Net zero is vandalising our natural environment. The latest proposal will cover two million hectares of fragile ecosystem along the Nullarbor Plain with industrial wind and solar. There was a time when environmentalists would have thrown themselves in front of the bulldozers; now they are driving the bulldozers! Australia has had enough of this hypocrisy and obscene, dishonest devastation.
Industrial solar and wind subsidies will be redirected to fund the removal and remediation of wind, solar, and transmission lines, which is inevitable once the climate profiteers realise the jig is up and shoot through, leaving their rusting industrial waste to dump toxic chemicals into the landscape.
A One Nation government will cancel the net zero transition and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. If people in cities want solar and wind, let them have it. We would retrofit coal-fired power stations with capture and conversion devices, turning nature’s trace gas—essential to all life, carbon dioxide—into fertiliser, ethanol, and AdBlue, products that will grow Australia.
Climate carpetbaggers are ripping Australia off, and it has to stop.
Transcript
The net zero transition is not driven in accordance with science and commonsense nor is it the truth. Its ideologically driven and uses cherry-picked numbers. It cancels academics who disagree with it, enabling a parasitic and a dishonest solar and wind lobby to transfer hundreds of billion dollars from everyday Australians into the lobbyists” pockets. Meanwhile, communist China pretends it is inviting net zero while expanding coal-fired power plants, growing wealth on the back of cheap power. This is taking investment, investment and wealth from everyday Australians. Net zero will cost Australia to 2050 around $1.5 trillion, after which the parasites will continue the process of replacing short-lived weather-dependent generation.
Net zero is vandalising our natural environment. The latest proposal will cover two million hectares of fragile ecosystem along the Nullarbor Plain with industrial wind and solar. There was a time when environmentalists would have thrown themselves in front of the bulldozers; now they are driving the bulldozers! Australia has had enough of this hypocrisy and obscene, dishonest devastation. A One Nation government will cancel the net zero transition and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. If people in cities want solar and wind, let them have it. We would retrofit coal-fired power stations with capture and conversion devices, turning nature’s trace gas—essential to all life, carbon dioxide—into fertiliser, ethanol and AdBlue, products that will grow Australia.
Industrial solar and wind subsidies will be redirected to fund the removal and remediation of wind, solar and transmission lines, which is inevitable once the climate profiteers realise the jig is up and shoot through, leaving their broken monstrosities behind. One Nation will close down the department of climate change and the related web of agencies that funnel taxpayer money into a web of foreign corporations, parasitic Australian billionaires, compliant academia, government departments and agencies—dishonest government departments. One Nation offers Australia a clear choice: vote for the Liberal-Labor-Greens-Teals uniparty and continue our descent into poverty, or vote One Nation and restore the economic powerhouse that Australia once was.
Aluminium adjuvants (preservatives) in vaccines are commonly blamed, at least in part, for the increase in autism. Recent work has been done that confirms this theory, so I asked the TGA about the subject. Research on aluminium was conducted on aluminium salts, but the jabs use a quite different type of aluminium which has not been safety tested. This is my exact question:
“A study published in September took biopsies from the brains of older children diagnosed with autism and found their brains contained significantly elevated levels of aluminium, especially aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, which are present in the hexa jabs. Has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has this research been done using the actual aluminium used in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate?”
This question was straightforward and simply put: have you tested the right type of aluminium for safety? The TGA feigned not understanding the question to avoid answering it. When pressed, they took the question on notice and then refused to provide further information, with Minister Gallagher covering for her bureaucrats. This is unbecoming for a senior bureaucrat and for the Minister.
Australians want an answer to this, and I will keep at the subject until I get one. The fact they are hiding from the question suggests the answer is as recent science is showing – aluminium preservatives in vaccines are causing autism in some children.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My third and final set of questions is about aluminium adjuvants. Again, constituents are raising this. A study published in September took biopsies from the brains of older children diagnosed with autism and found their brains contained significantly elevated levels of aluminium, especially aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, which are present in the hexa jabs. Has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has this research been done using the actual aluminium used in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry; did you reference research? There was a question there about whether research has been done?
Senator ROBERTS: Has the research been done on babies’ brains using the aluminium found in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, or has it been done using water-soluble aluminium salts?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry; I’m just trying to be clear. Is the research that you’re asking me about the research that you cited?
Senator ROBERTS: No, I haven’t cited anything. To your knowledge, has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has the research been done using the actual aluminium found in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate Prof. Lawler: I’m sorry; I don’t know the research that you’re specifically referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll send you some papers. Is the type of aluminium in vaccine products bioresistant? Does it ever leave the bodies of our children?
Prof. Lawler: Again, there are a number of very specific and very technical questions that you’re asking us. For the purposes of answering them, as I’ve previously indicated, we’re very happy to take these questions—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. I’ve got nothing against taking them on notice.
Prof. Lawler: Okay. I would like to provide you with as fulsome a response as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are repeated doses of low concentrations of aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine product more harmful than a single large dose? A related question: how many vaccine products containing aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate has the TGA authorised for administration to children? You’ll have to take that on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I certainly will have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I only had a concern about the one I objected to. I have no concern about the rest at all. I appreciate that it’s a better answer. Individual vaccine products have been safety tested. Has any safety testing been done on multiple, concurrent administration of vaccine products to babies under six months, with special attention to multiple administration of low dose aluminium adjuvants?
Prof. Lawler: Professor Langham can add to this response. There has been not only significant research undertaken with respect to the administration of vaccines but there is significant real-world evidence over decades on the safety of the administration of the vaccines that we approve.
Prof. Langham: I have nothing further to add on that. As you’re aware, we have a number of avenues whereby safety signals from all registered products in Australia are overseen from a pharmacovigilance perspective, as Dr Larter has already mentioned. We work closely with other global regulators and also with other research that’s published. As Professor Lawler has said, with the vast body of information that exists about these vaccines and their use in children, there have been no signals.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t answer the question as to whether or not—
Prof. Langham: I think I did answer the question.
Senator Gallagher: Yes. I think that’s definitely an answer.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask it again. Has any safety testing been done on multiple concurrent administration of vaccine products to babies under six months, with special attention to multiple administration of low-dose aluminium adjuvants? Can you tell me if multiple injections have a different effect from one or two injections?
Prof. Langham: The evidence that exists from a safety perspective is not only the clinical trial data that we receive upon registration but also the ongoing evidence from a real-world perspective of the use of these vaccines in those multiple dose formulations in many millions of children around the world.
Prof. Lawler: For many years.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. Are aluminium adjuvants causing the spectrum of neurological conditions that are commonly called autism?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not aware of any accepted evidence that that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you may sigh—
Senator Gallagher: Do you know why I sigh, Senator Roberts? It’s because I have a child with autism, and I have vaccinated children, and I find it offensive.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I find it offensive to not respond to a constituent, and I’m responding to constituents. That’s my job. They pay me.
Senator Gallagher: Well, I’ve had enough.
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, have you heard of these papers? I think this will be my last question, Chair.
CHAIR: Yes, it will be.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve mentioned one by Dr Karla Lehmann from 2024 titled ‘Suspected Causes of the Specific Intolerance Profile of Spike-Based Covid-19 Vaccines’ in the European Society of Medicine. There’s one from 2022 by El-Arif G et al called ‘Angiotensin II Type I Receptor (AT1R): The Gate towards COVID-19 – Associated Diseases’ published in Molecules. In 2023 Fajloun and Sabatier published ‘The Unsuspected Role of the Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS): Could its Dysregulation be at the Root of All Non-Genetic Human Diseases?’ in Bentham Science. In 2023 Parry, P et al wrote, ‘”Spikeopathy”: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA’ in Biomedicines (Journal). The last one is from Pelumbo, Avila and Naftolin in 2016 called ‘The Ovarian Renin-Angiotensin System (OVRAS): A Major Factor in Ovarian Function and Disease’ in PubMed by the National Institute of Health, the National Library of Medicine USA.
Prof. Lawler: I’d be very happy to receive those studies—I’ll speak on behalf of Professor Langham if she doesn’t mind. I would say that there is a very well established understanding of the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in a number of various elements of regulation of human function. I think it is well recognised that they are impacted by the COVID disease itself.
Senator ROBERTS: What part of the COVID disease?
Prof. Lawler: It will be very useful for us to review those articles so that we can be sure that they are reflective of the impact of COVID not, as suggested, an impact of the vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Thank you very much. Would you like the references sent as paper copies, as attachments or by links?
Prof. Lawler: At your pleasure.
Senator Gallagher: Carrier pigeon.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll be putting forward a number of questions on notice on the spike protein.
During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned the AFP about whether they were under orders not to intervene during protests when offenses, such as the flying of illegal Hezbollah and Hamas flags, were observed.
The AFP clarified that they were under no such orders and explained that maintaining peace at rallies and protests is primarily the responsibility of State and Territory police as frontline officers. They also noted that decisions on whether to intervene may depend on tactical considerations and safety concerns.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:On to another topic, are Australian Federal Police officers under any orders at certain demonstrations to not intervene when they see an offence being committed?
Ms Barrett: No.
Senator ROBERTS: We see the issue of illegal flags being raised at some demonstrations—illegal Hezbollah flags and Hamas flags. Why wasn’t action taken?
Ms Barrett: There are a few things I would say to that. Primarily, it’s our state and territory colleagues that are policing public order in protest activity. The AFP doesn’t generally have a frontline presence at protest activity.
Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got jurisdiction, say, in Sydney at a big protest—only in Canberra?
Ms Barrett: It’s not our primary role. It’s primarily the role of the states and territories. They are better equipped and trained to deal with large public order matters. We obviously provide support to them and some specialist capability where it’s required, but they are primarily the ones on the front line at the protest activity. They also have access to utilising this legislation and, in fact, there have been other state and territory colleagues and counterparts that have used this legislation in relation to the prohibited hate symbols. The other point I would make is that there are a lot of tactics that go into policing protests and into maintaining law and order and public order, particularly in mass protest activity. It is quite a simplified expectation that police officers would be immediately arresting on the spot. There is a lot of consideration that would go into tactical decision-making around whether it would be the right decision to immediately intervene and arrest in a mass protest activity, and that is where our state and territory colleagues have the specialist skills and training.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have two questions. Do you have jurisdiction in Sydney, for example, or in the state, apart from airports?
Ms Barrett: We have jurisdiction for Commonwealth offences, so under Commonwealth legislation. Our state and territory colleagues have state legislation that allows them to enforce public order in those situations. As I’ve already said, they also have access to Commonwealth legislation around some of these applicable offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question: is one of the considerations as to whether or not to take action to arrest someone who’s demonstrating with a hate flag or hate symbol the need to be seen to be enforcing the law? People are just shocked that these people are getting away with breaking the law willy nilly in front of the police’s eyes.
Ms Barrett: There are a number of grounds that have to be satisfied before a police officer can arrest someone under the Commonwealth legislation. There are six or seven grounds for arrest, so it’s not as simple as just making a decision to arrest somebody. It has to be either to prevent the continuation of offence, prevent a loss or destruction of evidence, ensure a person’s appearance before court—there are a number of elements that you have to satisfy yourself of before you make a decision to deprive someone of their liberty. I can tell you that every police officer takes the decision to make an arrest very seriously because, as I said, you are depriving someone of their liberty. The other thing I will just make the point of is that every police officer has the independent office of constable. I can’t direct someone to make an arrest in any situation. It is an individual decision made by the individual police officer, and they themselves have to be satisfied that they’ve met the grounds for arrest under the Commonwealth legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: One of those grounds was the continuation of an offence. Isn’t letting people continue to march with a hate symbol a continuation of an offence?
Ms Barrett: Yes, in most circumstances it could be. But I will take you back to my earlier point—that there are a lot of other factors, particularly in mass protest situations where you’ve got big crowds, high emotions, a lot of passion and a propensity for violence or disorderly behaviour. There are a lot of tactics that go around policing large demonstrations like that, not least in terms of officer safety as well.
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is important for families and parental responsibility, yet we were given only one hour to debate it. It’s another Labor-Liberal stitch-up to control everyone through digital identity and misinformation bills.
We support the Greens in this, because parents should be the ones to supervise their children, not the government. Age verification and facial recognition have failed globally. We should instead, make device management easier for parents.
This bill will lead to constant surveillance and push children into unsafe online spaces. We must stop the Uniparty’s globalist agenda and work for our country. We support the referral.
Transcript
Well, isn’t this a wonderful day! The Greens are normally helping the government to truncate debate, to guillotine debate. Now they’re talking about adding more time for debating—and we agree with them this time, because we agree with debate. Debate is the way to truth. We agree with their amendment and we will be supporting their amendment.
This is a vital bill, an absolutely crucial bill. It has serious consequences, and not just for people under 16 years of age. It has serious consequences for the Australian family and who has responsibility for children in this country. Is it the government, or is it going to remain the parents? Parents have already had their responsibility, their authority, whittled away at state and federal level. We need to enshrine responsibility for children with parents. That’s critical. It’s fundamental. This bill has important social and family consequences, and we’ve been given one hour!
This is a stitch-up between the Labor-Liberal uniparty, yet again. Digital identity; identity verification bill; misinformation/disinformation bill; working on digital currency; children under 16 banned from the internet—these are all working together to capture everyone in this country; we’ve said it for the last four years. We were the first cab off the rank with regard to the Morrison government’s misinformation/disinformation bill and the same with the digital identity bill. Oh, sorry; they called it the Trusted Digital Identity Bill! It’s a stitch-up.
We need scrutiny, and we will be supporting the Greens on this. Let me tell you why I’m saying this. Parents must be the ones supervising their children in their own home. It is a parent’s responsibility, a parent’s duty, a parent’s right, and you are affecting those things—parental responsibilities, duties and rights. You’re undermining parents.
Age verification software and facial recognition must be used in every device, whether it be a phone or a computer. Why do we know that? Because this banning of children under 16 years of age has failed in every country, because the bureaucrats can’t control it. So, as to what you’ve set up with your bills, one of the earliest in this parliament from the Labor Party government was identity verification software. We will need the cameras on all the time. What we should be doing, instead of sidelining parents, is making device management easier. Apple, Microsoft and Android could make parental locks easier and more powerful.
I want to acknowledge Senator Rennick’s comment a couple of days ago when he said that you can already get apps—some free, some for a price—that enable parents to control the apps that are downloaded onto a child’s phone. They’re already there. We don’t need this bill at all. We notice that opposition leader Peter Dutton has joined in supporting the need for this bill, but there’s no need for it. As I said, no country has made age limits work because bureaucrats cannot see us using the device. That’s what you need and that’s what this bill gives you with your preceding bills. We see Mr Littleproud speaking on Sky News in support of this and a huge backlash—devastating comments against Mr Littleproud. If the bill goes through, parents allowing children to watch cartoons on YouTube will be breaking the law. It will need facial recognition and monitoring of key strokes for content to police this. Hackers and burglars will be in paradise. They will be able to come in and watch your activities in the house through your camera 24 hours a day and find out when you are going to be out of the house. Parents watching a cooking video with their child on their lap will be locked out because the child is under 16. Children will be forced into the dark corners of the web—peer-to-peer messaging—with no protections against illegal material, hate, phishing, sextortion and hacking.
We have already seen these bills being introduced in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and other countries simultaneously. This goes beyond the uniparty in this country; it goes globally. We have seen in the United Kingdom police raiding journalists and commentators who have been criticising the Starmer government and jailed. That is where this is heading. We have seen the digital ID, misinformation and disinformation bill, identity verification started and introduced by the LNP—the Liberal-Nationals. Stop working as the uniparty for globalists and start working for our country. We will support the referral.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/kyQV9gLA_2s/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-20 13:04:052024-12-20 13:04:09Parental Rights at Stake: Debate Over Bill is Crucial
This inquiry was initiated to address one of the most pressing issues of our time: the federal and state governments’ responses to COVID-19. Our witnesses include Senator Ron Johnson (USA), Tanya Unkovich MP (New Zealand), Christine Anderson MEP (EU Parliament,Germany), Professor Angus Dagleish (UK), Dr Peter Parry, Professor Ian Brighthope, Dr Raphael Lataster, Julian Gillespie (former barrister), Dr Melissa McCann (via YouTube video) and Professor Gigi Foster.
The challenges we faced over the past few years highlighted severe shortcomings in our governments’ responses to COVID and weaknesses in our democracy. To ensure justice, accountability and financial compensation, it is imperative that a comprehensive Judicial Inquiry into the government’s handling of COVID-19 is called. This could take the form of a Senate Commission of Inquiry or a Royal Commission. Investigations that must be robust, independent and based on data and facts, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documentation.
The handling of COVID affected us all in profound ways. To fully understand the scope of these effects and to prevent this happening again in the future, we need to establish an accurate and detailed timeline of events and associated facts. Placing the most up-to-date information on the record will uncover the truth behind the decisions made and their consequences. These are essential for restoring accountability and trust in governments, and health services and departments.
We must make this issue a federal election matter, with the goal being to awaken the public with clear, understandable facts. The public needs to become aware of the magnitude of the problems we faced. The mishandling of this crisis is not a matter of minor errors. It involved significant failures that demand accountability and serious repercussions. That is the only way to restore trust in our medical systems and in our government systems and processes.
This issue is far from over. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations—especially our children and grandchildren—to address these failings directly, clearly and bluntly. We must hold those responsible accountable and ensure that such lapses are never repeated.
https://1a-1791.com/video/s8/6/j/o/o/O/jooOv.0kob.1.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-19 18:10:002024-12-19 18:13:06COVID Under Trial: Uncovering the Truth
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
