hoping for a better information and guidance about the grassland.
3.93
The ministerial adviser responded to this 'update' email, suggesting he intended to speak with Mr Richardson the following Monday to 'schedule an update with Angus Taylor mid next week'.
3.94
A further 'update' was provided by Mr Richardson to the Minister's office on 13 April 2017, noting it was: 'As requested, to support your discussions with Angus Taylor MP'. This email noted that, in the department's consultation with stakeholders, 'there does not appear to be a widespread misunderstanding of the clarified definition and condition thresholds for natural temperate grassland…'
Unanswered questions and concerns
3.95
The committee notes that no declaration was made by Mr Taylor to departmental officials about any real or perceived conflicts of interests coming from his connection to Jam Land. Mr Taylor had a clear close family interest in Jam Land, which the department was well aware of. Nevertheless, given the ongoing investigation into Jam Land by the department's compliance team, this matter should have been fully disclosed to the department, both by Mr Taylor and by the Minister's Office in arranging the meeting.
3.96
The department was acutely sensitive about meeting Mr Taylor, given his interest in Jam Land and its ongoing compliance case. Emails and briefs preparing for the meeting emphasise the need to avoid matters of compliance. Given that, the decision to take a compliance officer to the meeting may be questionable.
3.97
The committee also observes that no notes were taken by the department at this meeting, despite the clear sensitivities of the matters being discussed, the high level of stakeholders attending, and the clear potential conflicts of interest that should have been handled in a transparent manner. This clear failure to keep notes will be discussed later in this report.
Minister Frydenberg's office seeks information on NTG-SEH protections
3.98
On 21 April 2017, Minister Frydenberg's office verbally sought information from the department on the NTG-SEH issue. A handwritten record of this phone conversation by Mr Steven Oxley, First Assistant Secretary of the Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division, was released under FOI. It reads:
'Grasslands—answer is quite specific to grasslands
Don't read direction into questions
want to understand Ministers powers and obligations
Need to know boundaries w/in which Minister can operate (Minister wants to know what he can do)
One paragraph—on additional legal threshold
No discretion—even if wanted to go beyond TSSC'
3.99
The following day, Mr Oxley wrote an extensive email to the adviser in the Minister's Office responding to this conversation, cc'ing in a number of his departmental colleagues. This email provided strong and forthright advice on several 'specific questions' asked by the adviser about the NTG-SEH, namely:
Could the Minister vary the listing without TSSC [Threatened Species Scientific Committee] advice?
Could the Minister vary the condition thresholds without TSSC advice?
If the Minister went against TSSC advice, would the reasons for that have to be published?
Would it be open to legal challenge?
Could the Commonwealth align the grassland listing with NSW vegetation laws?
3.100
On the first two questions, Mr Oxley stated that the Minister could not vary the listing or the condition thresholds without TSSC advice. In offering this advice, Mr Oxley consciously referenced advice provided by the department to Mr Taylor on condition thresholds.
3.101
On the final three questions, Mr Oxley confirmed that 'any listing decision must be published', but that reasons for the amendment of a listing could be provided solely to the nominator who proposed the change. Mr Oxley also confirmed that any EPBC Act decisions can be subject to legal challenge, including decisions to de-list. Lastly, Mr Oxley suggested that the approved conservation advice for the NTG-SEH, including thresholds, were developed in close consultation with the NSW Government. He noted, with specific reference to Mr Taylor:
…this includes the groundcover assessment methodologies that Angus Taylor MP has mistakenly been advised are not aligned. Both NSW and Commonwealth are pursuing the current compliance case in question because the alleged destruction of high quality native grasslands has triggered both state and national law.
Unanswered questions and concerns
3.102
The email from Mr Oxley responds to 'specific questions' from Minister Frydenberg's office that all relate to the potential amendment of recently-strengthened protections for the NTG-SEH.
3.103
As noted above, Mr Oxley's note includes the caveat: 'Don't read directions into questions'. However, the committee notes that Mr Oxley's diary record of the phone also states bluntly that the: 'Minister wants to know what he can do'.
3.104
At a hearing, Mr Oxley commented:
As I reflect on that note, in my mind, that's the shorthand, and it should be read at that point in time as 'the minister will want to know'.
3.105
On reading direction into the questions, the committee notes that the listing had only recently been upgraded to the highest possible protection, and Mr Taylor was in dialogue with the Minister's office about the new conditions being unreasonable and concerning for landholders. Given this, it seems only too likely that these questions were directed at understanding how protections could be wound back, potentially without drawing on TSSC advice or making any new decisions public.
3.106
In this, the request for information seems to be directly linked to Mr Taylor's interest in the NTG-SEH matter and his ongoing conversation with Minister Frydenberg and his office, rather than seeking information about the Ministerial powers more generally.
3.107
This is apparent in two aspects of Mr Oxley's email. First, he contextualises information twice in relation to Mr Taylor, regarding condition thresholds and the EPBC Act's alignment with NSW environmental laws. Second, Mr Oxley's email forms part of the same email chain as Mr Richardson's email to Minister Frydenberg's adviser of 13 April 2019, which was intended to 'support your discussions with Angus Taylor MP'.
Mr Taylor's claims of widespread concern about NTG-SEH compliance
3.108
The committee has been interested in considering whose interests Mr Taylor was seeking to represent in his communication with Minister Frydenberg and his meeting with the department.
3.109
Mr Taylor has claimed that in making representations to Minister Frydenberg he was only concerned with the views of the farming communities, including farmers of his electorate of Hume. He stressed that these stakeholders were not connected to the broader Taylor family's farming interests. In a statement to Parliament in July 2019, he said:
In late 2016 and early 2017 I spoke with farmers from Boorowa and Goulburn in my electorate, and from Yass, which had been in Hume until mid 2016, about this listing and their concerns with that listing. On 21 February 2017 I spoke with a farmer near Yass who expressed strong and detailed concerns about the revised listing, pointing out that it had occurred despite the concerns of the National Farmers Federation and the New South Wales Farmers Association and with little consultation with farmers themselves. All of these farmers were completely disconnected from our family farming operations.
3.110
Mr Taylor stated that his communication on the revised NTG-SEH listing with Minister Frydenberg was instigated by talking to the un-named farmer in Yass:
On 21 February 2017, at the suggestion of the Yass farmer, I contacted the policy director of the New South Wales Farmers Association, who provided me with their June 2014 submission to the then Department of the Environment expressing serious concerns about the proposed revised listing. On the basis of these concerns I sought a briefing on the revised listing from the then minister's office, which I made clear was not to include any discussion of compliance matters.
3.111
Evidence from the department FOI release suggests that Mr Taylor did raise the issue with Minister Frydenberg in mid-February, which is confirmed in an email of 22 February 2017, discussed above in paragraph 3.61 and following.
3.112
However, it is likely that Mr Taylor had also made representations to Minister Frydenberg before this time. The committee notes that the first call the department received from the Minister's office for information about the listing of the NTG-SEH was on 15 February 2017. This was directly to a line area of the department responsible for NSW assessments. The line area of the department that took this call noted that the Minister's office specifically requested not only information on the listing itself, but also the Jam Land compliance case.
3.113
Additionally, the committee notes that the 'urgent' talking points requested by Minister Frydenberg's office on 16 February 2017 were cast as a response to an NTG-SEH compliance case that had been raised 'in Parliament'. As Jam Land was the only ongoing grasslands compliance case, and does not appear in the Parliamentary record, it seems only too likely it was raised by Mr Taylor directly with the then-Environment Minister.
3.114
The question of whose interests Mr Taylor was actually representing was further clarified during a recent interview with ABC Radio Illawarra, Mr Taylor indicated that he had, in part, been conscious of his and his family's interest in making representations on the NTG-SEH matter:
I make absolutely no apologies for standing up for farmers in my region. That includes me and my other family members…
3.115
Other evidence suggested that Mr Taylor's claims to be representing farmers in his electorate have been overstated.
3.116
The un-named farmer from Yass and other concerned individuals that may have spoken to Mr Taylor on the issue have never been identified. Moreover, the NSW Farmers Association letter provided by the Government to show longstanding concern was written well after Mr Taylor started lobbying Minister Frydenberg and the department for information.
3.117
Moreover, it has already been noted above that, a staffer in Minister Frydenberg's office struggled to explain why he considered the NTG-SEH listing was the 'number 1 issue' for farmers in the Monaro.
3.118
The department has also provided some indication that, beyond Mr Taylor's family, compliance issues have not been a problem in the critically endangered NTG-SEH. For example, the department has indicated that the Jam Land investigation has been the only compliance case regarding the NTG-SEH listing. The department has also stated that most landholders are unaffected by the EPBC Act as:
[They] Do not have native grassland on their property, particularly the size and quality required to meet the EPBC Act definition;
Ongoing grazing is a continuing use that is exempt from the EPBC Act definition;
Because typical changes in grazing practices would not have a significant impact.
3.119
The department also pointed to a longstanding working relationship with stakeholders. This includes the NFF, who after expressing some concerns over the listing decision in 2016, assisted the department to prepare guidance material for landholders in the region.
3.120
In the year after the revised grassland listing came into effect (6 April 2016), the department was not contacted by any individual farmers on the grassland listing.
Instigation of the Craik Review in 2018
3.121
The committee considered information that suggested the Jam Land compliance case had played a significant part in the Government's decision to instigate the Craik Review, which was announced in March 2018. As discussed in chapter 1 of this report, the Craik Review was an independent review that looked at the interactions of the EPBC Act with the agriculture sector. Departmental information stated that this review cost just over $543 000.
3.122
Mr John Williams, who was a National Party Senator for NSW until June 2019, told the committee that one of the drivers of the Craik Review was the actions he took in 2017, following a conversation with Mr Richard Taylor regarding the Jam Land case. Mr Williams told the committee that he had contacted Mr Richard Taylor directly after hearing him interviewed on the ABC's Country Hour on 9 October 2017:
I had a discussion with Mr [Richard] Taylor. I told him I thought the whole [compliance case] was appalling—how he was facing fines or legal action, court action, for breaking a law for spraying a grass he knew nothing about. I then took it to the National Party room. I was very annoyed, as were many of my colleagues. I called for the then minister, Josh Frydenberg, to meet in the National Party room with many National Party MPs and senators to discuss the issue, which he did. He had with him one of the members of the [Environment] department as well.
…[in this meeting in the National Party room] we had some pretty firm discussions about the law and what was going on. Out of that meeting came the review by Wendy Craik into the EPBC Act as far as grasslands go.
3.123
A departmental brief preparing Minister Frydenberg for the meeting, which was held on 25 October 2017, confirms that the meeting was with the then‑Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, and other Nationals MPs. The brief suggests that the subject of the meeting would be 'regarding native vegetation and the EPBC'. The brief noted certain issues and sensitivities, including that the Jam Land compliance case was ongoing. More specifically, it stated:
Despite some perceptions, farmers are not highly regulated by the EPBC Act. However, there is a need to make it easier for farmers to understand and comply with the Act.
The upcoming review of the EPBC Act is unlikely to deliver short-term reform. Therefore, the Department is working on immediate actions to make it easier for farmers.
The specifics of the Monaro grassland compliance investigation cannot be discussed. However, some incorrect statements have been made to the rural media by the landowner, including that the listing is new and imposed an extra burden. In fact, the grassland has been listed on the Monaro under the Act since 2000, and an updated definition in 2016 reduced the potential regulatory burden for farmers.
3.124
Mr Williams noted that, at that time, he did not know Mr Richard Taylor was Angus Taylor's brother, and that 'it wouldn't have made any difference', even if he had been aware. However, he did suggest that the National Party had been 'very direct' with Minister Frydenberg and the departmental official at this meeting, and that it was overtly suggested that the department 'back off' on compliance activities:
I can recall we said to the minister and to the departmental chief: 'Can you back off a bit with your court action so we can get some sort of clarity on what's been going on here, because you're putting people through the courtroom when they knew they were doing nothing wrong or they believed they were doing nothing wrong. They followed the advice of their agronomists, which basically every landowner in Australia would do'.
3.125
Mr Williams also suggested that he would have preferred legislation amended directly to exclude grasslands from EPBC Act protections, leaving them solely under state and territory environmental frameworks. He told the committee that he had canvassed members of Parliament directly about legislative reform. After doing 'the numbers', he commented, he did not consider this proposal would get enough support from the opposition, crossbench, and Greens to pass the Senate–making no mention of a Government position.
3.126
On this meeting, the committee confirmed that Mr Knudson was the departmental officer that attended alongside Minister Frydenberg. The meeting brief also confirms that Mr Knudson was the 'Proposed note taker' for this meeting. Despite this, no notes were taken.
3.127
Mr Knudson commented that the meeting had been 'robust' and that, in being 'heavily focussed' on such high level stakeholders, his attention was on 'trying to respond to the questions and the dialogue…as opposed to taking notes'. He reflected:
I would normally keep a note on specific action [items] that would come out of a meeting. But, in this case, for the meeting that we were talking about earlier on [with Nationals MPs], there were no action items that came out of that that I recall. That's why there wasn't a record kept by myself.
Unanswered questions and concerns
3.128
Mr Williams indicated that he had spoken to Mr Richard Taylor directly on the Jam Land case, and that this was his principal motivation for advocating that the National Party request a meeting with Minister Frydenberg and the department.
3.129
Mr Williams also suggested that the Nationals Party members at this meeting, including the then-Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, had directly requested that the department 'back off' compliance cases, including for Jam Land.
3.130
Mr Williams drew a direct link between this meeting and the instigation of the Craik Review. He also suggested that, rather than a review, he would have preferred direct legislative reform to remove grasslands protections from the EPBC Act framework, in part due to his conversation with Mr Richard Taylor.
Committee view and recommendations
3.131
This interim report has considered the importance of native grasslands, not only for their provision of habitat for threatened faunal species, but for the immense value they provide to the economic, environmental, community and agricultural health of Australia.
3.132
In looking at these matters, the committee has drawn on the case study of the NTG-SEH threatened ecological community on the Monaro Plains. These grasslands illustrate not only the importance of grassland ecosystems for the environment and for the faunal species they support, but also indicate parts of the EPBC Act framework that evidence highlighted could be improved.
3.133
The committee will draw on this evidence in its final report, which is due to table next year.
3.134
The committee acknowledges that the current independent statutory review of the EPBC Act is underway and due to report to Government by October 2020. It hopes that this review will consider and recognise the importance and value of native grasslands, not only for their intrinsic environmental value, but also as a key part of Australia's agricultural production system.
Potential interference in the Jam Land compliance case
3.135
This report has also considered the available information on the Jam Land compliance case. This case involves the alleged broadscale clearing of critically endangered native grasslands. The seriousness of such actions is illustrated by the maximum civil penalty of up to $1,050,000 for an individual and $10,500,000 for a body corporate, or for a criminal penalty of seven years imprisonment and/or a fine.
3.136
After considering the evidence, the committee has reached the conclusion that the Hon Angus Taylor MP, a Minister from 2016 in the Turnbull-Morrison Governments, has sought to use his position and connections to interfere in the operation of this case in a way that breaches not only the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards, but also the expectations that Australians have of their members of Parliament.
Mr Taylor's clear vested interests–'this includes me and my family members'
3.137
Mr Taylor has a clear vested interest in the outcome of the Jam Land investigation. First, his brother, Richard, is one of three direct owners of Jam Land. Mr Richard Taylor has been vocal in his public comments on the ongoing compliance case. The committee notes that the brothers have a long history of partnership in business, in Growth Farm Australia, which they co‑founded in 1999.
3.138
Second, Mr Taylor has a private interest in Jam Land, through Gufee Pty Ltd.
3.139
Mr Taylor has repeatedly failed to be transparent about these interests in an appropriate manner. His Register of Parliamentary Interest still fails to disclose an interest in Jam Land via Gufee, even though it discloses other subsidiary interests.
3.140
It seems that Mr Taylor also repeatedly failed to declare his familial and financial conflicts of interest to his Cabinet colleagues and the department. There appears to be no written record that Mr Taylor was open with Minister Frydenberg about his interests in Jam Land. Over several months, Mr Taylor sought information on the compliance case from mid-February 2017, and was able to initiate a meeting with the department, which included the attendance of a compliance officer from the section of the department responsible for the investigation.
3.141
Mr Taylor has claimed that he was representing the views of agricultural stakeholders in making representations to the Minister and his department. The committee has found very little evidence to support this claim, and it seems that Mr Taylor's claims are overstated at best, and misleading at worst.
3.142
The committee notes that Mr Taylor conceded that his activities were designed, at least in part, to support his family and his own interests:
I make absolutely no apologies for standing up for farmers in my region. That includes me and my other family members…
Efforts to weaken the EPBC Act–'Minister wants to know what he can do'
3.143
The committee is extremely concerned by the evidence that indicates Minister Frydenberg or his office sought information about weakening the EPBC Act's protection for grasslands, and whether any changes could be kept secret. This evidence shows that these questions were motivated by the 'ongoing discussions' between Mr Taylor, and Minister Frydenberg and his office.
3.144
The diary note kept by the department includes Minister Frydenberg's question: 'Minister wants to know what he can do'.
3.145
The questions the department responded to were all targeted at finding ways the Minister could wind back grassland protection: asking if the Minister could alter conditions or thresholds without relying on the expert Threatened Species Scientific Committee advice; and determining whether any alterations could be kept secret, and whether they could be challenged legally.
3.146
It greatly concerns the committee to know that a Minister sought information intended to undermine the lawful operation of the legislation he was charged with administering appropriately.
3.147
Moreover, it is concerning that this seems to have been done at the behest of a Parliamentary colleague. This is evident from the clear links to Mr Taylor in Mr Oxley's email providing robust advice to the Minister's Office on 21 April 2107. First, it is noteworthy that Mr Oxley's email forms part of an email chain to the Minister's Office, with information intended to 'support your discussions' with Mr Taylor. The email also pushes back directly against Mr Taylor's incorrect information on condition thresholds and the EPBC Act's alignment with NSW environmental laws.
Contraventions of Ministerial Standards and public expectations
3.148
In considering the evidence, the committee has reached the conclusion that Mr Taylor consciously used his position as an MP and Minister to make representations to Minister Frydenberg that were aimed at affecting the outcome of the Jam Land compliance case. In doing so, Mr Taylor repeatedly failed to disclose his family and personal financial interests in Jam Land in an appropriate and transparent manner, not only to Minister Frydenberg and his department, but also the Parliament.
3.149
It is inconceivable that Mr Taylor was unaware that he and his family stood to benefit directly from his actions.
3.150
This committee considers that Mr Taylor's behaviour in this regard represents clear breaches of the Statement of Ministerial Standards made by the Prime Minister on 30 August 2018. The Prime Minister's foreword states:
All Ministers and Assistant Ministers are expected to conduct themselves in line with standards established in this Statement in order to maintain the trust of the Australian people.
All parliamentarians are required to disclose private interests to the parliament. Given the additional powers of Ministers and Assistant Ministers, I expect them to provide me with additional information about their private interests to ensure there are no conflicts with their roles as ministers.
3.151
The Statement further includes the following standards:
Ministers must declare and register their personal interests, including but not limited to pecuniary interests, as required by the Parliament from time to time. Ministers must also comply with any additional requirements for declarations of interests to the Prime Minister as may be determined by the Prime Minister, and notify the Prime Minister of any significant change in their private interests within 28 days of its occurrence.
Failure to declare or register a relevant and substantive personal interest as required by the Parliament constitutes a breach of these Standards.
3.152
Jam Land remains undeclared on Mr Taylor's Register of Interests. By failing to declare this interest and his close financial and personal links to Jam Land to the Parliament, it is clear that Mr Taylor has fallen well short of this standard.
3.153
It is evident that Mr Taylor also failed to disclose his interests to the department. He did not make an appropriate disclosure during the meeting with the department, at which an officer responsible for compliance activities was present. There is also no record of Mr Taylor exercising due diligence by putting potential conflicts of interest on record in his discussions with Minister Frydenberg or other Ministerial colleagues.
3.154
Given the sensitivities of these issues, and his close personal and financial ties to Jam Land, it was unwise and improper for Mr Taylor to not be upfront and transparent about these connections.
3.155
Evidence indicates that Mr Taylor did not only fail to disclose his vested interests, but also sought to use his Ministerial office and Parliamentary connections to obtain special treatment for himself and his family, which is not offered to any other landholder in Australia.
3.156
The committee considers this a further serious breach of the Ministerial Standards, noting in particular:
Ministers must have regard to the pecuniary and other private interests of members of their immediate families, to the extent known to them, as well as their own interests, in considering whether a conflict or apparent conflict of interests and official duty arises.
3.157
The Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards clearly articulates that he expected all Ministers to behave with 'integrity and in the best interests of the people they serve'. His statement notes that it:
…is principles based and is not a complete list of rules. I expect all ministers in the Australian Government to live up to the high standards expected of them by the Australian people at all times.
3.158
Mr Taylor's actions represent not only a contravention of the Morrison Government's own Ministerial Standards, but have also fallen well short of the public expectations of the integrity of the Government and Parliament.
3.159
The committee recommends that the Prime Minister take action to restore public confidence in government integrity by:
enforcing disclosure obligations with respect to the personal and pecuniary interests of the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, the Hon Angus Taylor MP;
reminding Ministers that ministerial office must not be used to advance private interests; and
asking the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to review the conduct of Mr Taylor and the now-Treasurer, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, in relation to the grasslands matter.
3.160
The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office conduct a performance audit of the Department of Environment and Energy's compliance actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, with particular reference to the long running Jam Land compliance case.
Conduct of the APS
3.161
The committee has also considered the conduct of the department in this matter. The committee recognises that this chain of events has sometimes put the department in very difficult situations. Some of this conduct is to be commended.
3.162
For example in these difficult and sensitive matters, it is apparent in evidence that departmental officials continuously provided robust advice on the operation of the EPBC Act, to both their own Minister as well as Mr Taylor.
3.163
This can be seen clearly in Mr Oxley's email responding to questions posed by a Ministerial staffer, questions that aimed to determine how EPBC Act protections could be weakened in a secretive way. This email also pushed back on misinformation provided to Mr Taylor, which he had clearly communicated to Minister Frydenberg and his office.
3.164
However, the committee has found the department's performance in other areas to be wanting.
3.165
The committee acknowledges that the department was careful not to discuss matters of compliance relating to the Jam Land investigation with Mr Taylor. Given this, it seems unwise to have taken a junior compliance officer to the meeting with Mr Taylor, at which sensitive issues could have been raised.
3.166
Secondly, very senior officials seem to have ignored the clear requirement to take meeting notes set out in the APS Values and Code of Conduct in Practice, which states:
The creation, maintenance and accessibility of Commonwealth records are key elements of sound public administration and accountability.
3.167
Moreover, the committee notes that the APS Values and Code of Conduct in Practice advises that:
Generally, it is important to record and to maintain in an accessible form:…
c. significant events, including meetings and discussions with Ministers or stakeholders or members of the public which may be significant in terms of policy or program decision-making.
3.168
The committee considers that meetings with MPs with clear vested interests, such as Mr Taylor, or the National Party room, are 'significant events' that require meeting notes to be made.
3.169
The committee recommends that the Department of the Environment and Energy reaffirm their commitment to the notetaking requirements for Commonwealth agencies and departments, as set out in the APS Values and Code of Conduct in Practice, and further recommends that the Australian Public Service Commission undertakes a review of notetaking practices within the Australian Public Service.
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
Chair