At the May/June Senate Estimates, I queried ASIC about their investigation into allegations raised by several whistleblowers regarding a major bullion company charging for sales and storage of bullion it did not hold.
While ASIC did investigate, they allowed the company months to get their affairs in order and provided advanced notice of the audit date, enabling potential moving of bullion to defeat the audit, possibly resulting in multiple counting of the same bullion. Furthermore, there are allegations that bullion not belonging to the audited investment scheme but belonging to another entity, was included in the audit.
Despite several sessions with ASIC on this matter, none of their responses have addressed the fundamental issues surrounding their flawed investigation. The case has now been referred to another agency and I await the outcome.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: It’s now been found that the bullion inspected was the property of three companies operating two investment schemes. Were you aware that your auditor was inspecting bullion belonging to two companies not under investigation?
Ms Court: I’m unable to comment further on this issue of the bullion company. I haven’t got further information beyond that which—
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not saying that you won’t answer; you’re saying that you haven’t got it with you.
Ms Court: I’m saying I—
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll put it on notice.
Ms Court: Perhaps—if you put questions in relation to this issue. I’m assuming that your questions relate to a continuing investigation that Mr Savundra referred to. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate to put those on notice to make sure that we can answer them comprehensively.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about the audit. I’ll continue with questions on the audit. What steps did your auditor take to ascertain ownership of the bullion being offered as theirs? What steps did the auditor take?
Ms Court: I think it would be preferable to take those questions on notice. You’re asking for details of an investigation. We have given evidence previously that the matters raised in relation to the bullion company have been extensively investigated.
Senator ROBERTS: So it should be easy to get answers. Was the theoretical stocking figure provided for the amount of bullion just for one scheme as compared to gold for two? My information is that it was.
Ms Court: I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The facility that held the bulk of the bullion did not have council approval for secure storage and, in fact, was not a secure storage. Why wasn’t the company prosecuted for charging customers for secure storage that didn’t exist?
Ms Court: I’ll take that on notice also.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you answer that now? It’s Senate estimates. The guideline is that you will answer if you can answer it now.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, another ASIC inquiry is underway. In relation to operational matters, from time to time, ASIC provides information to senators in another forum where we can be very assured that appropriate structures are put around the information provided, so, when Ms Court says that she’s taking it on notice, that is appropriate in relation to this investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: This one? Okay. Will you now please set aside your pride, open up the investigation and work out what was done wrong and what action should be taken for misleading ASIC.
Ms Court: I’ve already said that I’d prefer not to answer further questions. Part of the challenge with answering the questions in the way that you’re putting them is that it assumes the correctness of the proposition in your question, which, of course, ASIC takes issue with. We reject that there has been any misconduct by ASIC in relation to this investigation. It has been conducted extensively over quite some time. As the chair has indicated, to the extent that you could wish us to address you on these issues in camera, then, of course, we would be willing to do that, if the committee seeks that briefing.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can we do that? I’ll finish with the last question on this issue. I have put in more detailed questions on notice and ASIC has received the information I mentioned today directly, so I look forward to further communication on this matter and will take you up on the offer for the in camera briefing.
I enquired about the number of requests for assistance that had been sent to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) and was informed that none had been received during that week, attributing this to potential delays in processing. They mentioned that their preferred method for addressing issues is via phone calls and stated they wouldn’t be establishing any new methods for submitting materials that exceed the current 1000 character limit.
Furthermore, the FWO made it clear that they wouldn’t be accepting responsibility for the validity of any enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again.
Ms Booth: Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints has your office received about stolen wages from coalminers working for labour hire companies?
Ms Booth: We may or may not be able to give you that information right now, but I cannot. My staff may be able to assist. Ms Volzke, do you have those numbers?
Ms Volzke: I don’t have the exact number. The requests for assistance are low, but you know that we have had a number of formal investigations in relation to black coal mining employees.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Volzke, three requests for the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate worker underpayment under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award were sent to your office recently.
Ms Booth: We could ask Mr Scully if he has that information, as he’s the responsible person.
Mr Scully: As for your first question, the information I have before me is that, with respect to disputes received from employees or participants in the coalmining industry, in the 2022-23 financial year there were nine; in this current financial year to the end of March there were six.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include the recent ones I have learned about?
Mr Scully: Of the recent ones you are referring to, one was in October 2021, another was in April 2022 and another in June 2023. I understand that they would be included in those numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: I have learned of three others that were submitted. The Independent Workers’ Union of Australia submitted, I am told, via email address, three requests for the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate worker underpayment under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award, each of the three on behalf of an underpaid coalminer. That was in the last week.
Ms Booth: We wouldn’t that have data available yet because it wouldn’t have reached the status of an investigation; they would have to be triaged first. So that will be for another Senate estimates.
Ms Volzke: Senator, in relation to those most recent complaints, would I be able to ask about the date and time of the underpayments? Are we talking about historical, older underpayments?
Senator ROBERTS: It varies. Some are over extended years. I can give you some information. The miners whose assessments have been completed have given approval for their data to be shared, with individual names withheld. I can give you their Fair Work Ombudsman reference numbers. One is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3389142, years assessed 2013-18, and amount underpaid $121,000. That is for one man or maybe a woman; I know that there are women involved. Another is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3380088, years assessed 2013-21, and underpayment assessed at $104,000. A further one is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3380122; five years are listed, but he or she is still doing assessments for another three years, and the total there, so far, is $54,000, but it’s expected to top out at $85,000. These are not small amounts of money. My understanding is that many more miners are now applying for the Independent Workers Union of Australia to lodge complaints or, I think you call them, requests for investigation.
Ms Booth: Requests for assistance.
Ms Volzke: Senator, in relation to those matters, again, they traverse a period of time when we had the SAJER legislation passed, which was under the previous coalition government, and the Rossato decision; they sit over the top. Now we have the most recent legislation, and I think Minister Watt referred to one of those ‘same job same pay’ orders already having been made. All those matters that you raise still raise those core issues that we spoke about previously, when you and I met, I think, towards the beginning of last year, about the consequences of the black coal mining award not providing for casual employment. The statutory definition changes to casual employment that had retrospective effect—
Senator ROBERTS: Have you seen their request for investigation?
Ms Volzke: No. That’s just by the dates that you’ve given me; that’s all. Absolutely, we’ll look at those, but I’m saying that they traverse that same time period.
Mr Scully: Senator, we call it a request for assistance and, as you’ve indicated, if they’ve come in recently, they will not have got to me or Mr Ronson, who is also with us today. We will find where they are in our system and the circumstances regarding the requests for assistance.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are complainants limited to only 1,000 characters in their request for assistance or request for investigation—that’s about 130 words—in making a complaint about unfair work practices, including wage theft in the coalmining industry; why are they limited?
Ms Booth: I would imagine that is in order to have both a website that’s capable of being properly hosted and information capable of being absorbed. The full extent of information that’s provided to the Fair Work Ombudsman is not contained in those characters. That’s a commencement process and, thereafter, individuals who have made those communications with us would be spoken to.
Senator ROBERTS: Why does the Fair Work Ombudsman refuse to accept complaints that are more detailed than those that can fit within a 1,000-character limit?
Ms Booth: The area of technology is in Mr Campbell‘s purview. This will be entirely a technological matter, I’m thinking. Mr Campbell, are you able to say anything about the number of characters in our communications form?
Mr Campbell: I’m going to have to guess a little bit in my answer and I don’t like to do that in this forum. It depends on the channel through which the people you speak of have sought to engage with us. In certain channels we do have limited fields for the collection of information from customers. Normally, that goes to complaints through our anonymous inquiry facility. But through ‘my account’, where we would normally access most of our requests for assistance, there would be the ability to capture more information, and that’s normally because the person has given us all their information that we’ve sought and they’re seeking to provide us with further information to assist us in making an assessment of their RFA, or request for assistance. I’m not quite sure that they’re limited from writing more than the characters that you’ve said.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that they tried to make an application but couldn’t get beyond the bureaucratic brick wall of that 1,000-character limit, which is roughly 130 words. Why was there no email address on your website, other than one that the submitters are told relates to freedom of information requests? When they couldn’t get their material under the 130-word limit, they then looked for an email, and the only one they could find they used, and were told that it relates to freedom of information requests.
Ms Booth: Most of our requests for assistance come through a telephone contact. Of course, our 13-13-94 number gives no limit to the amount of information that can be conveyed, so that option perhaps in this case was not one that was undertaken by those people.
Senator ROBERTS: These are pretty intelligent people. I’m surprised that they did not see it.
Mr Campbell: I don’t know. I don’t want to speak to that, because I’d be making a judgement about their intelligence, and I can’t do that from here. But our request for assistance online lodgement capability seeks to authenticate the person who’s contacting us, so we know who they are and who we’re dealing with, and information about their circumstances, and that would include seeking them to detail their concerns to us. It’s not my recollection that’s limited. I’m happy to go and have a look because it would seem at odds with how we’re trying to collect information in the authenticated space. As I offered at the start, there is a facility for people to provide us with anonymous information about a workplace or circumstance, and that might have a limited character overlay on top of it, which might be where they’ve started, as compared to seeking to raise with us a request for assistance using online lodgement.
Senator ROBERTS: With, say, a document with 20, 30 or 40 pages of evidence—these people have a lot of evidence—even just taking a small slice of it, they were wondering initially how they would get that past that bureaucratic brick wall.
Mr Campbell: I don’t think there is a bureaucratic brick wall.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what they tell me.
Mr Campbell: Perhaps I could take it on notice and confirm it for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Ms Booth: As Fair Work Ombudsman, could I reassure the committee that there is no bureaucratic brick wall. If anything, the channels of communication into the Fair Work Ombudsman that I’ve observed, since I have been Fair Work Ombudsman, are many and varied, and there is no constraint on the amount of information that can be provided.
Senator ROBERTS: So you would refute any suggestion that the Fair Work Ombudsman is trying to make it impossible for workers to provide evidence?
Ms Booth: Absolutely, I would refute that.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a list, on notice, from Mr Campbell?
Mr Campbell: I’ll take that on notice and come back—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, a list of all the optional ways of getting through and maybe some assessment of whether it’s easy to identify those options; that is, whether it would be easy to find, for someone who lands on your website?
Mr Campbell: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: How should workers submit a complaint? How do workers communicate with you, and how do workers get through that 1,000-character limit? What are the options?
Ms Booth: Make a phone call. Ring 131394 and speak for as long as you like to a Fair Work adviser.
Senator ROBERTS: From there, you would say, ‘Send us the evidence’?
Mr Campbell: It would be allocated to an officer for assessment and determination about what further assistance we might be able to add or offer. If the circumstance, as depicted to us, warrants an intervention by an inspector, for example, it might be allocated to an inspector, who would then consider it, and they might seek further particulars from the customer or the complainant, depending on the circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: Would the Fair Work Ombudsman consider creating an email account where complainants, regarding wage theft, can lodge their complaints in full, with all documentation required to prove their complaint?
Mr Campbell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Mr Campbell: Because it’s an inefficient way to deal with disputes from customers.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is it inefficient?
Mr Campbell: Because they are unauthenticated contacts from a customer. Anyone can create an email address. We seek to create a picture of the customer so that we can determine how we can best assess them: understand award coverage, understand which sections of the Fair Work Act might be triggered by their circumstances, make a determination on their level or ability to self-resolve their workplace dispute and find out whether they’re still employed, the business that they work for and the customer details. We have a portal which is used daily and regularly, and very successfully, by thousands of individuals every year. It is consistent with every other regulator in the Commonwealth and probably at the state level, in terms of how they deal with volume complaints from their ‘regulator’ community.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman aware that the Senate has directed Minister Burke to investigate the multimillion-dollar wage theft—we estimate it to be over $1 billion in total—conducted against labour hire coalminers, where their 25 per cent casual loading was not paid and an average of more than $30,000 person per year was not paid?
Ms Booth: I am aware that a resolution of that nature was passed in the Senate, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that some miners have been underpaid $40,000 a year, person, for up to a decade?
Ms Booth: I have no comment on that.
Senator ROBERTS: The number of miners, we believe, is around 5,000 or more?
Ms Booth: No comment on that.
Senator ROBERTS: More than $1 billion in wages stolen, it’s estimated?
Ms Booth: Again, no comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Including an Australian subsidiary of the world’s largest labour hire company, Japan’s Recruit Holdings?
Ms Booth: These are matters that you’re asserting; I have no ability to verify them here, so I will not comment on them.
Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of some of the world’s largest multinational global mining companies?
Ms Booth: As indicated.
Senator ROBERTS: In collusion with the CFMEU, which enabled theft by illegal enterprise agreements, which the Fair Work Commission approved?
Ms Booth: Again, no comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman aware that the CFMEU Mining and Energy Union has recently admitted publicly, in circulars, that wage theft has occurred?
Ms Booth: I’m not aware of those alleged admissions in circulars, no.
Senator ROBERTS: They denied it for many years, when I was raising these issues. Now they’re admitting it publicly, in email newsletter form. They’re basically admitting it, and vindicating me in what I’ve been saying for five years, including the amounts owed. Why has the CFMEU Mining and Energy Union not applied for backpay?
Ms Booth: I can’t read the mind of the CFMEU.
Senator ROBERTS: Has it applied to the Fair Work Ombudsman for a ruling?
Ms Booth: A ruling?
Senator ROBERTS: An investigation. Has it made a complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman about underpayment?
Ms Booth: Not that I’m aware of. Mr Scully, as you previously heard, is responsible for that area.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems not; I would conclude not. That means they certainly haven’t applied for backpay. Perhaps mine workers are now joining the Independent Workers Union of Australia in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley because they’re finding that they can make applications for backpay.
Ms Booth: Again, I have no knowledge of that.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman, along with the Fair Work Commission, accept some responsibility for the massive stolen wage bill, an issue that I’ve been raising for almost five years?
Ms Volzke: We’re aware that the motion has been made and we understand that, in the evidence that was given yesterday, the department is considering their advice to the minister on that, and we will await that as well.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been dismayed—I won’t raise the names—that, on a number of occasions, the Fair Work Ombudsman has relied in Senate estimates hearings on documents that I have argued and documented as being fraudulent, as has Simon Turner, and I showed those documents to be fraudulent. Are you aware of that, Ms Booth?
Ms Booth: I’m aware of your assertions,
Senator ROBERTS. My observation is that the Fair Work Ombudsman assesses a request for assistance comparing workers’ actual payments received with their lawful entitlements under their work instruments. That is our obligation and that is what we do.
Ms Volzke: We provided a formal letter in relation to one of those complainants, under a letterhead dated 23 July 2023, about those allegations of fraudulent evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding of that letter is that it ignores documented evidence and decisions from other federal government agencies saying that the document that the Fair Work Ombudsman officers relied upon was not correct and was fraudulent; is that the same letter?
Ms Volzke: It is. It is, I think, about a six-page response, so I would consider it to be very thorough. The outcome of our investigation into that is included in that letter.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t agree that something is thorough or accurate just because it’s lengthy.
Ms Volzke: I would say that, in relation to the investigations that we have undertaken into a couple of individuals, which I’m sure you’re well aware of, I feel very confident that the Fair Work Ombudsman has undertaken an extremely comprehensive investigation in relation to all of those matters. I feel very confident in the outcomes. In terms of what the law is and what the legal outcome is, I feel very confident in those outcomes.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a copy of that letter dated 23 July 2023, please? That doesn’t have to be right here and now, but could we have that on notice.
Ms Volzke: Yes, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman continue to deny that the miners have been the victims of a massive fraud that labour hire companies have perpetrated?
Ms Volzke: Again, as the regulator, it’s our role to apply the law as it currently stands, including when an agreement has been approved as passing the BOOT by the Fair Work Commission. We apply that agreement. That’s exactly what we’ve done in relation to those investigations where there has been an agreement that has applied.
Senator ROBERTS: What about if the enterprise agreement is illegal?
Ms Volzke: I don’t think we should speculate around hypotheticals. We know of various cases, and I think in previous estimates we’ve spoken about them: the Warren case, One Key and another more recent one. The reality is that the legal effect of the Black Coal Mining Industry Award not providing for casual employment in operational roles has not been comprehensively argued or subject to submissions by any party, so there has not been an authoritative determination on that issue.
Ms Booth: I think it really is very important to understand the distinction between the role of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the role of the Fair Work Commission. Whatever we would like it to be is not in our purview; we look at what is, in terms of the law. We look at the law as it stands and not at how the law came into being or what it ought to be in the future.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We’re seeing what seems to me to be—and I’ve been advised that this is correct—criminal involvement of some CFMEU or Mining and Energy Union bosses who facilitate, enable and approve the wage theft through illegal enterprise agreements. I’ve asked Mr Campbell for the process that people can follow for various ways of applying. Could you also advise me of any ways that the Fair Work Ombudsman could consider to make the process easier. Maybe think about the perspective of someone making a complaint or a request, including what they would confront when they log on to your website and how that process could be made easier.
Mr Campbell: I’ve taken the questions on notice and I’ve undertaken to get you the information. I don’t want to open up the dialogue again; I’ve said yes, so I will do it.
I asked officials from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) if they were aware of the second reading amendment, which requires the government to investigate wage theft in the Hunter Valley. This issue could potentially involve up to $1 billion, impacting around 5,000 miners with losses estimated at $40,000 per person per year.
The officials confirmed their awareness but were unable to specify when the minister had been informed or if any plans or discussions had been initiated to advance the investigation.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My first set of questions relates to a recent Senate second reading motion to a Fair Work Act bill. The motion requires the government to conduct an investigation into massive wage theft occurring in the coalmining industry. I will read the motion. The part that is relevant states:
but the Senate:
(b) requires the Government to investigate claims that casual miners working under enterprise agreements in the black coal mining industry are, and have been, underpaid; and
(c) if underpayments are found to have occurred, facilitate the reimbursement of the underpayments;
Ms Yanchenko: Thanks. We’re certainly aware of that motion.
Senator ROBERTS: This is Australia’s largest wage theft case, totalling possibly over $1 billion and involving thefts of up to $40,000 per year per miner, stealing from 5,000 or more coalminers. When was the Senate’s second reading amendment to your government’s latest Fair Work Act amendment bill conveyed to the minister?
Mr Manning: I am not sure, in the sense that we wouldn’t necessarily have conveyed it to the minister.
Ms Yanchenko: We were watching along in real time.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you convey that to the minister?
Ms Yanchenko: I didn’t personally, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible to find out when the minister—
Mr Manning: When he first became aware of it?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Manning: We will have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That is fine. I don’t expect you to know everything; most things, but not everything. I take it then that no discussions have been held between the minister and the department?
Mr Manning: We are still thinking through our advice to the minister; so, no, not yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the department received or made any instructions?
Mr Manning: We haven’t yet given advice or a submission to the minister about the motion. We are still working through it.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t made any instructions to him or given him any advice?
Mr Manning: Not as yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Has Minister Burke discussed with you the nature of the investigation the Senate required him to make into wage theft involving Central Queensland and Hunter Valley miners?
Mr Manning: No, not yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Have any of your staff raised it with you?
Ms Wettinger: At this stage we haven’t discussed the matter with any of the minister’s staff, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Who do you expect will have a role in the investigation?
Mr Manning: It is too early to say. There is a long history to the matter—
Senator ROBERTS: A very long history.
Mr Manning: So that’s what we are considering in terms of getting ready for those discussions and that advice to the minister.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what would you expect of a fair and independent investigation?
Senator Watt: That it be fair and independent.
Senator ROBERTS: What would characterise a fair and independent investigation?
Senator Watt: I think everyone understands what those concepts mean. I know you have an interest in the conditions of coalminers. Have you caught up on the good news about the first decision or agreement resulting from our ‘Closing Loopholes’ laws?
Senator ROBERTS: I am aware that there is an agreement in application.
Senator Watt: I think there might even be a couple, actually.
Senator ROBERTS: I am aware of two.
Senator Watt: It is good news that we are seeing coalminers receive what they are entitled to as a result of our legislation. I don’t think you voted for that legislation, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll hear more about that. I have already told you why publicly, Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: It is delivering more money to coalminers.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll have more to ask you about that tomorrow, with glee.
25/07/24 – My latest article in the Spectator Australia.
‘Blame Farage for the Tory wipe-out!’ Or so went the rather limp voices in the UK, grasping for excuses following the massacre of globalist politics led by Rishi Sunak.
The desire for sensible conservative and libertarian-minded policy is on the rise, as is the renewal of cultural affection and nostalgia for decades past which appear to us now as the last flush of sunset chased over the edge of Parliament by the long night of left-wing rule.
So, why didn’t the conservatives win? Why isn’t the UK preparing for an age of economic liberalism and spiritual restoration? Why is Keir Starmer – the most radical socialist in a hundred years – strutting around Westminster preening his flock of Marxists?
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/MinorParties.png?fit=787%2C523&ssl=1523787Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-13 09:51:492024-08-13 10:07:53Spectator Australia: Minor Parties Can Save the West
Senate Estimates: I asked Senator Watt what was being done to reduce net immigration.
The government’s planned reduction is insufficient. Cutting immigration is not enough. Temporary visa holders need to leave now.It’s time to put Australians first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are concise and straightforward, and hopefully the answers will be the same—so that the chair is not disappointed! In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m very, very sorry: you asked me whether we were talking about migration in outcome 2, and we are, but the matters you’re raising with those questions are relevant to outcome 3, and we’ll be dealing with that tomorrow.
Senator ROBERTS: There you go; you got an early night!
CHAIR: Do you have other questions? I thought there were more general questions about migration numbers. I apologise.
Senator ROBERTS: No.
CHAIR: I’ve listened to so many of your Senate speeches, Senator Roberts. I thought I was pre-empting your questions. But we will be here tomorrow to ask questions of Border Force particularly around those issues.
Senator ROBERTS: And also Immigration, I hope—Home Affairs?
CHAIR: There are other questions that might be relevant to outcome 2. If you want to put them, they might have the officials here for you.
Senator ROBERTS: No, these are to do with the legality of immigration.
Ms Foster: If I can help: because the questions relating to the High Court cover both outcome 2 and outcome 3, we typically try to cover them as a group together so we’re not saying, ‘We can answer a little bit of that and not the rest of it.’ But if there are more general questions on the migration program then we should be able to answer them for you tonight.
Senator ROBERTS: These are more to do with the legalities and what is happening about removing people.
CHAIR: They are related to the same cohort of questions—is that right?
Senator ROBERTS: I think they are.
CHAIR: They are related to the same issues.
Ms Foster: If they are related to the same cohort, it is probably sensible to do them tomorrow as a batch.
Senator ROBERTS: The same cohort and a similar cohort.
CHAIR: It sounds like we will be able to deal with them tomorrow.
Senator Watt: I predict there will be many questions around this issue in the morning. So you will be in good company.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps one might be covered off now—the last one I had. For visas requiring accommodation in 2019 it was 1.9 million people; in 2024, at the start of the year, it was 2.3 million plus students at over half a million, plus a higher percentage of non-productive people. Housing demand has been driven through the roof and prices and rents are skyrocketing. We are in a per capita recession and have been for three quarters. Minister, it appears to a lot of Australians that the government does not want to be tagged as the government who took us into recession so it is flooding the country with migrants to avoid a technical recession. Having said correctly that we’ve had three-quarters of a per capita recession, the government, to me, seems to be uncaring about the plight of Australians. In our state’s capital city there are people living under bridges, in cars and in caravans—and I’m talking about working families coming home with their two kids to sleep in a car. I don’t know where they go to the toilet and where they shower. We’ve got it right up the coast—not just in our capital city but right up the coast. The Labor government must remove visa holders. When will Labor resolve the housing crisis and stop the out-of-control and unsustainable growth of Australia’s population? We had 750,000 come in last year.
Senator Watt: I’m not sure that that 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. But the point really is that the government does believe that migration levels have been unsustainably high. We believe that that is a direct result of the failures of Mr Dutton and other coalition ministers to manage the migration program correctly. That is exactly why we have dramatically reduced the grants of international student visas and that is why we are on track to halve what is known as the net overseas migration figure by next financial year. If you look at the numbers, where they were when we came into office and post-COVID, we are on track to halve that figure by next financial year. I do not think the 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. What is known as the net overseas migration—
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t implying that was net; that was incoming.
Senator Watt: You also have to look at the number of people going out.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct; but 750,000 people coming in is a heck of a lot of people.
Senator Watt: Sure; I agree.
Senator ROBERTS: It is way above the previous record.
Senator Watt: Agreed. As I said, our government believes that migration has been too high. That’s why we’ve taken a range of steps to reduce it, and we are on track to achieve that target. On the point about housing—which is obviously a matter for a different committee—as I pointed out to you before, Senator Roberts, it would really help if we could get your vote in the Senate when we try to spend more money on housing. Unfortunately, so far, you haven’t—
Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have you built, Minister? Zero.
Senator Watt: We have committed about $32 billion worth of funding.
Senator ROBERTS: You have committed how much to housing? You have committed $20 billion to a housing future fund.
Senator Watt: Of the $32 billion that we have committed for housing, $10 billion was for the Housing Australia Future Fund, and unfortunately both you and Senator Hanson voted against that with the coalition.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want more bureaucracy; we want tradies to be set loose. That is why we did it.
Senator Watt: But the vote was about creating a housing fund and you voted against it. You voted for less spending on housing.
CHAIR: Senators, I don’t think the question is relevant to—
Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have been built in the last two years?
Senator Watt: You would probably need to go—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, your question—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; let’s come back to my question, as the chair is reminding us.
CHAIR: Minister, could you assist me in not speaking over me while I give Senator Roberts some direction. The question you have ultimately ended up asking is not relevant to this committee. That is probably why you have received a response of the kind Minister Watt has given you. If you have more questions in relation to migration, this is the outcome to put them. Otherwise, we will back tomorrow with outcome 3.
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Chair, this is calling out Senator Watt because he has not answered my question.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you say ‘with all due respect’ and then continue to talk over me when I have given you a direction as the chair to ask a relevant question, or I can give the call to someone else who has relevant questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The question for the minister is the same: when will the Labor government remove visa holders to ease the pressure on housing in this country?
Senator Watt: Sorry; are you saying that we should have zero migration to Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: We should have negative, until we get the housing pressure and the infrastructure to catch up.
Senator Watt: What do you mean by negative migration? Do you mean forcing people to leave?
Senator ROBERTS: More people who leave than come.
Senator Watt: The government’s policy is to halve the net increase in migration or net migration numbers by next financial year, and we are well on track to do that. We agree that we have a housing shortage in Australia. That’s why we’ve devoted so much money towards that project. We also recognise that we have a range of jobs and there are not enough people to fill them. If you speak to any building firm in Queensland, they will tell you they need more people. We are funding a lot of training of locals, but the reality is that we need some level of migration to fill those jobs. If you go to any aged-care facility in Queensland or anywhere in Australia—and I go to one pretty regularly to visit a family member—you will see lots of migrant workers there. Our aged-care system would collapse if we did what you suggested, which is stop migration. So it’s a balancing act to make sure that we don’t have too much migration in this country—as was occurring under the policy settings we inherited from the former government—while still making sure that we can deliver the workforce that we need.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, isn’t it true that, under John Howard’s prime ministership, immigration was dramatically increased and it has stayed high since then under both parties—both Labor and Liberal and National party governments?
Senator Watt: My recollection is that the major change under the Howard government was a big shift towards temporary migration. I don’t know what the overall figures were under the Howard government.
Senator ROBERTS: I think it went from 80,000 to over 130,000. Then it went up under the Rudd-Gillard, and the subsequent LNP governments to over 230,000 net. What are you proposing for next year?
Senator Watt: We are proposing that net overseas migration next financial year would in the order of 260,000.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s still very, very high.
Senator Watt: It’s about half of what it was a year or so ago.
Senator PATERSON: This year?
Ms Foster: In 2022-23.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Watt, I could say that you are much taller than me. That’s not saying much!
Senator Watt: A competition of the shortest men in parliament! Let’s put Senator Farrell in there as well. Senator Ghosh, do you qualify?
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that 250,000 is still a lot.
Senator Watt: But we’re big in heart, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: But 250,000 is a lot. It may be half, but it is still very, very high and it is putting a lot of pressure on housing.
Senator Watt: I agree; which, again, is why we—
Senator ROBERTS: Do we agree?
Senator Watt: I agree that migration has been too high and it is putting pressure on housing, which is why we would have really liked your vote for the Housing Australia Future Fund—which is another committee.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to stay on immigration.
CHAIR: Me too.
Senator Watt: There are two parts of the equation. It is about immigration and—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right: you’re driving up the demand for housing.
Senator Watt: If we had more homes we mightn’t have such an issue with migration numbers. But we don’t have the homes and that’s what we’re trying to fix. But we are halving migration numbers. International student grants in April were down 38 per cent on last year’s levels. We’ve taken a whole range of other actions to crack down on some of the rorts in the migration system that were left behind by Mr Dutton and his colleagues. But, equally, as I say, if you want to have people look after your family members in aged care, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to build the homes, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to work in hospitals, they are not all going to come locally. If we actually said, ‘Close the door entirely to migration,’ you will have a lot of people waiting to get into emergency departments and into aged-care homes et cetera.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the state our country is in right now. Are you going to build 250,000 new homes next year to accommodate the 250,000 new people coming in?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I have given you direction about whether those questions are relevant to this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: How is 250,000 new net migrants a low number simply because it is half of what the previous one was? It’s not; it is a very high number.
Senator Watt: The departmental officials could probably take you through the work that was undertaken to determine that figure. I would be confident that, in developing that figure, they took into account the need to reduce migration and the pressure on the housing system, but also the workforce needs of hospitals, aged-care facilities, construction firms, et cetera. It would be interesting to know what the opposition did to arrive at the various different figures we’ve heard from them. I don’t know if anyone from the opposition here can tell us what their policy actually is.
CHAIR: They’re not here to give evidence, Minister Watt. They are here to ask questions.
Senator Watt: But a lot of work has gone in from the government’s side to come up with the right figure.
CHAIR: Is that the end of your questions, Senator Roberts?
As inflation rages on, the Government is making money out of it through “Bracket Creep” – collecting more taxes.
I moved an amendment to a bill so that tax thresholds are indexed to inflation, meaning you won’t pay more tax because of inflation. Predictably, the major parties voted it down. They rely on squeezing more and more tax out of you and making money out of inflation.
This clip from the Centre for Independent Studies is a great explainer on how “Bracket Creep” works so that the Government benefits from inflation at your expense.
A powerful Senate Inquiry established into the Defence medals system has opened for submissions.
The inquiry initiated by my motion will investigate potentially illegal medals awarded to senior Defence officers, the experiences of ADF personnel and potential improvements to the Defence Awards and Honours system.
Some people ask why the union would screw over workers like they have with casual coal miners. One explanation could be the $48 million in payments flowing from the labour hire company to the union.
During this Senate Estimate session, I raised concerns about the complexity of donation laws and transparency issues, citing that the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) received significant money from Abelshore, a subsidiary of coal company Glencore, where the union also donates to the Labor Party. Despite $48 million being transferred, the original source, Glencore, is not visible in the Labor Party’s declarations.
Mr Rogers admitted he had not reviewed the specific return in question but said that it was the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) role to ensure that current legislation is adhered to. Further, Mr Rogers noted that if there are issues with transparency or adherence to the law, it is the responsibility of Parliament to amend the legislation, not the AEC. He agreed to review the details once they were provided to him.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Maybe you could elaborate on some of the issues faced with getting a clear picture when it comes to donation law, a really complex situation. The returns for the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union for 2022 and 2023 show they donated huge sums to the Labor Party. The CFMMEU has received more than $39 million from a company called Abelshore, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of coal company Glencore. In 2021-22 they donated $9 million, so over two years they donated $48 million donated by Glencoreowned companies to the CFMMEU, to the Labor Party. So you have tens of millions, $48 million as I said, flying from a coal company through a subsidiary, through a union to the Labor Party but the coal company does not show up in the returns to the Labor Party. Can you explain the difficulties in finding out where the money was originally coming from on the returns that are lodged?
Mr Rogers: First of all, I have not seen that particular return, so I would have to take it on notice and have a look but I am not aware that any of that breaches the existing legislation. Our role is to adhere to the legislation, promote the legislation, ensure that agencies are adhering to that. As you know, the whole funding and disclosure issue is the most complex part of the Electoral Act. It is highly technical. As long as those entities are meeting their obligations for transparency under the act, and I have no information that they are not—I would have to look at that specific issue in detail—as long as they are within the legislation, changing that legislation is a matter for parliament rather than the AEC, which I know you are aware of, and it is something we were discussing earlier this evening. I would have to have a look at in detail.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, we will send you a copy. It is on a register from the CFMMEU, I think I said. That is an awful lot of money to be hidden and it is not deliberately hidden. Perhaps it is inadvertently hidden. I think the intent is deliberate because it seems a bit strange that money is going from a coal company to a mining union to the Labor Party.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Rx2EAtaD-Ew/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-12 18:54:482024-08-12 18:54:53Exposed: 48 Million Reasons to Screw Over Workers
Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton replied to an interviewer, calling for the public to dob in loved ones, friends, or workmates who have changed their opinion of the Government for the worse to ASIO. After facing backlash on social media, I expected the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks, but he has yet to do so.
His advocacy for Australians to report their fellow Australians to ASIO for expressing concerns about government COVID measures—which destroyed lives, health and families—is deeply troubling.
We are witnessing police actions in Canada and the UK where merely attending a protest rally, without any violent actions, is grounds for arrest and imprisonment. Is this a glimpse into the future under the Liberal Party?
Transcript
Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton, in a media interview, made a comment we expected he would clarify but he hasn’t. In the interview, the interviewer said:
“We saw the terror threat raised to Probable yesterday. But there are multiple fronts now.
One of those fronts that I found most interesting has come out of Covid. There’s the conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers … what does it say to you about government overreach, and government, essentially, controlling people’s lives and the effects that that can have?”
Peter Dutton’s answer:
“None of that, though, should give rise to the sort of conduct that you’re referring to. I would say to anybody in our community, whether it’s within your friendship group, your family group, the work group, whatever it might be, where you see somebody’s behaviour changing, regardless of their motivation, or if they’ve changed radically their thoughts about society and government … you need to report that information to ASIO, or to the Australian Federal Police as a matter of urgency”.
In 1997, in the legal case Lange v the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the High Court found:
Under a legal system based on the common law, everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law, so that one proceeds upon an assumption of freedom of speech and turns to the law to discover the established exceptions to it.
To protect human life, free speech stops at incitement to violence against others and at incitement to break the law.
Free speech does not stop, as Peter Dutton suggests, merely at criticisms of others. Advocating that Australians be dobbed into ASIO for venting about government COVID measures, destroying their lives, health and families is a tone-deaf disgrace. In Canada and the UK right now, police response to criticism of the government is underway. Mere attendance at a protest rally without any violent words or actions is now enough to be arrested and imprisoned. Is this a glimpse of the future everyday Australians will endure under the supposedly honourable men and women of the Liberal Party, under an opposition leader who has come to bury Menzies, not to praise Menzies. I call on the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks immediately.
Question: Where are One Nation’s preferences going this election? Answer: Wherever YOU out them!
A great thread below from @actualAlexJames (X) explaining how preferences work. In short, mark One Nation 1 and then decide where you want your preferences to go.
Transcript
I must have heard it a hundred times now “Don’t vote for One Nation because they give their preferences to Labor!” or “watch out who you vote for, Katters gave their preferences to such and such!”. This is a myth and is simply untrue. Let me explain why.
As we all know Australian voting is not the typical first past the post voting style that a stereotypical democracy would have, instead, we have a preferential voting system. This means that in Australia, an elected official is not decided simply by getting more votes than the others in a typical sense. Instead, it’s a form of instant runoff voting.
You have to number each candidate based on how much you would prefer them to be in office. Imagining that there are only three choices, If you vote 1 for PHON, then 2 for LNP, then 3 for labor, that would mean that if the LNP and the labor candidate received more votes than the PHON candidate, then your vote will be redistributed to LNP. By the end of the election. Your vote will have been a vote for LNP. Add in more candidates and the process is the same until it is between only two candidates to decide the winner.
Therefore, your vote will end up exactly where you decided for it to go based off of the total votes of your electorate. But in the end, you decided possibilities of where your vote actually goes.
“But One Nation gave their preferences to Labor last election!”
This type of statement is just blatantly untrue, but here’s why people fall for this idea. I read an article sent to me by someone who was trying to convince me of this and it helped me to understand where this myth comes from. Essentially what it boils down to is media misrepresentation. Which by the way, is another reason why the misinformation disinformation bill, which would allow for this misinformation to continue, is so incredibly dangerous.
The media article essentially used wordplay to paint the picture that One Nation gave their preferences to labor. As in your vote. What actually happened, at least sneakily implied by this article, is One Nation put labor above LNP on their “how to vote card”. This is a card that is given to pretty much every voter at the voting booths where the volunteers are. Usually, people chuck this out because they are annoyed that they have to vote.
This card is the representation of what that party giving you the card would prefer you to vote for. It is a recommendation only. One Nation “preferencing” labor in that electorate would have been a form of strategy used because they had high reservations when it came to the LNP candidate. Essentially the LNP candidate would have been seen by One Nation in that area at that time as being worse than the Labor one for their interests.
They did not actually give Labor any votes.
They did not send your vote to Labor.
They would have only recommended that their supporters preference labor higher than usual in that area. Only the voter has control over that, you don’t have to listen to them, you don’t have to follow a “how to vote card”.
All votes are decided by the voter. NOT by any party. Your vote will end up where it does based on your numbering decisions.
Politics is a ruthless game. And politicians, parties, the government, the media, and influencers will strategize according to their own interests in order to get the outcome they want. This is not always as simple as a politician wanting to get elected. It may even mean running a candidate that they don’t want elected in a certain area in order to lessen or strengthen another for example.
Also, the media would love, I’m sure, to continue the myth that parties decide preferences simply so people lose trust in the party that they typically associate with the fake practice.
No one controls your vote. Your decision will not be changed by any party. Only the voter can decide preferences. This idea of parties giving away your preferences is a myth. Bookmark this post and share it so you can show others when you see them spreading this myth.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/MMLzVgbYI58/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-12 11:23:542024-09-23 16:24:03Can a Party Give MY Preferences to Another Party? The Myth Debunked!
