Top Bureaucrat Skips Senate Estimates Questions

,

Earlier this year, I asked the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services numerous questions about his oversight of workers that help out at Parliament House. Despite earning $480,000 a year and only needing to attend Estimates three times a year, there was no explanation for the type of leave Stefanic was on that prevented him from fronting up to answer questions.

There are serious questions he needs to answer, and I’ll continue to ask these questions on behalf of former employees of Parliament House.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. What is the nature of your boss’s leave?

Ms Hinchcliffe: In my opening statement I indicated we don’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not? I heard your opening statement.

Ms Hinchcliffe: They go to personal matters for individuals, so we wouldn’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely this is affecting the morale, which you want to turn around, of the DPS staff. As Senator Hume pointed out, the taxpayer is paying for it.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure that it’s affecting morale of staff. I walk around the building and talk to our staff, and my sense of staff is that they are very committed to this building and are very committed to the work they do.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree, but many of come up to me and they’re not happy. They’re very dissatisfied with the way the department has been run. What is the nature of his leave?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that we won’t be discussing—

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard that he’s being paid while he’s on leave. How long will he be on paid leave, noting that on Wednesday it will have been four weeks since he informed DPS staff he had gone on leave?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I indicated to an earlier question that I don’t have an end date for his leave.

Senator ROBERTS: Was Mr Stefanic’s decision to take leave on 9 October 2024 related to the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s raid on DPS in Parliament House on 3 October?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve indicated that I’m not speaking any further in relation to the execution of the warrants by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware it was specifically requested that Mr Stefanic be here to answer questions that he has personal knowledge of.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I wrote to the committee chair to indicate that he would not be available and to request that he be excused from this.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re aware that he was specifically requested. I specifically requested him.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m aware now that you specifically requested. As I said, I went through the process, wrote to the chair and asked that he be excused.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has to appear at estimates only three times a year. He knew these hearings were coming up. He was formally requested and has failed to show up. How is this not contempt of the Senate?

Ms Hinchcliffe: As I already indicated in my evidence, I wrote to the chair and asked for him to be excused.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you feel like you’ve been thrown under the bus?

Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I do not.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has repeatedly said that complaints about DPS are purely due to former employees with an axe to grind. Do you share that view?

Ms Hinchcliffe: You may remember my evidence at the last hearing, where I said that I think that feedback is gold. We talked particularly about things like the staff survey and the importance of staff having the availability to provide to management their feedback on how they consider things are going but also where they’d like to see the department go into the future.

Senator ROBERTS: The employees of DPS that I hear from, especially security, are not at all happy. Do you know whether Mr Stefanic was in a relationship with Cate Saunders before or after he appointed her to the deputy secretary position?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge about Mr Stefanic’s relationships, and I’m not willing to answer anything further on that. That’s not a matter for me.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to the case of ACD 13—it almost sounds like a rock group—in the Federal Court involving DPS. There’s a suppression order over that case except for hearings of parliament. I remind you that estimates is a hearing of parliament. I understand that the complainant, ACD 13, has consented to lifting that suppression order but DPS will not consent to lifting the suppression order. Is DPS resisting lifting that order?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have a lot of details on that matter, but as I understand it there’s currently a consultation underway. I can understand that our lawyers have been approached and that we’re going through
consultation processes at the moment, so that’s an ongoing matter which I won’t comment on any further.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you find out that the status is and give us an update on notice, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I will take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What does DPS have to hide that you want to keep under suppression? What is it?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I have nothing to add in relation to that matter.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand Mr Robert Brigden instructed solicitors in ACD 13 that Rob Stefanic had ‘no involvement’ in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee. Is that what was instructed?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware of this matter in any detail. It occurred before I came to DPS. I don’t have anything I can add to that, sorry.

Senator ROBERTS: Is the statement that Rob Stefanic had no involvement in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee true?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge of this matter to provide you with any further information.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the records of the first interview that took place with Barbara Deegan of Ashurst Lawyers?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware, no. I have no awareness of this matter.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is, in those records of the interview, contrary to the statement that he wasn’t involved, the facts show the contents of the envelope were taken and shown to Mr Stefanic and they were then kept in Mr Stefanic’s safe. Is that true?

Ms Hinchcliffe: As I just said, I don’t have any awareness of this matter. It occurred before I became to DPS.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice to find that out, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I can take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Please take on notice to produce the transcripts of record of first interviews by Barbara Deegan from Ashurst with Andrew Brigden, Rob Stefanic and Cate Saunders. Note that the suppression order
from the Federal Court has a specific exemption for this hearing, so it does not apply to this request. Can you take that on notice, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Did Cate Saunders make any intervention to ensure that the statement that Rob Stefanic was not involved in the envelope interception was included?

Ms Hinchcliffe: As I said, I have no knowledge of this matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and find out, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take it on notice, but whether I can find anything out is a different matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could check with the people involved that I’ve just named. Can you please confirm exactly when Cate Saunders began her employment?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I can. She was engaged with DPS on 17 December 2017.

Senator ROBERTS: How many branch or division managers have left their position over the last three years?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I would need to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: That is understandable. Broadly, in relation to the NACC raid on raid on DPS of 3 October 24, have any DPS executives been stood down pending the NACC investigation and, if so, how many?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that I won’t be speaking any further in relation to the NACC matters, but I can say that no senior executives have been stood down.

Senator ROBERTS: How many DPS executives are on paid leave while the investigation is underway?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Again, I’ve said that I’m not going to answer any other questions in relation to the—

Senator ROBERTS: This is in relation to your department, not the NACC.

Ms Hinchcliffe: No, you’re asking questions about people who might be on leave that go to whether or not they’re being investigated. At that point I need to consider whether or not that actually starts to go to a public
interest question, so I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and, if you want to claim public indemnity, then it needs to go through the minister.

CHAIR: Public interest immunity.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—I get tangled up. Ms Hinchcliffe, when did you become aware that the NACC was investigating DPS?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I haven’t indicated what the NACC is investigating; I’ve indicated that the NACC has executed search warrants on DPS, and I’ve also indicated that I won’t answer any further questions.

Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of that investigation?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I have indicated that I won’t answer any further questions in relation to the investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of the warrants?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I became aware that the NACC were going to issue warrants on DPS on 2 October.

Senator ROBERTS: Was that your first indication?

Ms Hinchcliffe: That the NACC was going to execute a warrant on 3 October? Yes, it was.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ms Hinchcliffe, during your time working at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, were you part of the team that dealt with the complaint about the handling of a Public
Interest Disclosure Act disclosure at DPS?

Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I was not.

Senator ROBERTS: When did you first work with Rob Stefanic?

Ms Hinchcliffe: When he started as secretary at DPS, and I think that was in the second half of 2015. It might have been in December.

Senator ROBERTS: So you were already there, and he came in as your boss?

Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s exactly right.

Senator ROBERTS: What year and date?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I think Mr Stefanic started in 2015. It was towards the end of the year; I started in April 2015.

Senator ROBERTS: So you preceded him by about six or seven months?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I think so.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you consider Rob Stefanic to be a personal friend?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I consider Mr Stefanic to be a colleague. He’s been somebody that I’ve worked with previously, and I’ve come and worked for him as the deputy secretary. I don’t have any outside engagement with
him, and I work with him as a colleague.

Senator ROBERTS: So you were there when he arrived? He arrived after you?

Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you work with him before that?

Ms Hinchcliffe: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please take on notice to provide the total number of sexual harassment claims that DPS has settled over the previous five years and include the average settlement amount, the standard
deviation and how many of them have been under non-disclosure agreements?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I’ll take that notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The upper management of DPS obviously has a lot of work to do to earn back the trust of DPS employees. We know that from just walking around the building. People come up to me
frequently. I would say to you that that work to restore trust starts with accountability and transparency. Surely, you could start the transparency with how you answer these questions and allow the suppression order to be lifted.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that as a comment, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, will you lift the suppression order? I’d like that on notice.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already taken on notice of where that is up to, and I think that forms part of that question. If it’s not, if it’s a separate question, then I’ll take that on notice too.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. President, Minister—

The President: President.

Senator ROBERTS: President, thank you. Could I have your answer to that question as well please?

The President: What question?

Senator ROBERTS: I would say that trust starts with accountability. Could the suppression order be lifted?

The President: That’s got nothing to do with me, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Nothing at all?

The President: No. It’s a departmental matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, President. Thank you, Chair.

/0 Comments/by

Queensland: Free of Labor, But Not Yet Free

,

My latest article in the Spectator Australia.

Allow me to offer my congratulations to the people of Queensland. We have freed ourselves from the inexcusable abuse perpetrated by Labor, first at the hands of ‘Queensland hospitals are only for Queenslanders’ Annastacia Palaszczuk and then from the self-proclaimed audition of Steve ‘Giggles’ Miles who governed under the impression that economic hardship and a rise of youth crime were some sort of laughing matter.

Falling back on the childish ‘free lunches’ campaign, stolen from the socialists of old, surely proved the cheap and insincere nature of our major parties.

How fitting to hear the dying screech of the Greens complaining that Mr Miles had nicked their lunches. Queenslanders have been watching Labor re-cycle the Greens’ bad ideas as criminals might launder dirty money.

Read more here: https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/11/queensland-free-of-labor-but-not-yet-free/

/0 Comments/by

Real Cost of Living Soars

,

Australians deserve the truth about our economic reality, not sugar-coated statistics. While the official CPI reports 3.8% inflation, the actual cost of living for most working Australians is a staggering 6.2%

We need policies to end the inflation burden created by both major parties. Australia has everything we need right here to be the richest country in the world.  It simply requires the guts to make common-sense decisions – and only One Nation has that guts!

Transcript

 If you think you’re going backwards, you are, and faster than you think. Last Monday, we had an inquiry, as a result of a motion of mine, to understand the CPI figure from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That’s what we wanted to find out: what the Australian Bureau of Statistics does. My inquiry revealed that, as everyone knows, the CPI is 3.8 per cent, but selected living-cost indices that the Australian Bureau of Statistics produces and publishes show that most employees—80 per cent of Australians—face a cost-of-living increase in their spending of 6.2 per cent.  

I’ve got no criticism of the ABS. They do what they’re told. Chart 1 in their submission shows that in 2022, soon after the coalition left, the CPI was eight per cent, and food and beverages went up by nine per cent. That’s the legacy that the coalition left. The CPI price change for dairy and related products over the last four years has been 27 per cent; food products, 23 per cent; bread and cereal products, 23 per cent. This is the reality: both the Labor Party and the Liberal-Nationals are contributing to inflation. The prices of groceries, insurance, housing, rents and energy are all artificial and only One Nation has the policies to be able to solve them because we don’t do what the uniparty does.  

/0 Comments/by

End Secrecy in Defence

,

Transparency and accountability are essential in a democracy, yet this government continues to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, especially when it comes to the higher brass in the Department of Defence.

The refusal to release the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force isn’t about national security—it’s about avoiding embarrassment. We need a process that allows senators to confidentially review sensitive documents, ensuring accountability while protecting the public interest. We must demand a government that serves the people, not itself.

One Nation will fight for our Defence Force personnel to be treated fairly by senior officers. One standard must apply to all.

Transcript

Well, the minister’s explanation is pitiful. Look at paragraph (a)(iv) of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge’s motion. Senator Wong failed to comply. She did not provide the names. Who has been consulted in relation to the release of the report of the 20-year review of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force? Why is the government continuing to hide? This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. This is the government’s response. The claim isn’t that there was anything classified in the report of the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force that Senator Lambie had been seeking; the claim the minister makes is that this report wasn’t meant to be released because the government didn’t want it to be released, not that national security was under threat, not that there was classified information in it. The government didn’t want it to be released because that would be embarrassing and they would be asked to do something about it. That’s not good enough.  

An order to produce documents that passes this Senate is constitutionally superior to acts of law. The government doesn’t get to decide that they can toss those orders in the bin. This is a rare occasion where we get to see the report even though the government refused to hand it over. Credit must go to Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge for pushing this and to their offices for managing to get a copy of the report. Usually, as senators, we’re left in the dark. The government makes a public interest immunity claim and refuses to hand over anything. The government tells us that if this report was released the sky would fall in, that there would be an earthquake that shatters the public interest. Now, as senators, we’re quite reasonable and responsible. We know that truth reinforces truth. While we might desperately want that information we somewhat trust that the government hasn’t lied to our face and that there would be an actual risk to the public interest if the document were published. Yesterday and today show once and for all, yet again, that the government is completely undeserving of that trust.  

The minister’s explanation clearly isn’t sufficient, and the current process for ordering documents is failing the Australian people and the senators seeking information on behalf of the people—information that belongs to the Australian people. To that end, I’ll again be proposing a new, additional way for handling orders for documents. When ministers make a public interest immunity claim, the claimed harm results from releasing the document to the public. There’s a way to make sure this is a win-win. I’ll go through it again. It’s making sure sensitive information isn’t released while at the same time ensuring senators get the information needed to make informed decisions. The way to do this is to establish a process for senators to confidentially review ordered documents without releasing them to the public.  

This proposal may sound familiar to some. I first raised it in 2022, and this Senate supported a reference to the Procedure Committee for inquiry. With respect to the senators on that committee, the response was lacking. The inquiry was given four months to report on the issue, did not seek any submissions and produced the Procedure Committee’s first report of 2023 of a towering two pages. While the committee declined to endorse the proposal, they did confirm that it’s feasible. The committee committed to further report on the process for the order for the production of documents later in 2023. No report was delivered. Imagine that. Given the increased frequency of orders for the production of documents and the nearly blanket ban the government seems to be applying on transparency, it’s time to deal with this issue again. 

This proposal is relatively simple. If the minister makes a public interest immunity claim, they wouldn’t have to release it to the public but they would have to release it to us—the senators—confidentially. A majority of the Senate could then decide whether the minister’s claim is legitimate and the document deserves to be kept secret from the public. It’s true that, just like a normal order for the production of documents, the minister could refuse to hand over the documents to the committee. Since no harm could flow from public disclosure in this process, it would be apparent that the only harm the government would want to avoid would be embarrassment. That gives us a better reason to apply sanctions for noncompliance, which the Senate is rightly cautious to do under the current process. In making a public interest immunity claim the minister would be automatically required to nominate a standing committee to receive the document, and only senators would be allowed to review it.  

I will be submitting a notice of motion with some draft amendments to the standing orders for senators to consider over the break. I welcome their input and any suggestions to make these changes better. The Australian public deserves transparency, and as the Senate, the house of review, we must deliver accountability on this government. Recent weeks in this chamber have shown debacle after debacle. The government is in chaos. Australia has a chaotic government, and the people pay for that—enlisted people and veterans pay for it. The Senate’s scrutiny will help the government to govern and reduce the chaos. We are willing to help you, and that’s what our help will do. The people deserve the truth, openness and accountability. (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Australian’s Data Must be Protected

, ,

With a Digital ID framework established, our data is more important than ever. Why does it seem like the government is willing to hand Australian data centres over to foreign interests?

The government is more interested in serving their donors, who are connected to multinational corporations, than in looking after Australians. Only One Nation will put Australians’ interests first and protect their data.

Transcript

We have to wonder whether this government is capable of stopping any bit of Australia being sold to foreign multinational corporations, or is it all just part of its digital ID plan? We’re going to find out when the Foreign Investment Review Board makes its decision on the $24 billion buyout of Australian-founded data firm AirTrunk. AirTrunk is the largest data centre platform in the entire Asia-Pacific region. A conglomerate of multinational investment firms and foreign pension funds is about to buy it. It wasn’t that long ago the government somehow let China buy a 99-year lease to control the Port of Darwin, Australia’s most northern and strategically vital port. Less than a year ago, the Albanese government decided to keep letting China own the 99-year port lease. Many are still dumbfounded. How could we ever let this happen? 

As data becomes as valuable as gold in an increasingly digital world, we may one day look back at the sale of AirTrunk in the same way. Data is fast becoming an essential utility for the entire world. All the opportunities a digital world presents are clear yet the risks of profit-hungry corporations and increasingly tyrannical governments abusing digital identity outnumber the benefits. 

In a digital identity world, where privacy protections are paper-thin, sovereign control of our data centres is a matter of economic and national security, and personal security. Unfortunately, except in the most severe and blatant cases, the Foreign Investment Review Board has a track record of not appreciating the importance of Australians owning Australia. We can anticipate that the Foreign Investment Review Board will rubber-stamp this deal, like so many others. The data centres that Australians’ sensitive data passes through and sits in will become foreign-owned. Let’s put Australians first and ban foreign ownership of sensitive companies.  

/0 Comments/by