COVID Jab Injury Compensation Scheme Scam Exposed

,

I confronted government with the story of a woman who has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars after being vaccine injured. The payout under the scheme was just a measly $4,000 when the claimant could show she’d clearly lost a 100 times more than that. Government mandated the jab, coerced millions more into getting it and now won’t compensate people for life-changing injuries.

It’s why the COVID Royal Commission must also investigate the injury compensation scheme to get to the truth of why big-pharma bureaucrats are being allowed to deny victims their rightful compensation.

Transcript | Part 1

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just got one question really. It is made up of components. Could I table this document? It’s a matter from a constituent.  

CHAIR: You can circulate it. The committee will have to consider it before it’s tabled.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to ask about a particular deed of settlement that you have offered— vaccine claim—offered under the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme. A woman has been in contact with my office and she has given me permission to talk about her case. She has written a letter summarising what is going on. It is redacted to remove personal identification. I want to be able to table the summary she has made of the impact the injury has had on her life. All of the identifying details have been redacted. So I’ll table the summary. I’ll also provide your internal reference number, that’s ARN6176-1Z-CV. To summarise, she was diagnosed with myocarditis and chronic fatigue after getting the injection. It has completely changed her life. It has completely ruined her ability to work as a lawyer with very high earning potential. It has practically made her bedridden for 17 months. And all you’ve offered her is $4,000. She has paid far more than that in medical bills and lost potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential earnings. Yet, in your assessment, you’ve provided zero dollars for lost income in the past and zero dollars for lost income in the future—zero. This is an open-and-shut case of injuries flowing from the COVID-19 injections. She was a well-credentialled person with high earning potential and all you have offered her is crumbs when she can show she has lost nearly $400,000. How can you be so heartless? And how can you make an assessment of zero lost income, past or future, when she has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars? She’s quoting cardiologists, and it has all been proven to be due to the COVID injections.  

CHAIR: Sorry, Senator ROBERTS, what was the question you are posing—and to whom.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can you be so heartless and how can you make an assessment of zero lost income, past or future, when she has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars?  

CHAIR: The question is regarding the assessment?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Faichney: So the question is regarding the amount that has been provided?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. And how did you come to that amount?  

CHAIR: How that amount was determined, I believe.  

Senator ROBERTS: And is it structural—embedded—in the COVID claims scheme?  

Ms Faichney: The agency administers the vaccine claims scheme, as you know, on behalf of the Department of Health and Aged Care, which sets the policy, including the parameters around which the payment is calculated. It is based on a range of factors, including the impact on the individual and what they can demonstrate. The figure itself will be a result of those calculations. It doesn’t necessarily go to a person’s lost income; that’s my understanding.  

Senator ROBERTS: So what does it cover?  

Mr Moon: Principally, the scheme covers out-of-pocket expenses.  

Senator ROBERTS: Those haven’t even been met.  

Mr Moon: I couldn’t talk about individual cases. What I can say is that there are a few different parts to the process. The first part of the process is a prima facie assessment of eligibility to the scheme. Services Australia staff would assess things such as confirming that the person has received a vaccine and confirming that there is some manner of out-of-pocket expense. There is a secondary process with our tier 2 and 3 claims and optional with their tier 1 claims, where a medical expert may be referred to have a look at the claim, to have a look at other factors, where our staff don’t have the specialist expertise or where it’s not our role. There is a third part of the process for tier 2 and 3 claims where there is loss over $20,000 or where someone has passed away—where it goes for legal counsel advice as well. I can talk a little bit more, if it’s helpful, about the process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like to know is why she isn’t being compensated. It’s a vaccine injury compensation scheme. It’s not compensating her for her lost income, her future lost income or even her medical expenses to date. What is it covering for this woman? She’s lost her livelihood.  

Ms Faichney: All we can say is exactly what we’ve already iterated, which is that the policy itself is set by the Department of Health and Aged Care, and our officers will apply that policy. If the individual is concerned with the result of their claim, they are able to request a review of the decision. If there is additional information that possibly hasn’t been taken into account, we can certainly look to provide that.  

Senator ROBERTS: If we take this woman’s story, it looks like what you’re doing is running a cover-up scheme that has no interest in compensating people for what they actually have lost after a COVID injection. That’s being blunt, and I can’t come to any other conclusion.  

CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, this is a process of questions and answers. If you are seeking to put a question to the officials, I’ll allow you to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where do I go next? Where does this woman go next?  

Ms Faichney: I think the department of health is up in the next couple of days. You could raise commentary there. You’ve given us the claim, and we can certainly have a look, but I would suggest that the individual would need to advise the agency if they would like to have a review of the decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Transcript | Correction of Previous Statement

CHAIR: The committee will now resume. I will be passing the call to the opposition and then Senator Roberts.  

Mr Hazlehurst: If it’s okay, with your permission, we just wanted to correct one thing from the earlier evidence that was given.  

CHAIR: Of course.  

Ms Faichney: My comments in response to Senator Roberts, in reflecting on them, I think, just to remove all doubt and to be very clear about what losses can be compensated under the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme: the scheme can provide compensation for various past and future losses, including out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, care services, and pain and suffering.  

CHAIR: Thank you very much. 

Transcript | Part 2

Senator ROBERTS: I want to return to my earlier line of questioning. In answers to my previous questions about that correspondence with a constituent who had been given $4,000 in response to a vaccine injury claim, you said, ‘The department of health sets the parameters for the scheme.’ Is that correct?  

Ms Faichney: The policy is set by the Department of Health and Aged Care.  

Senator ROBERTS: So Services Australia assesses against those parameters. Is that correct?  

Mr Moon: Yes.  

Ms Faichney: We assess against the policy, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The claim comes in, and you look at the parameters and the policy settings set by the department of health. Who looks at the evidence and makes a determination?  

Ms Faichney: We have a number of panels that we refer to. I think we’ve had this conversation in estimates previously—that our officers in the agency will do an initial assessment as to base eligibility. They will do their first assessment as to whether it’s a vaccine that’s recognised and whether the damage or the injury being claimed is consistent with what the policy says can be claimed for that one. They will double-check that it’s not a person who might be known for doing fraudulent things. They’ll do all that base stuff to begin with and say, ‘Okay, this looks like a claim that we will now process in the system and keep going.’  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s now acceptable to look into the medical or whatever—  

Ms Faichney: That’s right. Depending on what tier they’re claiming or where they’re going, we may engage medical experts, which tend to be through the TGA or through the department of health. Then, depending also on what they’re asking—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. Did you say ‘medical experts through the TGA’?  

Ms Faichney: Yes—or the department of health, yes. Then, depending on what they’re also requesting, we may send it on for legal advice as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it depends on the nature of the claim.  

Ms Faichney: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: For Services Australia internal reference number—I gave it to you before—ARN6176- 1Z-CV, there is a deed-of-settlement line item stipulating loss of income. Why would a value of nil against income loss be assessed when she lost close to $400,000?  

Ms Faichney: We would not discuss the specifics of cases regarding what the claim is that they’ve put forward. We can talk about the outcome. They’ve obviously been assessed and found to have out-of-pocket losses of $4,000, based on the comment you made earlier as to the amount.  

Senator ROBERTS: If it meets your parameters or guidelines set by the department of health, is income loss a factor that’s considered?  

Mr Moon: Yes.  

Ms Faichney: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are expenses and reimbursement considered?  

Mr Moon: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is projected future income loss considered?  

Mr Moon: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t discuss this with me now—and I understand that—but how can this person have a review of the ruling?  

Mr Moon: There’s a process that I understand is outlined in the correspondence with all claimants that outlines people’s review and appeal rights.  

Senator ROBERTS: How would someone with $400,000 in documented losses be assessed and given $4,000?  

Mr Moon: It would be difficult to comment on that without going into individual cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any way we can intervene in it?  

Mr Moon: Senator, we will always look into anything that’s raised with us in estimates or through correspondence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you very much. 

Tabled Document | Outline of Events from Vaccine Injured Constituent

TabledDocDownload
/5 Comments/by

“Catching up on immigration” Lie Exposed

,

There are 500,000 more temporary visa holders (migrants) in the country than before COVID. That’s an extra 200,000 homes needed just to cater for those arrivals.

Whenever I ask government about their flood of immigration, they claim we’re “just catching up” after the COVID lull. The reality is, temporary visa holders in the country has gone from 2.3 million to 2.8 million.

That’s not a catch up – that’s a new record. While the Treasury Secretary claims they got immigration forecasts wrong by 24%, I cover in a separate video that they actually got it wrong by 120%.

Cutting immigration isn’t enough. We need to start telling temporary visa holders to leave. We won’t get cheaper rent and cheaper houses until this is done.

Only One Nation has the guts to do it and put Australians first.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to do with immigration numbers. I want to know whether Treasury got it wrong or if the government isn’t telling us the truth, basically. I’m not going to ask you to decide! Right up and down our coast—and we’ve got a very long coastline in Queensland—we’ve got thousands of people without houses. We’ve got working families going home to their car to sleep. And we’re a wealthy state. There is a statement that has often been made by the government in relation to its high immigration—that we’re just catching up. Pre-COVID, the number of temporary visa holders in the country was roughly 2.3 million. It’s now at 2.8 million. That is 500,000 more people in the country. A lot of them will need a house. We haven’t just caught up; there is a record number of temporary visa holders in the country, isn’t there?  

Dr Kennedy: I did some numbers in my opening statement. They’re a little different to yours, but, certainly, the current number was similar. The earlier number that you cited was a bit lower. I’ll find it in a moment. But it has been the case that Treasury significantly underestimated the recovery in temporary visa holders—I pointed that out in my opening statement—in the order of nearly 25 per cent. That is, frankly, poor performance on our behalf. We simply underestimated how many students would flow back into our universities and our higher education sector more broadly, and students were the most significant part of that increase. I just want to add that it’s an incredibly important sector, generating—I possibly won’t have the number quite right—over $8 billion, from memory, in export services. I’ll confirm that number for you. On the question ‘did Treasury get the numbers wrong?’ yes. Temporary migration recovered from the pandemic much more rapidly than we anticipated. It was predominately driven by students. The other thing that’s happened is that they came for the first year of their course and now will stay for three years. Normally we’d have a pattern of the first years coming and the fourth years leaving. We haven’t got that at the moment because they left during COVID. So we’ve got this quite substantial inflow. And, overall, the numbers as you described have comfortably recovered the levels that we were at pre the pandemic.  

Senator ROBERTS: And exceeded. 

/5 Comments/by

Coalition Firmly Backs eSafety Commissioner

Liberal Shadow Minister for Communications, David Coleman, on Insiders on Sunday 9 June 2024.

The eSafety Commissioner still has the full support of Dutton’s Coalition. In fact, they’re proud of establishing Julie Inman Grant’s position.

Don’t expect any respect for freedom of speech from Labor, or Liberals if they’re returned to Government.

You can only trust One Nation to stand against the tyrants who want to tell Australians what they can and can’t see, or say.

/1 Comment/by

Small Businesses Ripped Off by Loan Sharks

,

Reports indicate loan sharks are ripping off small businesses, charging them up to 140% interest on loans through a number of loopholes on our regulations. The contracts are often impossible to understand and leave mum and dad shops struggling to keep their head above water.

I asked the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (ASBFEO) about this wave of dodgy activity and to see what he was hearing in complaints from businesses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. Firstly, I want to thank you for always being a very clear and articulate advocate for the small businesses in this country. Without them, this country dies. I think many people forget that. Is the ombudsman aware of the recent ABC coverage of small businesses who have suffered when entering business loans?  

Mr Billson: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to elaborate on some of the key protections that are afforded to consumer borrowers under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act?

Mr Billson: I was a bit worried that after your opening sentence there’d be a ‘however’—thankfully, not.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. There’s no ‘however’.  

Mr Billson: A lot of small business borrowings aren’t covered by those consumer protections. There is a set of arrangements about diligence and a capacity to repay. To put it simply, a lot of small businesses borrow with the aim to change their circumstances, whereas the consumer framework looks at capacity to service. Having said that, there are then codes that sit around it—the banking code—and there’s a code subcommittee particularly focused on small and agribusiness lending. AFCA is involved as well, where the lender has agreed to be bound by the AFCA scheme, so where a dispute or a grievance arises they can go to AFCA.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is consumer?  

Mr Billson: No, this is specifically about small business. And then we deal with what I call fringe financiers. There are quite a number of financiers who are outside the AFCA framework that can behave quite appallingly, and we try and seek a resolution to those circumstances, mindful we have no powers to direct a particular outcome. 

Senator ROBERTS: Which of the key protections that are afforded to consumer borrowers are not available to small business borrowers?  

Mr Billson: There’s the responsible lending provision—capital ‘r’, capital ‘l’—where there’s a duty to look at expenditure patterns and the like for consumers. Those things aren’t expressly required of lenders to a small business. Some apply a similar framework. There are certain diligence expectations, and then there are safeguards and protections captured by the banking code.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of small business borrowers paying effective interest rates up to 140 per cent?  

Mr Billson: We are aware of some examples. We’ve had other examples where punitive penalties have been applied. We’ve even had examples where some borrowers have approached a broker to look at finance options, not proceeded with the arrangement and then the broker’s introduced them to a lender that’s had quite extraordinary terms and conditions, and, even though they haven’t proceeded with that interest in accessing finance, the financier has then said, ‘Here’s a several thousand dollar bill you can pay, and if you don’t pay that, we’ll put a caveat on your home.’ Some of that outrageous conduct, we raised through FRAG, the Federal Regulatory Agency Group—a group that I chair, looking at various regulators and what can be done about these things for those people that sit outside things like the AFCA scheme and aren’t responsive to the banking code and other safeguards. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of small businesses taking out high-interest business loans because of tax debts? Can you comment on that? 

Mr Billson: I saw reports of that. If I could check with Ms Collins—I don’t believe we’ve had any particular cases of that character, but we are aware of reports of it. We are also aware that a number of small businesses are feeling very distressed about the return to more regular tax debt recovery activities by the ATO. We also work closely with the Small Business Debt Helpline. Interestingly, 30 per cent of the small businesses seeking help from the Small Business Debt Helpline have been in business for more than 10 years, so there’s something happening, and it’s some of the headwinds I pointed to in my opening remarks, which I understand are being circulated. 

Senator ROBERTS: In your experience in assisting small businesses, can you offer a view on what would be the consequences for small-business borrowers if the National Consumer Credit Protection Act were extended to cover small-business loans? 

Mr Billson: My concern would be that it may further limit access to credit at a time when too many small businesses already explain that they have difficulty accessing the finance that they need. Finance is the oxygen of enterprise, and if we make it too hard to get, the consequence is that we constrain that economic activity. A number of other mechanisms provide some safeguards—the Australian Banking Association has lodged a proposal for a revised banking code. We’re very active in trying to make sure that has appropriate safeguards in it for small-business borrowers. The other part of our concern is about lenders who operate outside those more established channels, and that’s more often the type of matter that’s raised with our organisation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, I appreciate your succinctness. 

/2 Comments/by

Government Doesn’t Care if Subcontractors are Ripped Off!

,

It appears the government takes the position that if a subcontractor gets ripped off by a company engaged by a government agency, it’s not their problem. I’ve been asking the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) about a particular historical case where a subcontractor was ripped off by a construction company on their project and can’t get compensation. If their response is that it’s a matter for the construction company, even if that company rips off their subcontractors, it wouldn’t be a good enough response.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Smith, Senator Roberts is committee hopping. To assist him with that—I’ll give you the call, Senator Roberts, if you’re ready to go.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I am. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here tonight. I’d like to return to the historical case of Garners Plumbing. I appreciate that I’m going back a while here to question on notice BI-52 from November 2022. I appreciate the detail you gave in your answer to that question. As a reminder, ANSTO engaged Watpac for the design and construction of your nuclear medicine production facility. Watpac subcontracted Garners Plumbing for hydraulic and plumbing works. There were variations to the scope of work to make it compliant with standards, but Garners Plumbing has never been able to get compensation for those variations, in large part because the failure of Watpac to pay in the first place put them in a precarious position. Your answer is that because you didn’t have a contract with Garners—you only had a contract with Watpac—it’s got nothing to do with you. It was your project, though. Don’t you feel some responsibility to investigate and make sure the subcontractors on your projects are treated fairly by the prime contractor? 

Mr Jenkinson: I have to say that I’m not aware of that situation, and I might have to take that question on notice in terms of the situation and what happened. I don’t have a full understanding.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d appreciate a full answer, so I’m fine with that. So that you’re aware, the situation caused millions of dollars in losses to what I understand is a relatively small operator which has financially sunk due to the compounding effects of it. I’d also like to know whether or not you have some sense of duty to subcontractors that are engaged on your projects.  

Mr Jenkinson: What I can say is that, in terms of understanding how we pay operators that we work with, we behave in the most appropriate way in terms of the speed at which we pay people. I’m not aware of the relationship with that particular subcontractor and, again, I’d have to take that question on notice to give a fuller answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it’s not you who should be paying them; it’s Watpac who should have paid them, and Watpac—  

Mr Jenkinson: That would be my understanding, but I’m not aware of the relationship with Watpac and what happened.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could take that on notice, too, I’d like to know how you see your sense of responsibility.  

Mr Jenkinson: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. What do you have in place that ensures that, for your future projects, if a subcontractor has a complaint they’re able to raise it with you?

Mr Jenkinson: Again, I would have to take on notice what our procurement policy is and how we take those details, but there certainly is an opportunity for people to contact us, and we would obviously take account of any information people send to us. But I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If you could, tell me what it is now, whether or not you think it’s adequate for preventing a recurrence of something like this and, if it’s not adequate, then what you would do to make sure it is.  

Mr Jenkinson: Certainly, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.  

/by

Yoga Teachers Prioritised Over Tradies for Immigration Flood

,

With 520,000 net arrivals in one year, we’re now being told that yoga teachers will be prioritised over tradies to be let in the country.

Despite telling Australians immigration is necessary for skilled workers to build homes, the truth has emerged that yoga teachers (including up to 1,800 Indian yoga teachers, weirdly specific) and dog handlers appear on the priority skills list while not a single construction trade does.

If you ever needed proof the immigration program is a Ponzi scheme, just look at the fact that yogis and dog walkers are getting priority over construction workers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’ll be very brief in my questioning. Was the department consulted at all on the draft core skills visa list that prioritises immigration for yoga teachers, martial arts instructors and dog handlers above construction tradespeople?  

Ms James: Senator, I appreciate you weren’t in the room, but we had quite a lot of questioning about this earlier today. We have answered that question, and the answer is, no, we weren’t consulted in relation to that. It’s not our role to provide input in that way. Jobs and Skills Australia, which is an independent agency, has been in a consultation process about those lists, and it’s important to emphasise that they are all still in draft form.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think I pointed that out—yes, draft core skills. I want to ask about the trade support loan eligibility list. Is anyone here familiar with that?  

Ms Campbell: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand leather production and saddlery were not on that list and that the government is not accepting it as an apprenticeship that can lead to work in the agricultural sector, which would make it eligible. We’re talking about saddles here; they go on horses and they get used in agriculture, so it seems like a pretty clear link. Can you tell me if leather production and saddlery will be on the trade support loan eligibility list and when this will happen?  

Ms Campbell: The Australian apprenticeship priority list, which is also used for the trade support loan, which is now known as the Australian apprenticeship support loan program, identifies priority occupations based on the Jobs and Skills Australia skills priority list. To be on that list, they need to have been determined by JSA as being in national shortage and be classified as being in ANZSCO major group 3, trades and technicians, or ANZSCO group 4, care and community workers, and to have the use of an apprenticeship pathway as a key form of entering that qualification.  

Senator ROBERTS: So I take it the answer is no.  

Ms Campbell: I’m assuming—but I would need to check—that it’s not in national skill shortage.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, do that on notice, please.  

Ms Campbell: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by

Who Will Hold the Department of Defence Accountable?

,

I asked the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) about some decisions from Defence that I believe warrant investigation.

I was under the impression that the IGADF would have some jurisdiction over complaints if Defence bureaucrats had a perceived conflict of interest.

In this session, they seem to wash their hands of all responsibility of inspecting this potential breach of integrity. Could it be something to do with the fact that the document in question was critical of the Brereton Report, which the IGADF created?

I will continue to make sure soldiers are given due process and generals are made accountable. If anyone is going to be put in jail for war crimes, the first ones locked up should be the politicians and generals that sent our men there.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Gaynor, for being here. I understand you’ve received a complaint in relation to the decision-maker on Defence freedom of information application 577/23/24. Are you in a position to confirm that you have received that and you’re processing it?  

Mr Gaynor: No, I can’t answer that question, because I don’t understand which case it might relate to with just that number, but I can take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Catherine Wallis was the person who decided to block the release of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel report. She is the Director-General of the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force. The panel report is highly critical of the taskforce Catherine Wallis leads. I must say that the defence department pulled out some quotes that were favourable to Ms Wallis or to the oversight panel, but there are many, many other quotes that Defence neglected. So the panel report is highly critical of the task force Catherine Wallis leads, and she’s the decision-maker on whether to release that report under freedom of information. On the face of it, that would be a conflict of interest that you would be able to investigate, wouldn’t it?  

Mr Gaynor: These questions would be better directed to the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force or to the Department of Defence. If freedom of information application 577 refers to a freedom of information application for the oversight panel’s report, then my office has had nothing to do with that report or with that freedom of information application. The role of my office is principally threefold. It’s an integrity, inquiry and assurance agency. My statutory role is to examine failures in the military justice system, to inquire into the deaths of ADF members where those deaths appear to have arisen out of or in the course of their service, and also to superintend the statutory Redress of Grievance complaints scheme, which is available for all ADF members.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your response. It would seem to me that under the first one, ‘integrity’ and ‘inquiry’, this would be perfectly placed, because there appears to be a massive conflict of interest with Ms Wallis signing off and, in fact, signing off on a previous FOI application but not signing off on this one. 

Mr Gaynor: Yes. I say ‘yes’ not to indicate agreement, but I understand your question. But my role is to examine matters affecting the military justice system. What you’re talking about here is an administrative decision that’s been made under the FOI Act. There are other ways of seeking review of such decisions, both internal and external to the Department of Defence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any information on why Catherine Wallis deleted her position title on the taskforce from her signature on this decision, despite including it on a different decision only days earlier?  

Mr Gaynor: My office conducted the IGADF Afghanistan inquiry. We delivered the report to the Chief of the Defence Force in November 2020. Noting that my office is an independent statutory office within the Defence portfolio that’s otherwise separate from the administrative functions and the department’s functions, I don’t have any visibility or oversight of freedom-of-information decisions that are made within the Department of Defence.  

Senator ROBERTS: With your familiarity with the Defence systems, presumed on my part, I’m wondering how someone with such a conflict of interest could be allowed to make the decision of blocking the release of the report which is critical of her work. Could you tell me who you think would be the best avenue for us to go to?  

Mr Gaynor: No, Senator, I genuinely cannot. There would be an official within the department who is responsible for freedom of information, but I don’t know who that individual is. Freedom-of-information decisions that are received by my office are made within my office. I don’t have visibility of the department’s decision-making.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your duties as inspector-general don’t cover scrutiny of freedom of information from Defence?  

Mr Gaynor: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Mr Gaynor. 

Mr Gaynor: You’re welcome.  

CHAIR: Is that it?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it 

/by

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority Faces Scrutiny

,

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), an independent industry-funded agency, handles complaints concerning financial losses due to actions by banks, insurance companies, or superannuation funds. While AFCA has a reputation for avoiding complaints rather than addressing them, their recent accomplishment of collecting $300 million for members of the public affected by financial misbehaviour is a good result.

My questioning of AFCA didn’t start smoothly, as CEO David Locke seemed unaware that the AFCA website explicitly asks that individuals with concerns about a code of practice to submit them via the form provided, as part of their role overseeing the Banking Code of Practice review body, the BCCC.

It took until around the 2 minutes 52 seconds mark to receive a response to what, I thought, was a straightforward opening question. Subsequently, I pursued questions regarding AFCA’s success rates. A significant portion of their response was taken on notice, so I look forward to receiving their answers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Your website invites consumers to lodge a complaint regarding the operation of a code of practice. How many such complaints have you received on the Banking Code of Practice?

Mr Locke: We receive complaints where a consumer has a contract with the bank and they have suffered financial loss. Then they can bring a complaint through to AFCA. So the matter is really if, for example, the bank has failed to comply with its legal obligations or they’ve suffered loss through some misconduct or inappropriate action on the part of the bank. We have to determine what’s fair, and, in looking at that, we have to have regard to the banking code. That’s how the banking code comes into effect. We had 56,000 complaints about banks and other credit lenders last year. In terms of a freestanding complaint about the banking code, though, that would normally go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee, which is a separate body, and their role is to enforce the banking code. The banking code is relevant to us in our jurisdiction and we do look at it, but, if it’s just about a financial firm breaching the banking code obligations on its own, then that would be a matter that would go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: So you would only field the complaint if it was a breach of the banking code?

Dr Smith: We can take complaints about breaches of the banking code if the consumer can show that there has been a financial loss suffered as a result of that breach or indeed that they have suffered non-financial loss as a result of that particular breach. For example, a breach of the provision under the banking code related to guarantees and whether or not the guarantor was fully informed of their rights before they entered into that guarantee might be a matter that we would take as a complaint.

Senator ROBERTS: So, if someone was just concerned about a potential change or a possible change in the banking code, which is coming up, they would not be lodging a complaint with you?

Dr Smith: The conduct needs to have occurred. But, in terms of future issues, there has obviously been a recent review of that code and no doubt that person could also voice those concerns to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you had any communication with the Australian Banking Association regarding their review of the banking code?

Mr Locke: Yes. We were consulted in a fashion by the Australian Banking Association in the course of their review. They commissioned an independent review of the banking code, which was carried out, and then they undertook an informal consultation process with a number of bodies, including us. Following that, they approached the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for approval to change the banking code. This is a code that has been approved by ASIC, so any changes need to be approved by ASIC. ASIC decided to undertake its own consultation, and we participated in that and made a submission to it as well. So we’ve engaged with the ABA and we’ve engaged with ASIC with regard to the ABA’s review.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I get a copy of your comments to the ABA and ASIC, please.

Mr Locke: Certainly. We’ll take that on notice. We have made a public submission, and it’s available on our website, but we can certainly send the link through to your office.

Senator ROBERTS: From the data on your website, for the year 2023, the number of complaints resolved in favour of the complainant was only 31 per cent, with 69 per cent in favour of the bank or financial institution. However, only five per cent of complaints reached the decision stage. Some were rectified early on and some were refused process. Of the complaints over banking disputes—just banking—how many complaints were received, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant and how many were withdrawn for 2023?

Mr Locke: I can provide all those details on notice, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.

Mr Locke: What I can tell you is the way our process works. A consumer will have gone through an independent dispute resolution process with the bank and then come through to AFCA. AFCA sends it back to the bank for them to have one last opportunity to resolve the matter before we otherwise start working on it. What we’re finding is that about 65 per cent of the time the banks resolve the matter at that point.

Senator ROBERTS: Once you step in?

Mr Locke: Yes. Obviously we would prefer for that to have been done and for people not to have to come to AFCA, but we’re finding that 65 per cent of the time there. What we then find is that we are able to resolve the majority of cases through our case-working process—through mediation, through recommendations and through negotiation. Only about five per cent of matters actually go through to decision. What you will see is that the matters that resolve when we go back to the bank or the matters that resolve through our processes—that is a situation where the consumer is effectively happy with the agreement that they’ve reached with the bank. So you would expect that the small number that go through to determinations are probably the ones where it’s more contentious, more of a binary decision. You would expect that, where the consumer had a better claim, the banks would have resolved the cases earlier in the process. But I can set all of that out on notice so you’ve got that.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you also break down the information into value groups so that I can see the success rate at progressively higher amounts of claim. My feedback is that AFCA are great at getting back $1,000 but not so good at getting back $100,000. The banks’ clutches are maybe a bit stronger.

Mr Locke: I’ll certainly provide you with whatever we have in terms of the breakdown. Last year our work secured $304 million in compensation and refunds for consumers and small-business owners, but we can give you the amounts that relate to that. I don’t think it is the case that it’s just lower value amounts that have been settling. We do settle a number of matters where the settlement is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. We’ll provide you with some information on that.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m hearing settlements are a fraction of the claim but the complainant accepts something rather than nothing. On notice, of all complaints settled on behalf of the complainant, what was the value of claim verses the settlement accepted or awarded?

Mr Locke: I don’t think we would have that information, but I can certainly let you have the information that we have available.

Mr Untersteiner: The challenge with that is: if something is settled between the parties before it goes to determination, there’s no obligation for them to disclose to us what the settlement was, so we typically won’t have visibility. We have some visibility, and, on notice, we can share with you what we do have, but it will be a small cut of the overall data.

Mr Locke: There are three cohorts that I talked about. The first cohort, when we go back to the financial firm, is given an opportunity to resolve. We don’t normally know what the resolution of that matter is. We just know the consumer’s happy and doesn’t want us to do anything further. That is what we call IDR data, internal dispute resolution data. The firms have, since January, had to report that through to ASIC, so ASIC would have some of that data. The data that we will have are those cases that don’t resolve and that are then resolved through our caseworking process or the matters that go through to decision, which you have mentioned. With regard to that, I can certainly provide that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, if you could do that. When AFCA were set up, you were allowed to go back to 2012 to take on older cases. On notice, of all banking cases referred to you for the period 2012 to 2018 for an amount over $200,000, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant, and what was awarded as opposed to what was claimed?

Mr Locke: I will take that on notice. I think, in total in that look-back jurisdiction, if I recall right we had just under 1,500 cases. A majority of those did relate to banking and credit matters. We will certainly take that on notice and provide you with what information we can.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Finally, for that group of claims, are there any claims still outstanding from 2012 to 2018?

Mr Locke: No. They’ve all been dealt with.

Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you. The next question is about your administration. Are you still closing your office at 2 pm on Wednesdays so the staff can go home in the name of productivity?

Mr Locke: We don’t close the office, but we do give staff—it’s effectively a bit like compressed hours—three hours to spend on wellbeing or to use for their time. This was an initiative we trialled during COVID, when we were seeing a lot of burnout and stress amongst our people. We discussed it with our people. We didn’t change any of our productivity measures, so the same amount of work had to be completed within the five-day week as was completed with this three-hour period. What we actually found was that productivity increased, and we’ve found that’s continued to be the case. We actually have higher levels of productivity now than at any time in the operation of the organisation, by caseworker. We found giving people that small amount of flexibility has actually made sound business sense. The initial intent behind it was about wellbeing, particularly when we were seeing a lot of and stress and challenges during lockdowns. Of course the majority of our staff are Melbourne, and they had prolonged lockdowns at that time. But what we’ve actually seen is that productivity has increased and continued to increase. So that is something that we do, but we don’t close the phones. It is an optional thing. Many staff work during that period but use it just for quiet time without interruption, but some staff use it to pick up the kids or to look after older relatives or to arrange appointments. As I said, the same amount of work has to be done during the working week.

Mr Untersteiner: I’ll just add that we did measure and we saw our attrition rates drop, we saw absenteeism drop, we saw productivity go up, we saw cost per complaint go down and we’ve seen employee engagement go up. Just from a general business initiative and a cost perspective, it’s been cost positive.

Chair: I need to share the call, Senator Roberts. Do you have another question?

Senator ROBERTS: I can put two on notice, but I’ve got one final question. Are financial institutions afraid of AFCA, or do they see you as another pesky bureaucracy that needs to be surmounted or brushed aside?

Mr Locke: Well, I hope—

Senator ROBERTS: I know you said 65 per cent of complaints are resolved.

Mr Locke: I can’t speak on behalf of—there are 44,000 members. About three-quarters of those are people who have ACRs, and the remainder are different firms with Australian financial services licences. I don’t think there’s any unified view with regard to that. What I hope, Senator, is that financial firms recognise that we play an important role. We do our utmost to act independently and fairly to determine intractable matters that otherwise people would presumably be coming to their elected representatives for or going to the media about. We seek to give people closure on matters, whether that goes in their favour or not. We act in accordance with the rules, and we apply our fairness jurisdiction in accordance with the way that we articulate there. I don’t seek for anybody to be afraid of us. I hope that industry see us as playing a constructive and useful role and recognise our legitimacy, but I hope that they also recognise that we will call matters as we see them and we will treat all parties fairly and independently. That’s our role as an alternative to the court system.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice if there’s any sign, evidence or statistic that reflects that the financial institutions respect what you’re doing.

Mr Locke: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a difficult one.

Mr Locke: It’s a difficult one for us to answer really.

Senator ROBERTS: It is; I accept that.

Mr Locke: We hope that parliamentarians, financial firms and people who act on behalf of consumers, whether that’s law firms or consumer bodies, respect the role that we play and believe that we do that to our utmost ability.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you

/by

Retiring Defence Chief Campbell Leaves Military in a Mess

,

General Angus Campbell will retire as Chief of the Defence Force in just a month, leaving behind a mess of morale and military disasters. 

Under his watch our special forces have been decimated, morale has been destroyed, the navy is facing the worst outlook in 50 years, the entire force is in a recruiting crisis and he refuses to accept responsibility for what happened, all while wearing medals for “distinguished command and leadership” and earning $1 million a year. 

On behalf of the many soldiers, sailors and aviators that have contacted me over many years, farewell General Campbell – you do not go with our thanks and you will not be missed.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again, General Campbell. Looking at the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel report, Defence tried to keep this report secret, blocking freedom of information requests. It was only when the Senate, on my motion, ordered it to be produced that we’ve seen it. In my opinion, General Campbell, we can see why you wanted to keep this a secret, given what it said about your response to the Brereton inquiry. I’m going to read quite extensive quotes from it. It’s important to have this information on the record, given your previous denial of command responsibility. Quote:  

Looking through an organisational lens, the assessment of accountability and responsibility starts at the top. More senior officers have to take some level of responsibility for what goes wrong in their organisation or at least for any circumstances or policies that permitted or facilitated it. If no-one at an appropriate level of authority knew anything about this misconduct, that is an organisational failure in itself.  

Next quote:  

The Panel considers that the failure to look closely at the collective accountability and responsibility of Defence’s most senior leaders continues to generate resentment and anger amongst veterans, soldiers and their families which is likely to last for a long time.  

I can vouch for that. We’ve had many servicemen, current and former, contact us. Next quote: 

… it is a misuse of their [Special Forces’] capability to employ them on a long term basis to conduct what are essentially conventional military operations.  

Next quote:  

The history and legacy of former Special Forces members is unjustifiably tarnished.  

That’s by the Brereton report. General Campbell, you have refused to accept command responsibility or accountability for allegations, despite wearing a medal for your command. You are a senior officer, at one point commander of all forces in the Middle East. Will you ever take responsibility for your organisational responsibility, instead of just throwing loyal soldiers under the bus?  

Gen. Campbell: Thank you, Senator. Let’s start at the beginning of your comments. You’re incorrect to suggest that in some way I or Defence attempted to withhold the oversight panel’s final report to the minister. The oversight panel had, throughout its duties, access to an unredacted view of the Brereton report. That meant that its work needed to be referred to the Office of the Special Investigator to ensure that, in their work, there were no concerns by that office that anything in their report might in any way impinge upon their investigations and considerations for the potential for further legal action. Once that was done, the report was able to be provided to the minister with confidence that the Office of the Special Investigator had no concerns for its public release, and the report was publicly released. So I guess that’s conspiracy No. 1 out of the way. With regard to command accountability—  

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, General—  

CHAIR: Senator, let the witness finish their answer first, and then you’ll have an opportunity to ask a followup question.  

Gen. Campbell: With regard to command accountability, as has previously been given in testimony here by me and a number of my colleagues, the consideration of command accountability has been developed and completed at the level of Defence and my responsibilities and has been passed to the minister for his consideration. That remains under consideration by the minister and, in due course, the minister will advise of decisions in that regard. The oversight panel’s report was very much appreciated and well received by Defence. It has reflected on the experience and provides some very useful insights into the events that occurred, the manner of its response and the efforts we have gone to in reform and in delivery of now 139 of the 143 recommendations of the Brereton inquiry. Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, given what General Campbell said, why did the government withhold that document, withhold senators access to that document, the oversight report?  

Senator McAllister: As has already been indicated to you, it was necessary to seek advice from the Office of the Special Investigator as to whether or not the release of that report would in any way compromise their work. When that advice was received, the material was provided to the Senate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. General, you’re still wearing bars on your chest and the Distinguished Service Cross that you claim for either being in action, which you never were, or for your command of troops in the Middle East. You’ve previously tried to strip 3,000 soldiers of their citation. You’re still trying to strip other soldiers of their medals. Why do you get to keep Afghanistan medals while you try to have them stripped from soldiers?  

Gen. Campbell: I make no claims with regard to the Distinguished Service Cross, which was awarded to me for service in Afghanistan and the Middle East more generally.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I just want to close the chapter on your responses to my questions in the past about the search and rescue operation of the MRH90 Taipan crash in the Whitsundays. You’ll recall I first asked about this in October. We had an exchange in February about whether the answers were satisfactory. Missing from the information you gave me was that, after the crash, around 11 pm, HMAS Adelaide continued to sail in the opposite direction towards a photoshoot 140 nautical miles away. When I produced a photo that the Defence Force deleted from the website, General Campbell and Vice Admiral Hammond tried to tell me that HMAS Adelaide would be unable to help due to its size and too many vessels already at the search and rescue. You eventually later clarified that it actually was tasked to do the search and rescue. Why did you delete the images of the photoshoot from your website? Why have we gone through this back and forth for eight months now? Was it just too embarrassing for you to admit that you let a useful boat with helicopters on board sail away to a photoshoot instead of immediately helping with the search and rescue mission when it was assumed those men were still alive?  

Gen. Campbell: Thanks, Senator. I’ll have to take the bulk of your question on notice. With regard to the photoshoot, I neither directed nor have knowledge of the claim you’re making that photographs were deleted from the Defence website. I will need to take that on notice to understand whether or not and under what circumstances any photographs were or may have been removed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. I’m happy to have that taken on notice. What about the circumstances around the deployment of Adelaide.  

Gen. Campbell: Yes; I’ll take that on notice, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. On to your combined special forces selection process, reports from the ground indicate, from 270 candidates, only 13 per cent, or 37, were selected for all special forces groups. Is it time to admit this ridiculous idea of yours, that the troops don’t like, for combined selection has been a massive failure at the expense of millions of dollars with worse outcomes?  

Gen. Campbell: Thank you again, Senator. I’d like to correct the record. You speak of it as my ‘ridiculous idea’. It is a well thought out approach being developed by the Army. I don’t lay claim to it, Senator. In terms of the outcomes of it, I would refer to the Chief of Army.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Senator, could I just confirm what your specific question is.  

Senator ROBERTS: On your combined special forces selection process, reports from the ground indicate, from 270 candidates, only 13 per cent, or 37, were selected for all special forces groups and you’re having trouble recruiting for the special forces groups—you’re having trouble recruiting for the Army in general. Is it time to admit that this is a failure? The troops are telling us it is.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: That may be someone’s characterisation; that’s not our experience. It’s true that there are high attrition rates in any special forces selection. That’s a characteristic. What we’re much better at doing now is understanding the reasons for that. The preliminary assessment that I received just last week on one of the key contributing factors was the physical preparation. We need to lean in and help our people to follow the physical preparation to give them the best chance of completing successfully or not being withdrawn at our own request because they can’t meet a particular physical standard. Of course, there is a whole range of other aspects for assessment as well. So, yes, you’re correct in terms of the low numbers that were selected. That was characteristic when there were separate selection courses. This was the first of the common selection courses. We’re going through an after action review process now to understand what worked, what didn’t work and how we need to adapt it in the future. If I can just add a final point: the reason why we’re doing this goes to some of the points that were in the independent oversight panel’s report to the Deputy Prime Minister that you referred to in your earlier questioning. It’s to address some of the outcomes that we’ve been working on for the last 10 years in terms of the findings from the Brereton inquiry, and, in particular, role clarity among units and also making sure that we have good working relationships between the units in the command.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Chair is giving me the wind-up. You’re not lowering standards? You’re just giving soldiers an opportunity to meet the standards?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: No; they’re quite high standards, as you’d appreciate.  

Senator ROBERTS: But your response is not to drop standards; your response is to help soldiers meet the high standards.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes. That is the approach right across the board, not just for special forces selection. So for anybody who puts their hand up for special forces selection—whether that’s as an operator, an integrator or an enabler—they have a thing called a special forces entry test which tests a whole range of things, including some physical standards. To set those people up for success, we’ve provided them with a physical training preparation program that is specifically designed to ensure that they can have the best chance of meeting the standards that are required in that Special Forces Entry Test.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what we’ve seen recently under General Campbell’s command is that the SAS regiment has been decimated, with huge numbers of discharges after it was thrown under the bus. The combined special forces selection has been an abysmal failure, according to troops we’ve listened to. The MRH90 helicopter was kept flying until four men were killed in a crash. General Campbell is wearing a Distinguished Service Cross, which is probably illegal from what we’ve highlighted in previous estimates. The OSI has spent $100 million to lay a single war crimes charge, and there were no convictions. The force is in a recruitment crisis, going backwards. We’re 5,000 personnel under strength. The Navy will have the least capable surface leaders it’s had in more than 50 years for the next 10 years. What will you do to restore defence capability?  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, there are so many misinformed statements in that question that it’s hard to know where to begin. Perhaps I can say that there is very little of your characterisation of the current state of things that I accept. But I will tell you what it is that we are doing. This institution was subjected to a circumstance where there were many, many defence ministers on and off during the last government. There was chaos and dysfunction, and we are working to resolve that. We are taking defence seriously, unlike the coalition. We will see spending in defence reach 2.3 per cent of GDP over the next decade beyond the trajectory that we inherited. We’re investing $330 billion through the new Integrated Investment Program. We are developing a comprehensive workforce strategy to improve recruitment and retention. We have put in place the pathway to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. We are buying the guided weapons that we need to hold adversaries at risk. We are investing in the surface fleet. We have handed down the 2024 National Defence Strategy. I understand that, in the period I have represent the government in here, you have consistently come here and levied attacks on senior personnel. I am surprised that that is the approach that you have adopted—to personally attack officials. We are happy to discuss the policy settings and will always answer questions in relation to that. My preference would be that we stick to the policy settings and perhaps refrain, just a little, from the very personal attacks that are too frequently offered towards staff and officials.  

Senator ROBERTS: We have a crisis in the Army—  

CHAIR: I need to move on. 

/12 Comments/by

Minister Butler Remains a Puppet for WHO

,

Last week (May 27 to June 1, 2024), the World Health Assembly (WHA77) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) debated two matters. The first was a new Pandemic Treaty designed to expand the powers of the WHO beyond pandemics, to include any health issue related to human, plant, or animal health, granting them the power to compel nations to comply with its directives. After two and a half years of negotiation, the Treaty was not brought to a vote and has been delayed for another year. This is a black eye to the nations, including Australia, that tried to subjugate Australian sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva and who are owned by pharmaceutical companies.

The second matter that passed involved changes to WHO’s operating manual, known as the International Health Regulations. The proposed changes would have granted the WHO similar powers to the Pandemic Treaty. These changes were also opposed by member states. The outcome were minor changes that take on board lessons learned from COVID and contains no loss of sovereignty. These changes will reduce the chance of a nation infecting the world with a virus while pretending nothing was wrong, as happened with COVID.

There are legal objections to the amendments passing. For instance, the notice given of the changes breached the WHO constitution, which poses a significant problem.

Yesterday at Estimates, I asked the officials who attended WHA77 about the comments made by Health Minister Mark Butler, where he called for stronger binding powers. Instead of addressing Minister Butler’s comment, their response focused on the measures that were passed, thereby avoiding the topic of “binding”. Let me help the bureaucrats out: binding (adjective) that which must be obeyed.

This is what they were avoiding saying: Minister Butler is calling for Australian sovereignty to be ceded to unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats on the other side of the world, as if they know better than our own health workers, here on the ground, what is best for Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are in regard to Minister Butler’s comments at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week and, following on from that, the World Health Organization’s attempts at pandemic treaties and international health regulation amendments. Minister Butler, at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week, made the following comments: We are fully committed to concluding the World Health Organization pandemic agreement. Together, we have made considerable progress in our shared ambition towards a set of binding international commitments for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Could you please explain to me what he means by the word ‘binding’?  

Prof. Kelly: I was present in the room in Geneva when the minister made that statement that you’ve quoted. I must say it was one of the proudest moments I’ve ever had as an Australian to hear our own minister for health at such an assembly defending and encouraging the world to think about multilateralism to protect us from the next pandemic. That’s what the changes to the International Health Regulations that went through the assembly by the end of last week and the continued work on the pandemic agreement represent. If we think about a global pandemic, the only way to protect Australians in the best way is to be part of a global approach to preparing for the next pandemic, for putting in place things that can respond quickly and appropriately and for the whole world to have the same direction. I’ll pass on to my colleague Mr Ross Hawkins, who will be able to give more detail on the specifics of your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can someone answer that specific point about ‘binding’?  

Mr Hawkins: Within the formation of the IHR, there are elements that are binding on nation states, and we can go to the process that this would need to go through in terms of its adoption within Australia and what that looks like in terms of JSCOT processes. It’s important to note there are certain elements in there that we would look to commit to. These are things that Australia is already doing. But largely, this is around the kind of multinational approach that Professor Kelly took us through there and getting a sense of commitment across the globe on how we deal with global health issues. With the notion of the binding elements within the IHR, there’s elements regarding the establishment of an IHR authority, which Australia has in its interim CDC. It talks about the strengthening of frameworks—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me? Could you explain that, please—’which Australia has’?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. Professor Kelly will take us through the interim CDC that we have, and that will be— 

Senator ROBERTS: CDC being the Australian CDC?  

Mr Hawkins: Centre for Disease Control, correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: But Australia’s?  

Mr Hawkins: Correct. I think it’s really important for us to establish that there is no change in the IHRs to the way that member states adopt within national legislation what this would look like. There is no power grab by the WHO. This is actually around how we will adopt this within Australia, or what we’re already doing in Australia to strengthen our surveillance and prevention and preparedness for a global pandemic.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand there’s no power grab. It started off as an enormous power grab, but it got watered down because the African nations told them to go to hell, basically.  

Mr Hawkins: I would—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that’s not parliamentary and not appropriate for this committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: The African nations said they wouldn’t be supporting it.  

Mr Hawkins: I would not agree. We’ve seen the various iterations of this. Let’s be honest, the IHRs have existed since 1969. They had an iteration in 2005, and this is the latest iteration in 2024. They are there in place to protect us with respect to trade and travel across the globe. These are things that protect Australians. It’s not a power grab by the WHO. There is a genuine sense that from a multilateral perspective all nations take a similar approach to how we deal with surveillance and preparedness. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, what does ‘binding’ mean?  

Mr Hawkins: As I’ve described to you, there are various elements within the current form of the IHRs that Australia would look to comply with.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we would cede our sovereignty on those issues?  

Mr Hawkins: As I’ve reiterated, let me please read to you what sits in article 3, which is really clear, within the IHRs that ‘states have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies’. It is enshrined in here that we are not ceding sovereignty.  

Senator ROBERTS: So ‘binding’ denotes penalties for noncompliance, I assume. What penalties should be applied to countries that refuse to do as the WHO tells us in the event we don’t agree the instruction is in our best interests? Where are you drawing the line on penalties?  

Mr Hawkins: There’s no penalty.  

Senator ROBERTS: So what makes them binding?  

Mr Hawkins: This is under international law and this is part of that broader international framework. But sitting within the current formation of the IHR there is no penalty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Within the current formation of the IHR?  

Mr Hawkins: Within the formation that’s just been agreed within the World Health Assembly.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we have an initial IHR that goes back to 2007. I note the earlier ones—  

Mr Hawkins: 2005  

Senator ROBERTS: but it goes back to 2007. Then they tried to bring in very strong amendments, and the Africans and other nations said no, and they’ve watered it back almost to the same as in 2007 is my understanding.  

Mr Hawkins: No, that’s not my understanding. We would go by what is an official document. The 2005 IHRs were accepted and agreed. There have been amendments historically to the IHR that have taken place over time. It’s just that with the nature of COVID and with the work that Helen Clark did in terms of broader preparedness—  

Senator ROBERTS: Helen Clark, the former New Zealand Prime Minister?  

Mr Hawkins: Correct, working for the WHO. This is all work that’s taken place in terms of the broader approach to the IHRs and to the pandemic agreement around what’s needed to strengthen the global response to COVID. This is the work that’s clearly taken place over that time, and the formation through this process two years ago. This is the kind of process that people have gone through over a significant amount of time in order to ensure that we’ve got robust global controls in place.  

Senator ROBERTS: If I have time at the end, perhaps we can come back to the World Health Organization’s process, because it’s not as you said it is; it’s not innocent. Health is constantly—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I do need to allow the official a chance to respond to that, please. Mr Hawkins. 

Mr Hawkins: I’m sorry. I’m giving you the information that’s available to me. The majority of this is available on the World Health Organization website. I’m trying to respond to you. I’m not trying to hide from you anything that doesn’t or—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of doing that.  

Mr Hawkins: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not at all. I’m just saying we differ in our opinions. I’ve had other advice that’s very solid on the process. We’ve been monitoring the process for the last two-and-a-bit years.  

Prof. Kelly: Senator, if I could also correct the statement you made about the African nations? As my colleague has said, this process has been going for the last two years specifically around the IHRs. It is a negotiation. Many views have been placed on the table. On Saturday, 194 member states of the WHO—and it’s a member organisation—voted unanimously to adopt those changes by consensus, plus the Holy See and Liechtenstein. So there were 196, actually. There was a block of African nations who were concerned about some of the issues related to the proposed changes, but in the end it was adopted by consensus.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come to that later, but my understanding is that some months ago, even a year ago, the Africans said, ‘No way.’ The UN World Health Organization requires consensus. As a result of the African bloc and some European countries and a lot of people around the world being upset, the World Health Organization trimmed its demands and now we’ve gone back to something that’s fairly simple. As I said, let’s get into that at the end.  

Senator Gallagher: It’s an agreement, and it’s not unusual in multilateral forums for negotiations to land in a particular way. In my experience, that is prevalent in every single international negotiation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Agreed, but what happened here was the Africans told them they would not agree to the previously very strong changes, and they’ve watered them back as a result of that. Health is constitutionally a state matter. External affairs powers allow the Commonwealth government to make certain treaties. Was there any attempt in the minister’s rush to sign away our sovereignty to get agreement from the rights holders from the states?  

Mr Comley: Can I just intervene for a moment here. Responsibility for dealing with the technicalities of international law and all constitutional advice is actually a matter for the Attorney-General’s Department.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I just said.  

Mr Comley: I’m respectfully suggesting that if you have a detailed question around that it should be put at the estimates for Attorney-General’s Department. We can help you with what we understand by the current state as we’ve advised. If I just go back a step, as to the point that I think Mr Hawkins was trying to make at the start—and it goes to language—’binding’ is often used in international conferences, but no international instrument or treaty can change Australia’s Constitution nor prevail over Australian laws without it being adopted into Australian law. When it gets adopted into—  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the key point.  

Mr Comley: That is the key point, which I don’t think we are disputing. This comes to the point of sovereignty and comes to the point that, if we were going through a process of adopting an international law, the standard process goes through a consultation process, including through JSCOT and engaging with relevant stakeholders. On your observation about constitutional responsibility for health—there is a mixed responsibility in the Constitution because there are powers that allow Commonwealth health benefits for individuals. I don’t want to go much further into that because I think I’m straying into what is a constitutional interpretation of the roles. The fundamental point here is that international agreements have to be adopted into Australian law. They go through a process, including JSCOT. If they’re adopted through that JSCOT process they become binding in that country. When the minister says we want a binding agreement, he is urging the international community to follow through with the commitment they’ve made in the conference to adopt those into their domestic law. Some countries may ultimately choose not to, and then that will come back to that body. This is not unusual in international law. In my previous lives doing climate change, there were times when there’s been a change of administration in countries that have led them to decide whether they would stay as a ratified member of a treaty. The process is quite clear. At the point in time they were in the agreement that was the intention of all the parties, to make the binding commitment. My experience in international negotiations is that countries do not make a commitment lightly, even though there may be domestic processes to give effect to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What you’ve done just then, Mr Comley, is actually reinforce my comment that it is an external affairs power, but the states are involved in health. My question was very simple: have the states been consulted on these changes? Are the states involved in the process? That was my only question. Is there an answer?  

Mr Hawkins: There is. We’ve consulted the states and territories. I’ve personally been on two teleconferences with them to talk them through the broad approach, noting that obviously, as already outlined by Senator Gallagher and Mr Comley, these things often form part of a negotiation that took place at the WHA. But we’ve been talking with states and territory officials around this process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The minister also said: We have a strong basis on which to finalise important amendments to the international health regulations this week. I urge all member states to redouble their efforts to agree on critical reforms to our global health architecture, because we simply cannot afford to fail. Why can’t we afford to fail? Is he saying that our Australian health department is incapable of running a pandemic response in Australia all by itself without the big daddy World Health Organization telling us what to do?  

Senator Gallagher: Senator ROBERTS, I wasn’t there; perhaps Professor Kelly is better placed to answer. The way I understand those comments is to say that protection of the Australian people relies on a global response to pandemic management. We’re not immune from what happens in other parts of the world, as we have experienced in the last pandemic.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the World Health Organization—  

Senator Gallagher: So it’s around national security and national safety and protection of the Australian population.  

Senator ROBERTS: The World Health Organization, in the last outbreak with COVID, was telling us there was no human-to-human transmission and that there was nothing to see at first. That delayed the response in other countries. The World Health Organization is guilty of that. They’re a corrupt criminal organisation.  

CHAIR: You have your views on that, Senator ROBERTS, and I don’t seek to convince you otherwise, but we—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’d be going against the facts.  

Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with you on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re two factually correct statements.  

Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with the comments you’ve made about the World Health Organization. I think the minister for health has represented Australia’s national interest at that international forum, and for good reasons. It’s about the protection of the Australian people.  

Prof. Kelly: What was agreed on Saturday morning—and Australia was one of 194 countries member states of the WHO, being a member state institution; it’s not a big daddy, as you suggested, it is guided by the member states—under the WHO and other UN arrangements we have a year to go through all of those processes we’ve talked about in terms of Australian legal requirements. We are not safe unless everyone is safe. An infectious disease has no borders. As we know from our experience in the COVID pandemic, we closed our border and it caused a lot of disruption in other ways. We had to reopen our border and, as soon as we did, the virus appeared. It can only be by working internationally with all other countries that we can deal with a pandemic like that, and we will have other ones in the future. These amendments that were made through long negotiations right up to and including last Friday night were successful in getting those things over the line. I’m very happy that’s the case. I’ll reiterate my statement that it was one of my proudest moments as an Australian witnessing that Australian leadership at ministerial level, at officials’ level, to get those negotiations completed.  

CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, at this point I am due to rotate the call. If you wish to seek another call in this section, I will come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/10 Comments/by