What Will it Take to Get a Straight Answer?

I asked three simple questions of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and yet again, Senator Watt turned the Senate Chamber into a circus to his obvious amusement and wasted precious time.

Does the government control the level of immigration into Australia? Yes or No? And how many net overseas migrants will arrive in Australia this year?

The Treasurer earlier this year stated that the government had no control over immigration numbers, yet this is not the case. Was this ‘misinformation’?

The Minister gave no specific answers and once again attempted to direct attention back to the previous government and promoted the Labor’s utterly useless housing bill.

Transcript

My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Does the government control the level of immigration into Australia?  

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I note your interest all week in these matters of migration, and the short answer is that under governments of all persuasions, including those who are having a chuckle over there at the moment, the immigration program in Australia is demand driven. That has been the case under this government and the former government as well.  

Senator Roberts: Point of order: it was a very simple, short question. It needs a yes or no answer. That’s it.  

The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant, Senator Roberts. I presume you’ve finished your answer, Minister Watt?  

Senator WATT: As I say— 

Senator Canavan: It’s just a yes or no answer, Murray! 

Senator WATT: Yes, it’s quite normal for ministers who represent others to look at their notes. Senator Canavan, we can’t all be the genius that you are. You are a genius—I pay that—especially when you get into your dark web and your bunker and you dig out all those statistics. You’re an absolute genius! 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, resume your seat. Order across the chamber, but particularly on my left.  

Senator Ayres: Yes, old Telegram Matt! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, you have a lot to say this afternoon. This is question time. Minister Watt, I’m asking you to refer your comments to me and not to particular senators.  Please continue.

Senator WATT: I know Senator Rennick was a bit offended by the fact I singled out Senator Canavan as the only genius in the opposition and the only person who could get into the bunker and find statistics, because we know Senator Rennick is pretty good at that as well.  

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes. I haven’t called you, and I haven’t called you because the chamber was still disorderly. Senator Hughes. 

Senator Hughes: President, you’ve made very clear this week, and we have heard from those opposite— 

The PRESIDENT: What’s your point of order, Senator Hughes?  

Senator Hughes: I would like Minister Watt to withdraw a whole raft of his commentary and reflections on a number of senators over here and his continual snarky personal smears and vilifications.  

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, if you want to raise a point of order about unparliamentary or personal language related to a senator, I need their name at least.  

Senator Hughes: I said Minister Watt! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, don’t backchat once you’re sitting down. You indicated that the minister had had a spray against a range of senators. I have no idea who that was. I am not going to make it up or guess it, so unless you have— 

Senator Hughes: I literally said it multiple times! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, you’ve raised the point of order. You haven’t named a particular senator. You’ve indicated to me who in your view made the offence but you haven’t said about which senator. 

Senator Hughes: I said it multiple times. Would you like to check the Hansard? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, resume your seat. Minister Wong. 

Senator Wong: I think the difficulty—through you, President—is it was a generalised proposition that the senator was making. If there is a request to withdraw particular language that has just been said— 

Senator Hughes: We got multiple lectures this week. 

Senator Wong: If that is the request, I’m sure the— 

Senator Hughes interjecting— 

Senator Wong: Okay. I’m just saying that a generalised proposition is a difficult one to respond to. 

Senator Hughes interjecting— 

Senator Wong: I’m trying to assist here. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham. 

Senator Wong: I haven’t finished. 

The PRESIDENT: I’m sorry, I thought you had finished, Senator Wong. 

Senator Wong: Thank you. I was just waiting. The proposition— 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Do you wish to continue? 

Senator Wong: There is a generalised complaint about Senator Watt saying things about a number of people. I don’t know what those are, but if the request is that Senator Watt withdraw particular language that’s just been used— 

Senator Scarr interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, no interjections. 

Senator Wong: All I’m saying if there is a request to— 

Senator Hughes: And he continues! 

Senator Wong: Wow. I’m really trying. If there is a request to withdraw particular language now, I would ask the President to call the minister. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham? 

Senator Birmingham: Thank you, President. I did want to pick up on one part of your ruling there, which was to suggest it was necessary for the senator to name a particular senator who had been impugned. I will make it clear that it is possible for groups of senators to be impugned or to have improper motives attributed to them by a senator and that is also against standing orders. 

The PRESIDENT: That’s correct. 

Senator Birmingham: President, as you’re well aware, it’s not necessary always for a senator to make a point of order and, in the spirit of this week, it would be helpful for strong proactive intervention if senators can’t restrain themselves to actually ask them immediately to withdraw. Preferably they would restrain themselves, Senator Watt. 

Senator Watt interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: I haven’t called you, Senator Watt. I am going to respond to those points of order. I am not in the chamber all the time. That’s the point that I made in the statement to the chamber yesterday. It is very difficult for me to ask a senator to withdraw when I don’t know where that language has landed. I take your point, Senator Birmingham, that a slur can be made against a group of senators. That’s not what Senator Hughes was implying. My understanding of what was indicated was that the minister had made, in Senator Hughes’s view, a number of comments to senators throughout the week, not to a group of senators. However, I know that Senator Watt is always willing to own his behaviour and I will, as Senator Watt— 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: For the benefit of those interjections, a number of you are always willing, on both sides of the chamber, to withdraw. Some of you are not but most of you are. So I am going to invite Senator Watt, if he thinks he has offended senators this week, to make a general withdrawal without making any comment to comments that you may or may not have uttered. 

Senator WATT: I make a general withdrawal. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, please continue. 

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, the government does have a range of controls in place around the numbers of migrants coming into Australia, the categories of those migrants, whether they be international students or tourists, humanitarian, skilled workers so the government does have a range of controls around the numbers and types of migrants who come into Australia. I think I know where you’re going with this, because you have followed these issues all week and I point out that we haven’t really seen a lot of consistency from the opposition on matters of migration either, because what we do know is that, for instance, when the now immigration spokesperson, the member for Wannon, was in government he was saying things like, ‘We need to get our international students back. We need to get our working holiday-maker visa holders back.’ 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: On a point of order, that’s not relevant to what I asked. 

The PRESIDENT: I’ll bring you back to the question, Minister Watt. You’ve finished. Senator Roberts, your first supplementary? 

Transcript: First Supplementary Question

Senator ROBERTS: On 15 May, Treasurer Jim Chalmers told Australia that the level of net overseas migration is ‘not something the government determines’. Minister, is that a lie, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, I am going to ask you to rephrase that question.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that misinformation, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless?

Senator WATT: I reject the suggestion that the Treasurer has misrepresented the facts on this issue. It is a really important issue that Australia is dealing with at the moment. But, Senator Roberts, in answer to similar questions from you over the course of the week, I’ve pointed out a number of steps the government have taken to fix the fundamentally broken migration system that we inherited from the opposition and, in particular, from the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, who oversaw the migration system as the Minister for Home Affairs for a number of years.

We’ve already scaled back the pandemic event visa. We’re taking action about the working hours for international students, which has been a real drawcard for international students coming to Australia. We’ve made all sorts of improvements to Home Affairs, in terms of its processing of visa applications. And, of course, when it comes to housing, as I’ve pointed out to you already, you and your colleagues have an opportunity to vote for more housing and you chose to vote against it.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, your second supplementary?

Transcript: Second Supplementary Question

Senator ROBERTS: How many overseas immigrants, net, will arrive in Australia this financial year?

Senator WATT: Again, I know that we’ve addressed this issue in previous answers, both in chis chamber and in estimates, and the issues around the number of net overseas migrants is a matter that is handled by the Treasury. I’ve already acknowledged in previous answers on these questions that post COVID, when we had a couple of years of pretty much zero migration to Australia, it was always inevitable that there was going to be an increase in that migration as we had tourists, working holiday-maker visa holders and skilled migrants coming back into the country. That is exactly one of the reasons why our government is trying to fix the broken migration system that we inherited and trying to build more homes, despite your opposition and that of the coalition.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: On a point of order, I asked the question: how much net immigration this year?

The PRESIDENT: The minister explained it is a question that should be directed to Treasury, and the minister was answering it in his capacity. The minister has finished.

/by

Watt a Clown Show

When will this Labor government make the decision to cut unsustainable, record high immigration? This is a government that is halfway through its term, yet it’s still blaming the previous government. Are we really supposed to swallow this fairy-tale?

Australia’s immigration levels have been allowed to escalate under the Albanese government and they’re driving both the housing crisis and the high cost of living. These two issues have worsened exponentially under Labor.

I had to remind the Minister to answer the question because he was determined to use up the time allotted for answering in banter with others in the chamber, or to deliberately twist my words. When I pressed him to answer he could only pass the buck, talk up Labor’s grossly inadequate housing fund and it’s clear he is not prepared to accept any responsibility. The arrogance and lack of respect he shows to his position and by default, the Australian people, is deplorable.

Failure to take responsibility is a symptom of the ways in which Labor is failing the Australian people. A recent Weekend Australian article has reported that the migration surge is fuelling inflation, and the Reserve Bank backs that up.

The recent tsunami of new arrivals is under Labor’s watch and Senator Murray Watt needs to own it. These performances in parliament he’s indulging in, rather than taking his position seriously, do nothing to restore the people’s trust in government.

Transcript

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. With Labor embarking on the largest immigration program in Australian history, bringing in more than 500,000 people this year alone, more and more economists are warning these numbers are driving inflation and hurting everyday Australian families. Following yesterday’s 12th interest rate rise since Labor was elected, when will the government acknowledge they are completely wrong about high immigration and cut the numbers to sustainable levels?

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Senator Dean Smith interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie and Senator Dean Smith!

Senator WATT: Senator Smith, that’s most unlike you! I’m very disappointed in you! I’m very disappointed. Thank you for the question, Senator Roberts. I hear, again, in response to your question, Senator McKenzie demanding more spending for infrastructure. So I guess we’re back to, ‘Spend more in the economy, and drive up inflation!’ That’s where the opposition was at today—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

Senator WATT: Senator Rennick’s jumping up and saying no. The Liberals disagree. Okay!

The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, I am going to direct the minister to your question, and I will remind those in here that the crossbenchers are entitled to be heard in silence and are entitled to have their questions answered. They get less time than others in this place. I would expect everyone to be sitting in respectful silence. Minister Watt, I refer you to Senator Roberts’ question.

Senator WATT: Thank you. Senator Roberts, I think I answered a very similar question from you the other day. I did acknowledge that Australia’s migration system, after 10 years of Liberal and National government, mainly overseen by the now opposition leader, Mr Dutton, is in utter 	disarray. We have acknowledged that. I know that the minister—

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: On relevance—I’m asking when he will cut the numbers to sustainable levels.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will remind the minister of your question. Minister Watt.

Senator WATT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. It is important to put this in context, and we have acknowledged that the migration system that we inherited, overseen largely by Mr Dutton, the now opposition leader, is a mess. It is a completely broken system. We have already taken a number of measures—

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: When will they acknowledge they are completely wrong about high immigration and cut the numbers to sustainable levels? That’s simple.

The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister is going to your question, and I will continue to listen carefully. Minister Watt.

Senator WATT: We have taken a number of measures already since being elected to fix the mess of the broken migration system we inherited. For example, this government has ended the Pandemic Event visa, which was being abused in some cases—in many cases. We have changed the previously unlimited working hours that were available for international students, a system that was engineered by the former government, and we’ve also made changes to work exemptions for working holiday visa holders. We’ve also increase the temporary skilled migration income threshold from $53,900 to $70,000, and that is the first increase in a decade.

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: When will he deal with cutting the high numbers?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, I think he’s being relevant to your question. Thank you, Minister.

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, it’s up to you to choose whether you want to listen to my answer or not. But I’ve already outlined a number of measures that we have taken to fix the migration system, thoroughly broken, overseen by Mr Dutton, and to try to put in place a more manageable migration system and more manageable immigration numbers. We are conscious that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and we’ll keep working on it. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, your first supplementary?

/by

“Closing Loopholes” Split Shows Labor Doesn’t Actually Care About Workers

I spoke in support of Senators’ Pocock and Lambie pulling out sections of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 and dealing with them urgently. These are all worthwhile, all simple, and all carved out of the original legislation. This isn’t controversial. It is worthwhile legislation that needs to be dealt with now.

The Closing-Loopholes Bill is a cover-up and combining the bills under the ‘loopholes’ tag is a trick. There are some fantastic elements in this package but they’re using those to hide the flawed elements of the bill.

Despite the Labor party lies:

– One Nation will always support workers getting redundancy entitlements.

– One Nation will always support workers’ rights when they are suffering domestic violence.

– One Nation will always support workers safety against silica and asbestos.

– One Nation will always support our first responders receiving injury compensation for the PTSD they got from work.

Labor hates this move to split-out elements of the bill, because it proves they have abandoned the workers.

Labor is no longer the party of the workers. One Nation is the new party of the workers.

Transcript

We absolutely support these elements of the so-called closing-loopholes bill that we are now dealing with, that we will deal with. And I want to commend Senators Pocock and Lambie for their initiative in pulling out these four sections of the bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, because the bills that we’re dealing with this morning, which are carved out from the original fair work bill, are the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, and the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023, including access to PTSD compensation. These are all worthwhile, all simple, all carved out of the original legislation from Labor—exact copies.

The motion to reorder allows a sensible amount of time for debate, given that these are not controversial issues and they’ve so far received wide support from stakeholders. I agree with Senator Lambie that the closing-loopholes bill, in its entirety, is just a cover-up, a trick. That’s all they’re doing. Combining the bills under the ‘loopholes’ tag is dishonest, and that’s what the Labor Party is doing with this bill. It’s fundamentally dishonest. They are protecting and covering up the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter Valley, the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman, Coal Long Service Leave Corporation, and Minister Burke and his staff, who were aware of some illegalities, some crimes, that have been committed in the topics that I’ve been discussion for the past four years in this place.

That’s why this bill is being lumped in, Senator Cash. We’ve got a lovely title, ‘Closing Loopholes’. There are some fantastic elements of it; I agree with Senator Lambie. But they’re hiding it under a dog. They’re protecting their own rackets.

Ensuring that all questions on the bills are put at 11.30 today will ensure that we get these sensible measures passed, as Senator Cash and Senator Lambie have said. It would be nice to pass some legislation in the Senate. That’s another reason why we need this suspension of standing orders motion. The government has been stuck on its non-sensical sea dumping bill, now in its fourth day. I heard Senator Pocock talking about it the other day. Why would you call it a sea dumping bill—putting pollution in the form of phosphates, nitrogen and iron into the ocean as an experiment? They can’t even name their bill correctly, using a decent term. Maybe it is correct, Senator Pocock, through you, Chair. It’s a sea dumping bill—that’s your title—and you can’t withstand the scrutiny that your own sloppy sea dumping bill has brought upon you. You can’t withstand the scrutiny, and you’re still going. That is what is happening with this motion. The Senate is slapping the government and saying, ‘This is how you get some legislation through.’ So I want to thank Senators Lambie and Pocock again.

We need to pass this motion for the insolvency practitioners that will be done over when the headcount falls below the small business threshold and will miss out on entitlements. This has wide industry support and is an aberration. We should deal with it now, as this motion proposes. People who are suffering from family and domestic violence should have access to protections in the Fair Work Act—sooner rather than later. That isn’t controversial. We need to deal with it now, as this motion proposes. We need to get on with the job with these four bills. I commend Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock, and we support this suspension of standing orders.

/by

Laboring Under the Delusion of Albanese’s Election Promises

Since 2020, real wages have gone backwards to the same level as 2009. It’s the worse decline in household income anywhere in the developed world, not a title we want.

Labor traditionally sold itself as the party of the worker, but today’s Labor is selling out Australian workers.

According to data from the OECD, the Albanese Labor government has presided over a 5.1% reduction in per capita household income. Before Labor tells you its because of the global problems caused by the Ukraine, or because of supply chain issues, not only did this Labor government reduce household incomes 5.1 percent, two thirds of developed nations actually grew their per capita income during the same period.

The government’s Net Zero climate scam is driving power bills up and driving employment opportunities down. Labor, far from championing the workforce, is selling out workers by allowing 2.3 million visa holders into the country and driving down real wages.

The real party for the workers is One Nation.

Transcript

Data from the OECD shows that Australia has suffered the largest reduction of real household income amongst all developed nations. The Albanese Labor government has presided over a 5.1 per cent reduction in per capita household income. Not only did this Labor government reduce household incomes by 5.1 per cent; two-thirds of developed nations actually grew their per capita income in the same period. Spain wins the gold medal for economic management, with a six per cent increase in income. Meanwhile, in Labor’s ‘socialist republic of Australia’, the real wages of everyday Australians have gone backwards to the same level as they were in 2009.

Labor governments somehow sell themselves to the electorate as being the party of the worker. Not anymore. Labor is selling out Australian workers with your net zero climate change scam, driving power bills up and driving employment opportunities down. Labor is selling out workers by allowing 2.3 million visa holders into the country, many of whom will cost Australia more than they will ever contribute, while driving down real wages. Labor is selling out the workers with your digital-prison legislation which is currently before the Senate. This will ensure that workers who want to keep a bank account—how novel—won’t be able to complain about having no job, no home and no future. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is jetting around the world, enjoying the largesse of nations to which we’ve surrendered economic advantage. It’s the Anthony Albanese world tour of shame, complete with an appropriate and highly patronising canine reference from China that I will not repeat.

Everyday Australians are going backwards while corporate profits are at a record high. This is not the government of the workers. The Prime Minister’s billionaire mates are running a government of wealth and advantage for parasitic billionaires who feed off taxpayer subsidies. The workers party is now One Nation. We have one flag; we are one country; we are One Nation.

/by

Defence Could Have Avoided ABC Defamation of Veteran Heston Russell

I asked the ADF about whether they could have stepped in and provided the correct information that would have avoided the need for Special Forces veteran Heston Russell to take legal action to clear his name when the ABC published incorrect and defamatory information about him.

All Defence needed to do was clarify to the ABC that Heston wasn’t even in Afghanistan at the time of the allegations and a multi-million dollar legal case could have been avoided.

The Generals wouldn’t even lift a finger to help one of their own Special Forces veterans and they wonder why they have a recruitment crisis.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The next line of questioning goes to the topic of Heston Russell. How much, roughly, does the defence department spend each year on legal costs?

Mr D’Amico: I don’t have the exact figures in front of me, but I think our expenditure last year was around the $150 million mark in total.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you give me an accurate one on notice, please.

Mr D’Amico: Yes, I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Did the defence department provide financial or legal assistance to former special forces commander Heston Russell in his defamation case against the ABC recently?

Mr D’Amico: I don’t believe so.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?

Mr D’Amico: That was a private civil matter. He commenced those defamation proceedings. The way that we provide legal support to former ADF members would be through what I’d describe as a LACE payment made under the Legal Service Directions, and that just doesn’t allow for that sort of circumstance.

Senator ROBERTS: Wouldn’t it have been in the best interests of the defence department to ensure Mr Russell won his defamation case so he could clear his name and the reputation of the November platoon and the
Australian Defence Force in general?

Mr D’Amico: I’m not sure if that’s a comment or a question.

Senator ROBERTS: Would it not be in the best interests? It’s a question?

Mr D’Amico: That’s a difficult—

Mr Moriarty: It’s in the best interests of the department for the law to be upheld. There’s been a legal process.

Senator ROBERTS: I see that. He won, but that’s not your judgement to start. I get that. Nonetheless, to be seen to leave one of your senior people out in the cold doesn’t augur well for people in the armed forces still. Mr Russell spent 16 years in the Australian Defence Force and led November platoon in Afghanistan. He was the subject of a vicious smear campaign by the ABC, who wrongly accused him of war crimes, and the judge was pretty scathing in his comments about the ABC. The Federal Court has now ordered the ABC to pay Mr Russell more than $400,000, plus costs. Why did a veteran have to fight this public battle alone, at his own expense?

Senator McAllister: May I make a number of essentially procedural points? There are three things. The first is that officials have given you advice that they complied with the policy settings that are relevant for this legal assistance that may be provided to personnel. I think the second is that, in asking them to make comment about the appropriateness of those steps, you’re effectively asking them to offer an opinion about the current policy settings. The third thing is just to remind you that Defence was not a party to these proceedings and it’s not really appropriate to ask them, as I think you’ve done just now, to comment on a civil matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what do you say in response?

CHAIR: Last question.

Senator ROBERTS: I have one more after this. What’s your opinion?

Senator McAllister: I think the officials have given you advice that they have sought to comply with the standard arrangements that are in place for providing legal support to personnel. I don’t have any more to add in
relation to that.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the Department of Defence been in contact with Heston Russell during his three-year ordeal? Did the Department of Defence attend his trial in the Federal Court? Has Defence reached out to
Russell after his victory over the ABC?

Rear Adm. Wolski: I’m not aware of any official contact with Mr Russell. This was a civil defamation case brought about by a private person and it’s not appropriate to comment any further on it.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.

Mr D’Amico: Senator, I can update you on a number. Earlier, I gave an approximate figure of $150 million— in fact, it’s $155,570,000.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got a good memory, or you’re accurate.

Mr D’Amico: It was close.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I have another question about the Heston Russell case. Do you accept that much of the time, effort and expense in the Russell and ABC defamation matter could have been avoided if Defence had simply advised the ABC that the November platoon wasn’t even in Afghanistan when Heston Russell was first accused?

Senator McAllister: I think advice was provided earlier that, in the general issue of the civil matter between the ABC and Heston Russell, this is a private matter and Defence were not a party to the case. I think you are now asking Defence to speculate about events that may or may not have happened. I’m not sure that they’re going to be able to offer you an opinion of that kind.

Senator ROBERTS: I can see where you’re coming from.

Senator McAllister: We don’t wish to be unhelpful, but I think there are a number of elements of your question that make it difficult for officials to provide an answer in this forum.

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the SAS people are very close-knit; they have a long association after they leave the Army that’s very much entrenched in comradeship and mateship. I would have thought that the Department of Defence would want to cultivate that because that’s our key strategic weapon as I understand it from talking to former and current members of the ADF. Anyway, that’s fine.

/by

What is the Meaning of Distinguished Service Medals?

The Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) continues to claim there are no issues with his Distinguished Service Cross despite evidence that says there is.

General Campbell never saw “action” on the two way rifle range with the enemy, as was required by letters patent for the medal at the time of his nomination.

Despite claiming he had no ‘operational command’ of soldiers who have been accused of war crimes in the Brereton report, the nomination for CDF Campbell’s medal specifically states he received it for his ‘operational command’ of forces in the middle east.

So when there’s medals to be handed out, the CDF is happy to enjoy the claim he had ‘operational command’, yet when its time to face accountability for allegations of wrong doing, he denies he had any command.

I’ve already called for General Campbell to step down. If he had any leadership at all he would, for the good of Australia’s Defence Force.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Getting on to matters of operational command: General Campbell, do you still maintain that, as commander of the Joint Task Force 633, you did not have operational command of forces in Afghanistan?

Gen. Campbell: That’s quite the reverse. I had, in my tenure, national command and operational command. They are technical terms of command, and that’s exactly what I had.

Senator ROBERTS: So you had command over the Afghanistan operation?

Gen. Campbell: I had national command and operational command of personnel in the Middle East.

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t that make you complicit in the Brereton report’s accusations? You were the senior officer overseeing the people who allegedly performed those acts.

Gen. Campbell: Can you ask that question again? I’m not sure quite what you’re asking.

Senator ROBERTS: The Brereton report was damning about some events in Afghanistan, as I understand it. Is that correct?

Gen. Campbell: Yes. In terms of credible information of allegations of unlawful conduct, that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: And you wanted the stripping of the DSC from members of the SAS involved?

Gen. Campbell: Let’s be a bit more precise. One of the recommendations of the Brereton inquiry was to consider command accountability in circumstances of multiple allegations and credible information of unlawful conduct, which I have a part in in terms of the process of undertaking that work and providing materials and advice to the Deputy Prime Minister, which I have done. That issue is now with the Deputy Prime Minister for his further consideration.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to your nomination for the Distinguished Service Cross that’s provided in Defence Freedom of Information 544/22/23 document 8. I’ll quote from your nomination:

Major General Angus John Campbell exercised operational command of a joint task force that, while mainly focused on Afghanistan …

Through his visits and continuous engagement, Major General Campbell’s exercise of operational command ensured that Australian national expectations were met, that Australian forces were supported and operated effectively …

Your exercise of operational command is referenced twice in the nomination for the bars you’re wearing on your chest right now, but you claimed earlier on when it came to the war crimes allegations that you did not have operational command. Is that correct or am I misunderstanding something? There seems to be a contradiction.

Gen. Campbell: If you’re talking about today or any other day I can remember, it is very, very clear the chief of joint operations of the day assigned me national command and operational command for the tenure of my
appointment as commander of Joint Task Force 633 from 14 January 2011 to 17 January 2012. So there’s never been a moment when I don’t suggest that I had national command and operational command.

Senator ROBERTS: Didn’t you want to strip the DSC from people in that operation?

Gen. Campbell: As I said, in delivering on the particular recommendation of the Brereton inquiry, I was required to consider across the period 2005 to 2016, which is the time frame of the inquiry, circumstances in
which command accountability might arise for multiple allegations and credible information of unlawful conduct. I have, as I say, done my part in that process and offered materials and advice to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Did the Brereton report say you were or were not part of the operation?

Gen. Campbell: The Brereton report acknowledged that I as much as anybody else who was deployed into the Middle East and had different forms of responsibility in their duties for service in Afghanistan as just that. So, again, I’m not quite sure what you mean.

Senator ROBERTS: We discussed this at last Senate estimates. Can you recall?

Gen. Campbell: I know that we have discussed this on a number of occasions.

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s only been twice. Does Defence have an accepted definition of ‘in action’ in relation to awards and honours?

Gen. Campbell: I’m unaware and would have to take it on notice to our honours and awards team.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know what Defence’s application is of the definition of ‘in action’ from the Gilbert case as well, which was in 2019.

Gen. Campbell: I’m not familiar with that case, but I’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your nomination for the Distinguished Service Cross was made on 29 September 2011. At that time the letters patent for that award required that you had to be in action. Can you
please provide to this committee on notice the exact action you were involved in that meets the definition of ‘in action’ from the Gilbert case?

Gen. Campbell: As I was not the nominator, decision authority or the controller of that honour, I’m not in a position to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Who is in a position to give me, on notice, the exact action that you were involved in that meets the definition of ‘in action’ from the Gilbert case?

Gen. Campbell: I will have to take that on notice, but it’s unclear to me at this point.

Senator ROBERTS: The bottom line is that, if you weren’t in action, your medal appears to be not legal. A leader would have handed back their Distinguished Service Cross already. I was just talking with the minister a minute ago about the importance of teamwork and consistency in the leadership, and that’s what I’m getting to here. A number of ADF people and veterans are deeply concerned about the inconsistency.

/1 Comment/by

MRH-90 Taipan Helicopter Crash

Four of our defence service personnel are dead after a MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crashed in the Whitsundays.

While investigations are still ongoing, the Department of Defence has known about multiple serious, catastrophic issues with the helicopter for over a decade. By some accounts, this helicopter should have been pulled from service years ago.

The question many are asking is whether the upper brass and generals of Defence have blood on their hands for allowing this helicopter to continue flying when such huge issues were known.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I understand. My second set of questions goes to the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter. General, the defence minister has decided to replace the Taipan helicopter platform with Black Hawks after the
Whitsundays crash. I want to express my condolences for the loss of those service members, especially to their families and their unit. Defence has known about these issues with the Taipan helicopter for more than a decade. The question many people are asking, and the question I’m asking, is whether this helicopter should have been pulled from service before the Whitsundays crash and four people are dead because Defence or politicians or both kept pushing it.

Gen. Campbell: Firstly, thank you for your expression of condolence and consideration of the families, the friends and the people we’ve lost. I very much appreciate it. As I noted in my opening remarks, in responding to your query, we have to be scrupulously careful not to, in any way, impinge on the independence and the objectivity of the four investigations that are underway: the investigations by the Queensland coroner, by
Comcare, by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and, most particularly, by the Defence Flight Safety Bureau. With that I’ll pass to the Chief of Army.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I think I can help in regard to your question about the withdrawal of the MRH-90. As you’d recall from our last conversation last estimates, it was always our intention to withdraw the MRH. It was due for withdrawal from the 5th Aviation Regiment on 5 August this year. The tragic accident in the Whitsundays occurred on the evening of 28 July, immediately after which there was a cessation of flying for the aircraft. As the CDF has outlined, there’s an active air safety investigation underway as we speak. The advice from the Defence Flight Safety Bureau is that that investigation is likely to take approximately 12 months, which takes us into the latter half of 2024.

We would have had to have signed an additional sustainment contract this year to continue the option to fly the aircraft, which we were going to withdraw from the 6th Aviation Regiment in quarter 4 of 2024. So the calculus, on a value-for-money basis, in the first instance, was that it was not worth spending the money when, in our assessment, there was no probability or a low probability that we would return to flying. And, if we were able to return to flying, it would be for a fraction of 2024. The other key consideration was with regard to whether we’d be able to further accelerate the introduction of the replacement, the UH-60 Black Hawk. Those two factors were the key factors in consideration for the decision to withdraw the MRH-90 this year, in late 2023, rather than in late 2024.

With regard to the other elements or questions that you framed, I’ll refer to the CDF’s comments about ensuring that we respect the process of the active air safety investigation. It’s very important that we don’t contribute to any sort of speculation so that that air safety investigation and, indeed, the other three inquiries and investigations can continue to do their work.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Before I continue with my questions, I must say that, though I’ve been very critical of this helicopter, nonetheless, I want to compliment Major General Jobson and Major General King for the generous time they’ve spent—twice, now—providing me with information on this. Their hands are tied for similar reasons to what you’ve just given. That’s not something they had to do, but they did it, and it’s appreciated. They did it very well. But it still goes back to the core issue for me: do politicians and Defence senior personnel have blood on their hands for ignoring the issues that have been rife throughout the Taipan’s operational history in Australia? On notice, could you please provide me with a list including the dates and titles of every report or briefing provided to Defence or created internally raising issues with the Taipan platform.

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In relation to the Whitsundays crash, were there any delays to vessels that were capable of participating in the search and rescue operation being tasked to do so?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Sorry—I want to understand exactly what information you were seeking there.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know if there were any delays to vessels in the area of the Whitsundays crash that would have been capable of participating in the search and rescue operation. Were there any delays in their ability to do so?

Gen. Campbell: That line of questioning will cut across the Queensland coronial inquiry. So I don’t think we’re in a position to respond to it.

Senator ROBERTS: I can see how it may be part of the coronial inquiry, but I can’t see how it would impact the result of the coronial inquiry, because it’s just fact.

Gen. Campbell: It may be or not, but this is too precarious a place for any of us to be in. So, while these inquiries are underway, we will say as little as possible—preferably nothing at all.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s understood that one of the exercises at Talisman Sabre involved a photoshoot with partner vessels. Is that accurate, and when was this held?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Sorry, I’m not following. What vessel you are referring to?

Senator ROBERTS: We understand that one of the exercises at Talisman Sabre involved a photoshoot with partner vessels. I don’t know whether that’s American or Australian. Is that accurate, and when was this held?

Gen. Campbell: We’ll take it on notice and reply.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The next question—that was the coroner’s inquiry—is: on notice, could you please provide a schedule of all Defence vessels that were in the Talisman Sabre area of operations on 28 July and exactly when each one was tasked to assist with the search and rescue operation?

Gen. Campbell: We’ll take that on notice

Questions on Notice Answers

A0234_ForeignAffairsDefenceandTrade_2023-24SupplementaryBudgetestimates_Defence

A0235_ForeignAffairsDefenceandTrade_2023-24SupplementaryBudgetestimates_Defence

A0233_ForeignAffairsDefenceandTrade_2023-24SupplementaryBudgetestimates_Defence

/by

Labor’s Latest Scheme to Buyback More Farmers’ Water

The Murray Darling Basin river system has driven prosperity in our beautiful country and it can continue to do so if we can save it from the city bureaucrats and Labor’s ideologically driven policies.

I put forward a motion on the Water Amendment Restoring Our Rivers Bill 2023 because it should not have any further consideration until the Albanese Government properly consults with the States. There was no Murray Darling Basin consultation and that’s the problem with this bill.

The Council of Water Ministers met in August, yet as of this November sitting we have still not seen the communication from that meeting. It seems clear that the states have not collectively signed off on the bill. I urged the Senate to support my motion to send the bill back to the Minister with a clear message to remove the sections the States do not support. Let’s complete the plan, and let’s do it properly for a change.

Transcript

I rise to take note as a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community. It’s no surprise to One Nation that the Senate is once again debating the lack of government transparency—transparency in this case being defined as: what’s the government hiding this time? Consultation from the Labor Party always stops at 39 votes. Everyone else is on a need-to-know basis. 

In the case of Senator Davey’s document discovery, the government has decided the Senate does not need to know the basis for government policy in a basin that accounts for $22 billion in food and fibre needed to feed and clothe the world, a basin that’s home to 2.3 million Australians, including those in my home state of Queensland. Apparently, we Queenslanders do not need to know what informed Minister Plibersek’s Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill—a bill on which this document discovery would have cast light. The fundamental failure of the Albanese government when it talks about consultation is its failure to understand that consultation requires disclosure. Already the government has been forced to make three pages of amendments to the bill to make it legally workable. How does anyone get a bill that wrong? Refusing to disclose—that’s how. Refusing to consult—’consult’ does not mean a quick whip around the staff room at the CFMEU or asking the luvvies at the ABC and the Guardian how to run the country. The Albanese voice referendum showed the stupidity of asking the Canberra bubble and inner city socialists what the rest of the country thinks is a fair thing. In real Australia, consulting means listening, sharing and learning. 

Senator Pauline Hanson and I have consulted with industry stakeholders and toured the basin, starting in Charleville, in Queensland, all the way to Goolwa, in South Australia. I’ve spoken to independent researchers and even shared a plane for three days with Topher Field as we flew over the basin to understand it and film it. I’ve driven the length of the Murray-Darling Basin three times and my staff another two times, most recently last Christmas. Along the way, I’ve listened to amazing farmers displaying a level of resilience that at times is superhuman. I’ve consulted with Aboriginal people, for whom the water in the river is their life, the centre of their culture and the centre of health and happiness. I’ve spoken with business owners fearful for their future in an agricultural industry this government is determined to replace with fake food made in urban intensive-production facilities. This is an amazing connected river system that has driven prosperity in our beautiful country and can continue to do if only we can save it from Labor’s inner-city ignorance and ideologically driven policy. 

Today the Senate will vote on my motion to prevent the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 from being given further consideration until the Albanese government properly consults with the states. The Water Act 2007, upon which the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based, is very clear. The plan is a consensus document of the four states. The federal government does not get a vote, because it’s a servant to the states, not the master of the states. The ACT does not get a vote as it’s a territory, not a state, and that’s fine since the ACT clearly runs the federal government anyway. Giving the ACT a vote would be, in fact, two votes. 

The bill digest contains all the information needed to support my motion. It admits Victoria has refused to sign the new agreement, because Victorian farmers have given up enough water already. Good on the Victorian parliament for standing up for its constituents. Good on New South Wales Premier Chris Minns for being brutally honest in saying the New South Wales government is only signing up to the $700 million in federal buybacks federally for water projects and he is not signing up for water buybacks until after those projects are completed in 2027. The government has no consensus on water buybacks, which are, at best, two all. The rest of the bill contains a lot of good reforms to add accountability, improve measurement and reporting, align spending guidelines and budgets with what is needed and extend the deadline for completion. 

The council of water ministers met in August, yet we still have not seen the communication from that meeting. It’s now November. It seems clear that the states have not signed off on the bill in toto. I urge the Senate to support my motion to send the bill back to the minister with a clear message: take out the bits the states do not support, and let’s get the rest of this bill, which is almost all of it, through the Senate this sitting. Let’s complete the plan and let’s do it properly for a change. 

/by

Australian Electoral Commission and the Colour Purple

Next week the Senate will vote on my motion to refer two matters that came out of the recent referendum to the Joint Standing Committee on Election Matters.

The first is about the misappropriation of the purple colour used by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). It confuses people and should be available to the AEC only. Even the AEC Commissioner is asking for protection on the purple they use.

Secondly, we need to clarify the words that should appear on a referendum ballot paper includes the full text of the amendment. This is in keeping with the wording of the Constitution.

Please share this video among your family and friends, call or email your Senators, and let’s get these loopholes tightened up for the sake of future confidence in our elections.

/by

Optus Failure Demonstrates Cash is King 

I called on the Treasurer to use his regulatory powers to ensure banks stop removing cash and stop closing branches and ATMs. The Optus outage reminds us that persisting with a single digital identity linked to a digital currency as the only approved payment mechanism is insanity.

How did we get here? The current concept of a ‘digital identity’ was originally dreamed up at a 2015 World Economic Forum conference in collaboration with Accenture, a Fortune Global 500 company.

If the government’s Identification Verification Services Bill passes it will not only open the door to hackers, but it will also offer them the key. A single data file will make identity theft easier.  If the government centralises the private data it collects from citizens, on-sells the records to the commercial market while simultaneously mandating the use of digitised personal records within the economy, it will be installing digital socialism. A digital prison no less.

Government and its parasitic billionaire mates want to become the middlemen of all transactions between customers and businesses. One Nation says NO! 

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I draw attention to yesterday’s Optus outage. Payment terminals using the Optus network went down, requiring businesses to close or accept cash payments. The Optus failure makes a mockery of our arrogant, lying, profit-gouging banks’ campaign to totally remove cash from our society and to remove bank branches. I call on the Treasurer to use his regulatory powers to ensure banks do not remove cash from one more branch, do not close one more branch and do not close one more ATM. Anything less is asking for trouble the next time the internet goes down.

The Optus failure reminds Australia of the insanity of persisting with a single digital identity linked to a digital currency as the only approved payment mechanism. What happens if the government’s Identity Verification Services Bill passes and these myriad identification services are replaced with one central government run digital ID, complete with your biometric data? It will be a hacker’s paradise, with everything hackers need for identity theft and fraud located in a single data file. All that’s missing from the government’s digital ID plans is a massive sign saying, ‘Hack me!’ With digital ID, the government is not protecting us from identity theft; it’s making identity theft easier. If digital ID and digital currency are implemented, the next time Optus or Telstra go down, every Australian’s life stops. There will be no transport, no telephone, no keeping track of children and no buying anything. The government is creating a pinch point every time the internet goes down—a chokehold that comes at a terrible human and economic cost.

The government’s predatory billionaire mates are salivating at the control that digital ID and digital currency will give these parasites. The government and its parasitic billionaire mates aren’t good enough to make the technology work. It’s going to stuff everything up and screw everyday Australians and small businesses. To a digital prison, One Nation says no.

/14 Comments/by