The Labor-Liberal Uniparty has been advancing this bill based on a case where bullying on social media led to a tragic suicide. In submissions on this bill, it became apparent that banning children from social media would cause as much harm as good. The best response to these tragic cases would be to empower parents to better manage their children’s use of social media. This can be achieved by enhancing parental lock technology, making it more powerful, easier to use, and free (the best Apps available are commercial). The Government ignored concerns raised by experts in their submissions and testimony, and pushed ahead with a bill that introduced a blanket ban for under 16.
Let’s be clear – this is a ‘world-first’ because the rest of the world knows such a ban is counterproductive.
Tech-savvy kids will get around the ban, and that’s where the real harm begins. The ban does not cover chat rooms in video games, which lacks the supervision present on social media platforms. Peer-to-peer chat apps are making a comeback, and some children may even turn to TOR, which is not supervised at all and by it’s design, is almost impossible to supervise. This bill will have the outcome of exposing kids to even worse forms of bullying.
One Nation and the Greens united to stop Labor’s guillotine. We forced the government to remove the bill banning under 16’s on social media and extend scrutiny until February. Then, incredibly, the Liberal Senate leader, Simon Birmingham, moved to get the bill back in the guillotine process. Barely hours later, Simon Birmingham informed the Senate that he was leaving. It’s clear he knew he was leaving and this was his parting gift.
I want to thank Senators Alex Antic and Matt Canavan for crossing the floor to vote against the Liberal-Nationals-Labor guillotine.
One Nation will continue to fight against the social media ban, returning power to parents and families.
Included are comments around Digital ID, which—despite claims to the contrary—will inevitably become part of this outrageous power grab.
Transcript
My remarks are directed to the minister but also to people listening at home to the Senate and to researchers and historians that will look back at this vote today in an attempt to understand what the hell the Senate was thinking. The amendment the government circulated, no doubt with the approval of the Liberal Party, answers that question. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 can act to force every Australian to be the subject of a digital ID in the name of keeping children safe—and that’s what my question is about.
The government accepted widespread public concern that the bill was designed to force everyone to get a digital ID and promised to include an amendment to specifically rule that out. In this government amendment that you’ve moved, SY115, new provision 63DB(1) excludes use of government issued identification or use of digital ID. That is great, except 63DB(2) provides that, if social media platforms can come up with an alternative means of assessing age that does not involve digital ID or government documents, they can—wait for it—accept a digital ID identification. In effect, this amendment specifies that a social media platform cannot use digital ID by itself but it can use digital ID as part of a more comprehensive verification. There’s no need to guess what that could be; this bill contains the answer: age-assurance software. The company which has been awarded the tender for the age-assurance trial is a British company called Age Check Certification Scheme. whose main business is provision of digital IDs backed by age-assurance software.
TikTok has used age-assurance software to remove one million underage accounts from TikTok in Australia. This software can tell if a person is, for instance, under 12. That’s useful. The smaller the gap between the user and target age—16 in this case—the less accurate it is. This software can’t tell age within six months, and there’s no way of knowing a person turned 16 on the day of their application. You just can’t tell that from face scan. Accessing social media on your 16th birthday and, most likely, for months afterwards will require a second identifier containing the child’s facial scan and their date of birth, which is a digital ID, which this company specialises in. You’re setting them up.
I have criticised this bill as an opportunistic attempt to capitalise on the public desire for better regulation of social media to force all Australians to get a digital ID. I’ll say that again. I have criticised this bill repeatedly, as have others, as an opportunistic attempt to capitalise on the public desire for better regulation of social media to force all Australians to get a digital ID. This amendment requires a change in my language, which is now that this bill is an opportunistic attempt to require every child, once they turn 16, to get a digital ID if they want to access social media. What age does the government’s digital ID start from? Sixteen. What a coincidence! This wasn’t the intention all along? That’s misinformation.
This amendment exposes the original intention of the bell. Your amendment exposes the original intention of the bill, which was hidden in what looked like a poorly drafted bill. It wasn’t poorly drafted; it was deliberately dishonest, and the short committee referral, which the government fought against, has exposed the deceit. The truth is now out there, and the decision before the Senate is a simple one. A vote for this bill is a vote to require every child to get a digital ID on their 16th birthday.
Compulsory digital IDs aside, there are many other reasons not to pass this bill. I will now share with the Senate and with posterity the words of Australian Human Rights Commission on the bill. One Nation fully supports the commission’s position, which deserves to be included in the Hansard record of the debate:
Social media is a vital platform for young people to share their ideas and opinions, engage in dialogue, and participate in social and cultural activities. It can be a valuable educational tool by providing access to diverse perspectives, news and learning opportunities, as well as vital information about health, well-being and safety. A blanket ban risks unjustly curtailing these freedoms.
Social media is integral to modern communication and socialisation. Excluding young people from these platforms may isolate them from their peers and limit their ability to ability to access much-needed information and support. This is particularly important for young people from marginalised, vulnerable or remote communities.
These are the words of the Human Rights Commission.
The social media ban will rely on effective age assurance processes being adopted, which means that all Australians may be required to prove their identity in order to access social media. This may potentially require all Australians to provide social media companies with sensitive identity information, which poses a risk to our privacy rights in light of recent examples of data breaches and personal information being stolen.
Technological workarounds – such as VPNs and false age declarations – may undermine the effectiveness of the ban. Additionally, a ban will not address the root causes of online risks or make the platforms safer for everyone.
The workarounds to this measure have not received enough debate. The bill carves out gaming sites, many of which have a chat feature. Children will move over to chatrooms and gaming sites which are not supervised. Tor—or, more accurately, onion routing—will provide another avenue for communication which is designed to make supervision exponentially harder than on mainstream social media platforms. I have advice from a leading internet security company that peer-to-peer social media, which again is harder for parents to supervise than current social media platforms, is making a comeback. As a result of this legislation, children will be exposed to more harm, not less. I had a call from a constituent—
Senator Hanson-Young: You are right.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: It’s not often Senator Hanson-Young tells me I’m right. A moment ago, I had a call from a constituent who had called their local Liberal member of parliament about this bill and was told, ‘Oh, it’s okay; you can just sign up for your children.’ With age-assurance software, that will not work. With Digital ID connected to age-assurance software, the social media platform will know what you’re doing. Don’t be telling people: ‘It’s nothing. You can defeat it. You can still talk to Grandad on Facebook.’ You won’t be able to. Children may be able to use VPNs, virtual private networks, and the new PPNs, personal private networks, to appear to be in another country. That really won’t work either. The keystroke logging that accompanies the age-assurance software will assume someone pretending to be in Canada but interacting with Australian accounts is probably using a VPN.
Minister, why did you say that this won’t lead to Digital ID when your amendment says exactly that?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/vsAVgJMmzMQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-29 12:52:532024-11-29 12:54:25Social Media Ban is an Attack on Parents’ Rights
How much has your insurance increased? For some, insurance costs have increased by as much as ten times. While many insurance companies operate under Australian brands, they are actually controlled by foreign multinational investment funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, and Goldman Sachs. These foreign entities influence our government to push climate change propaganda, which they then use as an excuse to drastically increase insurance premiums.
Only One Nation can be trusted to say no to the foreign corporate cartel, ensuring more affordable insurance for Australians.
Transcript
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Financial Services, Senator Gallagher. Minister, Australians opening insurance renewals have been falling off their chairs. Brendan O’Malley from the Courier Mail reported in September that a homeowner on Cheviot Street in Brisbane had their insurance bill increase from $3,000 to $32,000 a year—more than 10 times. Queensland’s Suncorp Bank profited $379 million last year, while Suncorp Bank’s insurance division made a whopping $1.2 billion profit, more than triple that of their banking business. Why is your government letting insurance companies rob Queenslanders?
Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept the proposition that Senator Roberts has put as part of his question. But I do accept and understand that insurance affordability is a real issue for Australian households and businesses, and it is something that the government is concerned about. You see in the inflation data that one of the big drivers of inflation is the costs around insurance. There are a number of reasons insurance premiums have increased in the last 12 months—it’s due to a range of factors—but I think Senator McAllister was talking about this earlier in the week. There have been more frequent and more intense hazard events, price inflation is making it more expensive to repair damages, and there is the global distribution of risk by reinsurers, which are having to cover the costs of earthquakes in New Zealand and hurricanes in Florida—that all has an impact on costs here. The government has established an Insurance Affordability and Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Taskforce within PM C to address the impacts of climate change and inflationary pressures that are driving up the cost of insurance. We are looking at what further steps the government can take, working with industry and stakeholders through the taskforce, including some things the insurers always raise this with me: risk mitigation, land use planning and other near-term opportunities to address affordability.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
That insurance bill that I talked about before went up because Brisbane City Council published new climate scaremongering flood maps. The street never had a problem with flooding yet was included in a new zone marked for a one-in-2,000-year climate change doomsday flood. Minister, why are you letting insurance companies use baseless climate change scaremongering as an excuse to gouge billions at the expense of Queenslanders?
Senator GALLAGHER: As I said in my previous answer, there are a range of drivers impacting on the cost of insurance. Some of it is around local hazardous events that we’ve had, including floods, and including floods in Brisbane and other areas of Queensland. But there are other reasons, like price inflation and like the reinsurance market, which is being affected by those big, global natural disasters that we’ve been seeing. Some would say—and I would say—these are caused by climate change. I accept that you might not agree with that. In relation to land use planning, that has been subject to a number of inquiries and reviews post the flooding, particularly in areas like Brisbane. Land use planning zoning maps have changed to reflect some of the risk associated with that, and that would feed into premiums not just in Queensland but around the country.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Foreign insurance companies own these insurance companies in Australia. Foreign multinational, global wealth funds and corporates like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Goldman Sachs are the largest and control shareholders. Insurance is expensive, and the money goes overseas. Minister, why aren’t you doing anything to stop these insurance companies gouging Queenslanders and sending the profits overseas to multinational, global investors?
Senator GALLAGHER: Certainly, I’ve already alluded to the fact of global distribution of risk by reinsurers. You talk about them. The global reinsurers affect the price of insurance here, as they do in other countries around the world. But I do not accept that we are not taking any action. We have established this taskforce to look at what further steps we can take to build on existing work, including in areas like risk mitigation and land use planning, as well as other steps to deal with some of these affordability challenges. This is a challenge not just in Queensland but around the country.
I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) about the decision to include a question in the 2026 Census asking every Australian over 16 about their sexuality. One Nation believes that a person’s sexuality is not the government’s business and that there is no overarching need for the government to know. A person’s sexuality has no bearing on housing requirements, road usage, or the consumption of medical or educational services—areas which the Census is designed to address in order to plan infrastructure.
Families usually complete the Census together. Asking a 16-year-old about their sexuality could start a conversation the child is not ready for. Even selecting “prefer not to say” could expose a child to danger in a household that is not tolerant of LGB individuals.
This question should not be included in the Census, which needs to return to its core purpose—providing data to support government services.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Moving on to the 2026 census and referring to the table, ‘status of potential new topics’—it’s on your website—the sexual orientation of children aged 16 and up is listed as a new topic. Is that correct?
Dr Gruen: Sexual orientation of people 16 and over?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It says, ‘”sexual orientation and gender” will be included in the 2026 Census, for people aged 16 years and older’. It’s in—
Dr Gruen: That’s right. That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Families fill this form out together, I’d assume.
Dr Gruen: Sorry, could you say that again?
Senator ROBERTS: Families would fill out the census together.
Dr Gruen: That’s often the way it’s done, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So they can see each other’s responses. The question is, are you exposing a child to a conversation they may not be ready to have with their parents, or which they may not be ready to have with themselves yet?
Dr Gruen: That’s an important issue, Senator. The way that we handle this is that, for these forms, the household form, there’s always the option of ‘prefer not to answer’. That is an option for these sensitive questions, and the other important thing is that if a young person living in a household chooses not to discuss this with their parents but wishes to record answers that they do not wish to share with anyone else, they can fill in a private form and we will override the answers that they provide. So their form will take precedence over the family form.
Senator ROBERTS: Wouldn’t the other members of the family know about that? If a family member over 16 was reluctant to answer, then that might start a conversation that no-one’s ready to have.
CHAIR: This is the last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: What business is it of the ABS to know the sexual orientation of children?
Dr Gruen: The answer is it’s not our business. The answer is that we provide the option for people to fill in the form privately without having the conversation with their family, and they can choose to do that or not do it. We have an option in those questions of ‘prefer not to answer,’ so we have done the best we can to provide an environment where people do not have to reveal this information if they would prefer not to.
Senator ROBERTS: But just having the question there—
CHAIR: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Chair, I’m just following up on that.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/kDLblxEk86M/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-27 18:36:412024-11-27 18:36:44Sexuality Question for Teens in 2026 Census Not the Government’s Business
The Australian Public Service Commissioner (APSC) is tasked with ensuring our bureaucrats are kept in line and are living up to the standards expected by the Australian public. One of those standards is impartiality.
I raised the issue that government organisations appear to be offering support or endorsement of net-zero policies, rather than simply providing comments on what would be required to implement them.
The APSC doesn’t appear to view this as a problem, based on their responses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve only got two short questions. There seems to still be an abundance of public servants, agencies and departments making submissions outlining explicit support for net zero policies. We visited this before, but I’m still unclear about how that meets the Public Service standard of impartiality. Shouldn’t those submissions not endorse government policy and only talk about the mechanics of implementing it?
Dr de Brouwer: I think it’s also the obligation of public servants to implement government policy, and I’d be reading from what you’re saying around that characterisation that the public servants are implementing government policy, and they’re talking about how to go about that implementation.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my point there. They’re endorsing policies. I can accept that they can discuss the mechanics of implementation, as I said, but not the endorsement of policy.
Dr de Brouwer: I would have to see the material to make any comment on that. Essentially, it is their responsibility to explain that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go to the second question. I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, for example, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ Net zero is a government policy, so I’m still struggling to understand how supporting or opposing a particular government policy meets the standards of impartiality.
Dr de Brouwer: I think you really need to ask that to them, Senator. With my familiarity with cabinet documents, I’ll say that it may be that they’re talking about a particular implementation pathway, and they can see that implementation path as being feasible and practical, and they’re saying, ‘Yes, we can do that.’ The term that officials may use in that is to say, ‘I support that,’ because they can do that, rather than they necessarily agree—
Senator ROBERTS: I can see some merit in what you’re saying, but, as I said, I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ They’re basically saying the whole department supports net zero.
Dr Bacon: It’s hard to tell in the abstract without seeing the context of what you’re quoting from, but I do wonder if they meant ‘support’ in the sense of deploying resources, expertise, personnel to implement the government of the day’s policy. When we talk about implementation, as Dr de Brouwer said, sometimes we, in a public service setting, use the word ‘support’ to talk about the deployment of personnel, expertise and resources.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, but do you still agree that public servants should not express their opinion about a policy, just the implementation of it?
Dr Bacon: The job of public servants is to implement the policies of the government of the day, and also we have a role in explaining the policies of the government of the day as well. The Australian Public Service Commission has guidance that we issue that steps out how those judgements ought to be made about when it is appropriate for public servants to comment, how public servants might comment and how the code of conduct and the values that are set out in the Public Service Act apply in different circumstances. It is something that is difficult to comment on in the abstract, because it’s a judgement on a case-by-case basis—that’s what our guidance says—taking into account a range of factors that we recommend people apply. That draws on High Court case law, for example.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t intend to take it to High Court.
Dr Bacon: Sure. These principles have been considered, and we’ve incorporated that into our guidance.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GBJ-oWwWJSM/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-27 16:55:002024-11-28 13:28:53Public Service Not Impartial on Net-Zero Policies
Today, the Senate held a Committee Hearing on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. This expedited inquiry was scheduled with just one day’s notice, as the Liberal and Labor parties want to rush this legislation through. The first witness, Ms. Lucy Thomas OAM, CEO of Project Rockit, delivered six minutes of the most relevant, heartfelt, and inspirational testimony on the issue of censoring social media for those under 16. Her insights demonstrated the benefit of lived experience.
Before taking a position on this bill, take the time to listen to her testimony.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. Ms Thomas, there are harms and benefits at school, and there are harms and benefits in life generally. Claude Mellins, professor of medical psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University, stated: ‘For young people, social media provides a platform to help them figure out who they are. For very shy or introverted young people, it can be a way to meet others with similar interests.’ She added: ‘Social support and socializing are critical influences on coping and resilience.’ They provide an important point of connection. She then said in relation to Covid: ‘On the other hand, fewer opportunities for in-person interactions with friends and family meant less of a real-world check on some of the negative influences of social media.’ Isn’t the professor making an important point? It’s not about stopping real-world interactions it’s about balancing social media with real-world interactions. Isn’t it about a balance, not about prohibition? Isn’t it also the fact that parents and not governments are best placed to decide how their children develop?
Ms Thomas: Thank you for the question. I think you’re speaking to that idea of balance that a lot of us have been trying to refer to. We are acutely aware of the harms, and I think they’re beautifully captured in that quote, and acutely aware of the risk that we may create new harms by cutting young people off. I think this is a really important point, and I’d like to give you one example, a quote from a young person, Rhys from Tamworth, who commented: ‘Social media has helped me figure out and become comfortable with my sense of self, as there is a large community that is able to connect me with people all over the world. Living in a regional area, it’s difficult to find people dealing with the same personal developments, and social media really helped.’ This is beyond just direct mental health intervention; this is about finding other people like you. This is about finding spaces where we can affirm ourselves, use our voices and mobilise around actions that we care about, just like we’re doing here today. I’d love to point out that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has done some fantastic research into the experiences of specific groups—those who are First Nations, LGBTQIA+ Australians, and disabled and neurodivergent young people. All of these group face greater hate speech online. Actually belonging to one of those communities, I can say that we also face greater hate speech offline. What was really important is they also found that young people in these communities that already face marginalisation are more likely to seek emotional support—not just mental health support, but connection, news and information, including information about themselves and the world around them. So I take your point.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have another quote from Deborah Glasofer, Associate Professor of Clinical Medical Psychology at Stanford University:
Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. In fact, a good peer group online may be protective against negative or in-person influences.
Is this bill throwing out the good with the bad, instead of trying to improve support in digital media skills to allow children and parents to handle these trials better?
Ms Thomas: I think there is a risk of that, yes. I think we really need to, in a much longer and more thorough timeframe, interrogate and weigh up all of these risks and unintended possible impacts. I’d like to draw another quote from Lamisa from Western Sydney University. You spoke about influencers; we tend to imagine those being solely negative. Lamisa says: ‘Social media has given me creators who are people of colour, and I think it has really allowed me to learn that I don’t have to justify my existence, that I am allowed to have an opinion and that I am allowed to have a voice about who I am.’ So I absolutely think that there is a risk that we’ll throw out these experiences; in our desire to protect people, we create unintended harms that they have to live with.
Senator ROBERTS: I just received a text message from someone in this building, a fairly intelligent person, and he said: ‘I was born with a rare disorder. I spent more than four decades feeling isolated until I discovered people with the same disorder on social media. This legislation would prevent people under 16 from linking with the communities online that can provide them with shared lived experience.’ What do you say?
Ms Thomas: I’m going to give you one more quote. I’m aware that young people aren’t in the room, so I’m sorry I’m citing these references. Hannah from Sydney says: ‘Where I struggled in the physical world thanks to a lack of physically accessible design and foresight by those responsible for building our society, I have thrived online.’ The digital world has created so much opportunity for young people to participate and fully realise their opportunities. We just need to be very careful.
I know in talking about all these benefits, I’m probably going to receive an immediate response about some of the harms. I’m not here to say that harms don’t exist. They do. If anyone is aware of them, it’s me. I’ve been working in this space for 20 years. I started Project Rockit because I wanted to tackle these issues as a young person fresh out of school. We know they’re there, but we have to be very careful not to impact these positive benefits young people face.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Thomas, isn’t there very important access to parents and grandparents on social media for their support and experiential interaction. A lot of children interact with their parents and grandparents through social media?
Ms Thomas: Am I allowed to answer this one?
CHAIR: Yes.
Ms Thomas: I think one of the big, grave concerns around implementation and enforcement is that it won’t just be young people who need to verify their ages online; it will be every Australian. The methods available, every Australian sharing their biometric data or presenting a government issued ID, are going to pose challenges for those Australians that you are talking about—older Australians who are already facing higher rates of digital exclusion and those from marginalised communities. Absolutely, this is a vital tool for grandparents and kids, for intergenerational play and learning, and we risk cutting young people off but also cutting older people off.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/3_9xU_5vYGA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-27 14:56:002024-12-20 15:07:43Social Media Age Ban Faces Powerful Testimony in Senate Hearing
It’s often said that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. In that case, I’d like a paternity test on the vote that removed the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill from the Senate Notice Paper. Some Senators now being credited with this move only solidified their opposition last week. Meanwhile, One Nation has stood firmly against this bill since its first iteration was released under the Morrison Liberal Government in 2019.
One Nation has been the only party consistently campaigning against this bill since 2019. A vote for One Nation is a vote for freedom of speech. In my remarks, I’ll outline the reasons why One Nation opposed this bill.
Transcript
To the people of Australia, congratulations—you’ve won. You put so much pressure on the ‘uniparty’ that you won; they folded. Four years ago I came out against the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and it’s been a slog ever since. That’s when the Morrison-Joyce Liberal-National government introduced it. I’ll just make some comments there. This is a part of five components—the mis- and disinformation bill; the Digital ID Act; identity verification bill; under-16s banned from social media; Reserve Bank of Australia working on a digital currency that’ll be connected to a global digital currency—of a package towards social credit. The second point is that that package is being put by the major parties—Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The third point is that it’s connected to implementation of a similar package around the world in many other nations right now. It’s led to the arrest of 150 people in the United Kingdom, with jail for some, simply for making comments dissenting against the British government.
This misinformation and disinformation bill had some worthy sections on regulating the tech giants, but it was primarily about censorship and censoring the Australian people. One Nation supports a referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution. One Nation supports legislation to mandate and enable free speech and to make free speech sacrosanct so that no state can trump it. One Nation wants to appeal 18C. This has come out of 18C, which is scandalous. They’re some of the basics. I will read part of my dissenting report on the Senate’s inquiry into this bill. It began:
1.1 I thank the witnesses for their submissions and for attending the hearings.
There were many, many witnesses. Thank you, Australia.
1.2 The committee report—
as it was originally drafted—
into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 flies in the face of the expert evidence the committee has received across three days of hearings into the bill.
That evidence just completely smashed it and reversed it. But, with the tidal wave of views from across Australia, the committee changed its view—wonderful.
1.3 A committee inquiry should not perform the function of gift wrapping a decision which has already been taken. A committee inquiry should have the role of deciding if the decisions taken in the bill are correct.
The first report did not do that fundamental thing.
1.4 For three days, the committee heard from human rights advocates and stakeholders who all criticised this bill on human rights grounds, and added warnings the bill would backfire.
That’s what the committee heard almost unanimously.
1.5 It is extraordinary the committee would choose to ignore the recommendations of the very people who they invited to attend to advise them on this matter.
Only when the public turned savagely against the government was the committee report changed at the last minute to reflect today’s motion. The action of the committee to that point would have made it harder:
… for any Senate inquiry in the future to attract the quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted.
Censorship was the purpose of this bill. Censorship was the purpose of the committee report. The criticism of the bill was well placed. My comments continued:
1.7 The Australian Human Rights Commission questioned a basic foundation of the bill—the definition of ‘information’. In the Explanatory Memorandum the term ‘is intended to include opinions, claims, commentary and invective’.
1.8 The Australian Human Rights Commission stated ‘considerable caution should be exercised before including opinions and commentary within the scope of “information” as this significantly broadens the potential reach of this legislation and increases the risk of it being used to censor legitimate debate about matters of public importance.
That is profound. That is the bedrock of a democracy.
1.9 One Nation agrees with this concern. The bill misconstrues human rights as relative, indeed as subordinate to the need of government to suppress opinions they don’t like.
That’s what you tried to do.
1.10 The Human Rights Law Centre recommended Clause 11(e) should be amended to reflect a broader commitment to human rights in the bill’s objectives. It also recommended the Australian Human Rights Commission should be consulted on the development of codes.
‘Consultation’—that’d be nice.
1.11 Several submissions related to the specific areas of misinformation. The Australian Medical Professional Society submitted:
By centralising control over what constitutes medical ‘truth’ in the hands of government regulators, we risk creating an even more Orwellian twist in a system that is already subject to manipulation by powerful interests, to further suppress inconvenient facts and legitimate debate. This would be disastrous not only for free speech and democracy, but for public health as well.
People’s lives depend on this. And you wanted to stop it.
1.12 The report failed to address a critical failing in the debate around COVID. Namely that information presented as medical truth at the time has been proven to be wrong—
not only wrong but completely contradicting the truth—
and information banned as misinformation has now been proven to be true.
Repeatedly, repeatedly and repeatedly.
1.13 On the issue of COVID messaging, One Nation has maintained a contrary position to the Government of the day since 2020. This followed expert testimony from multiple specialists, research doctors and whistle blowers which contradicted the official narrative.
1.14 The implication is simple—what is misinformation one day is truth the next. This is the danger in the Government deciding what is and is not misinformation. The bias will always be in favour of the government’s ‘truth’.
I asked every witness a fundamental question on the last day of the hearing: who is the arbiter of truth? No-one could say who is specified as the arbiter of truth in the bill. They all said that it would default to ACMA. Other provisions in my additional comments included: religious freedom, inauthentic behaviour and media literacy. But the fundamental thing is this was an attempt by the Labor Party to build on the Liberal Party’s previous attempts at censorship by corralling misinformation under their definition, and then driving the social media organisations, the big tech companies, to ram it down people’s throats. That was what you were doing. I’m pleased to see that the people of Australia have put the brake on you. Now I appeal to the people of Australia to keep a foot on their throat because we must stop the banning of under-16-year-old people from social media.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Sullivan): Senator McKenzie, you have 10 seconds.
Australia Post has rolled out a new point-of-sale system in post offices called Horizon. I have received many complaints from Australia Post licensees about system failures, including outages and missing funds. Payments that previously went directly into the licensees’ accounts are now being deposited into Australia Post’s account, forcing licensees to wait several days to access their money.
I questioned Group Chief Executive Paul Graham about the rollout. His responses were entirely at odds with the information I have received from numerous post office licensees. While Mr. Graham claimed there had only been one outage, I was informed of multiple outages, including one that occurred during the Estimates session when Mr Graham was present.
Both the licensees and Mr Graham have offered to hold meetings and conduct inspections to clarify the situation. I look forward to uncovering where the truth lies.
Transcript | Part 1
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Graham, and your colleagues for being here. I am advised by multiple Australia Post licensees that the new Australia Post point-of-sale system, Post+, is in most aspects of its operation not fit for purpose, yet licensees are required to operate using this system. My questions test that contention, which I’m sure you will disagree with. On Monday, 27 May, the system went down for several hours. Australia Post offices were unable to process transactions. According to the licensed post office network, this cost their outlets $200,000 in lost transactions and wasted staff time over several days due to the errors generated in the breakdown. Who pays that loss—you or the licensee?
Mr Graham: Australia Post pays that loss. We repaid that. This is a brand new point-of-sale system that has been rolled out to almost 4,000 post offices. It is a state-of-the-art system replacing what was a 30-year-old system that was well beyond its use-by date. It is fair to say that when you implement any brand new system to the scale that we have implemented it, there will be teething problems. However, I challenge and ascertain that the vast majority of post office licensees are very pleased with the system. I have been around our post offices a lot, particularly in recent months. It does what it says on the box. It has delivered and will continue to deliver even greater efficiency than the old system. That one outage was an unfortunate event. We were still able to transact, but not obviously online. Any cost to the licensee for that was fully compensated by Australia Post.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In the outage, some transactions that were in the process of completing when the system went down failed to complete. In some cases, money went missing. Your helpdesk instructed post office licensees to put in the amounts that went missing from their own pocket to ensure your system balanced with the promise that you would investigate and pay them back if it were sorted out. How much money went missing in the outage? How much money was put in by licensees?
Mr Graham: Well, those statements are not correct, Senator. We did not ask the post offices to put the money back in to balance it out. We provided a report for all those transactions that were not processed through. We did a reconciliation and audit trail working with the individual licensees. We balanced the books with them and had them put through those transactions when the system was up and running.
Senator ROBERTS: Judging by your reaction—we’ve heard this from licensees—you don’t think it’s fair for licensees to put their own money in to make your system balance when the fault was not with the licensees but with the system. So you would disagree that it is happening?
Mr Graham: Well, they didn’t put their money in. They weren’t asked to put in their money.
Senator ROBERTS: So you would disagree?
Mr Graham: Yes. We strongly disagree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the longest outage Post+ has experienced? I have received reports that Post+ can go down for days and that, while it is down, the post office can’t trade.
Mr Graham: No. That is completely false, Senator. I think we are talking minutes. We had that one outage, as you said, for a couple of hours in the very early days when it was launched. We are talking in minutes. I can’t remember when we last had a P1 on that system. As I say, it is built with state-of-the-art architecture. It sits in the cloud. It is fully backed up every day. The reconciliation process that happens at the end of the day, which used to be a very manual process for the licensees, is now fully automated. We’ve launched a new suite of reports that show them every transaction. It enables them to get detailed analysis of the trading during the day. This is a modern system. Those statements are totally incorrect. I strongly object to those statements. I would also say that it is a very small minority of licensees who have made the noise around this system and have done so, in my view, not because of the fact that the system is not performing—it is—but for other mischief.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s continue. Licensees report that the system does not provide an adequate reporting function, with the outcome that the licensees don’t have the data they need to run their daily business.
Mr Graham: Again, Senator, as I said, we have had a reporting system from day 1. We have recently launched the latest update of that. That report, and indeed the review of the system, is done in conjunction with licensees. We have a licensee steering committee that meets on a regular basis to look at enhancements and improvements to the system. We have a whole team of people who are working on these systems and improvements on a day-to-day basis. This is a very collaborative effort. I argue that if you were to go around and speak to licensees, you would get a very positive reaction to the system.
Senator ROBERTS: Maybe that is what I should do. Licensees are reporting Post+ runs slower than the system it replaced, meaning licensees are having to put on extra staff at their own expense. How is that an improvement? LPOs are small businesses. They can’t afford to bankroll your system development. That is the way they see it.
Mr Graham: Well, again, I would say that is a very small minority of licensees. Obviously when you are replacing a system that is 30 years old that people basically know how to operate in their sleep and you introduce a brand new system, it is like going from a rotary phone to a smartphone; it takes time for people to get used to the new navigation of that system. That is something that we highlighted to every post office before the implementation. The actual system itself, in terms of processing transactions, providing more meaningful insights and data, is significantly superior to the 30-year-old COBOL coded system that was in place.
Senator ROBERTS: You have a helpdesk which logs every disputed transaction from a post office. It must be a simple matter to get out data on those reports?
Mr Graham: It is, Senator. We have released, as I say, an updated and enhanced data report a couple of weeks ago that gives insights, visibility and transparency to every transaction that takes place in that system.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could you please provide the number of transactions that have needed to be sorted by the helpdesk, the total value of those transactions, how many are currently in the process of being resolved and, finally, how many were resolved in a manner that required the post office to make good the transaction?
Mr Graham: I’m happy to do so, Senator. I know from looking into that issue that it is a very small amount. We will provide that detail.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The next issue is a missing transaction. Licensees have suspected that money is going missing in the normal operation of the system. Some have started running transaction reports hourly. This is catching your system out by showing the licensee putting the money in for the customer and the money then just disappearing into the ether—gone. At this point, your help desk tells them to put the money in again out of their own pocket. Licensees are reporting thousands of dollars have to be made up per outlet. Are you aware of the problem of missing money?
Mr Graham: That is totally incorrect, Senator. I dispute those claims strongly. The system provides clear transparency on everything that is transacted. There is a complete electronic audit trail, which didn’t occur in the old system. We know every transaction that is reported. What we do find from time to time is that there are operator errors. For example, someone processes a cheque but they put it in as cash. We have to go into the system and talk to the licensee and reverse that transaction so that we can actually record the right dollars going into the right account. This is a modern, state-of-the-art point-of-sale system. As I say, it is replacing a 30-year-old system that was not cybersafe and that had lots of challenges and issues. I would say very strongly that the value that the system will create and is creating will be of significant benefit to the licensees going forward.
Senator ROBERTS: Previously, sales of merchandise through the Australia Post Shop went into the licensee’s bank account on the day of the sale. Under Post+, the money goes into your bank account and is sent back to licensees in 48 hours. It is longer on weekends. How is adding that extra step and introducing payment delays to LPOs an improvement?
Mr Graham: Senator, I’m not aware of that issue, but I’m happy to take it on board. I wouldn’t see any reason why we would want to delay payment. We understand the importance of cash flow to the licensees. We have done a number of things to improve cash flow to the licensees. In terms of merchandise they buy, we give them credit for that merchandise straightaway even when it has not been delivered by us. We don’t take the money out until they physically do it. I am happy to take that query on notice. It doesn’t sound correct to me.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.
Mr Graham: Yes, certainly.
Senator ROBERTS: This is a question of whether or not you’re abusing power over licensees by requiring the LPOs to cover the losses of a system you are requiring LPOs to adopt. What incentive is there for Australia Post to get this right if you don’t wear the losses from this going wrong?
Mr Graham: Well, first of all, Senator, again, I would restate that we do not expect the licensee to suffer any loss for what may or may not be a system failure. That is not an expectation of Australia Post. If the system is down and we have caused any financial harm to the licensee, we will refund whatever harm that is. We are very clear—indeed, it would be a breach of the franchise code if we were to do that—so that does not occur. If the licensees can show us that they have suffered a financial situation because of the system or an error in the system, we will happily make good on that loss.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure they’re watching.
Mr Graham: I’m sure they are. I am happy to talk to them.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the budget for Post+ implementation?
Mr Graham: The total budget for Post+ was about $270 million.
Senator ROBERTS: That is $270 million?
Mr Graham: Yes. It is a very large investment we made. Australia Post made that investment to improve the efficiency, improve the security and improve the features and benefits that were available to our customers as well. It has many benefits to our customers in terms of electronic receipts and SMSs et cetera. It does a number of other things that benefit the end customer.
Senator ROBERTS: Where did the money for Post+ come from?
Mr Graham: It came out of our normal capital investment cycle.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there software code commonality between the UK system known as Horizon and Post+?
Mr Graham: Absolutely not, Senator. The Horizon system was built 16 years ago. This is a brand-new state-of-the-system built in the cloud and built with global best practice around point-of-sale systems.
CHAIR: I will need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts. Make this your last question.
Senator ROBERTS: I need to come back afterwards.
CHAIR: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it your testimony, then, just to make sure I’m clear, that if a review of the software was done, there would be no code commonality between your system and Horizon? Mr Graham: I am not a technical expert, Senator. Given the Horizon system was built in a completely different software language 14 or 15 years ago, I would be very surprised if there were any coding similar to that and done by a completely different company.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Transcript | Part 2
Senator ROBERTS: I have a brief few questions. Do you, Mr Graham, or Australia Post have access to the software code for Post+ to review? Did Australia Post review the code before implementation?
Mr Graham: Yes. We have a comprehensive review process. We have also had that process externally validated. We have ownership of the source code of that software platform. It is a core, obviously, operating platform for our retail business. Therefore, it is really critical that it does what it says it does on the box and that we maintain and continue to invest in updating that software to reflect improvements we can make both in its operating system in relation to the enhancements that can be provided to customers when they transact with us over the counter and being able to make it more efficient for our team members and the licensed post offices that use it. I will give you an example. One of its features is an online training program. If you are in a transaction and you are stuck, you can go to the screen. It will show you and explain how that transaction could be managed. None of that was available in the old system. The old system was literally a rotary telephone equivalent to what is now a smartphone.
Senator ROBERTS: So you manage it yourself internally—your Australia Post people?
Mr Graham: No. We work with the software provider who worked with us to build the software. They work with us. We have our own team of software engineers. They have their team. We work with them to implement the enhancements, do the normal backups and all the other things you would do with a large-scale technology system.
Senator ROBERTS: So the company installing the point-of-sale system is Fujitsu. Is that correct?
Mr Graham: No. That’s not correct, Senator. They are installing the hardware—the screens and the keyboards. The company that is involved is a company called OVC, which is an American company.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the name of the company?
Mr Graham: It is OVC. They specialise in point-of-sale systems. They built the software in conjunction with Australia Post. The role that Fujitsu plays is a role that they’ve played with us through a contract. They have responsibility for servicing our screens, laptops, keyboards and all the normal—
Senator ROBERTS: Hardware only?
Mr Graham: Hardware only—correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Fujitsu is the company that provided the UK Horizon system. Correct?
Mr Graham: Fourteen or 15 years ago, that’s correct, Senator. Correct. They’ve had no role in the software provision of Post+.
Senator ROBERTS: They cannot go in and change the data in a system such as account balances, as they testified they could in the UK?
Mr Graham: Correct. It is a closed system. They have no access to the software. They have no role in the software. It’s completely closed. The only people who have access to that are our engineers. Again, we have a clear technology audit trail for when people access the system as well as OVC.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is the last question in this thread. I have a few more after that on another topic.
CHAIR: You are the only one left, Senator Roberts. You can keep going.
Senator ROBERTS: Money is going missing, according to the LPOs. Where is that money going? It has to be going into someone’s bank account.
Mr Graham: Senator, first of all, again, I would strongly challenge that claim. Money is not going missing. We have a full electronic audit trail of every single transaction that takes place. We provide that report both to the licensees and to our own internal team. Again, I would highlight that there is a very small noisy contingent of one licensee group that is not representative of the vast majority of licensees. I have been out there. I have met with them. I have been in town halls. I have been around the country, as has our retail team. The vast majority of people—again, I am happy to accompany you to visit our licensees—are very positive about the system, having replaced an old creaky system that was 30 years out of date.
Senator ROBERTS: So is this small disgruntled group scattered across the country, or are they in a locality?
Mr Graham: I couldn’t give you that. I know it is a very small group. As I said earlier, we believe they are pushing a broader agenda, not just around Post+. Therefore, they are creating noise when we believe there is no noise. We take very seriously to ensure that the system does what it says it does. We have spent $270 million. It had better do what it does. This is going to be around for a long time. We have made sure that we will do an upgrade of this system every year. That is unlike the old system, which was well out of date and had not been upgraded and was a cyber risk. This system, again, is built in the cloud with modern architecture and modern infrastructure. We are committing tens of millions of dollars to continually make sure it is upgraded and reflects the needs of both the users, which includes the corporate post offices as well as the licensees, and our customers.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how big this small group is that you’re talking about?
Mr Graham: No. We believe it is a small minority based on surveys we’ve done in relation to Post+, activity when we have been out talking to licensee associations and, indeed, the day-to-day backwards and forwards we have with all licensees.
Senator ROBERTS: So they are not in any one of the two licensee groups?
Mr Graham: They may be, Senator, in one group.
Senator ROBERTS: What are their main issues? What are they disgruntled about?
Mr Graham: Well, I think it has been a longstanding issue with Australia Post over a long time. As I have said, I cannot fix the problems of the past. They are in the past. My job is to fix today and tomorrow and to listen and to respond to any genuine concerns they have. We have done that. We are not perfect. Occasionally we do make mistakes. We open up and put our hand up about those mistakes. They have, I guess, motives around the role that Australia Post should play in banking, for example. We believe that our Bank@Post service is the right service for us. We don’t believe we should go beyond that. As I say, there are historic gripes that go back some time. We have worked very hard to ensure that we resolve any outstanding issues. I say again, and with strong conviction, that the vast majority of our licensees have a very positive attitude to Post+ and have a very positive attitude to the investments we are making. Both associations stood behind our licensee buyback program in metropolitan areas. They clearly recognised the significant overlap and the financial strain that a lot of these licensees in metropolitan areas were undergoing.
Senator ROBERTS: I will move to the next topic. Can I pay my Telstra mobile telephone bill at Australia Post?
Mr Graham: You can. You will pay a fee for that, which Telstra has imposed on you as a Telstra customer.
Senator ROBERTS: Who gets the fee?
Mr Graham: The fee gets split, I believe. I will take it on notice. I believe it gets split between the licensee, who gets money for the transaction, and Telstra.
Senator ROBERTS: Recently, Telstra updated their terms of service for some mobile phone customers. It no longer allows payments to be made at post offices. Have you just lost a customer?
Mr Graham: Well, this is not uncommon, Senator. As I said, our over-the-counter transactions outside Bank@Post have gone down 28 per cent over recent years. More and more companies are encouraging their customers to pay bills digitally or electronically or online. We have seen a significant decline in what we call our Billpay services for paying gas bills and telephone bills et cetera because customers are being encouraged to pay electronically or, indeed, are being penalised if they pay over the counter.
Senator ROBERTS: The banks like doing that to us anyway.
Mr Graham: Well, that’s an opinion one could express, Senator, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking for your opinion. Has a long-term solution been found for the cost of carrying cash, such as with Armaguard?
Mr Graham: It’s a very good question, Senator. I don’t believe a long-term solution has been found. Again, this is where Australia Post plays an important role. Whilst we’ve had the banks and, indeed, the RBA, confirm that cash use in the economy is declining, we cater to a demographic and a profile of society where cash is the main form of transacting. It is the elderly. It is people who don’t have English as a first language. It is areas where there is a high immigrant intake or a distrust of financial institutions. We are on the other side. We are seeing growth in that area of transactions. My observation is that these are customers who may not be that attractive to the bank because they don’t have mortgages or they don’t have business banking accounting. We are the service provider that is providing that service and will continue to provide that service. As I said in my opening statement, whilst we remain very happy to do that, we need to do that at a small margin so we can continue to invest in that service. That service is on track to make a loss for Australia Post.
Senator ROBERTS: Didn’t you say maybe 12 months ago when I saw you that Australia Post has the largest retail network in the country?
Mr Graham: We have, in terms of our footprint, over 4,181 branches, correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I will come back to that in a minute. Do you have plans to change any post offices from manned to unmanned using kiosks?
Mr Graham: We have a whole range of different formats, including unmanned kiosks for self-service terminals. They are both our parcel lockers as well as where you can go to buy a stamp, envelope or satchel. That’s part of the broad range of services we provide. As I said, when we look at a suburb or a neighbourhood, we look at what services they are demanding. For example, a group in a Sydney area recently was looking for postal services. We had a town hall. We met with the community. It’s a community where a lot of parents both work. They wanted the convenience of picking up their parcels out of hours, so we installed three locker banks. That more than satisfied that local community along with some self-service terminals. In other cases—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. That is to enhance a manned post office rather than to replace a manned post office?
Mr Graham: It’s to enhance availability and convenience. In other places, such as growth corridors that we see in Western Melbourne or, indeed, Newcastle and west of Newcastle, we will work with community to put in a new post office or a new range of services. We continue to see customers demand convenience with their parcels. They want to be able to pick them up 24/7 and access them through the postal pap. It’s not a simple one-size-fits-all. We look to try to adapt a range of offerings to meet community needs.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question and the last topic. Some months ago, you were very positive about the possibility of an Australian postal bank. What are your thoughts now on the possibilities of that? Are you getting any support from the government?
Mr Graham: Senator, I’ve always made it clear that is a matter for government. We are very happy to continue providing our Bank@Post over-the-counter transactional services. We would be even happier if we make a small margin and our licensees could get more money for that. Anything beyond that is a matter for government.
During this session with the AFP, I inquired whether they had received a complaint about several individuals who had received tainted blood as a result of failures by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Red Cross to ensure the safety of blood donations used in medical treatments. The question was taken on notice.
Transcript
Thank you all for appearing tonight. I’ll get one question out of the way first. In October this year, several haemophiliacs and parents of haemophiliacs filed criminal complaints with the Australian Federal Police commissioner, Commissioner Kershaw. The complainants have not received any acknowledgement of their submissions. Is the federal government aware of these complaints? When can the complainants expect a response?
Mr McCartney: I’m not across the matter. I’ll take that on notice, and we’ll come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve supported these people and we’ll continue to support them. They’ve got a serious case. It’s an injustice that’s very strong and sustained. Their counterparts in Britain have been dealt with properly. These people over here are not being dealt with.
During my session with ASIO, I asked why they did not intervene when terrorist flags were flown, which is an offence, at demonstrations. Mr. Burgess explained that he was actually pleased when such incidents like this occurred because it made it easier to identify persons of interest and monitor them more closely in the future. He stated that it’s not ASIO’s role to enforce the law, as that responsibility falls to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
He clarified that ASIO functions as a security service. From a security perspective, Mr. Burgess noted that they would assess whether a visa applicant was a Hamas or Hezbollah sympathiser. He also confirmed that ASIO collaborates closely with the AFP and international partners.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the last five minutes. We’re finishing on 10.30.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess and others, for attending. At recent pro-Palestinian rallies in Australia, the Hamas and Hezbollah flags and symbols have been highly visible and displayed by participants. This is an offence. Why did ASIO not step in with the AFP and arrest the offenders?
Mr Burgess: Firstly, and again, ASIO is not a law enforcement agency. We don’t arrest anyone. What I can say on this matter is that, as the head of a security service, I welcome when individuals fly the flag, so to speak, and indicate that they’re someone we should have an interest in. If people are silly enough to do that—whether it’s unlawful or not is a matter for law enforcement—I personally welcome people declaring their hand, which allows ASIO to conduct lines of inquiry and investigation into those individuals should they be a threat to security.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you sending two messages there? One is to encourage people to fly their flags even though it’s illegal. Or are you encouraging people to do that and be identified?
Mr Burgess: No; I’m just making the comment that if people are silly enough to do that, then it actually is something that we can use as a point of interest. Of course, if people are actually flying symbols which are unlawful, then they’re breaking the law. But I’ll leave that to our Federal Police colleagues to talk about when they’re up at estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think you had the power to arrest people, but what are your responsibilities? What avenues do you have?
Mr Burgess: We’re a security service. We get to investigate threats to security, including politically motivated violence, promotion of criminal violence, sabotage, foreign interference, espionage and anything that jeopardises the integrity of Australia’s border or attacks Australia’s defence systems.
Senator ROBERTS: The flying of a flag would be seen as flagging someone of suspicion to you, but it’s up to the police to prosecute.
Mr Burgess: It’s an indicator that there may be a violent ideology behind that. It might just be the actions of a misdirected individual who doesn’t really know what they’re doing.
Senator ROBERTS: By the way, I’ve read your opening statement, and I won’t be asking questions about the Gaza visas. Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah?
Mr Burgess: Let’s get into a conversation about what a sympathiser is. Are you asking whether there are people who actually support listed terrorist organisations?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Burgess: Yes. Are they all supporting listed terrorist organisations? No. The nature of that support is actually—when we get involved in a process of looking at someone, a visa holder, if it’s referred to us or intelligence indicates that we should look at someone, we’ll look at everything that’s before us and available to us through our international partnerships to make an assessment of whether someone in that case represents a direct or indirect threat to security.
Senator ROBERTS: You look at individuals.
Mr Burgess: We’ll look at individuals when they’re referred to us or intelligence indicates that we need to look at someone, and we’ll investigate them with rigour.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah. I’m told you do the screening in terms of security.
Mr Burgess: We’re looking at security, yes. A very small number of them turn out to be an indirect or direct threat to security, based on our current work.
Senator ROBERTS: At mosques in Sydney and Melbourne, there have recently been speakers preaching hate and violence to their followers in relation to antisemitic themes. Why have ASIO and the AFP not intervened and arrested these pedlars of death and destruction? I know that you can’t arrest someone.
Mr Burgess: I obviously won’t talk about specific cases, but if we’re looking at individuals who are actually very cleverly staying on the right side of the law but could be interpreted by someone as actually still giving permission for violence, of course we would be interested, and our investigative efforts would be applied with rigour. How much effort they get depends on what we find as we make our inquiries and up through our levels of investigation, including the use of special powers if warranted.
Senator ROBERTS: What do those special powers involve?
Mr Burgess: A range of interception, computer access warrants, enter and search operations. We get highly intrusive under a warrant authorised by the Attorney-General, if we have the grounds that warrant that.
Senator ROBERTS: If it involves a breach of the law, will you report it to the police?
Mr Burgess: We pass that straight to our partners in the law enforcement joint counterterrorism teams.
Senator ROBERTS: You work together with the AFP and the state police forces, presumably.
Mr Burgess: In every state and territory, there is a thing called a joint counterterrorism team, which includes the state or territory police forces, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to Senator Rennick’s questions, what do you see as your responsibility once exposing a foreign agent?
Mr Burgess: If we’ve got a threat to security, someone’s engaged in foreign interference or espionage, we will deal with it through either an intelligence-led disruption or pass that matter over to our mates in the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, and the Australian Federal Police will take it from there, as was the case with the two Russian-born Australian citizens this year.
Senator ROBERTS: You and Senator Rennick may not have agreed on the words and not understood each other’s words, but do you need any laws passed to enable you to do your job better?
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) claims there are no side effects from COVID Vaccines. I’ve asked them multiple times to search their medical records database and report how many times the word “myocarditis” and other conditions have appeared over the years.
They tried telling me that conducting such a search wasn’t possible, however they seem to have forgotten that they advised they had done such a search, in a previous Question on Notice, proving it can be done.
The real issue is that they are unwilling to conduct a search for the subsequent years because they know the number of matches have increased over the years, which would force them to admit there is a problem.
Transcript
CHAIR: Welcome back. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. CASA has again refused to provide, in SQ24-001131, the number of times myocarditis and other conditions are mentioned in your medical records system. What are you hiding?
Ms Spence: Nothing. As we’ve explained before, the medical records don’t allow themselves to be interrogated in the way that you’ve asked. But, as we have indicated previously, we have no evidence or examples of any pilot who has been impacted by a COVID vaccination in a way that has meant they weren’t airworthy.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t take the word of British courts and our own health authorities here?
Ms Spence: I’m simply explaining to you what’s in our system. We have no-one who’s reported having become unairworthy as a result of a COVID vaccination. Nothing has changed from when we provided evidence to you on this basis in numerous estimates hearings.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We’ll come back to that. This is a simple matter. You simply search your database for the word myocarditis, and you give this committee the number of matches that are returned. Why do you refuse to do that?
Ms Spence: Because, Senator, as I think—again—we’ve explained previously, if we were to do that, it wouldn’t necessarily align with any examples of myocarditis. I can’t explain it anymore than I have previously, and that Andreas Marcelja has and Kate Manderson has. We’ve got nothing more to add, I’m sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Then you say it is an unreasonable diversion of resources. That’s freedom-ofinformation talk, and I don’t know if you realise this, but that excuse doesn’t fly in the Senate. You’re in parliament. How many hours did it take you to answer SQ23-003267, dated 13 February 2023?
Ms Spence: I’d have to take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many resources did it take you to answer that question?
Ms Spence: I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CASA seems to change between two different excuses on this issue—the same issue. Most recently you’ve said it’s too hard and voluminous. Before, you just said it wouldn’t be useful without context. It seems like you can do the search; you just don’t want to. My question is: can you do this search for those words in your medical records system?
Ms Spence: Senator, the—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I can’t imagine that answer is no, because you’ve already done it. Thank you for confirming it. What specifically has changed since you answered SQ23-003267 in February 2023 that means it’s impossible for you to answer the same question in the same way in SQ24-001131?
Ms Spence: My recollection, Senator, was—the issue that we’ve got is that we could do a search and the word could come up. We’ve got no way, without significant resources, to actually determine how often that word is actually linked to someone who has experienced that condition. We’d have to review every time that the word came up to determine whether it’s actually linked to a specific example, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned. You mean that you’re telling me that CASA won’t get off its backside and examine something unless the answer’s easy?
Ms Spence: No, Senator, that’s not what I said.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a bit of work involved here. You’re responsible. You’re the sole person responsible for the safety of our commercial aviation system.
Ms Spence: And we put our resources where it makes the most difference.
Senator ROBERTS: I want the question answered. What specifically has changed—then we can come back to this hearing and talk about the context. Right now, I’m asking why the Senate shouldn’t refer you for contempt, for blatantly refusing to do something you can do—seemingly out of convenience or to try to hide the answer.
Ms Spence: Senator, I’ve got nothing further to add. I’m not trying to hide anything. I’m simply saying that to get the answer that you’re after would require us to go through what could be a voluminous number of examples of the word, with no way of being able to determine which one is actually related to a specific example of that, and that’s what we’ve said consistently throughout our appearances.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you just provide the answer to the question? The number of times—
Ms Spence: I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AstraZeneca has been withdrawn. AstraZeneca was found to be dangerous and not effective in the British court system. You refuse to give me, after many attempts, the name of any agency or person—expert—as to who you’ve based your assessment that vaccines were safe.
Ms Spence: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: AstraZeneca has been withdrawn. What is CASA doing to test—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to let Ms Spence answer that, in all fairness. I’m going to—
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t get to my question yet.
CHAIR: I think you said ‘you refused’ or something like that. You were going along ‘who was the expert that said’. And I remember sitting in this building when our Prime Minister was carried out on a sultan’s chair with every Premier because of AstraZeneca and all that sort of stuff. But I think you should at least allow Ms Spence just to answer that claim—
Senator ROBERTS: Fine, but I haven’t asked my question yet.
CHAIR: No, but you made a claim—an assertion. I do want to give her the chance, Senator Roberts. Thank you.
Ms Spence: Unfortunately, Senator, you could go through Hansard and find it as well. We have relied on the health experts—
Senator ROBERTS: Go through what?
Ms Spence: Sorry, Senator; if you want to follow up on issues around AstraZeneca, they should be referred to the health department, not the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what you’re doing to make sure that pilots who took AstraZeneca are not at risk.
Ms Spence: We have not seen any example of a pilot being incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination.
Senator ROBERTS: Again it seems to me that CASA is waiting for the evidence to jump into its face.
Ms Spence: I have nothing else to add, I’m sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked?
Ms Spence: Before we came to Senate estimates, yes, I asked whether there had been any examples of a pilot coming up in our system as having been incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination, and the answer has not changed from the last time we appeared before this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Specifically, AstraZeneca?
Ms Spence: No, Senator, all COVID vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it be worth checking, because we now know that AstraZeneca is dangerous?
Ms Spence: Senator, it wouldn’t matter what vaccination they had. The question is: has any pilot been incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination? That would include AstraZeneca, as well as the other types of vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that, but do we need to remind you that some pilots are afraid to report their injuries?
Ms Spence: Senator, if you’ve got pilots who you know are incapacitated, or if pilots are approaching you who said they are incapacitated, as a result of a COVID vaccination, I can only encourage you to get them to report that. They can do it anonymously through the ATSB response, but I cannot act on what I have no knowledge of.
