Australian Citizen Julian Assange was persecuted and imprisoned for 14 years because he told the truth.
Decades on from him unveiling embarrassing information about the government, no one has been able to prove who was apparently ‘put in danger’ by what Wikileaks released.
The truth is, we should know everything about what the Government is up to. With surveillance like the Digital ID Bill coming into effect, the Government wants it the other way around. They want to know everything about you while you know nothing about what the Government is doing.
Whistleblowers rarely come with perfect personalities, but knowing what the government is up to with your money is vital. Welcome home Julian, your return was long overdue.
It’s been a big week for cross-party collaboration on issues we’ve been strong on from the very start.
Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024
I co-signed the Digital ID Repeal Bill alongside Senators Antic, Babet, Canavan, Hanson and Rennick, which was introduced into the Senate Wednesday, 26 June 2024.
This Bill aims to repeal the government’s dystopian and ill-conceived Digital ID Bill.
What everyday Australians need is a Bill that protects their privacy, not one that removes it.
The way this Bill was rushed through the Senate without debate was reprehensible and an abuse of Senate process.
COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024
2 years ago I promised to hound down those responsible for the damage our COVID measures caused to Australians.
On Tuesday, in company with Senators Antic, Canavan, Rennick and O’Sullivan, a Bill was introduced to immediately commence a Senate Select Commission of Inquiry into our COVID response. The Terms of Reference in this Bill includes the recommendations from my recent committee inquiry.
I have asked, over multiple estimate sessions, about the approval process for lab-grown meat. While I acknowledge and understand Food Standard Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) need to take their time with this decision, the process seems more about ticking the boxes rather than conducting a serious investigation into the potential health impacts of this Frankenstein food product.
Australia has the highest quality farm produce globally, with the capability to both feed our population and export protein. There is absolutely no need for lab-grown meats. The process of cultivating muscle cells from live cattle via biopsy in a bio-reactor to create meat, bears a resemblance to how cancer cells replicate.
Lab-grown meat has the nutritional value of whatever it has been cultivated in. There’s no chance this product will match the nutritional value and safety of real meat.
One Nation believes that before lab-grown meat is approved, extensive generational testing must be conducted to assess the impact of this product on human cells, including testing for potential damage to reproductive capacity and to the development of cancers – a process known as genotoxicity testing. If such testing were performed on rats (a perfectly valid method), it would have been completed by now. The lack of such testing is alarming and begs the question – why has it not been conducted?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. At last estimates, I asked about genotoxicity of products grown in a bioreactor—lab meat. Your answer on notice—and thank you for providing this—was: ‘There are no safety concerns, including genotoxicity.’ Is that still your position?
Dr Cuthbert: Yes, it is.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your answer doesn’t address my question. I didn’t ask if you had no genotoxicity concerns. I asked, and now repeat: have you received genotoxicity testing on this or a similar product from a suitable jurisdiction?
Dr Cuthbert: I’ll pass to Dr O’Mullane, who is the general manager for risk management and intelligence and is managing the assessment.
Dr O’Mullane: Thank you for the question. If I could just go back to a statement around genotoxicity or carcinogenicity, and that is that the starting material for these types of cell based meat products are cells taken from healthy animals. They are not cancerous cells and they are not cancer cells. They are cells that are harvested from connective tissue, from muscle tissue, from skin tissue. They are then taken into a bioreactor and they are selected. There are natural variants that can live for a reasonable period of time in that bioreactor under very specific and controlled conditions, along with tissue culture media components. Taken outside of that bioreactor, they are not capable of surviving. They are not going to survive food processing activities or cooking; they would certainly not survive through the human digestive tract. So our position very clearly is that the cells that are used in terms of the quail application that we’re currently looking at don’t pose any cancer concerns. They’re not cancerous. That view is held not specifically for these quail cells but certainly in a more general sense via the US Food and Drug Administration who have made statements in this effect and also the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, who provided a report last year around cell cultured foods, and they have made similar statements. To your question on genotoxicity data, I don’t believe that genotoxicity data was provided as part of this application. I will confirm that. So the characterisation of the safety risks are very much around the molecular characterisation of the cells and what is involved with the actual culture media. So we are confident that these cells and the actual products that are generated from those cells aren’t going to pose a human health and safety concern.
Senator ROBERTS: So you have not received genotoxicity testing on this or a suitable product from a suitable jurisdiction?
Dr O’Mullane: I don’t believe we have. But I will confirm that on notice if I may.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How can you say then that you have no genotoxicity testing concerns if you haven’t done or seen genotoxicity testing?
Dr O’Mullane: Based on the points that I’ve already made. It is based on the actual characteristics of the cells. These are entirely normal cells that have been taken out of healthy animals. So there is no plausible reason to consider that they would have any sort of cancer or genotoxicity potential.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re relying upon the FDA in America?
Dr O’Mullane: We are not relying on the FDA. As part of this particular application, certain data have been provided. We are still going through an active process of scientific evaluation which is still running for at least another six months. On the basis of what we have seen to date, we went out with a first public consultation ending in February this year. The risk assessment that we put out very clearly said that there were no human health and safety concerns. If there is any additional information that might be available, either from yourself or others, that could be submitted, we would certainly be happy to look at that and see whether we needed to make any sort of adjustments. But, based on the evidence that we’ve seen to date, we are confident in the safety of this particular cell based quail.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’ve done no genotoxicity testing. What is the state of approval for Vow Group’s application to produce imitation quail meat in a bioreactor for human consumption?
Dr O’Mullane: I mentioned that there was a first public consultation round earlier in the year. We’re due to go out with a second public consultation round in July. Then there will be a period of time where we will evaluate any submissions. That second so-called call for submissions report will include the proposed legal drafting: things like labelling that will appear in the Food Standards Code. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on our legal drafting in terms of its clarity and enforceability. We then go through a period of proposing a so-called approval report for the FSANZ Board to make a decision. At the moment we’re looking at around the end of the year, probably in December. Once the FSANZ Board has made a decision, there’s a 60-day window where that decision is notified to food ministers, who then have the opportunity to call for a review of that decision or not. Following that, if everything goes smoothly, it would be gazetted and then go into food law.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve in embarked on consultation?
Dr O’Mullane: This is considered a major application, so we’re required to undertake two rounds of public consultation. We’ve undertaken one round, and we’re about to take—
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve finished the first round. You’re about to start the second.
Dr O’Mullane: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Then the approvals will continue without any further testing, and, even if you give approval, it will be the subject of the health ministers and the states to object if they want to.
Dr O’Mullane: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Have they got the capacity to do their own testing? They’d be relying on you.
Dr O’Mullane: Yes. They would certainly provide us with very detailed commentary around why they were calling for the FSANZ Board to review its decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Who decides use of the word ‘meat’, which the public rightly associates with an animal product, not a laboratory product?
Dr O’Mullane: In relation to the current quail application, as part of the first public consultation we’ve looked at possible options for labelling and what it may be called. Where we are heading to at the moment is either ‘cell cultured’ or ‘cell cultivated’ quail. Based on the consumer feedback that we’ve had, that seems to be best understood by consumers. In terms of the use of the term ‘meat’, you’re right that there is a specific definition of meat in the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code, which is defined there. But if the term ‘meat’ is used in an accurate context so as not to mislead consumers it could potentially be used in a different context.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean?
Dr O’Mullane: For example, use of the term ‘milk’. Milk is defined in the Food Standards Code, but milk can also be used in the context of soy milk or oat milk. In that context it’s not misleading because consumers generally know that it’s not from an animal, similar to the use of the term ‘beer’ in ginger beer or ‘bread’ in shortbread. It’s around the context of use that we need to look.
Senator ROBERTS: Your reply also states that FSANZ is a member of the World Health Organization’s technical working group on cell based food as well as an OECD expert group on cell based food. Can Australians have confidence this decision is all your own work instead of being guided by foreign commercial interests?
Dr O’Mullane: We’re still going through an active process at the moment. The food hasn’t actually been approved. If it is approved by the FSANZ Board, it will be because there is a scientific weight of evidence supporting the safety and suitability of the cell cultured quail. If it does end up on supermarket shelves, consumers can be confident that that’s the case and that the food will be labelled appropriately so that consumers can understand the true nature of the food and that they can make informed purchasing decisions. Senator ROBERTS: But you’re doing no further testing, including no genotoxicity testing.
Dr O’Mullane: We don’t specifically do testing. We rely on the evidence that the applicant has provided, and there are—
Senator ROBERTS: You rely on the evidence the applicant has provided?
Dr O’Mullane: We rely on the evidence the applicant has provided in the context of the legislative requirements to provide certain information, data and studies. That is supplemented by our own scientific searches of the literature.
Senator ROBERTS: This is a new field, yet you’re relying on regulations or legislation made in this building?
Dr O’Mullane: We’re relying on scientific information. It’s a weight of scientific evidence that will then support the decision one way or the other about whether to permit this cell cultured quail product.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GNJ-VFumDfE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-27 14:45:002024-06-27 15:16:24The Threat From Lab-Grown Meat is Lost on FSANZ
I’ve been closely watching the progress of the Coomera Connector Stage 2 project between the Gold Coast and Brisbane. Original proposals included plans to completely bulldoze sensitive wetlands that were brought to my attention by community members at Eagleby. After the previous Estimates, meeting Minutes revealed that the Queensland Government wanted to advance the environmental approvals through a secret, non-public pathway rather than what’s called a public environment report (PER).
There are still huge environmental impacts from the proposed route, while a suitable alternative is available just a few kilometres away. I’ll be watching for the imminent referral that will detail the full extent of these environmental impacts to the Eagleby community.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. This is about Eagleby and Coomera Connector 2 up in Queensland. Can you please provide an update on any progress of an EPBC referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?
Ms Parry: We can. We’ve just got officials coming to the table.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Mr Edwards: It’s my understanding that we have not yet received a referral for that stage of the Coomera Connector.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s from the Queensland government?
Mr Edwards: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: In the meeting minutes you gave in SQ24-000073, you mention the potential likelihood that the referral would have to be subject to a public environment report—PER. That would be usual for a project with this level of complexity, public interest and controlling provisions. Did Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads preference bypassing the PER and have the project dealt with only by referral information?
Mr Edwards: They don’t actually get to dictate the assessment approach.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s under your authority, is it?
Mr Edwards: That’s right They refer it and we look at things such as complexities you’ve mentioned and determine what we believe is the right assessment approach to take.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any further expectations on when you expect a referral to be made?
Mr Edwards: I’ll just ask my colleague Mr O’Connor-Cox.
Mr O’Connor-Cox: The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads are aware of their obligations and they have indicated to us that they will refer. I can’t give an exact date about when that referral might occur, but my understanding and best guess would be that it would be a matter of weeks.
Senator ROBERTS: Imminent?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: Imminent.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you provide any minutes of any further meetings you’ve had with transport and main roads Queensland on Coomera Connector 2 on notice?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: I can take that on notice. I’m not aware of any further meetings, but I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I can’t be an expert on every topic—none of us can be—so pardon my ignorance, but in the answer you gave in the previous minutes, what’s an offset site and what’s an advanced offset site?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: After a proponent has avoided and mitigated impacts to matters of national environmental significance, there might be still a residual impact, and they’re required to offset that. They go to a site that has comparable values and they protect that site and improve that habitat, to square the ledger if you like, to compensate for the residual impacts that they have.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s an advanced offset site?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: An advanced offset site would be one where they’ve commenced work before the approval is granted and they can then claim credit for the improvements they have made prior to the approval.
Senator ROBERTS: Under what conditions would they start work before approval?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: That would be something that’s before the approval. It wouldn’t be something we condition. They would then do that on their own volition and do so at their own risk, I guess, because they haven’t been granted an approval where we’ve said ‘Yes; that’s the appropriate offset.’
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, so they’re just taking a risk that you will approve it with the right conditions, so they’re starting work early.
Mr O’Connor-Cox: I should add I’m very much talking in the general sense. I haven’t been involved in any of those discussions. It’s likely that discussion was around the prospects or potential rather than us getting involved in any detailed discussions about any actual advanced offset site. But generally that’s how it works.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not raising a flag up the pole for everyone to start work without permission—I can see Mr Knudson shaking his head vigorously.
Mr Knudson: No, advanced offsets don’t have a negative impact. It’s basically taking actions to improve environmental outcomes and then using that, as Mr O’Connor-Cox talked about, to balance the ledger later on. ‘I’ve already done this beneficial action in terms of an offset, therefore any residual impacts can be dealt with by something I’ve already secured in an offset.’ That’s the point of an advance: you’ve done it in advance of the impact.
Inland Rail is a multi-billion dollar project aimed at extending the existing inland railway line that currently runs between Melbourne and Parkes, and up to Brisbane. This will be a combination of existing and new sections of rail. The idea is to have a north south connection between Brisbane and Melbourne that can shift hundreds of thousands of movement from road to rail freight. This line will need to be upgraded to accommodate double-stacked container trains that are 1.8 km long.
One Nation supports rail transport over road transport, but for this to be effective, the rail service must reflect the needs of the industry. This means trains need to depart according to industry schedules, reliable connections need to be maintained, and fair pricing offered. Inland Rail, in its current form, will provide none of those things. The current alignment (route) in QLD takes the line across the Condamine floodplain, which is, quite frankly, a stupid idea. The deep clay soil in that area cannot support a railway line without horrendously expensive supports, which will then act as a dam during a flood. The Brisbane Port access is constrained, meaning the railway line across Brisbane and into the Port is running close to capacity, with no easy way to extend it. The Port of Gladstone offers a much better option. The line can go inland up the Mooney Highway, then through Wandoan to Banana and onwards to Gladstone. This direct, flood-free alignment will provide a cheaper and more reliable transit option.
A new container handling facility is being built in Gladstone, with an intermodal connection to the railway. Gladstone is perfectly positioned to serve as Australia’s gateway port for container traffic from Asia. Best of all, the Port is located away from the city and is strongly supported by local councils. Despite inquiring about this option, it appears the floodplain alignment remains the preferred option. This is not good enough! One Nation will continue to campaign for Inland Rail to run through to the Port of Gladstone.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. I have a number of questions, but I think they’re fairly short and straightforward. Recommendation 1 of the Schott report into the ARTC was to address skills deficiencies in the ARTC. I note that you’ve hired a new chair, Mr Peter Duncan. Has Mr Duncan ever built a railway?
Mr Johnson: Mr Duncan is the chair of the board. His skills go to requisite skills to be able to lead a board and our organisation. He is certainly familiar with long linear infrastructure, the engineering infrastructure. He’s very familiar with that from his prior roles.
Senator ROBERTS: What sort of long—
Mr Johnson: Roads and water. It’s really not a matter for me to comment on the appointment of other directors and Mr Duncan in a role. What I would say is that the board are working really well with myself and holding me to account to make sure we’ve got the requisite skills to operate, maintain and create the network. Further to the recommendations, a key recommendation from Dr Schott’s report and the review was the establishment of the Inland Rail subsidiary and the establishment of the board in parallel. That’s why we sit here today. Nick is the new CEO to Inland Rail. That subsidiary is now fully fledged. They have both a chair and a board in place for the construction of Inland Rail.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate and understand the distinctions between governance, management and trusteeship, if you like. He has not built a railway, but he has done other long infrastructure. The other new senior hire is Dr Collette Burke, who is a qualified engineer. Can you confirm her engineering qualification, please?
Mr Johnson: I know that Collette is an esteemed and qualified engineer, but I don’t have those details in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we get it on notice, please?
Mr Johnson: No problem.
Senator ROBERTS: There are reports—these may be old—that Dr Burke is also contributing to the Marinus Link from Tasmania to Victoria and Snowy Hydro 2.0. At these still current appointments?
Mr Johnson: Like all directors, Collette as a director on the board has made clear what other commitments she has and whether are any conflicts at play. I can confirm that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: So she is still on the other two boards?
Mr Johnson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, has the government made any other appointments to ARTC that address the skills deficiencies identified in the Schott report?
Senator Carol Brown: I don’t have that information with me, but I can take it on notice.
Mr Miller: Of course there’s a secondary board now, the subsidiary board of Inland Rail, whose directors all have extensive infrastructure experience.
Senator ROBERTS: In the earlier discussion on Inland Rail, I asked about what has been called the Goondiwindi to Gladstone alignment. I was advised that this is in the hands of the Queensland government. I find that surprising, when the Commonwealth government is paying for the project. It sounds like the Queensland government is going to decide how the Commonwealth spends the money. The Goondiwindi to Gladstone route is substantially cheaper, and I know there is at least one private partnership trying to get the attention of government with extensive expertise in railroads, freight, construction and shipping. They have money to spend. They’re willing to make a commitment, especially on the Surat Basin link from Moranbah to Banana. I don’t understand why, when the government is juggling budget deficits moving forward, it’s proving so hard to get even a meeting about a public-private partnership happening on this alternative route.
Mr Johnson: Just to be really clear, there are a few things happening there in parallel. Inland Rail Pty Ltd, headed by Nick, are continuing the work around the design of the route that heads over the Toowoomba range to Ebenezer, and working closely with the National Intermodal company on the connection at Ebenezer. That’s what Inland Rail are focused on. I am aware that there is some early business case development for other alternative options—Goondiwindi or Toowoomba to Gladstone—that the Queensland government have had some insight into.
Senator ROBERTS: So both Goondiwindi to Gladstone and Toowoomba to Gladstone are being considered as alternative business cases?
Mr Johnson: I have heard that both are. That’s right. I am acutely aware of the private interest that you’ve mentioned, and we’ve made it clear to the proponent—as we would for anyone who was interested in either developing, adjoining or working around the network, given we’re really the national rail network manager—that, when they get to the point that they’re at an EIS, an environmental impact statement, we’d be happy to support what type of views or impacts that would have, in a practical sense, and suggest what they might consider in that input. We have met, so I’m a little bit lost with the statement that it’s hard to get that meeting.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve already been working with them?
Mr Johnson: We’ve had a couple of meetings about what we can do at different stages, as they progress their development, to offer them whatever practical support we can, as we would for any other adjoining infrastructure manager.
Senator ROBERTS: So would you be willing to meet with a private investor who’s willing to fund the railroad construction from Surat Basin, from Moranbah to Banana?
Mr Johnson: We meet with a number of proponents. That one is a long way from our network, but nationally we’ve met with a number of people who are looking at different things, mostly where it’s connected to our network.
Senator ROBERTS: How about Inland Rail? Would you be willing to meet the investor to consider this?
Mr Miller: We’d be willing to meet to assist with indicative pricing that we have experienced per kilometre. It’s outside our scope in terms of our current remit. We’re going from border to Toowoomba and then down to Kagaru, and that’s where our focus is, around the environmental approvals and land acquisition, at present.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the vast majority of the cost of Inland Rail—from Toowoomba to Brisbane—as I understand it.
Mr Miller: It’s a significant part of Inland Rail. It’s not the vast majority.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We can argue about that at another time. Does the ARTC have any other publicprivate partnerships in place for Inland Rail? By ‘private’, I mean actually contributing private funding to the project.
Mr Johnson: No. The private partnership contract has ceased.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the ARTC have any signed agreements in the Queensland leg of Inland Rail? If so, which?
Mr Miller: Signed agreements?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Miller: With agencies or—
Senator ROBERTS: Any agreements committing Inland Rail to—
Mr Miller: Yes, we do. We have multiple land agreements in place. We are well developed with our environmental approvals.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s for the Toowoomba to Ebenezer route?
Mr Miller: That’s from the border to Toowoomba—the Gowrie route.
Senator ROBERTS: Across the Condamine?
Mr Miller: Across the Condamine. We expect to be in a position to go to public exhibition No. 2 in the last quarter of this year with that EIS approval.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the sunk cost of Inland Rail specifically for the Queensland sections? You can do that on notice.
Mr Miller: I will do that on notice. I can advise the Senate that to date—or to the end of March—we have spent $4.3 billion on the entire program.
Senator ROBERTS: In Queensland?
Mr Miller: No, across the entire program.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could I have the—
Mr Miller: The sunk cost for Queensland?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. The rail line from Ebenezer to the port of Brisbane is constrained. The available capacity on that line does not allow for the volume of freight necessary to ever get the construction costs back. The cost of the tunnel down the mountain is without a doubt $20 million, and it won’t be necessary if the rail line terminates in the port of Gladstone. Are they considerations you’re working on in the back of your mind?
Mr Miller: Our current scope of work is to take double-stack container trains to Ebenezer, and then they are transitioned to single-stack to Kagaru. That’s our scope.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I don’t understand why this economic reality has not been seized upon to reset the planning towards the Goondiwindi to Gladstone route, with freight destined for the airport at Wellcamp coming down from the Miles intermodal to Wellcamp. Are you considering that as part of the alternative?
Mr Miller: We’re not considering an alternative, but what we are considering is getting the environmental approvals and land acquisition to Toowoomba as a priority, and we’re continuing with the Kagaru section, with three EISs concurrently in that space.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware of the massive concerns about the Condamine crossing?
Mr Miller: Yes, we are, and we’ve undertaken very significant hydrological studies. Those studies have been to a flood panel and have been accepted as part of the EIS process.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the foundations for the elevated section of that line, which will be fairly lengthy?
Mr Miller: Yes, there is going to be an elevated section through the Condamine to improve resilience and reliability during flood periods.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the cost?
Mr Miller: We are working through the costs. The costs will be subject to the conditions that, ultimately, the EIS from the Coordinator-General’s office in Queensland puts upon us, plus the timeline, in terms of when that’s going to be built with inflation and the like, and the design and geotech that’s going on. We’re also doing some embankment trials in that area to ascertain what settlement impacts there will be, and what that means from an engineering perspective, so we can more accurately define the cost and scope.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the outcome of this review by ARTC and the Queensland government of the Queensland leg, in my opinion, must lead to the abandonment of the Condamine floodplain crossing of this railway line; otherwise the railway line won’t be built. That’s my opinion. I’d like to know your feedback on that. What are you getting in the way of reassurance from Inland Rail?
Senator Carol Brown: We take our advice from the experts.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they outside Inland Rail or inside?
Senator Carol Brown: Thank you for your view.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you getting experts from inside Inland Rail, as well as outside Inland Rail, especially on the Condamine crossing?
Senator Carol Brown: We get our expert opinions from Inland Rail, as well as our departmental people, but thank you for your view. I’ll pass it on.
The media, Labor, Greens and lobby groups are scared of Nuclear power because it threatens the massive subsidies wind and solar billionaires like Mike Cannon-Brookes, Simon Holmes à Court and Twiggy Forrest are getting from Australians.
With reliable baseload power, there’s little need to tip billions into the wind and solar pipe-dream and that’s the reason they are scared of nuclear and coal.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/zR_-p3lFNJk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-27 13:30:002024-06-27 15:20:19Chris Bowen Says the Quiet Part Out Loud on Nuclear
The government’s lies about how many foreigners are buying houses during a housing crisis are coming back to haunt them.
Firstly, the government claims ‘foreign buyers are barely making a dent in the market’. The truth? 11% of new houses in Australia were bought by foreigners (Q4 2023). Secondly, ‘foreign buyers only go for luxury homes’. Reality: the average price of a home bought by foreigners is almost the exact same as the average house price across capital cities. That means foreign buyers are directly outbidding average Australians for an average house. Thirdly, despite saying the don’t make an impact on the housing crisis, the government is now implementing small fines for vacant homes.
Why does the government go through all of this deflection and lying when they could just take One Nation’s policy: BAN Foreign Ownership completely.
That’s just the problems with foreign ownership of housing! Never mind the next topic I asked about: letting a foreign company takeover Australia’s military warship builder…
Does this government understand anything about putting Australians first?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table the transcript of a broadcast by Ben Fordham. Reporting from radio station 2GB indicates that foreign buyers bought 11 per cent of all new housing stock in this country. How are you letting this many foreign buyers snap up houses out of the hands of Australian homebuyers?
Ms Kelley: As we’ve talked about previously, our latest statistics show that foreign investors purchased around 5,360 houses in the 2022-23 financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s been claimed by some that foreign buyers don’t make a material impact on the average Aussie because they’re only buying trophy homes—$30 million mansions down at Point Piper and so on. Looking at the $5.3 billion for 4,700 properties purchased by foreigners, according to these figures, that’s an average price of $1.1 million. The combined capital cities average median house price is $1 million. Those foreign buyers are actually directly competing in the middle of the market, aren’t they?
Ms Kelley: I should note again that the level of foreign investment in residential real estate is under one per cent of the total purchases that occur in Australia. In terms of residential properties with values under $1 million, that accounted for about 78 per cent of the purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, your government is increasing the fines and fees for foreign buyers of Australian houses. You’re acknowledging that it needs to be controlled. Why don’t you just stop fiddling around and ban foreign ownership of Australian houses altogether, like we’ve advocated, like the Canadians are now doing and like the Kiwis are now doing?
Senator Gallagher: We welcome foreign investment in our country. It plays an important role across our economy. But those changes we have announced to foreign investment, both for the application fees and double vacancy fees, are about ensuring foreign investment aligns with our agenda to lift housing supply. It’s aligning it with the other work we’ve been talking about this morning in Homes for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Working families who are returning home at night to sleep in their car won’t be encouraged by that. But let’s move on. How does the Foreign Investment Review Board treat defence-related companies in its approvals? If a company is producing a defence-related product, how is it treated?
Ms Kelley: The foreign investment review framework takes a case-by-case risk based approach. On 1 May the Treasurer announced a range of reforms to the framework. Under that framework we were very clear about the areas we would scrutinise more strongly. The government has made some decisions around those areas, and we are now actively implementing them.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound like being a part of the defence industry enlivens a specific criterion in your approval process.
Mr Tinning: Yes. If it’s a national security business, which includes defence industries, then it’s subject to a zero-dollar threshold under our framework. So all foreign investment approvals—
Senator ROBERTS: So shipbuilding would be part of that, if they’re building defence vessels?
Mr Tinning: Correct. That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Do the current rules ever allow you to approve the sale of a sovereign defence industry asset to a foreign buyer?
Ms Kelley: That would depend.
Mr Tinning: As Ms Kelley said, it’s on a case-by-case basis, so we would need to see a specific application.
Senator ROBERTS: Why would we ever allow that?
Ms Kelley: As the minister has said, foreign investment is essential to our domestic economy and has been for decades. What the framework does is—we assess every foreign investment application in terms of our national interest and in terms of national security.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the potential sale of Austal to a South Korean bidder, Hanwha, had pretty much fallen off the radar. Then Minister Marles reignited it by saying, ‘I don’t see why there’d be any concerns.’ Does the defence minister’s view factor into your assessment at all—that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem?
Ms Kelley: We take into account a range of factors when foreign investments are assessed, and the national security aspects are very important. We liaise across government for views on the issues associated with a foreign investment application and then the advice is then put forward to the Treasurer for a final decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why would the defence minister say that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem? He’s the defence minister and he’s looking at selling a maker of some of our warships.
Senator Gallagher: I haven’t seen those comments, but the defence minister would be very well briefed on all matters relating to that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to the Treasury after the opposition asks questions.
At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator Watt why Labor is not deporting unsuitable and dangerous non-citizens from Australia. He explained that those who had been in detention could not be deported, citing two distinct groups affected. The first group consisted of approximately 150 detainees released into the community following a recent High Court decision, 29 of which have re-offended since release and include individuals convicted of serious crimes like murder, rape, and child sexual offences.
The second group comprises individuals whose visa cancellations were overturned by the AAT due to issues surrounding the Giles Directive 99 scandal. Despite subsequent visa cancellations for some in this group, there have been no deportations from either cohort since the mishandling by Labor.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. My questions are concise and straightforward, and I hope the answers will be similar. In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?
Mr M Thomas: All of the releases from detention that we’re talking about with NZYQ were as a result of the new High Court test set in that case around the real prospect of removal from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 37 of these men released into the community have a history of sexually offending, including against children?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April 2024, 39 of those individuals did have a previous conviction for sexually based offending.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that seven of these men were convicted of either murder or attempted murder?
Mr M Thomas: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 72 of these men had convictions for assault or violent offending, armed robbery or kidnapping?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April that number is 73.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of these released detainees have now illegally reoffended?
Mr M Thomas: I believe the deputy commissioner answered that question earlier today.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the number?
Ms Holben: 29.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What offences have been included in the range of charges, including the senior citizen brutally bashed and allegations of a sexual predator being active here?
Mr Outram: We did provide that evidence before the lunch break.
Senator Watt: We went through that in some detail before the lunch break.
Senator ROBERTS: You are aware of Mr Emmanuel Saki, a Sudanese man who was recently released from immigration detention. He has just been charged with the murder of another man here on 12 May this year. That was two weeks ago. Are you aware of that?
Ms Foster: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s now being done to deport these men?
Senator Watt: You’re mixing together a couple of different categories of people here.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want them here.
Senator Watt: I’d point out to start with that, for all 153, I think it is, people who were released from detention as a result of the High Court decision, the government actually had those people in detention for a reason. We don’t want them roaming the streets either, but the High Court has made a decision and we are bound by the law.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you deport these men?
Senator Watt: For starters, as we have gone through before, there are a range of protections in place for the Australian community surrounding these people, such as electronic bracelets, curfews and a range of other requirements that no government has ever imposed on a cohort released from detention. Obviously, in relation to the NZYQ cohort, the government is in the process of applying for preventative detention orders, which would effectively see those people returned to detention. Before the lunch break, there were some questions about where that was up to. That’s the NZYQ cohort.
Senator ROBERTS: But there has been nothing done to deport them?
Senator Watt: No. I would say that one of the reasons is that the reason for the High Court decision is that the High Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of those people being deported, because, for example, they were stateless. They don’t have citizenship in any country. It is not legally possible to deport them. Again, I’m paraphrasing. Officials can jump in if I explain some of this incorrectly. That’s the reason why those people haven’t been deported. That’s the reason why they are now not in detention but subject to all those other protections.
Senator ROBERTS: All of the 150-odd are stateless?
Senator Watt: I don’t think all of them are, but there were other reasons that it’s not possible to deport them. The officials might be able to explain it to you.
Mr M Thomas: It might be because we have protection obligations for them. It could be because they’re stateless. It might be because there are issues with identifying their identity or their country of origin. All of that culminates in there being no real prospect of their removal from Australia in the foreseeable future.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you asked about the Saki case. That is a separate situation. As far as I’m aware, Mr Saki is not one of the NZYQ cohort. He was someone who had come to Australia and was given a visa at some point along the line. The government cancelled his visa because of character issues or criminal offences—whatever the reasons were. He appealed that decision to the AAT. The AAT overturned the decision to cancel his visa. He was therefore—
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is that because of any influence of Minister Giles’s directive 99?
Senator Watt: We’ve spent the best part of two days discussing this. What I have been saying is that the direction that Minister Giles gave did ask government decision-makers and the AAT to take into account the length of time someone had been here in Australia—
Senator ROBERTS: And their ties.
Senator Watt: but not at the expense of the seriousness of their offending. But the AAT has done what it has done, and for that case and other cases they have overturned the government’s decision to cancel those visas, despite the fact the government, in the AAT, argued for the cancellation of those visas. Now Mr Saki’s visa has been cancelled by the minister, and he is seeking urgent advice from the department about the range of other cases that have come to light in the last couple of days.
Chair: I don’t want to be too hardline about this, because I know that there are different sections of the department that deal with both of these issues, but, Senator Roberts, just for your information, we have moved on to outcome 3. I know that there might be some crossover and that the department will seek to answer your questions when they can. We did have extensive questioning about outcome 2 from yesterday onwards. We’re now in outcome 3. If that needs to be clarified at the table for senators, then, if you can, assist Ms Foster when questions arise. I know dealing with the different cohorts is difficult, but we’ll do our best to try to keep on track in that way. Senator Roberts, have you got a question?
Senator ROBERTS: Was the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 simply to ensure incarceration as an alternative to being detained for these men?
Senator Watt: Again, I might begin the answer and let officials explain further. The removals legislation, which the government has introduced and which has not yet been passed by the Senate and which the opposition has not agreed to pass yet, is for a different purpose. It was to deal with a different gap in our legal system. So maybe officials could pick up at that point with some more detail.
Ms Foster: There were two primary purposes to the removals bill. The first was to give us the power to compel people who had exhausted all legal avenues of remaining in Australia to cooperate with their removal so that people couldn’t frustrate our efforts to remove them—by, for example, refusing to fill out applications or come to interviews—and to make it an offence should they not do that. The second element of the bill was to allow us to declare countries who frustrated our attempts to return their nationals to them countries of removal concern and to enable us to take actions about how we manage applications to come to Australia from those countries.
Senator ROBERTS: Surely, Minister, there was a way that the government could’ve addressed this issue before the decision in NZYQ was handed down. Why didn’t you?
Senator Watt: The High Court’s decision in NZYQ essentially went in a different direction to what the law in Australia had always been.
Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t pre-empt that at all.
Senator Watt: Look, we’ve gone over this at length in previous estimates hearings.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on to border security then. Why is our border security policy being made on the run? For example, why has the number of surveillance flights by Border Force of our northern borders by aircraft been reduced over the last year?
Senator Watt: Can I just say one thing. Of course, I don’t accept the proposition that our border security policy is being made on the run. We have increased funding for Border Force and border security to a level that no government has ever provided, and Admiral Sonter, in his role heading up Operation Sovereign Borders, has pointed out that—I can’t remember the exact words—essentially, there has been no change to the policy settings for Operation Sovereign Borders. But the officials can talk to you about surveillance flights.
Mr Outram: Specific to surveillance flights, I have Deputy Commissioner Dale with me. There has been a reduction in hours flown. That has been for two reasons. The first is persistent mechanical issues with the fleet of Dash 8s that the Border Force has. The second, with the contractor that we employ, is their ability to bring on pilots. There’s a global shortage of pilots, and they’re affected by that. I might hand over to Deputy Commissioner Dale to give you more details.
Ms Dale: The commissioner has flagged that there has been a reduction in flying hours this year and the commissioner has already outlined the causes. I think the rear admiral will go to the point that, notwithstanding the reduction in hours that we have had in the Australian Border Force, aerial surveillance has been maintained to the standard he requires—fortunately, through the augmentation of flights through the Australian Defence Force.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that signalling a decrease in hours flown in the future, then, if it meets the standard? Or is it going to be that, in the future, standards are changed?
Ms Dale: No. We’re working very closely with the provider to better understand the barriers. The commissioner has spoken to the issue around crew. There is a global shortage of crew for the fixed-wing aircraft that we’re operating. It’s also true that from time to time we have mechanical issues that are reasonably frequent with any sort of piece of machinery, so they can sometimes be a factor.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the reduction in hours flown a reason for the recent increase in the number of successful arrivals into Australian waters of foreign people smugglers and their human cargo?
Rear Adm. Sonter: There’s no direct correlation there. On a regular basis, I look at what is the threat and risk, and I adjust the posture accordingly. As Kaylene Dale indicated, one of the beauties about this role and the coordination role is that I have both ABF and Australian Defence Force assets to pull on for this mission. While she’s articulated the decrease from the ABF funded actual air surveillance, we’ve increased the ADF air surveillance to ensure that we have an enhanced posture in the north-west.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it the soft policy of Labor Party governments in the past, enticing people smugglers to be prepared to risk the boat and cargo for such rich profits as a full boat of paying passengers for the Aussie Express?
Senator Watt: No. Never has been and never will be.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware, Minister, that Australians now feel unsafe personally in their own country due to this failed migration policy? We’ve got boats arriving, we’ve got people who are murdering people.
Senator Watt: I’m sure there are some people in Australia who feel unsafe. What I can say is that this government is spending more money on border security than we’ve ever done before. Unlike certain others, including people in the room, we are not running down and disparaging our border security policies—which is an incentive to people smugglers—and we are taking action to deal with court decisions that are not of the government’s making and that the government opposed.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t quoting of spending more money just a lazy way of saying you’re trying to do something? I look at your energy policy and never before have we spent so much money and we see the highest price of electricity.
Chair: Senator Roberts, that is not relevant to this instance.
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that money does not equate to success.
Senator Watt: You might say that spending $569.4 million more in this year’s budget on things like more boats, planes and unmanned vehicles for Operation Sovereign Borders is lazy. I wouldn’t put it that way.
An independent audit office found that the Government’s Climate Change Department can’t prove how much by, or even if, their policies are affecting the climate.
In my opinion, it’s all a scam designed to transfer money out of the pockets of Australians to wealthy billionaires, while doing nothing with a measurable impact on the environment.
It’s time to abandon the net-zero pipe dream, which has no accountability and zero ability to demonstrate its effect on anything. Thankfully we still have a handful of independent agencies like the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) who are prepared to provide an objective analysis of the government spin.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. I want to ask about the performance audit report you did on governance of climate change commitments for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. You concluded in paragraph 12:
DCCEEW reports annually on progress towards targets, however are unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian Government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction.
I asked the department about your conclusion in estimates in February and again yesterday. I’m not sure if you saw that. Did you see it?
Ms Mellor: No.
Senator ROBERTS: They were very forceful in saying that they didn’t agree with your conclusion, and they maintain they do measure the specifics. Can you please elaborate on exactly what you found in terms of the specific policies and programs measurement?
Ms Mellor: Yes. I think we’ve got the relevant audit leader here to do that for you. Ms Horton: As you’ve correctly characterised, within the overall conclusion, we concluded that DCCEEW, or the department, do measure—broadly and overall—Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, but we weren’t able to determine the specific contribution that individual Australian government programs made towards that. So it was reported overall, but that further breakdown below.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not trying to put words into your mouth. I’m just trying to confirm my own understanding and clarify. They have a number that represents what they estimate to be Australia’s overall greenhouse gas production, but they cannot tell anyone what specific contributions from various sectors or various—
Ms Horton: They do do a breakdown of various sectors, and that’s in ‘International’ under broad reporting that we provide, and that’s provided there. There have been a number of new measures and additional measures that have been announced under the government. We could see some of those had the specific measures broken down underneath but not all of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any specific measures or are they projections based upon calculations?
Ms Horton: They’re projections.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding around the world.
Ms Horton: They have projections where they’re looking forward to what we are aiming towards achieving, and they also report on what we have. So they do both.
Senator ROBERTS: But again, they’re are not direct measurements because it’s very hard to directly measure carbon dioxide coming out of any—
Ms Horton: There is that broad process we have in our international reporting arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Who seeks audits? I’ve been through this before, but I can’t remember. Who asks you to do an audit?
Ms Mellor: Nobody. People can, but the Auditor-General can’t be directed to do an audit.
Senator ROBERTS: No, no.
Ms Mellor: We develop a forward work program. We’re required to consult with the parliament. That’s managed through the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The Auditor-General’s required to take into account that committee’s view of priorities. My understanding is that that committee writes to other committees and gets views about what’s on the mind of those committees as priorities for audit. Individual members of parliament sometimes write and seek an audit.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve done that, and we’re very happy with the way we were treated.
Ms Mellor: The program is really at the discretion of the Auditor-General. In deciding to undertake an audit, we do look at the coverage across the sector. We look at the sorts of activities that are being undertaken, whether it’s service delivery or asset management, procurement, grants administration et cetera. And then we have to look at our capacity to do it. Do we have enough people with enough skill in the particular area? Do we need to supplement the skill from elsewhere? So it is all at the discretion of the Auditor-General, and we do seek to get coverage across the sector of a wide variety of policy and program areas.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re continuing your predecessor’s fine habit of being very clear in your answers, so thank you.
Ms Mellor: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Is size or potential impact of an error in a department one of the factors for consideration that you would use? In other words, if there’s a huge cost that may be incurred as a result of a mistake in that department, would that be a consideration?
Ms Mellor: We do take into account risk in different areas, in activities of the public sector. Risk can manifest itself in the size of expenditure, but we also do small things because they’re important and they also provide information to the parliament as well as an opportunity for the public sector to learn from our work.
Senator ROBERTS: So risk is a consideration?
Ms Mellor: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re minimising risk—or exposure—to taxpayers.
Ms Mellor: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s your response to the department rejecting your conclusion that they can’t demonstrate the specific effect of these policies?
Ms Jago: We actually included in the report at the end of appendix 1 our response to the department’s response to us, where we outlined why we came to a different conclusion than what the department outlined in their response.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the number of that appendix?
Ms Mellor: It’s in appendix 1. Ms Jago: It’s at the very end of appendix 1. There isn’t actually a paragraph number. It’s headed ‘ANAO comment on Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water response’.
Senator ROBERTS: This is important. I’m going to come back to something in a minute. This is discussing understanding or measuring—no, it’s understanding; it’s not measuring, because it can’t be measured—overall emissions reduction. I’m going to come back to another point later that is separate from your report. In the meantime, it’s important to actually know how policies are or aren’t affecting measurable outcomes. Is it right to assume that that’s why you focused on this issue in your report? If not, what was the reason?
Ms Mellor: It’s typical for us to look at a program. In this case it was a set of activities that are done by the department of climate change et cetera. Then we generally look at the governance, the activity and then the monitoring of the activity. So reporting on the success of a set of activities or an activity is typically what we do, in looking at whether or not the expenditure—the activity—is meeting the outcomes required. It’s not unusual for us to have a criterion that says, ‘Is this being monitored and reported effectively?’
Senator ROBERTS: But you’ll go beyond that and look at the overall governance of the monitoring and everything.
Ms Mellor: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: If the actual specific effect of policies isn’t being measured, then surely it’s very difficult to measure success or failure, and that’s what your report found—that the department can’t demonstrate those specific effects.
Ms Mellor: Our report found, as I think Ms Horton has said, that we couldn’t see that line of sight across each of the measures that it was monitoring and about what the measurement showed.
Senator ROBERTS: Now I’d like to come back to what I foreshadowed a minute ago. There are two measurements that should be in place, I believe. One is the measurement of the amount of carbon dioxide produced from human activity. That’s one thing. But then surely we should be measuring the effect of that carbon dioxide from human activity on a climate variable such as temperature, snowfall, ocean temperature or whatever. Do you see what I’m getting at?
Ms Mellor: I can, but it wouldn’t be for me to comment on a government policy on those things, no matter who the government is. It’s our job to audit whether or not people are doing, within that policy, what they said they would do. It wouldn’t be for me to strain to what’s appropriate policy or what’s appropriate measurement. It’s whether or not what’s in the policy is being delivered and being measured.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me just check my understanding there again, Ms Mellor. If the policy said that the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity is this quantity and we need to therefore cut the production of carbon dioxide by this quantity, then you would measure or assess both. But, if they don’t have one of them in there, then you’ll only measure what’s in the policy.
Ms Mellor: It’s very hard to speculate. In a government policy, we would look at how it’s being implemented; whether the implementation is being monitored; what the monitoring shows; and, if there was an outcome overarching that, how that measurement contributes to that outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want to engage in a conversation, because that’s not correct nor appropriate for Senate estimates. It strikes me, though, that to be able to have a policy on emissions reduction you need to have the specific effect of those emissions on some climate variable: temperature, rainfall, snowfall, drought, storms or whatever. Then you measure against that. Without that specific effect quantified, it would be impossible to actually assess different alternatives to implementation, different strategies, and would be impossible to assess or track progress towards achievement of the goals. Am I on the right track?
Ms Mellor: The ANAO can only audit what’s in front of it. If we go in to audit something of that broad nature, we have to look at what’s in place, how it’s being managed, how it’s being reported and whether that meets the outcome—and not whether the outcome is right.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. In your work for various departments, has anyone specified the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate or any part of climate?
Ms Mellor: It’s not something we’ve audited, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
Ms Mellor: Not specifically.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think so, because no-one has been able to tell me that amount.
Ms Mellor: Not specifically that we’ve audited.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
Ms Mellor: We haven’t specifically audited in that space.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/rTzJ5Eyv_RI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-24 18:20:042024-06-24 18:20:34What is Civil Disobedience and Is There a Time for It?
