Australian Houses for Australians – Ban Foreign Ownership!

,

The government says less than 1% of houses are bought by foreigners. I don’t believe them. State governments say it’s at least double that, real estate agents say it’s 10%!

I have been asking for detailed data on how they get to that number for 9 months now without answers. 

The government is hiding the true extent of foreign ownership from Australians while we’re in the middle of a housing crisis.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Overwhelmingly, Australians don’t believe foreigners should be allowed to own residential property in our country. I first asked at Senate estimates in November last year how many potential foreign buyers the ATO is detecting through its data-matching program? The government failed to answer. In February, Senator Bragg asked and was given no answer. In June estimates, I asked again and did not get an answer. Answers to my questions on notice for how many potential foreign buyers are detected are now overdue, again. Minister, why is your government hiding from the Australian people the data on potential foreign buyers of residential property? And when will you actually answer the question I’ve been asking for nine months?

Senator GALLAGHER: I recall you asking these questions, Senator Roberts, and I understood they were answered at the time by officials when I was sitting at the desk. If there have been follow-up questions you have asked notice that have not been answered, I can certainly follow that up. I think the evidence we gave during Senate estimates was that foreign investment plays an important role in bolstering Australia’s housing stock and creating additional jobs in the construction industry. But it is monitored very closely for good reason. It is tightly regulated, with foreign persons generally requiring foreign investment approval before acquiring an interest in residential land, regardless of its value, with a few exceptions. Foreign investors make up a very small proportion of the total Australian residential property market, accounting for approximately 0.93 per cent of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in 2022-23. Out of 479,257 transactions, based on ATO data from 2022-23 only 4,463 transactions were by foreign investors. It is a very small component—less than one per cent—of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in the 2022-23 financial year. I think senators have raised this through estimates as something they are interested in—raising concerns about foreign investors squeezing out local residents from being able to purchase housing. But the evidence would show that it’s a very small component of the residential property market in the transactions that are being monitored, as was explained in estimates by the ATO. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The New South Wales state government reported more than twice the number of overseas purchases of property that the Foreign Investment Review Board recorded in 2021. The board claims foreigners buy less than one per cent of residential property—and you just confirmed that. Yet in the first quarter NAB property survey, real estate agents say they’re selling 10 per cent of Australian housing to foreigners. Minister, if you have confidence in the Foreign Investment Review Board, why won’t you hand over the data?

Senator GALLAGHER: Again, I’m not sure which part of the data hasn’t been answered. I was sitting at estimates when you were given figures, Senator Roberts, so I’m not sure which data is the data you’re seeking. The ATO data I just read out—and I can provide this in writing to you—shows that it is 0.93 per cent for the 2022-23 financial year, and that it has come down, as I understand it, from a peak in 2015-16. The ATO do residential real estate compliance investigations—so they follow this up and check that people are compliant with the requirements of foreign ownership of residential property. They identified 428 properties for compliance, they did 410 investigations and found 145 properties in breach, and 55 of those resulted in— (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you want foreign investment, yet foreign ownership is against Australians’ interests. Minister, this country is in a housing crisis. When will you ban foreign ownership of residential real estate and put Australians in Australian houses first?

Senator GALLAGHER: We’re not going to do that, Senator Roberts. The numbers show we need good strong rules around it, and there are strong rules around it. We need compliance with those rules, and there are good compliance processes. It’s less than one per cent, and this country has benefited from foreign investment. We benefit in terms of our economy and in terms of jobs—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, order! Please continue, Minister.

Senator GALLAGHER: So it isn’t something we are seeking to ban. It would help if some of our housing programs, which are currently stalled in the Senate, were given approval by the Senate because then we could build more supply, which is the actual issue. I know there wants to be a lot of distractions about who’s to blame, and it’s easy to blame foreign ownership. The statistics don’t support that. I say to the Senate that there are a couple of bills that are stuck in this chamber that would help people into home-ownership and help increase the supply of housing in this country, and I say: let’s get on with that job

Questions on notice from 17 June 2024. Still unanswered and overdue as of 21 August 2024

Q0214_Economics_2024-25Budgetestimates_TreasuryDownload
Q0212_Economics_2024-25Budgetestimates_TreasuryDownload
/11 Comments/by

Babies Born Alive Left to Die!

,

I strongly support the Senate Urgency Motion in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive after a failed abortion. For the past six years, I have spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin that depicts the tiny feet of a 10-week-old infant, a symbol of the innocent lives at stake. In Queensland, 328 babies were born alive and left to die over the last 10 years. Under the Queensland Criminal Code, this is clearly a crime.

While there are legal protections for medical practitioners who induce stillbirths, those protections end when a child is born alive. Yesterday, during a hearing in the Queensland Parliament, brave maternity nurse Louise Adsett gave heartbreaking details of the tragic fate awaiting many beautiful newborn Australians in Queensland maternity wards. These babies are left to cry until they die.

Louise shared the story of nurses who, with compassion, held these babies as they took their last breaths, surrounding them with love in their final moments rather than leaving them alone in a cold and hard stainless steel environment. There is no legal grey area here—allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder.  I thank Senator Babet for introducing this Motion.

To the Queensland Police, my message is simple: “Do your bloody job!” 

These babies deserve better; they deserve the same fundamental right to life that all human beings have.

Transcript

I strongly support this motion from Senator Babet in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive. For 6 years I’ve spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin which depicts an infant’s feet at 10 weeks of age. 

My opposition to abortion comes from my humanity and my role as a father and grandfather. 

Sadly Queensland’s Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 allows for unrestricted access to abortion up to 22 weeks. After that point two doctors must be convinced the abortion is in the mother’s best interests. Doctors who make their living signing off on abortions. 

As Rhodes Scholar and leading researcher Professor Joanna Howe has found, between 2010 and 2020, 4,929 babies were killed after 20 weeks, and until birth. In Queensland, of these babies, 328 were born alive and left to die. 

Last week I was pleased to attend a protest on the Federation Lawn that was a memorial to the 5,000 babies born alive when aborted around Australia. The memorial was 5000 pairs of baby’s booties in the shape of a cross. Babies who were thrown aside and left on a cold stainless steel slab to die. Alone. Nearly 50% of these were perfectly healthy. Nothing wrong with them. Why were they induced and delivered stillborn instead of alive and placed for adoption? 

Under the QLD Criminal Code the current law is clear. This is a crime. Section 292 provides that a child becomes a human being after being born and proceeds in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has had independent circulation or not. 

Section 302 defines murder as by someone who: intends to cause death, which is the case with these 328 babies; or causes death by an act, omission or reckless indifference to human life; 

Currently the penalty for murder in Queensland is life. How ironic. There are protections for medical practitioners who induce the still birth of a child. That protection stops when the child is born alive. 

Queensland MP Bobbie Katter has introduced a bill to ensure the rights of babies born alive. Under the bill, the duty of a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of a termination would be “no different” from their duty to anybody else. This means babies would be given care allowing them to survive where possible, while babies unable to survive would instead be given palliative care. 

In yesterday’s hearing into this bill courageous maternity nurse Louise Adsett described in heartbreaking detail the fate that has awaited so many beautiful young Australians in QLD maternity wards. Babies left to cry themselves to death. Alone. Louise described nurses holding babies that have been marked for death until they drew their last breath, a breath surrounded with love, not cold, hard stainless steel. 

There’s no legal grey area here, allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder. 

To the QLD Police I have this simple message: DO YOUR BLOODY JOB. 

Failure to prosecute the first murder has led to 327 more human beings losing their lives and that’s on you. 

The preamble of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) explicitly recognizes the unborn’s right to life. This is a matter that can be legislated federally and if the States will not police their own laws then the Federal Government must intervene. 

I have yet to hear an abortionist successfully explain at what point in the development of a child it ceases to be a collection of cells and becomes a baby. Until you can show a physiological point before which the child is just a bunch of cells, and after which the child is a living being, I will continue to defend every life and oppose abortion. Except abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. If these practitioners were proud of their actions, they would not be changing the name of their trade from abortion to reproductive care. There’s no reproduction and there’s no care for the child. As least be honest with yourselves, this is not care. This is designed to dehumanise mothers and fathers, dehumanise society and harden the hearts of our community. Neither can this be described as women’s health, the health of the mother is the same no matter if the baby is put up for adoption or murdered. Woman’s health does not apparently include the health of one-half of these aborted babies who themselves will grow into women. 

My office has received over 1000 emails and calls today from Queenslanders who are horrified at this practice. So much so I feel the need to remind everyone that while God loves everyone, God punishes killing. 

These human babies deserve better. Babies deserve to have the same rights as have all human beings. And foremost amongst these is the right to life. 

How They Voted

The Motion

Matter of UrgencyDownload
/13 Comments/by

Government HIDES Secret Ute Tax Report

,

Labor wants to punish diesel and petrol car makers so that you’ll be forced to buy an electric vehicle despite the diesel powered Ford Ranger, a dual cab Ute, still being Australia’s most bought car last year. They continue to claim their new tax won’t impact the car you drive, but that’s nonsense. The DCCEEW has a report sitting in a filing cabinet – a cost-benefit analysis that would likely expose their lies and do not want made public.

So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese Labor Government. Ditch the ridiculous United Nations/World Economic Forum net-zero targets and let Australians buy and drive whatever car they want.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll tie up some things. Going back to the new car regime, could you please produce the document Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen on notice? 

Ms Rowley: You might recall from discussion in this committee at the last round of estimates that, in the committee relating to transport and infrastructure, a public interest immunity claim was made with respect to that modelling. Both with respect to the fact that it speaks to cabinet-in-confidence deliberations and because it includes modelling of market impacts and market outcomes—commercial-in-confidence arrangements—that public interest immunity claim stands, so we are not in a position to table that document.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to give evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes.  

Mr Fredericks: A public interest immunity claim has already been raised—  

Senator ROBERTS: Has it been accepted by the Senate?  

Mr Fredericks: by the transport minister. As I understand it, it hasn’t been resolved, and we as public servants are bound by that minister’s current claim of public interest immunity.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it hasn’t been resolved yet?  

Ms Rowley: Senator, apologies. It might be that I misunderstood which document you were requesting because you opened this with reference to the new vehicle efficiency standard. Is it the modelling related to that, or is it about liquid fuels?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s the document entitled Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen.  

Ms Rowley: Apologies. I was referring to a different document. I misunderstood because of your reference to fuel efficiency standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We all make mistakes.  

Mrs Svarcas: Senator, Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis is publicly available and presents the modelling without the commercial information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where is it?  

Mrs Svarcas: It is available online. We can give you the link for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you can.  

Senator McKENZIE: Have you put the ACIL modelling up?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s what we’re talking about.  

Mrs Svarcas: The cost-benefit analysis is up, without the commercial information.  

Senator ROBERTS: This may have been the document you were talking about, Mr Fredericks. I’d also like you to produce the document Modelling and analysis of a regulated fuel efficiency standard: stage 1 report by ACIL Allen.  

Mr Fredericks: Yes, that’s the one I was referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s still in the hands of the minister, who’s claiming immunity.  

Mr Fredericks: My understanding is that the minister for transport has made a public interest immunity claim against the publication of that report. I think it is still unattended to by the Senate, so we’re bound by that for the time being.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Senate hasn’t attended to it yet?  

Mr Fredericks: That’s my understanding. It’s in another department.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. If you make the claim that your car carbon dioxide tax won’t make cars more expensive, Minister, or take away choice, why won’t you produce the reports you have about the costs and benefits? Why the secrecy and the lack of debate? Why the secrecy about the data you have in your possession right now about the effect on Australian cars, four-wheel drives and utes? These are vehicles fundamental to our economy and to many people’s livelihoods.  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, what question are you actually asking?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why won’t you produce the documents? Senator McAllister: I think, as the secretary has already explained, Minister King has indicated that she claims public interest immunity over the documents. It’s not my claim— 

Senator McKENZIE: You don’t get to say, ‘PII—we win.’  

Senator McAllister: Senator—  

Senator McKENZIE: You’ve got to actually have a reason.  

CHAIR: Senator McKenzie— 

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you afraid of people knowing?  

CHAIR: We’re talking about a PII claim in a different committee, doing something different. That’s their business. We can prosecute it after the event if it has some relevance to this committee; otherwise, I think we’re just going to go round in circles here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, let’s move on.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts has the call for another five.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Coomera Connector 2 in Brisbane—can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2 in Queensland, the extension of a freeway?  

Mr Fredericks: I’m looking at a lot of blank faces behind me. We might need to take that one on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Let’s come to water. I’ve been told in two different sessions in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that this is the spot for my water questions, so here we go. Is your department working with the Queensland government on the $20 billion Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project, and, if not, have they asked for federal assistance in planning or financing?  

Mr Fredericks: I can tell you that that question belongs in water day, which is—  

CHAIR: Friday week.  

Mr Fredericks: Friday week. I lose track.  

CHAIR: On 2 June. Come on down! Mr Fredericks: I suspect there will be a number of questions along those same lines. That’s on water day, Friday week.  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, is the Coomera Connector a road transport project from Loganholme to Coomera?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Mr Fredericks: I think that’s why we got a lot of blank faces.  

Senator McAllister: What was your question in relation to that?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please provide an update on any progress, because there are serious environmental factors involved there. That’s what I want to know—if you’re involved or not.  

Senator McAllister: I see. So your question is: is the department involved in any regulatory process associated with this project?  

Senator ROBERTS: My question is: can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?  

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’re onto it. Do you mean under the EPBC Act?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I just want to know any environmental aspect at all. Mr Fredericks: All good—that is on tomorrow, in outcome 2, and my officials from that part of the department will be ready to respond to your question. Then the water question belongs in the cross-portfolio water day, which will be held on Friday week.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s come back to an earlier answer that one of your staff gave me.  

CHAIR: Two minutes—Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: As to freedom of information request LEX 76280, in relation to the Powering Australia tracker, you redacted a single measure on page 6 of that document. I want to know what the measure is. I was told—I think, by this lady—that that’s cabinet in confidence.  

Ms Geiger: That’s right, and I understand we have replied to your request with an explanation about why that information can’t be revealed.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can one of six topics—just a title—be cabinet in confidence? Was it supplied because it needs to be in confidence, or was it supplied as part of the package to the cabinet? 

Ms Geiger: The individual measure was considered by cabinet, and therefore it’s covered by the cabinet requirements.  

Senator ROBERTS: So anything that goes to cabinet is cabinet in confidence?  

Senator McKENZIE: [inaudible] supporting any decision that they may or may not discuss.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise a public interest immunity claim or a cabinetin-confidence claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister.  

Mr Fredericks: That’s fair. So we will take that on notice because at the moment that issue of disclosure is being considered in the FOI context. That can be different to—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m requesting it as part a Senate committee now.  

Mr Fredericks: I’m helping you here. That can be a different answer when it’s asked in a Senate estimates context, so we will need to take on notice our capacity to provide you that material, under your request from the Senate committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That wasn’t any different from what I asked before. But thank you.  

CHAIR: We’re going to rotate now—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/4 Comments/by

Submissions Closing Soon: Defence Honours and Awards Inquiry

Submissions to the inquiry looking at Defence Medals, including diggers getting screwed over and Angus Campbell’s DSC, are closing soon [30 August 2024].

Submissions can be made here: Defence honours and awards system – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)

Let me know in the comments which town you’d like a public hearing to be held in.  Should we bring the inquiry to Townsville? 

/6 Comments/by

Greedy Telcos Push 3G Shutdown – Government Must Act Now!

,

Greedy telco companies are still pushing ahead with their plans to shutdown the 3G network. This is despite a million devices due to be affected include hundreds of thousands of 4G mobiles.

Pacemakers, medical alarms, EFTPOS machines and emergency phones in elevators are just the tip of the iceberg.

The Government must set minimum criteria and guarantees before allowing the shutdown to go ahead. Anything else prioritises telco profits above the lives of Australians.

Transcript

I move: That the Senate take note of the interim report. 

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s inquiry into the 3G mobile network shutdown can claim a small victory, yet there will be no champagne corks popped. Telstra and Optus announced they will delay their 3G shutdown for two months. I called for a delay in March. I called for the 3G shutdown to be delayed until Australia was ready for the transition. 

The committee has been running an inquiry into the Telstra and Optus proposal that was established on my motion here in the Senate. That inquiry has revealed Australia is nowhere near ready to flick the switch on 3G, and there’s no hope that it can be fixed in just two months. It’s ridiculous. This short delay is nowhere near good enough. Before we can even consider going ahead with the 3G shutdown, the Minister for Communications, Minister Rowland, must intervene and set guarantees of minimum service thresholds on the telcos. It’s time to put Australian people above the telcos short-term company profits. 

The inquiry is ongoing, and given the shutdown deadline was rapidly approaching, the committee commendably issued this interim report. This inquiry discovered a tidal wave of disaster coming for business and Australians. The shutdown won’t just affect 3G mobiles, of which there are still hundreds of thousands in operation; it will affect 4G mobiles, even though many of those owners think they’re safe. 

As the committee notes: 

Furthermore, there are close to half a million non-mobile devices that will not function once the 3G network is shutdown. As an example, these include water and electricity meters, farming monitoring and diagnostic equipment, medical devices, emergency phones in elevators, in addition to safety and asset tracking devices. 

It goes on to say there are: 

… serious, and in some cases life threatening, impacts on people and organisations if these devices do not work after the shutdown. 

Telstra and Optus were at pains to point out how much money and time they had put into making customers aware. Despite these apparently huge efforts—highly ineffective efforts—the total number of mobile and non-mobile devices that the shutdown will affect is close to one million. The telco companies say they’re working on getting all of the 4G coverage up to the same level as 3G. They will not guarantee it will be done as guaranteeing the coverage might cost them money. Once the 3G network is shutdown though, it will be too late. If the communications minister doesn’t intervene, she’ll be giving the telco companies free rein to screw over Australians for short-term profits. 

It’s been clear since the inquiry’s public hearings in July that this shutdown must be postponed indefinitely. The telco companies have made it clear they don’t care about the consequences. Telstra and Optus have confirmed they’ll charge ahead with the shutdown. The telcos are more interested in their short-term profits than the safety and lives of Australians. 

Let me be clear: this shutdown will put the lives of Australians at risk, and Telstra and Optus are going to do it anyway. The Minister for Communications must intervene, yet so far all we have heard is crickets. We still have no statement from the minister that she will impose even one condition on Telstra and Optus—not one. We haven’t even seen a response from the minister to this interim report, despite the fact it was delivered nearly two weeks ago and the shutdown was due to happen just two weeks from now. 

I wish to thank the rural and regional affairs and transport committee for their fantastic work, especially the secretariat, in collating the numerous submissions and organising days of important public hearings, and Senator Canavan, the chair. The Senate successfully supported my motion yesterday ordering the government to respond to this inquiry, with Monday as the deadline. If the minister fails to respond or fails to provide a plan to intervene, we will be pushing this further. 

I take this opportunity to express appreciation for Mr James Parker’s comprehensive and insightful submission to the 3G inquiry and his powerful and clear witness testimony. In particular, I note that he revealed arguably the inquiry’s most significant discovery: the complete lack of compatibility of and standardisation across telco and phone manufacturers. It’s time to put the Australian people above the short-term profits of Telstra and Optus. The communications minister must intervene and set minimum service thresholds and other guarantees for the telcos to fulfil before we can even consider shutting down the network. I want to point out that France has delayed their shutdown until at least 2028 because they found out about the problems with the lack of standardisation and the lack of compatibility amongst phones. Britain is still on 2G and 3G and has now delayed their shutdown until late this decade. The minister must address the compatibility and standardisation issues that are costing 4G users needless expense and denying market competition. The people who are suffering are Australian consumers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 

Leave granted; debate adjourned. 

/by

Government Lacks Strategy on Murray Darling Basin Plan, Despite Election Promises

,

The Government has exhausted its ideas for implementing the Murray Darling Basin Plan. The Albanese Labor Government has been in office for over two years now and implementing the MDB Plan was one of their key election promises. This implies that they should have had a clear strategy in place even before coming into government. Fast forward two years,    Parliament provides the legislative framework to complete the plan—legislation that should have reflected their intended program.

Yet that’s not what happened. When I inquired about the lack of specifics in the government’s “Restoring our Rivers” draft framework, the response made it clear that no real thought had gone into the plan or the legislation they introduced. After reading the “framework” and hearing the Department’s explanations, my belief is reinforced that the government has no real plan, other than to buy back large amounts of water from farmers. It seems they are deliberately delaying any announcement of buybacks until after the election.

Towards the end of this session, I inquired about the socio-economic test that had previously been applied to all water projects to ensure they did not adversely affect rural communities. This test was abolished under the Plibersek legislation and replaced with a meaningless statement. Their response made it clear that the test would no longer prevent bad projects. Instead, it was substituted with lip service and a small allocation of funds for minor community projects, which falls far short of addressing the real socio-economic damage caused by water purchases.

Transcript | Part 1

Senator ROBERTS: How much has been spent on the Restoring Our Rivers draft framework so far? After two years in office, I expected a more detailed and transparent document than this.  

Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers framework followed the amendments to the basin plan and Water Act at the very end of last calendar year. That’s a framework released on 29 January, earlier this year, to go through and explain how we’re proposing to deliver the 450 gigalitres. It was released with a range of principles and programs around the delivery of the 450, and released for consultation. With the new legislation there’s an expanded time frame to the end of 2027 to deliver the 450. This is an important consultation document that was released early to seek views and public consultations on how we’re going to go about delivering that 450 gigalitres. We had over 100 submissions. We had lots of consultations with representative groups. At the same time as releasing that framework for consultation we did open one of the programs. That program is our water recovery infrastructure program, which is state led. It was launched on 29 January, and that’s an opportunity for basin states to bring forward water-saving infrastructure projects. So, that’s actual projects to be delivered. Those projects would include off-farm projects, on the property and non-farm projects. That’s a program that opened on 29 January. 

Senator ROBERTS: This document came out in January this year; that’s what you’re saying?  

Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers draft framework document?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it.  

Ms O’Connell: It followed the changes to the legislation. That’s the important thing. The legislation changed at the end of November.  The legislation passed parliament at the end of November and commenced on 7 December.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought there would have been a lot of work put into that legislation. I’m assuming there was, but I’m amazed at the lack of any real data in this plan or draft framework. It suggests to me that the department is flat out of ideas. It’s like nobody cares anymore. Just buy what we need in water buybacks and destroy the bush and call the job done. Minister, are you stalling for an election rather than upsetting people now with buybacks?  

Ms O’Connell: When that framework was released, we also opened a program—not something for consultation, an actual program—for state-led infrastructure projects to come forward to be proposed.  The framework is, as it says, a framing document. It articulates three proposed programs. The first program that Ms O’Connell refers to, the Resilient Rivers Water Infrastructure Program, is supported by a range of extensive guideline documents, which are available on our website. There are discussions going on with states about getting access to what I think is almost half a billion dollars worth of funding. We have been consulting extensively in relation to another proposed program under the framework, which is a sustainable communities program. Once the results of consultation have been taken on board and that program commences, additional information and guidance around that program will also be published on the website. The third proposed program is in relation to a proposed voluntary water purchase, and the same thing will occur there. It’s a framing document to articulate a range of proposed programs across a variety of recovery tools.  

Senator ROBERTS: It just seems that it’s lacking in data and detail. It just seems light on. But thank you for your answers. Minister, the draft plan actually proposes on page 16 to count the water overpurchases towards the 450 gigalitres. Minister, will you give an undertaking to do exactly that?  

Senator McAllister: I think it is dependent on understanding what any overrecovery might have involved and officials can give you an update on how the system works to produce an evaluation of the state of play, for want of a better term.  

Ms Connell: Currently, there are approximately 78 gigalitres of overcovered water across the northern and southern basins. In terms of being able to count that amount of water towards the 450 gigalitre target, some of those catchments are in New South Wales and they’re in catchments for which water resource plans are yet to be accredited. To be able to determine what the final overrecovery amount is requires the water resource plan to be accredited and for the MDBA to have assessed and verified the modelling so we can have the assurance of exactly where the overrecovered amount falls. We expect to be in a situation across all of the relevant catchments—and I think there are about seven or eight where there are overrecoveries—where work is completed by the MDBA by about June next year.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re waiting on some of the New South Wales valleys, I understand?  

Ms Connell: That’s correct.  In earlier evidence today, there are six remaining water resource plans to be accredited out of the 20 for New South Wales. There is a dependence there, as my colleague outlined.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand you’re not making a commitment without those plans, but assuming the plans are in place then overrecovery will be counted as part of the 450?  

Ms Connell: The draft framework contemplates that exact situation, and we’re in the process of assessing. We got over 100 submissions and they’re of a really high detailed quality. We recently released a report which digests all of that consultation feedback. That’s been now put on the public record. The next step is to publish the final framework. The final framework will set out the government’s proposed approach in relation to overrecoveries.  

Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on a new approach to water recovery while also meeting the legislated requirements to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities? 

Ms Connell: As you refer to, the Productivity Commission released its, I think, second implementation inquiry into the basin plan, which was published this year. It had a range of recommendations and many of those recommendations have actually been implemented or acted upon in terms of securing the Our Rivers legislation. Then there are a range of other initiatives that the government is undertaking to implement those recommendations. There’s quite a number of them. If there’s a specific recommendation you’re interested in, I’m happy to give you an answer about that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an overview of how the government is implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations?  

Ms Connell: The first key critical step to deal with the range of issues the Productivity Commission raised was actually the passage of the Restoring Our Rivers legislation. The Productivity Commission released its interim report while the legislation was in parliament and progressing through parliament. A lot of the amendments moved in the House of Representatives and in the Senate went to addressing issues in the Productivity Commission report. Time Frame extensions were a key issue the Productivity Commission raised. They called out, as many reports have over the last couple of years in terms of basin plan progress, that more time was required. That was a key component of the legislation. They called out the fact that the 450 gigalitre target would require water purchase. Voluntary water purchase is one of the pathways for recovery. They noted that was more cost-effective relative to infrastructure projects. One of the key elements of the Restoring Our Rivers Act was to make water purchase a feasible pathway.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about in relation to meeting the legislated requirement to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities?  

Ms Connell: The legislation included several reforms in relation to that proposal. Firstly, there’s a requirement for a third independent review of the WESA. Unlike the first two reviews, the third review has to actually look at socioeconomic impacts on basin communities. The minister is now also required to consider the social and economic impacts on basin communities of a proposed water purchase program before she launches a water purchase program. There is quite a range of initiatives in relation to socioeconomic impacts.  

Significantly, more broadly, there are three principles that guide overall water recovery. The first of those is enhanced environmental outcomes. The second is minimising socioeconomic impacts, and the third is achieving value for money. So, there’s an overall set of principles.  

I will just note one of the key recommendations of the commission—I think it’s recommendation 2.4—was that in terms of water recovery the government should take a staged and gradual approach and it should provide adjustment assistance to communities to deal with proposed water purchase. As Ms O’Connell said, that’s at the core of the draft framework. One of the three pillars, if you like, is looking at socioeconomic impacts, and one of the responses to that is the establishment of a sustainable communities program. The purpose of that program will be to provide adjustment assistance to communities.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that later. Why has the government not released the Water Recovery Strategy foreshadowed by the Productivity Commission? Six months after the passage of the restoring our rivers bill, why do we only have a draft framework lacking in detail?  

Ms Connell: As I said earlier, the draft framework foreshadows three programs. One of those programs is a water purchase program. When the government moves to commence water purchase, it will release the document that the Productivity Commission refers to.  The legislation passed at the end of November. The framework was released at the end of January, so not long after. It’s important that we go out and consult on these matters. There’s a huge amount of interest. That’s what we were doing, consulting.  

Senator ROBERTS: When will the feedback on the government’s draft framework on recovering the additional 450 gigs be made available?  

Ms O’Connell: That I think was actually published on our website yesterday. I’m happy to table a copy—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yesterday? That’s a funny thing. Pardon me for being a bit—what’s the word?  

Senator Payman: Cynical.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, not quite ‘cynical’. Sceptical maybe. A number of things were published right before the day of standard estimates scheduled hearings. Anyway, that’s good. Thank you.  

Senator McAllister: I suppose the counterfactual is that if it’s not published then you don’t have the opportunity to examine it. You’re very welcome to ask questions about the material that’s in the public domain.  

Ms O’Connell: If it’s useful, we can table the link so that you can go to it, but it is on our website. 

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts, before we rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department met with industry groups collectively regarding feedback on this draft framework for the additional 450 gigalitres, and where will it come from?  

Ms O’Connell: Yes, there’s been extensive consultation as part of the framework being out there—as I said, over 100 submissions. But we can also go through and talk to you about the discussions with groups that we’ve had, the consultations that we’ve done and webinars that we’ve had.  The nature of the consultation and the groups we consulted with are set out in the document we’ve published. We’ve held many workshops over the last six months with industry groups and peak stakeholder groups, and we’ve met quite a few times with the basin community committee. We’ve had discussions with particular sectors within industry—the rice sector and the dairy sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are those workshops online?  

Ms Connell: Predominantly, but we’ve also had face-to-face meetings and meetings out in the basin. So, through a range of different consultation mechanisms and including public webinars.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many online and how many—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re now going to have to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: If I could just follow up on that. How many face-to-face workshops and how many online?  

Ms Connell: I’d have to take that on notice—  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.  

Ms Connell: to give you that answer.  

Transcript | Part 2

Senator ROBERTS: Ms O’Connell or Ms Connell—  

Ms O’Connell: I know—they’re very similar names.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, for the one with the ‘O’ or the one without the ‘O’, you said the plan water numbers were online. My office is pretty good at surfing the internet, but they clicked right through the website and couldn’t find it. Could you send that link, please, that you offered?  

Ms O’Connell: Yes. Just to be clear, that’s the link on the report on the 450 gigalitre framework consultation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the water quantities.  

Ms Connell: The overrecoveries?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Connell: We can provide you with that information.  

Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendation on transparency and accountability for basin plan decisions? We’ve got a few here about the ACT. What information has the government released about the Australian Capital Territory Bridging the Gap project announced on 3 April?  

Ms O’Connell: There was a press release on the ACT Bridging the Gap. The date of that release was 3 April 2024. There was a joint media release on ACT fulfilling its water recovery commitments under the MurrayDarling Basin Plan Bridging the Gap.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has there been any more information?  

Ms O’Connell: We’re happy to provide you with more information.  

Mr Southwell: The FFA, the Federation Funding Agreement, that relates to that matter has been published on the Department of Treasury’s website.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Department of Treasury?  

Mr Southwell: It’s a website for federal financial relations and FFA is there.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are so many bureaucracies and so many departments. That’s fine.  

Mr Southwell: That’s where all of the FFAs have to be published. That relates to the minister’s press release. The FFA itself was executed on 14 March when the ACT signed it, and that provided the $58 million for the 6.36 gigalitres of water that the arrangement related to.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, 6.3 gigalitres, did you say?  

Mr Southwell: 6.36 gigalitres.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was to be my next question. Now my next question instead is: how much per megalitre was paid to the ACT, including previous payments?  

Mr Southwell: This FFA is $58.83 million for the 6.36 gigalitres, and that works out at $9,250 a megalitre.  

Senator ROBERTS: What part of the ACT is the water being recovered from?  

Mr Southwell: The FFA itself doesn’t require specific components from the ACT. The ACT has said that they will use the money received to implement long-term water management changes, including water sensitive urban design activities, incentivising community change to reduce water use and water quality improvement activities.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, no specific water was released?  

Mr Southwell: I think it’s called the Halls Gap site—the Lower Molonglo. 

Senator DAVEY: Only state—  

Mr Southwell: No. The transfer of entitlements has occurred. It is with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The Commonwealth received a licence of 6.36 gigalitres. That comprised 4.9 towards Bridging the Gap, and an additional 1.46 gigalitres of water towards broader basin plan outcomes. That water has since been specified by Minister Plibersek as being held environmental water to contribute towards the 450 gigalitre target.  

Senator ROBERTS: The water is no longer going to the ACT?  

Mr Southwell: That water is now held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, that entitlement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it water that’s actually being held or is it water that will be held due to savings in the future? I didn’t quite understand.  

Mr Southwell: The entitlement has been transferred now.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.  

Mr Southwell: It’s with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Dr Banks: I can confirm that water entitlement was registered on 18 April to the Commonwealth’s environmental water holdings.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, part of that was part of the efficiency measures towards the additional 450 gig?  

Mr Southwell: 1.46 gigalitres. ACT identified that they could deliver 6.36. Their gap that was remaining for Bridging the Gap—4.9. That’s been met in full. So, the ACT no longer has a gap. With the additional 1.46, that has now been determined as contributing towards the 450 gigalitres, which means 1.46 gigalitres less that has to be recovered elsewhere.  

Senator ROBERTS: When or how did officials agree to this socioeconomic criteria for the funding?  

Mr Southwell: The department evaluated the offer that was made from the ACT. We provided advice to the minister, a comprehensive assessment around the water and the value that it represented and its contribution towards the basin plan, and provided advice to the minister accordingly.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your answers being so direct and clear. Is that publicly available, that information?  

Mr Southwell: The evaluation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Southwell: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get a copy of it on notice.  

Mr Southwell: On notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re six months out from the passage of the restoring our rivers bill. Have any new SDLAM projects been started? Mr Ward: No new projects have been started. But as I mentioned earlier in the day, we’re working very closely with our basin state colleagues on identifying ideas and progressing them forward. There were seven that were shortlisted by the basin officials committee earlier this year for the states to undertake further development of those, and the information on that is published on our department website.  Have any decisions been made on new SDLAM projects?  

Ms O’Connell: Not by basin officials committees yet. There are prospective projects being worked on. We anticipate—and I gave this evidence earlier today—that New South Wales will be bringing forward a new project soon. They have advised us they intend bringing forward a new project soon and then basin officials will have a look at that.  

Senator ROBERTS: What timeline is likely for new SDLAM projects?  

Ms O’Connell: It really depends on the project in terms of how long it takes to deliver the project. The delivery timeframe for all SDLAM projects, which applies to new ones, is— Mr Ward: There are three key dates. New projects have to be notified by basin officials by 30 June 2025. States then have until 30 June 2026 to either amend or withdraw projects, and then all projects must be in operation on 31 December 2026.  

Senator ROBERTS: I take it it’s too early to determine what the likely volumetric outcome is, much too early?  

Ms O’Connell: Correct. It is a tight timeframe, as my colleague outlined. 

Mr McConville: If I may add, the reconciliation process will occur, in terms of your question around volumes, after December 2026. The MDBA will be required to do a reconciliation after that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Socioeconomic considerations—how is the government intending to meet the requirements to consider socioeconomic impacts of buybacks when it has such an unrealistic target, in my opinion, of recovery of 100 gigalitres per annum?  

Ms Connell: As the draft framework makes clear, considering socioeconomic impacts needs to be a key consideration in each water recovery pathway. It really depends on the option being pursued, whether it’s infrastructure, rules based or voluntary water purchase. But I can talk in more detail about the work that we’re doing and the investigations we’re undertaking in relation to potential water purchase. We’re undertaking a range of work. There was a quite significant investigation into socioeconomic impacts of the basin plan quite a few years ago chaired by Robbie Sefton. She chaired a panel. The advice of the Sefton report was, given that there are really quite complex drivers of socioeconomic impacts in the basin—climate, drought, technology, labour inputs, energy inputs—it’s important to look at multiple lines of inquiry to develop the evidence base. So we’re doing a couple of things. We’re looking back. We’ve got the benefit of a range of reports that have been undertaken looking at socioeconomic impacts of water recovery options over the last couple of years. AITHER has done some work for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which has been a key reference point for us. Marsden Jacobs Associates, another firm, did quite detailed investigations for the Sefton review, and New South Wales has recently published a report which we’ve had reference to as well. I guess the other key significant thing that we’re doing is most of those reports find that it’s quite hard to actually pull apart what impacts water recovery has on regional communities, and it’s important to have a discussion with communities to involve them in those issues. One of the key elements of the consultation we did around the draft framework was to seek very specific feedback about past experience of water recovery programs, past experience of community adjustment programs, and we’re pulling that all together. We’ll also be drawing on advice from ABARES.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it used to be the requirement that we must have a socioeconomic benefit. Now it comes down to, at the top of page 18 of your draft framework report, the ‘Sustainable Communities program will seek to mitigate unavoidable socioeconomic impacts’.  

Ms Connell: That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s change the target.  

Ms Connell: Our first order approach is to prioritise a non-water purchase option. We’ve talked quite a bit today about the fact that the infrastructure program opened in January and then the other kind of core program under the framework is the Sustainable Communities program. We’ve been working really quite intensively with stakeholders to get feedback on a draft of principles to guide how funding for community adjustment should be directed. So, we’ve received really quite extensive and clear feedback. There are seven principles that will form the foundation of the community adjustment program. The feedback largely supported each of those principles. Many of them were very strongly supported. There was a strong emphasis from local councils in particular. They’ve been closely engaged in the design of any community adjustment principles. So, that is something we will be definitely taking on board. We’re currently working with basin states to look at getting funding arrangements in place so that funding can flow in the new financial year. 

Transcript | Part 3

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: The draft framework for delivering the additional 450 gigalitres per year outlined in the restoring our rivers bill provided more funding towards finalising the basin plan, but the budget indicated this funding was not for publication. How much funding is required?  

Ms O’Connell: As you mentioned, the budget papers say that it is not for publication, and the reason for that is there will be potential for competitive tendering. You wouldn’t normally publish the figures prior to going to a tender.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept that.  

Ms O’Connell: So it’s not for publication.  

Senator ROBERTS: What provision will be made to support the river communities that will be impacted by water recovery?  

Ms Connell: We spoke about that a bit earlier this afternoon. The framework describes a Sustainable Communities program that’s for community adjustment. The funding will go through states under federal financial agreements. The proposal is for a specific standalone program focused on supporting communities that need support to adjust, and for that funding to be provided through states who are best placed to work with local communities to build on their existing regional stakeholder engagement networks, and also to build on existing funding that’s going into those particular communities that need to be the focus.  

Senator ROBERTS: So federal funding through the states?  

Ms Connell: Funding under FFAs, federal funding agreements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this seems to be a continuation of the undeclared war on farmers. I’ve been to Dirranbandi in Southern Queensland, the border community there, and the same applies to Northern New South Wales. Senator Davey, I’m sure, will be concerned as well. Who gets the land after you drive farmers off? A lot of farmers have been driven off in Dirranbandi and other places. Who is going to use this land once you get rid of the farmers? For what purpose will they use it?  

Senator McAllister: I don’t accept the scenarios that you set out in your question. Nor do I accept your characterisation of our posture towards Australian agricultural communities. Our view is that a sustainable basin, a healthy working river, is essential to underwrite the future of food and fibre production in this country, to underwrite the future of regional towns that depend, as has been discussed earlier today, on adequate supplies of clean drinking water, and also to protect our environmental assets in the basin. We think those three things are compatible with one another and, in fact, interdependent. The approach we’re taking is working through a difficult and challenging reform. It now looks like it will be a multidecade reform. It’s one that’s been going on for many years. It requires cooperation between the states and the territories and the Commonwealth. It has been bipartisan. Regrettably, not very much progress was made in the decade that the coalition was in office. But in the two years we’ve been in government we have set about looking at the progress that’s been made so far, what more needs to be done and putting in place the legislative arrangements, the financial arrangements and the implementation arrangements, to implement the basin plan in full.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of the rewilding plan that’s part of the United Nations Agenda 2030 as it is now? It was exposed in the United States. There are similar concepts here.  

Senator McAllister: You’ll have to table the United Nations documentation. I haven’t seen that documentation.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about hollowing out the bush? I’ve been to Moulamein in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. What about compensation to supermarkets, small businesses in the areas who will all lose business with the water that’s going to be taken, and with that lose the critical mass necessary to keep these towns going? Football teams are dying; sporting clubs are dying. What about the compensation for the people who are not on the land but who depend upon the people on the land?  

Senator McAllister: Over the course of today we’ve had a few discussions about socioeconomic impacts, some of them in response to questions from yourself. I think you heard Ms Connor speak earlier about some of the research that’s occurred already about the multiple drivers of change in Australian rural communities. You’ve also heard Ms O’Connell and Ms Connor speak about the approach to socioeconomic assessment in terms of any decisions that might be taken. You have, thirdly, heard just now a description of the approach that’s proposed in terms of working with the states and territories to provide support for communities. I’m not sure how further to respond to your questions, but I do think a lot of information has been provided over the course of the day about the way we’re thinking about these challenges in implementing the plan in full—something I believe continues to have bipartisan support, as confirmed by Senators Davey and Ruston earlier.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total cost estimate to complete the basin plan?  

Mr Dadswell: Current public commitments to the basin plan are around $13 billion. That’s over the life of the plan, over the last 12 years. There’s about—  

Senator ROBERTS: So that includes past—  

Mr Dadswell: Yes, past programs and existing, and including the ones from the 2024-25 budget. There’s around $3 billion in publicly stated funding that remains against that $13 billion to be spent.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

The Andrew Gray Podcast: Are We Being Lied To?

,

I joined Andrew Gray on his Podcast – Healthy Leadership Mentor where we discuss many topics including the many ways the Australian people are being deceived.

👉 Subscribe to his Newsletter: https://andrew-gray.ck.page/profile

🎙️ Subscribe to his Podcast: https://healthyleadershipmentor.buzzs…

/by

The Current Native Title System Fails Aboriginals

,

I support referring the native title system to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee because it’s hurting mainland Aboriginals. The current system is racist and is locking up land, preventing Aboriginals, especially in remote areas, from benefiting.  Since the Native Title Act of 1993, 54% of Australia’s land has come under determinations of the Native Title Tribunal, yet Native Title offers no practical benefits to Aboriginal people. Instead, it empowers a few wealthy community barons – both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal (the Aboriginal Industry) and fails to meet the needs of individuals like Bruce Gibson, an Aboriginal leader who cannot own land in his community or use it to advance his business.  Aboriginal people cannot use the land to build homes or support businesses, unlike non-Aboriginal Australians. 

The Mabo decision, which was originally about land rights on Murray Island in the Torres Strait, recognised a system of land title that was passed down through generations, effectively preventing those without title from claiming the land. This system existed in the Torres Strait but did not exist on the mainland. The Mabo decision should not have been extended beyond this context, however it wasn’t the High Court that extended it; it was the Labor Party under Paul Keating that did so, creating something that was not grounded in reality.

We need to review the Native Title Act, introduce sunset clauses, and stop closing landmarks based on obsolete practices. It’s time to rethink the native title regime for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, AND all Australians.  This system is failing them, just like the Closing the Gap program.  

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:36): I support the referral of the native title system to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee because the native title system is currently hurting mainland
Aboriginals. In practice, native title is racist against Aboriginal people. I also support the reference because I support Australia and all Australians—one united nation, one nation.

Since the introduction of the Native Title Act into Australian law in 1993, more than 50 per cent of the Australian land mass has come under determinations of the Native Title Tribunal—54 per cent, to be precise. The legislation, though, is not a true reflection of what was in fact determined in the High Court, which considered the unique circumstances of Mr Eddie Mabo’s family and the situation on Murray Island in the Torres Strait. The Native Title Act, when drafted, relied significantly on United Nations declarations, which were mentioned six times in a 2½ page preamble. That’s what it’s all about—United Nations declarations and other agreements related to the rights of Indigenous peoples. Locking up land from private ownership is on the UN agenda.

What is not so well understood is the total failure of the Native Title Act to provide practical benefits to the lives of Aboriginal people living in remote areas of Australia. That’s why it is racist. It is hurting and holding back Aboriginals, especially those in remote areas of Australia. Less well known is that some native title claims grant exclusive rights which may allow the native title holder to exclude non-Aboriginals from accessing the land—fact.

This may prevent other Australians accessing beaches and landmarks of significance unless they pay for the privilege. More symbolic than practical, the act has effectively locked up large tracts of land from the use or benefit of individual Aboriginal people. It’s locked them out. The only ones who have benefited under the act are those wealthy community barons, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who are part of the white and black Aboriginal industry and rip off needy Aboriginals. Instead, they divert much of the billions of dollars in Aboriginal funding to themselves, sucking it up and keeping it from the people in the communities. Those who benefit are the white and black Aboriginal academics, activists, Aboriginal community leaders, shonky lawyers and dodgy Aboriginal corporations, who do nothing to help individual Aboriginals.

I’ve travelled widely through Aboriginal communities across Queensland, including every Cape York community—sometimes three times through a community. I’ve been to all of the communities at least twice. When we were in Cape York, we met with local community leader Mr Bruce Gibson, for example. He’s one of many. He shared his views on native title and its impact on his community. And, by the way, we hear these
comments from Aboriginal elders in other parts of Queensland as well, in communities like Gympie and Maryborough—mainstream communities. Anyway, getting back to Mr Bruce Gibson, he said that native title was
important for the recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and for recognising that Aboriginal people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they had inherent rights to the land.

That’s fine. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Aboriginal people—and, remember, Mr Gibson is an Aboriginal from an Aboriginal community and a fine man—with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. It’s racist, because white people in this country can go and buy land. They can use that as collateral for a business loan or for building their own family house. Aboriginal people in communities cannot. The land is locked up and given to the barons of the community. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects or family homes. It’s racist. It hurts Aboriginals.

This would seem contrary to the effective intention of the legislators. If the act is supposed to benefit hardworking Australian Aboriginals, it’s failing, just as the Closing the Gap program has failed. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home, and the property is now locked away out of reach. The Commonwealth government can reclaim land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners. Yet this does not benefit any individuals. With individual landownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial community or personal goals.

Bruce Gibson said that he wished to own his own place in his community. He cannot. Why? Because he’s Aboriginal on an Aboriginal community. That’s why. Native title doesn’t look after him. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner, yet he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners, if he says the right things. These comments were echoed across the Cape, from constituents to council mayors and council members. It was universal—every community. There was not one person to whom we spoke who had a good thing to say about native title other than it providing some recognition to them as First Australians. That’s why native title is racist. It hurts Aboriginals.

Coming back to the Mabo decision, the Mabo decision was based correctly on Mr Mabo’s island in the Torres Strait Islands—Murray Island, I think it is. But that was because there was a system of handing down title of land to succeeding generations. It was a means of keeping people who didn’t hold title to the land out of their land. That system was in the Torres Strait. It was not on the mainland. There was no system of land tenure on the mainland. That Mabo decision should not have been extended. It wasn’t extended by the High Court. It was extended by the Labor Party under Paul Keating. They made that up, and it’s a falsity.

I want to go to some key points that I’ve made in notes. With native title, there are no individual needs being met—no universal human needs. It’s just a feel-good policy to make a few people in the inner-city areas think we’ve handed land back to the Aboriginals, when we never took it, and it hasn’t been handed back. It’s been taken off whoever had it. It provides enormous uncertainty regarding development, which is holding back Aboriginal communities. There’s confusion between native title and the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 in Queensland. They’re two separate issues. They’re both taking up land in Queensland.

There are many uncertainties in claims of native title, like two families claiming the same land. In some cases, one family from interstate is granted the land when the local Aboriginal people are denied the land. It’s rife with these kinds of false claims. Look at Toobeah. Look at Deebing Creek near Ipswich. That hurts the Aboriginals. It also deflects and hides from Aboriginals’ core problems, and they have got problems in remote communities, not in all remote communities—they’re different; they vary—but there are problems. But they’re not being fixed by the white and black Aboriginal industry. The problems are being exacerbated exactly as Senator Hanson mentioned.

Let me tell you a story about my first time as a senator. I was walking up to the One Nation office in Brisbane, and three Aboriginal people approached me. I talked to them, and they said they were from the Northern Territory. I said, ‘What are you doing here then?’ They said: ‘We’ve come to see Senator Hanson because she’s the only one who understands our problems and the only one with the guts to tell the truth. She’s the only one.’ These are Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory who came down from the Territory to Brisbane to see Senator Hanson because she’s the only one who gets it and she’s the only one who understands.

There’s a flow-on from the guilt and grievance industry, the white and black Aboriginal industry that I mentioned, that’s hurting and suppressing Aboriginals, entrenching dependence and entrenching victimhood. The Aboriginal people are wonderful people, essentially salt of the Earth. Why are we keeping them down? Why are we suppressing them under a blanket of bureaucracy?

We need sunset clauses on native title applications, just like the Queensland Aboriginal Land Act of 1991. It had a sunset clause that came into force in 2006. We need a moratorium on native title allocations. We need to review the Native Title Act, and that’s why I support this reference. We need to reverse the closing of landmarks. Prominent Aboriginals in this country have admitted that the closing of landmarks is based on obsolete practices. The closing of Mount Warning was strongly opposed by an Aboriginal elder, a woman, but her voice was not heard. It was suppressed. Mr Marc Hendrix is doing a marvellous job of publicising the truth about Mount Warning’s closure. It was a bunch of gutless bureaucrats and politicians from the New South Wales state government that succeeded to rubbish. It succeeded to the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, and it was spread by a small, tiny group and opposed by Aboriginals, including elders. Wise females were just ignored, just buried. The One Nation MPs, I’m sure, will review the Aboriginal Land Act of 1991 in Queensland, and also we need a review of the Native Title Act.

I’m going to make some comments about Senator Ayres. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest and the fearful. Senator Ayres put together not one single coherent point, just a lot of labels and lies. That was all we got from Senator Ayres. He retreated. He put forward no arguments. It was all just hollow words. Pauline Hanson is known for her love of Australia and her love of Australians, regardless of skin colour. Let me tell you a story from when we first came to Canberra in the Senate in 2016. We went to the Griffith Vietnamese Restaurant, where a lot of politicians have gone over the years and written on the walls. We couldn’t get out of the place because the Vietnamese people, the other Asian people, wanted autographs with Senator Hanson. Why? Because she protects the country. She protects the country and makes sure we keep our values in this country. That’s why Asian people, Indian people, Chinese people and Middle Eastern people come to this country—because they like the values of this country. We have got to protect that.
These concerns about native title are echoed right across Queensland and in other parts, including across the Territory as well. We know from prominent Aboriginals that they agree with Senator Hanson and with me. It’s way over time for this native title regime to be reconsidered, and I recommend its referral to this committee for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for the benefit of all Australians. Thank you.


/by

Is the UK Sliding into Dystopia? Australia Could Be Next!

,

Watching the sad events currently underway in the United Kingdom, one might be forgiven for thinking we’ve descended into the dystopian world long foretold by classic literature. One Nation agrees with Milton – free circulation of ideas is essential to moral and intellectual growth. To attempt to preclude falsehoods underestimates the power of truth.

Originally intended to prevent incitement to violence, hate speech laws have now devolved to the point where criticising the government has become a criminal offense, leading to the imprisonment of citizens in the UK. At the same time, the UK Government is failing to ensure the safety of its own streets. The UK clearly has 2-tiered policing.


As we face the next manufactured social or medical crises, there is no doubt that Australia’s law enforcement will commit the same abuses of civil rights that we are currently witnessing in the UK. Only by voting wisely will prevent Australia from following the UK’s path – turning into a communist state.

To conclude, let me be clear: there is no justification for violence from either side of a protest. Equally, the actions of a few should not result in the stripping away of rights from the many.

Transcript

Watching the sad events currently unfolding and underway in the United Kingdom, one can be forgiven for thinking we’d descended into the dystopian world so long predicted in the classic literature. George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is just one warning, which ironically appears to have been become an instruction manual for the political left. An interview with George Orwell recently surfaced in which Orwell thought there was a possibility Nineteen Eighty-Four could happen in the UK. He was right, again.

Orwell’s description of what looks like the UK under Labour’s Keir Starmer reads as follows:

In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement—

that’s porn and transgenderism by the way—

There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the Party. But always there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is … don’t let it happen.

One Nation are doing everything we can to prevent this nightmare overtaking Australia. Sadly, the globalist Liberals, Labor, Greens, Nationals and teals intend to push ahead into hell.

Another futuristic story, written in 1961 and titled Harrison Bergeron, from American science fiction writer Kurt Vonnegut, predicted a future where human behaviour was controlled—physical movement and appearance and thought. High-IQ citizens were punished with earpieces that played loud sounds every 30 seconds to prevent them from thinking so they did not outshine low-IQ people. The strong were literally weighted down with ball bearings to reduce their strength to that of the worst weakling. The attractive were forced to wear ugly masks so nobody was made to feel uncomfortable gazing upon someone more attractive than themselves. A quote to explain his predication, which is often incorrectly attributed to Dostoevsky, simply reads, ‘Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.’

Vonnegut’s view was mirrored in an interview with a former resident of the Soviet Union that was described to me. It consisted of the fellow drawing three stick figures on a piece of paper, two at the same height and one taller, then saying, ‘In the Soviet Union everyone is equal,’ before taking his pencil and drawing a line across the top of the two smaller figures thereby severing the head of the third. ‘Such is life in the Soviet Union,’ he said. Keir Starmer’s communism is the victory of those who have lost their humanity, morality and faith or, as Orwell describes them, ‘those who thrill in the delight of the kill’. Perhaps UK citizens would agree it’s time to add a footnote to the famous quote from Descartes, ‘I think therefore I am—arrested.’

It’s just like the young man in Belfast who was recently arrested for observing a protest, only to have District Judge Rafferty and the Belfast Magistrates Court decide that someone’s presence, including as a curious observer, involves them in such disorder as to justify the refusal of bail. And off to jail he went. That young man had never been in trouble with the police before and had even left when the event became violent. There’s no provision in common or statute law that reads, ‘Injustice is allowed if it exists to make an example of one to intimidate others into disobedience,’ yet here we are.

Similar behaviour was observed in Australia during COVID. The conversation around events in the UK has so far missed an important element. The United Kingdom has been here before. Former Queensland premier Campbell Newman reminded the internet last week of the Areopagitica, which carries the full title: A speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing, to the Parlament of England. This was a pamphlet published in 1644 to protest a parliamentary order of the previous year requiring government approval and licensing of all published works and pamphlets. This measure was introduced after Milton’s treatise in favour of divorce upset the king, Charles I. History appears to be repeating—the uniparty’s misinformation disinformation censorship bill.

In Areopagitica, Milton defends the free circulation of ideas as essential to moral and intellectual development. Furthermore, he asserts, to attempt to preclude falsehood is to underestimate the power of truth, a lesson for our eSafety Commissioner, who clearly believes the reverse is true. While the immediate objective of the Areopagitica repeal of licensing was not obtained for another 50 years, the tract has earned a permanent place in the literature of human rights.

Repeal took 50 years because, as it turned out, each new government kept that power in order to protect themselves from criticism. Power freely given is never freely surrendered. Here we are 380 years later and Australia is making exactly the same mistake, but One Nation isn’t. The rest of the parties in this place are. Keir Starmer famously took the knee during Black Lives Matter riots and now puts English lives matter
demonstrators on their knees. The start of the trouble was the murder of three young girls at the hands of a suspected Islamic terrorist. If you want to look for the cause of the frustration being demonstrated among everyday Brits, look no further than a failure to keep the public safe. It is basic. Fear used as a weapon of control during COVID has bitten the hand that created it. There is an opportunity cost to arresting citizens for thought crimes like: praying in public; watching—but not participating in—a protest; making posts on social media critical of the government— posts which do not incite violence or incite the breaking of a law; posting up first-hand stories of vaccine harm; and of course, criticising the religion that can’t be criticised using nothing but their own words.

That opportunity cost is the policing of real crime. Over the last 10 years, according to the UK’s statistics office: assault with grievous bodily harm is up 100 per cent—doubled; assault with an injury is up 80 per cent—almost doubled; rape of an adult female up 370 per cent—almost five times; rape of a minor is up 100 per cent. In fact, the conviction rate of rapists in the UK is currently five per cent and not all of those even go to jail. Only last week a migrant was given a suspended sentence for raping a 13-year-old British girl. The court accepted his defence that he did not know that an adult raping a child was against the law in the UK. Imagine being that child’s parents. Imagine being that child. Is it any wonder the Brits are demonstrating this two-tiered justice system? The commentariat, who are denying the right of people to protest peacefully, including many of the usual suspects in here in Australia, are commenting on a world their wealth and their elitist lifestyles insulate them from.

A Merseyside chief constable made a comment last week, apparently unaware this is the exact upside-down policing, the exact two-tier policing, the public are protesting about. They said, ‘What I would say to those people who think they have gotten away with being involved in disorder, we are coming for you. We have hours of social media and closed circuit TV footage. I have officers working around the clock to identify you. We know who you are and we know where you live and where you work.’

Why is this relevant to Australia? Because our law enforcement have been equipped with the powers to do exactly the same thing. The Identity Verification Services Act together with the Digital ID Act, which Labor minister Katy Gallagher passed through the parliament this year, allows law enforcement to obtain the image of any person anywhere any time from traffic cameras, security cameras, closed circuit TV and main roads, even in supermarkets.

All this with a spurious ‘suspected of a crime’ justification. It then allows law enforcement to go through the video, one frame at a time, to extract a photo of each attendee and run them through the national identity database, which currently contains data on 17 million Australians. Our police will indeed know your name; address; where you work, live and visit, and, once fully implemented, the system will be able to locate you from traffic cameras, payment scanners in shops and public transport touchpads in real time.

Welcome to your digital prison. One Nation warned you directly, loudly and often. During the next manufactured social and medical crisis, there’s no doubt our law enforcement will commit the same abuse of civil rights as we see happening in the UK right now. One Nation believes human rights should not be made subservient to the greed and hubris of those who would stamp on the face of their fellow citizens in the acquisition of wealth and power or, perversely, in the name of social justice. Measures to facilitate this censorship and destruction of human rights are winding our society back to the time of Milton, 380 years ago. The irony is this is the same Left who accused One Nation of wanting to wind the clock back!

As a closing remark, let me make it clear there’s no excuse for violence on either side of a protest. Equally, the actions of a few do not justify the removal of rights from the many. The actions of the few do not justify the removal of rights from the many. Human rights are universal, part of being human, inherent in each and all of us from birth.

/by

How Many Foreign Buyers Are Really Snatching Up Australian Homes?

,

Since November, I have been trying to get a very simple answer out of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO): How many potential foreign buyers are they detecting?

The ATO runs a data matching program that checks the details of more than 2.4 million sellers and buyers to detect if they might be foreign.

The ATO claims only 1% of purchases are foreign, but they won’t tell me how many of those 2.4 million matches they get are flagged as potentially foreign. Watch as they again refuse to tell me how many foreigners they identify in the 2.4 million records.

They claim to have manually checked over 230,000 records every year that can’t be automatically matched to confirm whether they are Australian. With other evidence like the NAB property survey indicating up to 11% of new housing stock is purchased by foreigners, I believe the ATO figures are completely understating the level of foreign buying in the country.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight, and congratulations to you, Mr Heferen. I don’t think we’ve seen you since your appointment. My first question is about foreign buyers of real estate. Radio 2GB reported in April that foreign buyers accounted for 11 per cent of newly built homes in the final quarter of last year. This is a disaster for Australian homebuyers. Can you please provide that data for each quarter over the previous 12 months—the proportion of newly built homes bought by foreigners?

Mr Thompson: I think the 2GB article would have been using the National Australia Bank—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding.

Mr Thompson: As I think I’ve talked about at the committee before, there are a number of differences between the National Australia Bank survey and our data. So the National Australia Bank’s data is from a survey,
so it asks real estate and other real estate professionals to estimate. I think the exact question in that survey is about overseas buyers. Our numbers are coming from state and territory land title offices, which are matched
against Home Affairs data and Australia Electoral Commission data. There is a very significant gap between the numbers that appear in that survey and the numbers that we get. Our numbers are based on the definition of a foreigner under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. I think last week we released the 2022-23 numbers, which would put the estimate at around one per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: Moving onto the first home super saver scheme, I’m quoting from the eligibility requirements in guidance note 2018/1: There is no requirement for you to be an Australian citizen, Australian resident or an Australian resident for taxation purposes. Why are we allowing foreigners—not even residents for taxation purposes—access to this scheme, which is meant to be for getting Australians into their first home?

Mr Heferen: That would be a policy question for our colleagues at the Treasury.

Ms Brown: It is a policy question for Treasury, but the appropriate group for it to be directed to is markets group. That is administered by our Retirement, Advice and Investment Division in markets group. We can take it on notice and have them provide a reply.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to come back to foreign ownership again. I refer to table 3 of the answer to question on notice SBE106 from the November estimates. Through the Department of Home Affairs visa data-
matching program, how many of the real property transfer report entities records that are automatically matched to ATO records are foreign?

Mr Thompson: As we’ve answered previously, we’re not able to—the question was, ‘How many do we automatically match?’ and ‘How many do we have to go away and do additional things to match?’

Senator ROBERTS: I’m coming to that.

Mr Thompson: If you think about it coming through the system: if it’s an exact match, that’s all automated. There would be a range of circumstances where we don’t get an automatic match. It could be that the date of
birth’s the wrong way. It could be a maiden name. In those circumstances, we have additional processes to match. We work down through every record. In the automatic matches, there will be some foreigners. In the ones we can’t automatically match, there will be some foreigners.

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage?

Mr Thompson: At that point—

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t tell us?

Mr Thompson: The numbers in that answer to the question on notice were addressing how many we automatically match versus how many we perform additional—

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. How many that were matched were foreigners?

Mr Thompson: If the question is about the compliance results that we get, they’re published—

Senator ROBERTS: My question is: what percentage of buyers are foreigners?

Mr Thompson: One per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide to me on notice the numbers of foreign buyers for the last five years.

Mr Thompson: We publish that. I’ve got the latest public—

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you could take it on notice for the last five years.

Mr Thompson: I’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: From table 4, immediately below that from the same question on notice from November estimates, how many of the entity records that were not able to be automatically matched to ATO records remain unverified or unresolved?

Mr Thompson: None.

Senator ROBERTS: How many unmatched records from the data-matching program remain unresolved from 2018 to date?

Mr Thompson: I think that’s the same question.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to go right back to 2018.

Mr Thompson: I’ll take that one on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: How many residential properties in Australia are owned by foreigners today?

Mr Thompson: I think that is the question around the register.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know how many foreigners own real estate. We’ve got a housing crisis. We’ve got people in Brisbane and all up and down the east coast of Queensland in major provincial cities sleeping under bridges and in cars, taking families home.

Senator Gallagher: Yes, but I think it’s very simplistic to say that that housing shortage is a result of foreign investment in residential housing. We’ve had a number of hearings where you’ve been told how relatively low that level is in comparison to non-foreign owned.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like the exact numbers.

Senator Gallagher: And we’ll provide that number to you, but the link that you are saying—that foreign ownership of properties equals some of what you’ve been talking about and is a real issue in Brisbane—is not
right. The issue is supply. We’ve got to build more houses for people, not blame foreigners for it.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve never said it’s entirely due to foreigners, but that is one—

Senator Gallagher: We need to make sure that the rules are tight, that there are restrictions in place, which there are, so that that arrangement works properly. But it’s not fair to say that the housing crisis is because we’ve got some small foreign-owned investments.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. I said that’s one contributing factor.

CHAIR: I’ll just do some committee administration here. I’ll table three documents—the three articles referenced by Senator O’Neill earlier. The committee has agreed to a time management plan to conclude
questions, so last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to make the point that the witnesses have provided answers so late, in the past, that they’ve been distributed at 8 pm on the day before they appear in Senate estimates, 100 days after the last
hearing, and failing to raise any public interest immunity claims on answers they don’t give. That’s a clear frustration of the committee’s work.

Senator Gallagher: We will try and do better, Senator Roberts. We have had a long discussion about the number of questions on notice which are coming in and having to be managed by departments, but I agree: it’s an important accountability measure, and departments should work to meet the timeframes.

Senator ROBERTS: When it’s 100 days, it’s way late, and then it suddenly comes in at 8 pm on the night before.

Senator Gallagher: Yes. I understand your frustration.

Daily Telegraph Article: Foreigners buying homes at twice the rate claimed in official figures, according to real estate agents and state tax data

Foreigners buying homes at twice the rate claimed in official figures, say real estate agents and state tax data | Daily Telegraph

Answers to Previous Questions on Notice

SQ23-000665 SBE054 – ATO – Foreign buyer crackdownDownload

SQ23-000661 SBE106 – ATO – Data matching program for Title DeedsDownload
/7 Comments/by