December 2024 - Page 3 of 4

NDIS Overlooks Fair Compensation for Family Caregivers

During this Estimate session in November, I inquired about the potential streamlining of payments to care workers and received responses primarily related to care providers (agencies). It appears that not all care providers are registered, and the registered ones must meet minimum standards. I also asked about the possibility of family or friends providing care being properly compensated for their extensive services. I was informed that these individuals may receive allowances, but that these amounts would be small compared to fair remuneration for their services. The NDIS views these supports as beneficial, yet is not willing to pay unless they are provided on a professional basis by individuals trained to a specific standard.

It seems that the NDIS is not prepared to offer support to family members providing vital care; rather, they will only support workers affiliated with recognised care providers. They seem to overlook the fact that many families make significant sacrifices to care for a disabled relative in a home setting, yet are not entitled to fair remuneration for the many hours of unpaid work they contribute.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. What is being done to streamline the payment system for care providers?

Ms C McKenzie: As Ms McKay was talking about before, we have a range of improvements underway through a significant program of work, particularly the crackdown on fraud program of work. That will include
progressive improvements to the provider platform and a range of other payment systems to improve and support the continued improvement of the payment system through to providers.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean the IT focus?

Ms C McKenzie: It is predominantly IT focused. Yes, that’s right. So it is upgrading systems that are at the end of their life or are approaching the end of their life. It is also developments in improving both the integrity of the data that we are able to capture and our ability to move more quickly and with more confidence in the payment to providers.

Senator ROBERTS: What is being done to set up a scheme to ensure that family members who provide constant care to a family member are compensated for the time and care put in to deal with high level basic care?
I understand that families like to take care of other family members; I’m not arguing against that. In one case, we had a pensioner on a low income looking after their 60-year-old son who is disabled. They were very concerned about him. There are some extenuating circumstances where families need to be compensated.

Mr McNaughton: There are a couple of components to that question. First of all, obviously through other portfolios, there are income support payments and carers payments and carer allowances in recognition of some of those activities. That is an important part of that. We also recognise that informal care is a really important part of the NDIS. Parents provide informal care for their children with disability. Ageing parents often do the same. There does come a time where that needs to be a paid care role. That is when the NDIS supports having paid, trained carers to come in and support that person with a disability. It is a combination of both. Who do you feel comfortable with providing that level of informal care and support and decision-making and assistance in your daily activities? There is the carer allowance and carer payments through the social security portfolio. The NDIS pays for the funded support workers to provide that trained specialist care for the person with disability as well. It is an ecosystem, a combination of all those things. It really does depend on the individual circumstance of the participant.

Senator ROBERTS: I presume, then, that a very formal assessment is required before moving from one to the other?

Mr McNaughton: Yes. But we know that participants like to have their families and informal supports around them. That is a really important thing. We don’t want to detract from that at all. Some participants also need
additional funded carers. There are regulations for being a qualified carer and a registered provider as part of the NDIS system. Those things need to work hand in glove to provide that support for the person with a disability.

Senator ROBERTS: Are all direct care providers to be registered if they wish to be paid under the NDIS?

Mr McNaughton: They don’t have to be.

Senator ROBERTS: What is registration? What does it involve?

Mr McNaughton: I might defer to the commission, who can talk through registration guidelines. There are differences in terms of pricing within the NDIS and registration criteria. I am not sure if the commission wants to respond about the registration of providers.

Ms Myers: The registration relates to providers. When it comes to workers, there is screening that occurs for workers.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re looking at their capabilities and their skills?

Ms Myers: Worker screening is about suitability. Worker screening is for people who are in risk assessed roles. Worker screening checks are conducted by the state and territory worker screening units. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission is responsible for maintaining the database. Registered providers can link their workers who have a worker screening check. That is another safeguarding measure so that participants can see which workers have a worker screening check. In fact, we’ve had record numbers of unregistered providers also seeking access to the worker screening database so that they can also link their workers.

Senator ROBERTS: So direct care providers don’t have to be registered, but for some circumstances they must be?

Ms Myers: For some circumstances, they need a worker screening check.

Senator ROBERTS: Are those reforms you both discussed complete?

Ms Glanville: I wonder whether, on the registration topic, Associate Commissioner Wade would like to speak on this, if she is there?

Ms Wade: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Glanville. Registered providers are an important part of the disability care system. There is also provision for the regulator, which is the NDIS Commission, to regulate both
unregistered and registered providers. Registration status indicates compliance requirements of a provider, but that does not leave providers unregulated if they are not registered. All providers that receive funding from the NDIS are required to comply with a code of conduct. Failure to comply with that code of conduct can see regulatory action brought against the provider by the commission as the regulator.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my final question. What monitoring is involved for both registered and unregistered providers?

Ms Myers: The Quality and Safeguards Commission is responsible for the monitoring of both registered and unregistered providers. Much of our work is conducted as a result of either complaints received to the commission or reportable incidents where we need to make further inquiries around the circumstances of particular incidents. Registered providers have obligations that they are required to report certain matters to us, including certain changes of circumstances. The commission utilises that information to determine what regulatory action it might take.

Senator ROBERTS: Are there audits of this? It’s not just self-reporting?

Ms Myers: We do some proactive compliance monitoring work. They also have audit processes tied to their registration. The audit process relates to the standards they must meet in order to maintain their registration.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.

December 19, 2024/1 Comment/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Defending Agriculture Against Net Zero’s Harmful Agenda

National, Speeches

The UK recently completed a trial of a carbon credit system that sets a daily allowance for each person—in effect, a limit on your ability to purchase food, clothing, goods, and travel as you have always done. The limit has been set at 20kg of carbon emissions per day, with food restricted to 2600g. Food manufacturers are cooperating by adding a carbon statement on their packaging to inform consumers how much of their allowance each product consumes. For example, a packet of cheese accounts for 1100g—almost half of your daily carbon allowance. Different foods have varying carbon rates. Root vegetables like potatoes and carrots are relatively low, while red meat incurs the highest charge – so high, in fact, that if you were to spend your entire daily food carbon allowance on red meat, it would buy you 30g of steak—just one mouthful.

You may recall I mentioned this in a speech some time ago and was fact-checked. Well, fact-check this! Net zero is supported by the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, and the Nationals. Only One Nation stands firm in defending our agricultural sector from this insane push to control the food supply and hollow out the bush.

Transcript

The UK has just concluded a trial of a personal carbon dioxide allowance which, as the name implies, calculates how much carbon dioxide is produced annually in the UK, then divides that per person per day and then works out by how much that figure needs to fall in order to meet net zero goals. We have the white paper in my office that informed the trial. The whole concept of a daily carbon dioxide allowance is now out there for all to see—conspiracy theory no more; I bloody told you so!

To anyone who is advised by data and empirical evidence, not mass formation psychosis, carbon dioxide is the gas of life, necessary for all life on earth. It’s plant food. The more CO2 produced, the more food, plants and trees the earth is blessed with. The climate change scam is not founded on science; it’s founded on feelings. It has become a religion for those who consider themselves above religion, and increasingly amongst those who could do with having some religion in their lives.

Australia’s agricultural sector and rural communities, and $100 billion of agricultural production and hundreds of thousands of jobs, are about to be sacrificed on the altar of climate fraud. It is driven by globalist politicians and directed by parasitic billionaires who will benefit from this criminal enterprise—including Coca-Cola, who sponsored the trial. Coca-Cola is the world’s largest producer of plastic, with 120 billion single-use plastic bottles each year holding their toxic sludge and producing 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—so their support for this white paper and trial is nothing short of greenwashing. Coca-Cola’s leading shareholders are Warren Buffett, of Berkshire Hathaway, as well as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These wealth funds invest on behalf of the world’s predatory billionaires who will profit from a carbon dioxide allowance. This is in the open following the admission last week by British Prime Minister Starmer that farmland being stolen from British farmers via taxation extortion will be purchased by corporate partners, including BlackRock. I wonder if this is what Prime Minister Albanese spoke about in his recent meeting with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

What is the future for Australian food producers under this crony capitalist dystopian agenda headed our way? Red meat is top of the hit list. The methane cycle means cows do not produce methane in a way that remains in the atmosphere; I’ll return to that point in a minute. Nonetheless, this trial used the figure for red meat carbon dioxide production of 100 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, which equals 100 grams of carbon dioxide for every one gram of meat. Quick maths means your daily food allowance of 2,600 grams of carbon dioxide will be enough to buy 26 grams of red meat—one mouthful—and then you eat nothing else that day.

I raised this years ago in this chamber when the World Economic Forum first called for a limit on red meat of 30 grams a day—another conspiracy theory that’s come true! A cooked breakfast will have to be half the size to squeeze into your daily allowance—again, with nothing left over for food for the rest of the day. Your daily allowance will cover two plant based meals a day because predatory billionaires like BlackRock and Bill Gates are buying up farmland to grow the cereals and soy needed for plant based meals. Not surprisingly, the whole thing is rigged towards the products they can exploit for their own financial gain—including plant based fake meat, which contains 20 chemical ingredients; most are shared with pet food. The nutrition profile is not even close to the nutrition profile of natural foods like red meat and dairy. Speaking of dairy: don’t wash your yummy plant burger down with a glass of milk, because you can’t. One glass of milk is your entire food budget for the day, with just enough left over for the coffee to go in it.

The hypocrisy here was on display to everyone at last week’s COP 29 meeting for the UN, in Baku, where the area dedicated to meat based foods was packed and the one dedicated to plant based foods was empty. The World Economic Forum at Davos has hosted speakers calling for this system to include carbon dioxide credit trading so rich people can live their lives exactly as they do right now and poor people can skimp on food, clothing, travel, electricity and entertainment and sell their excess credits to rich people. The rules never apply to the people who make them. The war on livestock is a war on good nutrition and is based on a lie which is designed to enrich billionaires. Over 150 nations signed the Global Methane Pledge without even bothering to check if the methane was man made. Methane from fossil fuels has a higher carbon-13 isotope ratio, and, even though hydrocarbon fuel use is rising, the carbon-13 levels of atmospheric methane are falling. Between 2020 and 2022, microbes in the environment drove methane emissions more than hydrocarbon fuels did. That’s a pretty big deal.

Methane has supposedly caused 30 per cent of our current temperature rise—say the broken climate models. Yet 90 per cent of that recent rise was nature’s microbes, not cattle. The Big Brother in every aspect of our lives is based on fake science of carbon dioxide and methane.

Personal Carbon Allowances White Paper – REPORT Download

December 19, 2024/3 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Empowering Young Voices

National, Speeches

It was a pleasure to participate in the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, a national non-partisan initiative aimed at increasing the political literacy of our young voters and future voters under 25 by connecting them with their local Member of Parliament or Senator.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the speech by 16-year-old Queenslander Jade on mental health support for young people in Queensland. What an impressive speech by such an inspiring young lady.

One Nation looks forward to participating again in 2025!

Transcript

It’s my pleasure to join the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, a national non-partisan initiative aiming to increase the political literacy of all our young voters and voters-to-be who are under 25 through connecting them with their local member of parliament or senator. Today I’m pleased to read 16-year-old Queenslander Jade’s speech:

My name is Jade, I am 16 years old and my electorate is Petrie.

The issue I would like to address is how little there is being done about mental health. Recently, I attended a youth mental health/leadership camp—this camp is called Borderline Australia.

I went into this camp terrified; I went in with 3 friends but we were in separate groups, in separate cabins and I knew I was going to have to talk to strangers.

I’ve struggled with many issues in my life, mainly mentally. They were either internal or they were due to the experiences I’ve had to face whether that be growing up or even recently.

At borderline, I connected with many people and made new long lasting friendships, I would call them family. But it was when people would share their stories that I realised nothing is being done.

Many issues with mental health are occurring and it’s not good enough that we don’t do enough. And it’s so sad that everyone has a story. Having this realisation made me sad and sympathetic – are my future children going to grow up in a world where their mental health isn’t cared for?

This issue is important because it is a fundamental right that people should live in a community where they are cared for and they shouldn’t have to pay to seek help for their struggles.

People do care, people will listen and help—the ones you least expect. My call to action is for therapy to be free to the youth, and for Borderline Youth Camp to be able to occur more frequently to help the youth like myself—as it makes an everlasting impact.

Jade’s heartfelt comments deserve a place in the Senate Hansard. They’ll be going into the Hansard as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign.

December 19, 2024/1 Comment/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Coal LSL Faces Scrutiny Over Improper Payments

National, Senate Estimates

I inquired with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) about the breach of Section 83 of the Constitution mentioned in their Annual Report regarding improper payments received by Coal LSL. This issue was not noted in the Coal LSL Annual Report for 2022-2023.

DEWR identified the breach in April 2023. It was discovered that several entities had paid levies to Coal LSL that should not have been paid. The funds were then paid to DEWR and deposited into consolidated revenue, where they were subsequently pooled and returned to Coal LSL from that revenue.

DEWR acted diligently to identify the error, highlighting the loose manner in which Coal LSL manages other people’s money.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. Here we go again. My questions are very short. They involve Coal LSL or your interaction with Coal LSL. Is it true that the Coal LSL annual report for 2022-23
states that no compliance issues were reported to the minister?

Senator Watt: I know Coal LSL will be appearing later tonight. I’ll just check whether we’re in a position to answer those questions now, or whether we might need to deal with them later.

Mr Manning: We’re just waiting for one of our colleagues to come from the waiting room downstairs. I don’t know the answer in relation to the annual report and any qualifications completely, but as I understand it there were none in relation to section 83 of the Constitution.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to take you to page 101 of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report 2022-23, which says: Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ for the purposes of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992. If so, payment of amounts equivalent to the levy by the department to Coal LSL in relation to those entities would likely have been made in contravention of s 83 of the Constitution.

Mr Manning: Yes, and that was the point I was getting to. Because of the way the money is collected under that scheme, a levy that’s collected is done by Coal LSL acting as an agent of the Commonwealth—because only the Commonwealth can levy taxation—and then goes into consolidated revenue. Then the same amounts go back out to allow Coal LSL, no longer acting as agent of the Commonwealth, to pay money for the purposes for which it exists. In the circumstances of section 83, it would technically be the Commonwealth, as represented by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, who, if there is a breach, has committed that breach. That’s why it’s in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: I guess I’m concerned because—what you’ve said in your report is accurate, I presume: Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ … So they shouldn’t have taken that money.

Mr Manning: My understanding is there is a small number of employers who are not national system employers from whom the levy shouldn’t have been collected.

Senator ROBERTS: The report says: Coal LSL has assured the department that it is conducting further investigations to confirm how many entities may have incorrectly paid levy and quantify any corresponding amounts that have been paid by the Commonwealth without a valid appropriation. It looks like the money has been collected from individual entities by Coal LSL, sent to you and then it has gone back as a lump sum. Is it true that you have confirmed that the information relating to Coal LSL in your annual report is correct?

Mr Manning: That’s our understanding. I might just ask my colleagues, who have now been able to join us, if they have anything to add to that. As I understand it, the issues are still being worked through between the
department and Coal LSL.

Mr Kerr: What my colleague Mr Manning has said is correct. Our understanding is that Coal LSL may have mistakenly received levy payments from employers who do not meet the definition of ’employer’ under the
scheme. Mr Manning has correctly described the money flows—essentially, the amounts collected by Coal LSL flow in and out of the consolidated revenue fund in the department. That’s the standard approach for taxation revenues that all go in to CRF. As a result, that’s led to a section 83 breach that we have disclosed in our annual report. So all of that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I find Mr Manning is usually pretty correct.

Mr Kerr: Indeed.

Mr Manning: Thank you; I’m always appreciative of the confirmation that I’ve got it right.

Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t even nervous while he was saying it. You weren’t waiting on the edge of your seat. How did the department become aware of these serious issues when it was not identified in Coal LSL’s annual report?

Mr Kerr: I believe we became aware of it in the context of considering some legislative amendments to the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: When was the breach first detected?

Mr Kerr: I believe it was in April 2023.

Senator ROBERTS: Who identified the likely breach of section 83 of the Constitution? Was it Coal LSL or DEWR?

Mr Kerr: No, it was the department.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the outcome so far of the investigation into this matter?

Mr Kerr: The department has been working with Coal LSL to seek to clarify the scope of the problem. I understand that Coal LSL has undertaken some assurance activities to review the current active registered
employers to identify affected entities, which is not an entirely straightforward endeavour.

Senator ROBERTS: Nothing much is straightforward in Coal LSL.

Mr Kerr: Indeed. As part of that review, Coal LSL has updated its records and introduced some new procedures to mitigate the risk of new ineligible employers being onboarded, and probably Coal LSL is best
placed to speak to that later.

Senator ROBERTS: We will be tonight.

Mr Kerr: From the department’s point of view, we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other relevant Commonwealth agencies to try and clarify the scope of the issue and settle a way forward to resolve it.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re still clarifying the scope.

Mr Kerr: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How was it detected? You said it was while doing some legislative enhancements.

Mr Kerr: Yes. The department was considering some potential legislative amendments to the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: To the Coal LSL legislation?

Mr Kerr: Yes, correct.

Senator ROBERTS: In what year?

Mr Kerr: In 2023. In the course of that, we were considering the operation of the scheme and uncovered this issue.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your diligence. What checks and balances does the department have in place to confirm that the payroll levy taxes collected are true and correct?

Mr Kerr: The department has obtained legal advice in relation to this matter, but to a large degree we rely on the information provided by Coal LSL with respect to the amounts of levy collected. As we are required to do under section 36 of the Coal Administration Act, the Commonwealth role here is really to withdraw amounts equivalent to the levy collected by Coal LSL out of CRF and pay it back to them, with the effect being that the amount collected ultimately ends up in the Coal LSL fund. So, from the department’s point of view, we rely quite heavily on the information provided by Coal LSL about those amounts.

Senator ROBERTS: What is DEWR doing to remedy this breach? I know you said that you rely a lot on Coal LSL; I understand that.

Mr Kerr: The consequences of a section 83 breach are dealt with in some guidance put out by the Department of Finance. Essentially, what an entity is required to do if concerned that an appropriation may have been spent in breach of section 83 is to conduct an appropriate risk assessment which may include legal advice, which we have done, and also to undertake a section 83 breach disclosure, which we’ve also done in the annual report that you just referred to.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s not much you can do in regard to prevent it happening again.

Mr Kerr: I think I’d say that we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other Commonwealth agencies, including the Department of Finance, to confirm which employers and employees have been affected and the
options for addressing these.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’m asking for an opinion now. Was this disaster another example of Coal LSL’s incompetent best or an indication of the loose way that Coal LSL uses other people’s entitlements, and that
has not started since Labor came into office; that’s preceding Labor coming into office. I’m heartened by what Mr Manning and Mr Kerr said.

Senator Watt: Technically, we can’t give opinions but—

Senator ROBERTS: Ministers can. That’s why I asked the minister.

Senator Watt: Me, have opinions? Look, we support the work of the Coal LSL agency. Obviously, the department is taking you through a range of issues that are being considered and we’re supportive of that work as
well.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems DEWR has done its due diligence and done the job. I’m very concerned because—Coal LSL, at its core—the key issue we exposed in 2019. It took a long time for the government to say,
‘Okay, we finally agree with you.’ It took a lot of things to come out and I’m not sure it’s been fixed yet. Thank you, Chair.

December 19, 2024/1 Comment/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Visa Approvals and Security Checks Amid Rising Global Tensions

National, Senate Estimates

I asked Home Affairs about the total number of permanent residency visas issued in the last financial year, which totalled 185,000. For temporary student visas in 2023-24, there were 580,193 applications and 376,731 visas were granted, with 86,473 issued up to September this year. In the same period, 315,632 temporary residency visas were issued, with an additional 64,820 granted by September.

Visitor visas in 2023-24 reached 4,713,442, with another 1,203,891 granted by September. Working holiday visas numbered 234,556 in the last financial year, with 95,371 issued up to September.

With the crisis in Lebanon, 8,330 temporary visas have been issued to Lebanese nationals, with 15,525 applications lodged. All applicants undergo rigorous vetting, including identity and character checks, with applications screened against a 1,000,000-person immigration alert list. All security checks are completed before applicants arrive in Australia. Applications from Lebanon are typically processed within a few weeks, some prioritised for faster processing if necessary.

Regarding Palestinian visa applications, 3,041 have been granted, 7,252 refused, and 200 remain under review as of September 30.

Security criteria was confirmed to remain uncompromised throughout the process.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. How many permanent visas are currently issued for residency in Australia? How many temporary visas are currently issued for residency in Australia?

Mr Kilner: For the Migration Program, the current numbers for this program year will be 185,000 migrant visas. That’s the program numbers for this year.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s permanent?

Mr Kilner: They would be permanent visas, yes. For temporary visas there are a range of different visas that we have. For student visas—most of the key programs for student visas are demand driven—I’ll give you a figure for last program year, as an example, and I can give you a figure for visas that have been granted so far this year. For the last program year there were 580,193 visas granted. There have been 99,868 visas lodged so far this year, from 1 July to 30 September, with 86,473 granted. The number granted for the last program year was 376,731 for students. For temporary residence visas, the number granted for the last financial year was 315,632. So far this program year, up until 30 September, there have been 64,820 visas granted. I’ll also go to visitor visas.

Senator ROBERTS: What was that category?

Mr Kilner: That was temporary residence visas.

Senator ROBERTS: The previous one was temporary visas for students.

Mr Kilner: Yes. There’s a different category—so that was student, and the next one I gave you was temporary visas. For visitor visas, the number granted for the last program year was 4,713,442. For this year to date, up to 30 September, it’s been 1,203,891. For working holiday maker visas, last program year there were 234,556 and so far this year there have been 95,371.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to another tack now. Now that the war in the Middle East has progressed to responding to attacks by Hezbollah, a terrorist group from Lebanon, how many migrants from Lebanon were
received into Australia at the end of last year?

Mr Kilner: I’ll have to take that figure on notice. I’ll just check if my colleagues have a figure. We may need to take that one on notice.

Mr Willard: I provided some evidence earlier on the number of visas we’ve granted to Lebanese citizens over the past 12 months. Your question was specifically about permanent visas, as I understand it. I don’t have that breakdown but I have that figure, which I could repeat. Since 7 October 2023, 8,333 migration and temporary visa applications have been granted to Lebanese nationals.

Senator ROBERTS: You can get the migrants on notice—the permanents?

Mr Willard: I can get the breakdown on notice, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications for visas over the last year from Lebanon have been received to come into Australia?

Mr Willard: The figure for applications since 7 October 2023 to 15 October 2024 is 15,525 migration and temporary visa applications lodged.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the vetting process for these visa applications?

Mr Willard: All applications are assessed against criteria for grant of a visa, which covers character, security, health, and a range of other criteria depending on the visa that is granted. We have to be satisfied of someone’s identity, and there’s a range of processes that sit behind all of those assessments.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you lead me through the process? A person makes an application; what then happens to that application?

Mr Willard: Typically, the application is lodged online, which is how over 99 per cent of our applications are received.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that go to a consulate or something in Lebanon, or does it come here?

Mr Willard: It goes to one of our processing offices around the world. Some of them come here. Some go to our embassy in Beirut. Some go to other locations. When the application is lodged, there is a series of risk alerts in place that identify concerns or characteristics to look for around fraud, disingenuity and other concerns. To give you a sense of that process: there are well over a million alerts in place that relate to identities and documents of concern. That’s on something called the migration alert list.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you work with intelligence agencies, home affairs and cybercrime?

Mr Willard: Yes. We get a whole range of information from a range of sources, including security agencies, other agencies within the Commonwealth, law enforcement agencies and partners around the world. In addition to those alerts that relate to identities and documents of concern, there are another 3.4 million entity details which are matched against visa applications. I don’t want to go into too much detail in a way that sets out exactly what the process is, because that provides an opportunity to game the process, but entity matches are any piece of information that we’ve collected that might be able to be matched against an application. There are also 1,000 rules based alerts, which are alerts that come up to the decision-maker to take a particular action on a particular application, depending on the characteristics of that application. We also have 43 predictive models that give a decision-maker an indication of the risk associated with a particular application. That’s not all that happens, but that’s the starting point. Then there is an assessment of the application, the claims that are made and documents that are submitted in support of the application. That’s all considered against the criteria for the grant of the visa. If all the criteria are met, then the application is granted.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the estimated time taken to process visa applications? I’m guessing there is a wide range of times here. Would it be better to process these visa applications prior to these persons being
allowed to enter Australia?

Mr Willard: All the applications, when they’re lodged offshore, are processed prior to them entering. In fact, they can only enter if they have been granted a visa—if they’ve gone through that process and have met all the criteria for a visa grant.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that apply to refugees?

Mr Willard: That applies to all of those applicants, including refugees. I’m sorry; can you repeat the first part of your question?

Senator ROBERTS: What is the estimated time taken to process these visa applications?

Mr Willard: At the moment in Lebanon, we’re looking at about a couple of weeks. As you said, there’s a range of processing times, but that’s roughly what we’re looking at.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a fast-track for people from Lebanon? I’ve got nothing against people from Lebanon. I buy my lunch from them every day. They’re wonderful people, some of them

Mr Willard: What we’re doing in respect of Lebanon is supporting circumstances where Australian citizens are seeking to leave, and a close family member might be someone who needs a visa. It might be their partner. It could be children. It could be a parent. In that circumstance, we’re prioritising that assessment, but everyone still has to meet all of the criteria for the grant of a visa, and that process is taking a couple of weeks at the moment.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration being given to staying applications for visas for people from Palestine and Lebanon until hostilities cease?

Mr Willard: Across many years, we’ve seen in all sorts of circumstances situations where there are challenges in various countries. The role of the officers who make the decisions, the delegated decision-makers, is to
consider applications against the criteria and make an assessment of whether or not someone can be granted a visa.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. My interpretation of what you just said is that the criteria are not compromised.

Mr Willard: No, the criteria are not compromised.

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the most important thing—criteria? But if there’s a human rights crisis, as there is right now in Palestine and Lebanon, you may try and put more resources in. How would you shorten the
period?

Mr Willard: It’s an exercise in prioritisation—for example, triaging applications when they come in and, where there’s additional information required, making sure that that’s actioned promptly and that people get
information about what they need to provide to satisfy the criteria. It’s also about making sure we’ve got contingency, particularly in Lebanon at the moment, to be able to handle unexpected circumstances. For example, we have a capacity to collect biometrics through a mobile collection facility. We also have some additional officers in country who are supporting staff who are already there and who’ve been going through a long period in Lebanon where it’s been a crisis situation. Providing some additional staff to support them is part of what we’re doing as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Would those staff already be in Lebanon? I think that’s what you said. And they’re redirected to that task?

Mr Willard: We’ve got two posted officers and 10 locally engaged staff in Beirut, and they’ve been doing a tremendous job in difficult circumstances. We’ve had some additional people go in to provide support and
capacity for them to rest, recuperate and actually have a break as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Are they from Australia or from somewhere else in Europe or the Middle East?

Mr Willard: There are a few from Australia, and some have been cross-posted from other posts overseas.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you make sure that they can understand the cultural signs in Lebanon?

Mr Willard: There is a series of training and assessments that we do before we post people, and they are trained on cultural awareness training. But for this particular situation they’re also trained in working in high-
threat environments. They’ve also been assessed in terms of resilience, because sometimes it is a very difficult circumstance, and officers are selected on those particular qualities.

Senator ROBERTS: So the cultural training is to be familiar with the local culture so that people understand the flags; it’s not DEI cultural awareness?

Mr Willard: It’s a broader training that people go through on their overseas preparation course around cultural awareness. It’s not specific to each country. When they do go into country, though, they are briefed by the local post, particularly around the security circumstances.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll switch to Palestine. How many visa applications from Palestinians have been finalised over the last year, with full risk vetting completed?

Mr Willard: I provided some evidence earlier, and I’m happy to repeat that. There have been 3,041 visas granted to holders of Palestinian travel documents. There have been 7,252 visitor visas refused. In addition,
another 45 migration and temporary visas have been refused, eight protection visas have been refused and fewer than five humanitarian visas have been refused.

Senator ROBERTS: So, out of about 10,300 visa applications, 3,041 have been approved?

Mr Willard: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true, as the media stated, that some of those visa applications were processed in around one hour?

Mr Willard: I do have some processing time information that could perhaps provide some detail. Since October 2023 and going through to the end of September 2024, the median processing time for all visas finalised
for holders of Palestinian travel documents is 116 days. The average processing time in that same period is 107 days.

Senator ROBERTS: Medians and averages—and I’m not accusing you of hiding anything—can hide many, many things. Were some of the visas approved in less than an hour, or in around an hour?

Mr Willard: We’re not able to report on that level of detail. I would be very surprised if that were the case, but I can’t provide a report to—

Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the claims made in the mainstream media, the mouthpiece media?

Mr Willard: I am familiar. In fact, some of it may have related indirectly to evidence I provided previously, before this committee, in which I was making a reference to, globally, visitor visas processed in one day. But, in making that reference, with all visa applications from all nationalities around the world, the median processing time is a day. That median processing time is on our website.

Senator ROBERTS: From an application being received to the visa being granted is a day?

Mr Willard: It’s the median processing time for a visitor visa for all nationalities around the world. It doesn’t mean it’s the median processing time for holders of Palestinian travel documents. I just provided that figure at 116 days.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of those Palestinian visa applications are still outstanding?

Mr Willard: I gave some evidence earlier. I think the figures—

Senator ROBERTS: How many of them are connected with Hamas or Hezbollah sympathisers?

Mr Willard: For the visa applications outstanding outside Australia, as at the end of 30 September, that figure is 200. I can’t provide a response to the second part of your question because the fact they’re outstanding means they’ve not yet been assessed.

December 19, 2024/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Labor Government Put Telco Profits Above Lives

National, Speeches

Despite urgent Senate warnings in August, The Albanese Labor Government allowed telcos to proceed with the disastrous 3G shutdown, leaving over 1 million critical devices at risk. While other countries like France delayed until 2028, our government chose telco profits over public safety.

Many 4G device owners were surprised to wake up on the morning of the 3G shutdown to find their phone wasn’t working either.

I warned about this in August, yet the government did nothing. This is what happens when proper regulation takes a backseat to corporate interests.

Transcript

That the Senate take not of the explanation.

I’ll now explain to the chamber what it just heard. The Albanese Labor government is putting multinational telco company profits above human life, above Australian lives. For many people this is a matter of life and death. The Senate has pulled the minister in front of the chamber to explain:

… why the Government has failed to place a single condition on the 3G mobile network shutdown …

So 1,041,282 is the number of devices the telcos have told us will not function as sold when they shut the 3G network in just two months, yet the communications minister is sitting back and letting telcos Telstra and Optus just do it. That’s thorough for the Labor Party.

If our Senate had not fulfilled its role as the house of review and instead stood back and not intervened, telcos would have shut Australia’s 3G network in 10 days time. Revelations from our Senate inquiry into the 3G shutdown led to a two-month delay. In two months, the communications minister will let telcos switch off the 3G network, even if a million devices still rely on it.

I have simple questions for the communications minister: How much are telco companies, like Telstra and Singapore owned Optus, making from shutting down the network early? How much is an Australian life worth? Who will be responsible if telcos are allowed to flick the switch in two months and someone dies? There are Australians with 4G phones, not 3G phones, who will not be able to call triple 0 when the 3G network is shut down. There are emergency phones in lifts that will not work when someone gets stuck—and they didn’t know that until a couple of weeks ago. Many fall alerts, medical alarms and pacemakers use 3G to alert an ambulance. This isn’t just about upgrading old phones, although the telcos will certainly make more money from forcing people into new phones. There are non-mobile devices that will be affected as well.

Telcos gave us the figures at the inquiry. Together they estimate there are 68,000 3G mobile devices still in use. These are old phones. An argument could be made that it’s time for them be replaced. Yet the 4G phones are where it gets really interesting. There are 4G mobile devices that will be affected when 3G shuts down. Some 4G phones piggyback on the 3G network. They use 4G for data and default to 3G to make calls. These are referenced as non-voice-over LTE, or non-VoLTE. Telcos tell us there are 311,000 of these. When the 3G network is shut off, there will be 311,000 4G phones that won’t make a phone call. Then for the final category, 4G phones that have VoLTE and will be able to make calls yet default to 3G for triple 0 calls, there are 52,000 4G devices that will appear fine until someone tries to call triple 0 and it doesn’t work. Across the phones that are 3G only, 4G non-VoLTE and 4G VoLTE with no emergency calls, there are 432,000 mobile devices that won’t work properly, and that’s only half the story.

There are non-mobile devices that will be cut off and will stop working. There are an estimated 608,329 of them. No-one really knows how many because telcos can’t directly contact the users—that’s thorough, according to the minister. These non-mobile devices include fire alarms; 200,000 medical alarms; emergency phones in elevators; warning systems; EFTPOS terminals; agricultural equipment like water pumps, water trough monitors and tractors; Internet of Things enabled products; routers; scanners and survey equipment; water meters; power meters; and much, much more. As the department said at the inquiry:

… it’s fair to say that we are learning new things as we reach out to different stakeholders.

That was just a few weeks ago—thorough, huh? That means they have no idea how big the non-mobile device problem is.

In total, 1,041,000 devices will be affected, potentially more, and the Minister for Communications is ready to let it happen in two months. Why the rush? It’s a good question. Why not delay it further until Australians won’t be put in danger? It’s all about profits for these huge corporations, and the minister’s ongoing timidity or apathy to not protect Australian lives.

I thank the Liberal, Nationals and Greens senators for supporting my motion for this inquiry, especially Senator Canavan as chair. I note and appreciate James Parker’s outstanding submission and testimony.

The solution is simple. The communications minister must intervene and set safe, practical criteria or thresholds for the number of devices affected, before the shutdown can proceed. Instead of leaving Australians high and dry, put the onus on the telcos to take care of Australians.

This is a matter of life and death. What value will the minister place on Australian lives?

December 19, 2024/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Australians Deserve a Proper COVID Royal Commission

COVID, National, Senate Estimates

The government’s COVID inquiry: * No power to compel witnesses * No ability to take evidence under oath * No power to order documents * Only talked to people who volunteered for interviews

Australians deserve a full COVID Royal Commission with: * Power to compel testimony * Evidence under oath * Full document access * Complete transparency

Even Health Minister Butler admitted there was ‘lack of transparency’ and ‘lack of evidence-based policy.’ Australians deserve real answers and accountability, not a toothless inquiry.

It’s time for a proper COVID Royal Commission so that charges can be laid.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Going to the government’s COVID-19 response inquiry, the panel only talked to people who volunteered to talk to it, didn’t they?

Ms Hefren-Webb: Senator, there was no compulsion. People weren’t compelled to talk.

Senator ROBERTS: You must be a mind reader; that was my next question. It was an inquiry that had no ability to compel witnesses, order documents or take evidence under oath—correct?

Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: The then government put in place the largest economic response in history, dropping money from helicopters. We had some of the worst invasions of Australian civil liberties, between surveillance, vaccine mandates and lockdowns. The supposed health advice relied on to do this has still not been published, yet Australians are meant to just accept the results of an inquiry that can’t even take evidence under oath. Is that right?

Ms Hefren-Webb: The inquiry had excellent cooperation from a wide range of people. They spoke to nearly all the state premiers who were premiers at the time of COVID. They spoke to nearly all the chief health officers. They spoke to groups representing people impacted by the pandemic in particular ways—for example, aged-care groups, people with disability, CALD groups. They spoke to and received submissions from people who were not supportive of the use of vaccines et cetera. They received evidence from and spoke to a wide range of people, and their report reflects a broad set of views that were put to them. They have assessed those and made some recommendations in relation to them, and the government is now considering those recommendations.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I had the opportunity to listen to Minister Mark Butler, the health minister, discuss the report. He said there was a lack of transparency on rationale and evidence around decisions that have profound impacts on people’s lives and freedoms. He said that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary principle at the start of the response to the COVID virus—which we accept—and that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary to evidence based; it never occurred. There was no balancing of risks and benefits. There was no taking account of non-health impacts of decisions imposed on the community and in a non-proportionate way. He said this was compelling insight from this report. There was a lack of evidence based policy, yet we were told repeatedly at state and federal level, ‘This is all based on evidence.’ The evidence changed from day to day, week to week, within and between states. We were lied to, and there was a lack of transparency—as the minister admits. Then he said it’s driven a large decline in trust and that the measures are not likely to be accepted again. This is a serious problem. Health departments across the country are in tatters, yet there’s no recommendation in this report that says we should establish a royal commission; correct?

Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How are we going to restore accountability, Minister, and trust without holding people accountable for the tragic errors they made?

Senator Wong: This was a very comprehensive inquiry into the multifaceted aspects of Australia’s response. Whilst I’m not the minister responsible, it was something we considered. I think it is a very good piece of work that is very honest about the things that Australia did very well—and we did do some things extraordinarily well. We didn’t see the overwhelming of our hospital systems and the death tolls we saw in some other developed countries. There are also things which we didn’t do as well and things which we weren’t set up to do. Where we differ from you, in terms of the last part of your question, is that we want to be constructive about the failings as opposed to simply pursuing those who might have made the errors. The inquiry goes through, as you said, the precautionary response in a lot of detail. There is a question about whether some of the findings about what was evidence based or partially evidence based—that is perhaps not as black and white as your question suggests.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m paraphrasing the minister.

Senator Wong: Yes, but that’s a matter for discussion. I think it’s also true to say that you don’t get a global pandemic of that ilk very often in most people’s lifetimes, and so, understandably, you are going to make mistakes as a nation as well as do things right. That’s what the inquiry shows. The minister has been clear that we need to learn from this, and the Centre for Disease Control was one of the key recommendations which the government responded to.

Senator ROBERTS: I wrote to the then prime minister and the then premier of my state, Premier Palaszczuk, and said, ‘We’ll give you a fair go in the Senate.’ I said that with their response in March and their second response in April, for JobSafe and then JobKeeper—and I told them I would hold them accountable. I wrote letters to the Premier and the Prime Minister in May. I got no evidence back at all.

I wrote to them again in August and September, and, again, no evidence; I was seeking evidence. The Chief Medical Officer gave me evidence in March 2023 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate. When you figure in the overwhelming majority of people, it was very, very low when you removed the people who had high severity. We did this all for a low-severity virus. There was no pandemic of deaths. We’re expecting Australians who have lost trust in the health system and who see no accountability to just accept it. This is dancing away from responsibility and accountability in the health system.

Senator Wong: I think it’s a very accountable report, with respect. It’s many hundreds of pages, which go through in great detail a lot of the aspects of the nation’s response to the pandemic—Commonwealth, state, territory, the medical sector, how we handled borders, how we handled hospitals, the community. I think it is a very comprehensive report, so I don’t know that I agree with the assertion about the lack of accountability. I also would say to you, if you want to talk about evidence bases, that I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that this was simply—I can’t recall the phrase you used.

Senator ROBERTS: Low-to-moderate severity.

Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some who say that it was—

Senator ROBERTS: That was the Chief Medical Officer.

Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some that look to what happened in the US, what happened in Italy and what happened in Spain in terms of what we saw there and the hospital systems and the consequent rates of death. I don’t dismiss those as made-up news. The fact that we averted that kind of scenario in Australia is something we should reflect upon.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree.

Senator Wong: You and I have different views on the vaccines. I’d say to you that there were mistakes made, yes, and people have to accept that and front up for that. But I hope we can use this to make sure we equip the country better because, given the more globalised world, we know from most of the experts—WHO and our own experts—that pandemics have become more likely.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to New Zealand. We had a Senate inquiry as a result of a motion that I moved in the Senate that developed the terms of reference for a possible future royal commission. The terms of reference are wonderfully comprehensive. Nothing has been done. The Prime Minister won’t even share them with the people.

The terms of reference were so comprehensive that they were adopted, largely, by the New Zealand royal commission. The New Zealand royal commission that was underway thanks to Jacinda Ardern was a sham. It had one commissioner and very limited terms of reference. The terms of reference developed by the Senate committee in this country have now been adopted by the New Zealand royal commission. They have expanded it to three commissioners. That came about because Winston Peters—who initially was in a coalition with the Labour Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—went and listened to the people in Wellington at a large protest, and he realised that so many people had died due to the vaccines and so many people were crippled due to vaccines. He also realised that so many people were gaslit, saying, ‘It’s not a vaccine injury; it’s just a mental health issue.’ He then formed a coalition with the current National Party government, and the condition was that they have a proper, fair dinkum royal commission. The terms of reference have been expanded, broadened, extended and detailed; they’ve now brought vaccines and vaccine injuries into that. Isn’t that the least that we can do for the people who’ve been injured? Tens of thousands have died as a result of the vaccines; we know that from the statistics and the correlation. We also know that hundreds of thousands have been seriously injured, and they’re being laughed at. No health department in this country—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts—

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t we get justice for those people?

CHAIR: I don’t think that’s a question.

Senator ROBERTS: I just asked a question.

Senator Wong: If you want details about vaccines, Health would probably be the place to go in terms of the estimates process.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re going there, Minister!

Senator Wong: I’m sure you will; I think you regularly do! I’d make this observation: I know you don’t accept the medical evidence, but that is the medical evidence both governments have received—

Senator ROBERTS: On the contrary, I do accept the medical evidence.

Senator Wong: Well, I don’t think you accept the weight of the medical evidence. The second observation is that I am concerned—I think the inquiry might have gone to this. We’ve had a pretty good history in this country of vaccination across measles, whooping cough et cetera, and the concern about vaccines means that we are dropping below herd immunity for diseases which we had largely won the battle against. I don’t think that is a responsible thing to do.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s another matter altogether.

Senator Wong: I would say we have a responsibility in this place to understand where our words land, and I don’t think it’s a good thing if we’re not vaccinated against whooping cough or measles—

CHAIR: Or HPV.

Senator Wong: or, frankly, COVID.

Senator ROBERTS: The fact is that people were vaccinating their children for whooping cough and so on. The fact is that so many people have lost complete trust in the health system; they’re saying, ‘Stick your vaccines.’ That’s why it’s so important. How will you restore accountability?

Senator Wong: How will you? If you said to them, ‘You should get your kids vaccinated for whooping cough’, that might actually cut through.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve done some research on that.

Senator Wong: You don’t want them vaccinated?

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. It should be the parents’ choice.

Senator Wong: I disagree with you. I think parents always choose medical treatment for their children, but I disagree with you that people can choose their facts. The facts are—

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental.

Senator Wong: that we know what whooping cough does, and what it does to kids.

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental—

Senator Wong: Alright. We’re not going to agree.

Senator ROBERTS: that parents have responsibility for the health of their children.

Senator Wong: Fair enough, okay. We’re going to disagree on the issue of vaccinations.

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian people deserve transparency and answers. They deserve a COVID royal commission now, and some people deserve to be in jail for the overreach and damage inflicted on Australians. How is your government going to restore trust without accountability?

Senator Wong: I think we’ve just been discussing this, haven’t we?

Senator ROBERTS: I raised it earlier on, but you didn’t answer the question.

Senator Wong: Which bit do you want? We don’t think we need a royal commission because we’ve had a—

Senator ROBERTS: How can you restore trust without accountability?

Senator Wong: I’m inviting you to help us restore trust, but you don’t agree with many of the vaccinations. My point is—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that.

Senator Wong: That is what you said. You had your own views on whooping cough.

Senator ROBERTS: I said parents have the right to choose what to do. Parents are responsible for their children. That’s fundamental.

Senator Wong: Yes, that is true, but what I meant was that parents should not be given incorrect facts by people in a position of authority.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree entirely.

Senator Wong: I’m saying to you that I think it is not responsible to be telling people that they shouldn’t have their children vaccinated for whooping cough.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that; I said that it’s the parents’ choice. I recommend a book, Fooling Ourselves, written by a statistician in Queensland. That’s evidence. I give that to parents and say, ‘Decide for yourself.’

Senator Wong: So you don’t think the medical evidence and—

Senator ROBERTS: This is medical evidence.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t deny evidence.

December 19, 2024/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Superannuation Bosses Team Up With Labor to Hide Dodgy Deals

National, Speeches

Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, Labor is using every trick to keep Australians in the dark about their decisions. After 18 months of delays, Labor are protecting their mates while blocking Senate oversight on lobbying done by CBUS Super. The connections between CBUS Super and Labor run deep, with former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan now chairing CBUS.

Despite ordering the government to hand them over, these documents were only unveiled through a separate Freedom of Information claim decided by an independent commissioner.

So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese government.

Transcript

Here we are this morning in the house of review, and we hear cloaks of cover-up from the Labor Party when we’re trying to do our job. Labor responds, first of all, to Senator Bragg by hiding behind the gender argument. What that’s got to do with this is beyond us. Then Senator Walsh cloaks it as an attack from the coalition on super. How is making sure that we have probity on superannuation funds an attack on super? It’s protecting superannuation. Senator Bragg is just doing his job, as am I as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. We need questions answered.

The Labor Party’s defence this morning has not focused on Senator Bragg’s comments; it has focused on furphies and distractions, which are condemning the Labor Party. I’ve had the comedy of watching Senator Ayres respond twice in the last two weeks of sittings in this Senate—10 minutes each time of just nonsense, misrepresentations and labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the stupid, the dishonest and the fearful—no response based on fact. Instead we have distortions and labels.

To recall what Senator Bragg talked about, he wanted to know why the Treasurer told the Senate mistruths and false statements. That’s it. My question now is: why is the Labor Party trying to dodge and divert from that? We have a document from Cbus to the Treasurer. Cbus objected. Is Cbus running the country? They’re claiming commercial in confidence for not giving Senator Bragg the documents, while giving Mr Bragg the documents. What are they hiding by hiding behind commercial in confidence? It’s taken 18 months to get documents in this house of review—18 months. He had to use alternative channels as well. Labor’s behaviour in response to Senator Bragg is now rising to one of contempt—holding the Senate in contempt.

This is the way Cbus treats its members—hiding. This is the way this government treats the people of Australia—hiding. The government is protecting the CFMEU and Cbus. The government is doing more than just protecting it on superannuation. The government is protecting the CFMEU in Australia’s biggest wage theft case. The Senate has instructed the workplace relations minister to do an investigation into wage theft involving thousands of miners from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, up to a $211,000 claim from one person. It’s over a billion dollars in total, we believe, with miners being owed on average up to $41,000 per year of work. The Labor Party are burying it, hiding it, not doing what the Senate is telling them. Then we’ve got CFMEU directors involved in Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services and coal long service leave, and they’re all protecting each other and protecting the CFMEU.

My position on super, just so the Labor Party is clear, is that I believe people should have a choice—to access their money or to have it in a super fund that is also of their choice.

My last point is that I proposed a fair way of adjudicating these matters of withholding documents due to commercial in confidence and public indemnity. That has been rejected. That is still available. I also make the point that the Labor Party, as I disclosed last night, has almost a million dollars in donations for the last election from big pharma, and it is hiding, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the contracts from the people who paid $18 billion for COVID injections. That’s what we want. It’s hiding tens of thousands of homicides.

Confidence in Labor is plummeting. Support for Labor is plummeting. The truth has vanished, and that’s the reason you’re losing the confidence and support of the Australian people.

December 19, 2024/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Homeschooling on the Rise: Rejecting Indoctrination, Embracing Education

National, Speeches

We live in an age where mainstream education is often overloaded with irrelevant social engineering and is taught impersonally. External forces, including the political opinions of teachers, increasingly influence, pressure and distract students. As a result, Australia experienced a staggering 111% increase in homeschooling over just five years, from 2018 to 2023. In 2018, there were 20,260 home school registrations, a number that surged to 43,892 by 2023. Queensland increased the most with a remarkable 210% increase.

Home schooling offers an excellent alternative for many families, providing a learning environment that prioritises children’s welfare and provides more holistic development. During the COVID-19 school lockdowns, many parents were horrified to see how far mainstream schools had deviated from solid education. As a result, many opted to homeschool, finding it a better option to avoid public institutions’ involvement in raising their children while nurturing stronger family bonds.

I took the opportunity to announce One Nation’s policy to shut down the Federal Department of Education. Education is a State responsibility and federal involvement in this area has proven counterproductive. Under a federal led education system, Australia continues to slide backward in international league tables. This decline is largely due to an education system more focused on Marxist indoctrination than on actual genuine learning.

Closing down the Federal Department of Education, including eliminating the National Curriculum and NAPLAN, will not remove a single teacher from a single classroom. Instead, it will save billions in pointless bureaucracy—money that can be returned to the taxpayer, allowing you to keep more of what you earn.

Transcript

We live in an age when mainstream education is often packed tight with irrelevant social engineering and is taught impersonally. External forces, including the teachers’ political opinions, increasingly influence, pressure and distract students. As a result, Australia witnessed a 111 per cent increase in homeschooling in just five years, from 2018 to 2023. In 2018, homeschool registrations were 20,260, compared with 2023’s 43,892. Queensland has the highest increase, 210 per cent, tripling. The second highest is New South Wales, at 127 per cent, followed by Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tassie.

Homeschooling presents an excellent alternative for many families, providing an academic setting that prioritises children’s welfare and provides more holistic development. Anecdotally, during COVID school lockdowns, many parents were absolutely horrified to see how far mainstream schools had deviated from solid education, and they pulled their children out of school, preferring to homeschool. Educating children at home means avoiding public institutions’ involvement in their raising while nurturing strong family bonds. In traditional school settings, children spend most of their day away from home, leaving little room for connecting with family members. In contrast, homeschooling can not only facilitate academic growth but foster emotional stability and the family’s core values.

One of the biggest misconceptions about homeschooling is that it does not allow interaction with other children, which is needed for developing social skills. On the contrary, parents can choose a variety of social experiences in which the child can engage, such as community groups, sports, homeschooling co-ops, and visits to live community events and businesses. In this way, parents can guide such interactions, avoid influences not aligned with the family’s values, avoid negative influences and ensure the development of healthy relationships, free of the peer pressure and bullying that today often characterise traditional school environments.

Furthermore, socialisation takes place every day within the family unit, and the bonds created in interactions throughout every day are incredibly beneficial for the child’s mental and emotional wellbeing. In a traditional educational setting, though, children spend most of their time at school, leaving little time for deep and meaningful interaction with family members. Home education allows the development of trust among family members through shared experiences, activities and discussions—and connections and safety. Ultimately, the presence of a supportive family is an invaluable asset in children’s lives, especially during developmental stages, enduring strengthening of bonds fundamental for children’s wellbeing.

A notable benefit of home education is the program, which can be personalised and delivered in a way that suits the children’s learning styles and interests in ways not possible in traditional, overcrowded classrooms. Homeschooling’s flexibility ensures a stress-free learning environment and allows enough free time for extracurricular activities and personal interests, employing an allistic development approach. Lessons on emotional intelligence and social responsibility, for example, can be added along with core subjects and life skills such as financial literacy, household management and practical problem-solving, which is what adults need. There will be the exploring of peace within the child, regardless of the child’s surroundings. As a result, children grow up as well-rounded individuals with skills and knowledge which can be absent in their traditionally educated counterparts.

As said earlier, in the five years from 2018 to 2023, homeschooling more than doubled across Australia, with rates in Queensland more than tripling. This trend reflects parents’ distrust of educational institution. Several social and political factors drive this growing distrust, leaving parents increasingly feeling uneasy and concluding that traditional schooling is no longer the best environment for their children’s academic, moral, emotional, physical, spiritual and social development. Research on homeschooling shows that reasons parents take a step towards home education include the elements of dissatisfaction with the government, with conventional schools and with the curriculum. All these remained consistent pre and post COVID, as well as children’s needs and family lifestyles, which include religious or family values, for example.

Educational institutions are perceived as increasingly ideologically driven. To put it bluntly, they’re woke. Their purpose is to indoctrinate, not educate, and to create serfs who cannot think critically. As John Rockefeller said, these are factory fodder for his business empire, which is now global. Cross-cultural priorities of race and sustainability are integrated into the curriculum along with other aggressive narratives of gender and identity. I’ll give you a story about my son and daughter, who attended a school with many different races. One day I asked my son, as a four-year-old, how he enjoyed the Ethiopian twins in his class. They were two wonderful little kids. He said he didn’t know. I mentioned their names—Thomas and Anthony. He didn’t know. I mentioned they had black skin; he didn’t know. He really didn’t know. Then I mentioned their short, frizzy hair, and he said, ‘Oh, great, I play with them all the time.’ They played well together. Playing, working and studying with diverse groups builds tolerance experientially—the way people learn. Students discover for themselves.

Meanwhile, imposing welcome to country chants and calls to pay respect to the custodians of the land loses people. Adult teachers telling students they can change gender is ludicrous, with children having absorbed like sponges since birth the innate difference between ‘mum’ and ‘dad’, male nurses and female nurses and male teachers and female teachers. They’re all the better for it. Children are being taught about gender identity and pronouns and in some cases are made to apologise for the sins of their forebears, encouraged in the abrasive gender and transgender ideology. Children are in fear daily with climate fraud and lies saying we have only five years to live unless we stop driving cars, which will stop the global boiling. Unfounded guilt damages children. All this builds distrust in children and disrespect for woke teachers. Parents and increasingly people across society have had a gutful.

Meanwhile, between 2003 and 2015, the Australian academic landscape has been in steady decline. One in three students failed reading proficiency. Fifty per cent of students failed science literacy tests. Half are scientifically illiterate. No wonder the climate fraud and climate fear have taken hold! The average in mathematics declined 26.7 points. All these factors accounted for, taking back the lead on their own children’s education makes sense for parents. This sentiment was clear when Queensland Labor’s education minister put forward legislation enforcing the national curriculum in home education. Through the public pushback, with 900 submissions and a petition of almost 22,000 signatures, parents have made their feelings about education clear. Parents are unhappy with public educational institutions and with the national curriculum. Some are angry. More and more parents are re-evaluating educational choices for their children. From here, home education will only grow because it offers an academic pathway that’s more well rounded and allows for learning that is tailored and delivered in a way which takes into account the child’s or family’s interests, values and needs. When this speech is posted on my website, I’ll put in links to assist any Australians considering home education.

Whilst speaking of education and the growing home school revolution, I’ll comment on two more factors. Firstly, charter schools. This is an American term used in states where schools are started from community initiatives. The state provides funding per student and the money follows the child. Simplistically, to illustrate the concept: if parents withdrew their child and placed them in a public state school, the money goes to the public school. If the parents enrol their child in a private school, the money goes to the school. This gives choice. Principals have real authority to improve their school’s delivery of education to attract more students and more funding. Parents have real choice. Choice breeds competition and fosters initiative for improvement. Choice drives accountability.

Secondly, abolish the federal department of education. Reportedly, this bloated department employs 4,000 people, yet it has no schools. Constitutionally, education is a state responsibility, not a federal one. Now it’s become a wasteful duplication of resources. It has destroyed a fundamental tenet of our Constitution: competitive federalism. It’s destroying accountability and wasting taxpayer money. It destroys accountability because underperformance in schools leads to states blaming the feds and the federal government blaming the states. Worse, it enables a single gateway for UN initiatives to be ingrained into one national curriculum that then infects all states. When six states and two territories are responsible for education, globalist agendas have to be driven through six gateways, not one. If states alone return to managing and directing primary and secondary education, then we would restore competition between states—competitive federalism—improve accountability and improve efficiency. Universities can be regulated as businesses, which is what they now are.

Aligned with closing the federal department of education is abolishing the national curriculum, an initiative of the Howard Liberal-National government. I’m told New South Wales has just abandoned the national curriculum. The ACT is claiming it cannot be taught, because it’s too packed with politics and not enough reading and writing. Every parent’s top job is raising their family’s children. One of our nation’s most important tasks is educating children. We must support homeschooling, reform education and give parents choice. (Time expired)

December 16, 2024/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

One Nation’s Vision for Constitutional Efficiency

National, Speeches

Next election, Queensland voters will face a clear choice: the Liberal-National and Labor parties’ approach of ever-expanding government, or One Nation’s approach to shrinking government to fit the Constitution.

When Australia federated in 1901, the Commonwealth Constitution granted the federal government powers necessary to run Australia as a single country rather than six states – which included defence, immigration, currency, and taxation. Over the past 120 years, bureaucrats have expanded their reach into areas that are rightly the responsibility of the states, such as health, education, housing, and more.

A One Nation government will close down any Commonwealth department that lacks constitutional authority. This will not affect funding for frontline services. The federal government collects taxes on behalf of the states and One Nation will ensure that funding for schools and hospitals is not reduced. However, billions of dollars in savings will be achieved by eliminating the bureaucracy involved in this duplication of government services. One Nation in government will shrink the federal government to align with the Constitution and return these savings to taxpayers, allowing you to keep more of what you earn.

Transcript

As frequently happens, the Senate is dealing with a tangled mess of legislation that is flawed in design and will have unintended consequences. That’s inevitable when pressure groups run the government. It is a process that never involves the word ‘no’. Too many Australians think governments should solve all their problems, and too many in government think they can. One would have thought both would have sooner seen this folly.

When Australia federated in 1901, the state ceded only the powers necessary for the operation of Australia as a single country rather than six states. Today’s twisted, concocted federalism has given overlapping state, federal and local governments a bureaucratic tangle of incompetence and waste with no accountability and no consequences. It has allowed the Commonwealth government acquisition and abuse of power to go beyond anything our wise founding fathers envisaged. One Nation will honour our Constitution, withdraw the Commonwealth from areas that are none of the federal government’s business and return to competitive federalism, as Australia’s founding fathers designed.

This week I’ve called again for the abolition of the Commonwealth Department of Education, a move that will not take a single teacher out of a single classroom. I’ve called for abolition of the national curriculum, which is riddled with woke virtue signalling, victimhood and social engineering. Headmasters should determine and decide what’s best for students, not woke bureaucrats thousands of kilometres away. I’ve called for abolition of the department of climate change, along with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Regulator, the Climate Change Authority, the Australian Climate Service and the Net Zero Economy Authority. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be rolled into a people’s bank, and there’s more to come. One Nation will shrink government to fit the Constitution and to serve the people.

December 12, 2024/7 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

NDIS Overlooks Fair Compensation for Family Caregivers

Transcript

Defending Agriculture Against Net Zero’s Harmful Agenda

Transcript

Empowering Young Voices

Transcript

Coal LSL Faces Scrutiny Over Improper Payments

Transcript

Visa Approvals and Security Checks Amid Rising Global Tensions

Transcript

Labor Government Put Telco Profits Above Lives

Transcript

Australians Deserve a Proper COVID Royal Commission

Transcript

Superannuation Bosses Team Up With Labor to Hide Dodgy Deals

Transcript

Homeschooling on the Rise: Rejecting Indoctrination, Embracing Education

Transcript

One Nation’s Vision for Constitutional Efficiency

Transcript

Pages

Malcolm’s Fight

Categories