On 29 June, protestors vandalised War Memorials in Canberra. These disgusting acts must be condemned.
Freedom of speech and protest are fundamental parts of our democracy. Spray painting memorials of dead soldiers is neither of these.
I joined with Senators Lambie and Hanson in strongly condemning the defacement of war memorials by pro-palestinian protestors, which insults both current and former Australian Defence Force personnel and disrespects the memorials’ significance as national symbols of pride and remembrance.
This divisive campaign by the Greens undermines Australia’s respect for our defence forces and reflects an anti-Australian agenda. Vandalism of these memorials is an affront to our country’s values and those who serve to protect them.
We stand in solidarity with service men and women, their families, and all Australians who honour their sacrifice.
Transcript
One Nation supports this motion, and I’ll read it again:
That the Senate condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protestors which is deeply insulting for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and remembrance.
It undermines the very core and heart of our beautiful country, and the Australian people. It undermines the respect we have, as a nation and as individuals, for the service of so many caring Australians in our defence forces, past and present, and it reveals the pro-Palestinian protesters’ true, anti-Australian agenda. I join with Senator Lambie and Senator Hanson in condemning the Greens for this divisive campaign that they are pushing based on ideology and harvesting votes. It is essentially treason—defacing and desecrating our country and what we stand for. Australians, whatever their views of the wars we’ve engaged in, take pride in and honour our service men and women.
I recall a friend of mine; when we were in our 20s, he made the off-the-cuff comment that he despised the War Memorial because it was a memorial to the glory of war. I said: ‘No, no. It’s not. It’s a memorial to the service that men and women have given in supporting and defending this country and what we stand for.’ He has gone on to be a proud grandfather, with two boys now serving in the Army and a daughter serving in the police force of Queensland. He has children and grandchildren who have served and are serving our country.
Free speech, as Senator Cash pointed out, is not vandalism and desecration, which is the violation of property rights and must be punished. To all service men and women and their families and relatives: thank you. We will vote in favour of this motion to condemn the acts of defacing war memorials in your name.
The Government made an election promise to address PFAS contamination around Defence bases. Instead of taking direct action, they opted to call for yet another inquiry, consuming their entire term without providing any assistance to those affected.
Mr. Jim Varghese AM conducted an independent review of land use near key Defence bases impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Throughout the process, the team consulted with me on several occasions and I’m hopeful that their recommendations will reflect the outline I was provided.
I am concerned that the issue has been referred to Cabinet, where Cabinet confidentiality rules prevent any further discussion. There was no reason for this to be treated as a Cabinet document, and I suspect it was done to bury the findings.
I remain committed to getting the report released and seeking justice for residents affected by PFAS contamination.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My initial questions are about PFAS. Do we have those people here?
Ms Perkins: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. The PFAS Investigation and Management Program’s 2024 Snapshot document shows that Defence invested $706 million to remediate PFAS contamination on Defence sites. Defence has also been responsible for two class action settlements at $212.5 million and $132.7 million. Are those included in the $706 million, or are they additional costs?
Ms Perkins: That’s a terrific question, Senator. Defence—in fact, the Commonwealth—has settled five class actions, including the ones you referred to there. It’s my understanding, but I’ll confirm this over dinner, that the first figure you referred to, which is our expenditure on—
Senator ROBERTS: The $706 million.
Ms Perkins: the remediation program is separate to the legal settlements that the Commonwealth has made. But I’ll confirm that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What about Defence’s total legal cost to fight the class actions? Are those included in the $706 million? Probably not.
Ms Perkins: I would have to get my colleagues from Defence Legal Division to confirm that for you. I manage the investigation and remediation program, not the legal settlements.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we have expenditure of over a billion dollars so far? That’s $706 million plus the class action settlements—
Ms Perkins: But, as I said, I’ll take that on notice and confirm the elements of the spend over dinner.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I acknowledge the extensive work and resources that Defence is putting into treating the 27 PFAS contaminated sites within the Defence bases, but the remediation will not solve existing contamination in farmland. These are the residents who have been affected the most: what was previously prime productive land—and I’m thinking, for example, about people who I’ve met at Oakey in Queensland—is now unusable for agriculture. Their properties have been depreciated to the point of being impossible to sell. They can’t get out of there and so that’s where their super is tied up and everything—they’ve lost it. This is why the Independent review of land uses around key Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination was commissioned. I thank the department for including my office in the consultation process—from memory, with Mr Varghese. I understand that the report is complete; when will that report be made available?
Ms Perkins: The report was completed and delivered to the government in early April. We’re working now across the parts of government that contribute to the work on PFAS, and the government will consider that review and its recommendations in the coming months.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include whether or not it will release the document?
Ms Perkins: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The report suggests grading land—not grading as in bulldozer grading—and categorising land based on contamination and rezoning so that residents can sell agricultural land as, say, industrial land, which is how many residents along Cabbage Tree Road in Williamtown have been able to get out and start over again. Newcastle Airport is now extending over contaminated land—another sensible use. This isn’t a big-ticket item, and it doesn’t need a large pot of money. There’s no reason to send it to cabinet unless the intention is to let it die under cabinet confidentiality. Is there any reason to send it to cabinet?
Ms Perkins: As I mentioned, the report has been delivered and makes a series of recommendations. I think some of the points you’ve just referred to were the issues that Mr Varghese canvassed in consultation in affected communities and with other stakeholders like you. One of the challenges we’ve always had with the management of PFAS remediation is that accountabilities exist at all three tiers of government and across the community, and we’re very mindful, as we move forward, in both the Defence remediation program and the broader Commonwealth approach, that we consider how we activate across state and local governments and industry integrated responses. That will be the work we take to the Commonwealth government to consider.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s what you’re considering now before you take it to government?
Ms Perkins: As is normal in an independent review, Mr Varghese has done a really valuable body of work— great consultation—and made recommendations. We’re working with colleagues in other parts of government, as you can appreciate from your question—the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the department of agriculture, the department of health and so on—so that we can continue to advise government on an integrated Commonwealth response in affected communities.
Senator McAllister: I think, Senator Roberts, in fairness to the officials, because the report is before the government there are some limits on what they can tell you about the advice that’s been provided. I think Ms Perkins has indicated that there is a process underway but she won’t be able to give you any further information about the particulars of the advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. I’ve worked that out from what Ms Perkins has said quite clearly. I want to commend the way Mr Varghese approached us. We have checked with residents, and he approached them with a very open mind and took good notes, apparently. These are not characteristics of the past ways that Defence has tried to address this, so we can see a change going on. It seems genuine, so we’re looking forward to the report. Minister, was there any additional funding in the budget for measures recommended in this report as opposed to the ongoing remediation report?
Senator McAllister: The answer I’ll provide is probably similar to the one I’ve just given, which is that the report is before the government, and that response is being developed.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, has any consideration been given to suing the manufacturers of PFAS for the damages they’ve done to the community and the environment and added costs to the Australian defence forces? We’re talking billions of dollars here, and these people—DuPont, 3M and others—seem to be just getting off the hook.
Senator McAllister: I’m not trying to be difficult, but I am very reluctant to speculate about how the government might respond to the report that’s before us. So I really can’t provide answers to questions that go to the specifics.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have two final questions on a different matter. There has been reporting that the partner of Lieutenant Nugent, who died in the Whitsunday helicopter crash, was told in the weeks after the crash, by a senior officer from Defence, that she would be able to find someone new. Have you made any efforts in the Army to locate which officer made these absolutely horrific comments to the partner of a soldier who had just died, telling her she would find a new partner? And have you done anything to reprimand or punish them for such heartless comments?
Lt Gen. Stuart: The short answer to your question is yes. We have followed up on that matter, and we remain closely involved with all of the families who lost their loved ones on 28 July last year.
Senator ROBERTS: So that has been rectified with the widow?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes, we remain in close contact. It is a very, very difficult time for everybody involved, and we want to make sure that they’re properly supported throughout this process.
Senator ROBERTS: And the officer has been either reprimanded or punished; what he said has been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: As you know, I can’t go into individual matters, but—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t want the names.
Lt Gen. Stuart: we’re taking it seriously, and we’re making sure that we are addressing all of those kinds of issues. I can certainly assure the committee that all of our efforts since the evening of 28 July last year have been focused on making sure that the families, loved ones and teammates of those that were impacted by the loss of those four soldiers have been and continue to be supported for the long term.
Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you say the officer ‘will be’ addressed or ‘has’ been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Has.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question. General Campbell, you posted on social media congratulating the 2024 Napier Waller Art prize winner, Kat Rae, for her piece Deathmin. It is a 157-centimetrehigh stack of post-death paperwork that Kat Rae revealed after her husband committed suicide after dealing with the PTSD he had from his time in the Defence Force. General Campbell, you have been the commander of the entire Defence Force for six years. You’ve been in the highest positions of the organisation for at least 15 years. You’ve congratulated a widow who is talking about the complexity of the defence and veterans’ bureaucracy. You’ve been in charge of that bureaucracy. What have you done, specifically, to fix her problems?
Gen. Campbell: There has, I think, been a great deal of work done, both within Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and I acknowledge the work of the interim national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide and the work of the royal commission, which is ongoing but which has provided both some harrowing testimonies and also extremely useful insights into how to continue that work to improve our organisation. I am, as are the senior leaders of the ADF and more broadly Defence, committed to ensuring that continues to be the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please give me some specifics of what you’ve implemented to fix these problems?
Gen. Campbell: We are seeking to see a much more trauma informed approach to the way in which we deal with people. We are now much more conscious of and are seeking to embed an awareness of psychosocial risk in the way we work with our people and our people experience service in the military. We’ve greatly strengthened the experience of transition for everybody in the force, and we’ve very substantially enhanced the integration between Defence and DVA. We’ve introduced personnel policies that seek to wrap those policies around the lived experience of an individual from before joining all the way through to beyond transition. They are some examples of our efforts. They are very wide-ranging, and I think that they are fundamental to developing our people, supporting our people and seeing the capability that they create emerge.
Senator ROBERTS: What about transitioning people who are leaving the defence forces out of the workforce? I have enormous respect, as a result of conversations I had with veterans 40 years ago, for the way the Australian recruits, the intake, are actually introduced to the Army and they’re—I mean this in a very positive way—stripped of their past associations and they join into the culture of the defence forces. It’s extremely important, because that is the key to the success of the Australian defence forces. But, as someone said to me, we send them, we bend them but we don’t mend them. We just turn them loose when they’re finished, and apparently that’s causing a lot of strife.
Gen. Campbell: That was my point with regard to the work of the Joint Transition Authority and the fundamental reconceptualisation of how we see transition from military service to beyond military service, and see it as a period rather than a moment. Could I note that, at a graduation for soldiers into the Australian Army a few weeks ago, I was really pleased to see how enthusiastically they spoke of their training and were looking forward to their service, not just saying that to me but saying that to the junior officers and the NCOs who were with me and variously moving around the audience. It was a very positive expression of an introduction to service and it’s exactly the same outcome that we want for transition from service. We are seeing work done that sees that period being about a two-year transition, with the idea that, while you serve today and you serve for a period of time, the transition is seeded at your induction into service in your recruit training. I think it’s a very healthy way to look at service and to then encourage people to start having conversations about transition before they move into that period of transition, with Defence reaching out in support of those who would wish it following two years from transition, typically seeing a glide down of Defence’s engagement and a glide up of DVA’s engagement where the individual would seek it.
Coronavirus was the product of 54 years of research aimed at developing a biological weapon. Whether it escaped from the Wuhan Lab accidentally, or was deliberately released, doesn’t matter.
The fact remains COVID-19 is a man-made disaster and those responsible must be held accountable.
It was a pleasure to have a long chat with two fantastic veterans, Dylan Conway from the charity Brothers and Books and Michael Lorrigan of Two 14 Coffee Company, to talk all things Defence and Veterans
You won’t want to miss the incredible story of what these gentlemen are doing for the Australian community.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JRzTv3Htlik/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-12 14:17:522024-07-12 14:17:57Supporting Our Heroes: A Long Chat with Dylan Conway and Michael Lorrigan
One Nation advocates for a thorough review of the entire native title system and proposes a sunset clause on native title claims. The current situation is out of hand and sidelines the most crucial stakeholders—the Australian people—from any meaningful consultation in these processes.
Currently, over half of Australia is subject to native title claims, yet less than three percent of Australians have had a voice in this matter. The vast majority of us are excluded from participating in the process.
While state governments, councils, and the Federal Court are involved, they rarely reflect community views because they do not seek our input. This pattern mirrors the lead-up to the Voice referendum, where extensive consultation, funded by taxpayers, occurred solely with Indigenous groups, neglecting the broader Australian population. It was this approach that contributed significantly to the Voice’s failure, costing taxpayers a staggering $450 million. Native title claims are similarly determined within a closed circle, deliberately excluding the majority of Australians, including those whom the native title system purportedly aims to benefit.
During my visits to remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, a consistent grievance I’ve heard from Aboriginal Australians across these regions is their inability to obtain land title, while unaccountable land councils operate like robber barons, establishing their own fiefdoms. This sentiment was reiterated by Aboriginal elders who sought me out during recent visits to Maryborough and Gympie.
There’s a hidden agenda at play here. The preamble of the Native Title Act is filled with references to United Nations policies and declarations. This raises questions about whether the Act is serving the UN agenda of undermining private land ownership and restricting land use. Unfortunately, local Aboriginals are denied the opportunity to own land outright under native title and hinders their ability to live on, invest in, develop, farm, or leverage it for business loans.
Native title prevents Aboriginals from enjoying the same land use rights as other Australians, prolonging inequality rather than closing the gap. Land ownership on mainland Australia did not exist when the British colonists arrived, nor was there recognition of individual land rights or inheritance. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to mainland Australia — incorrectly. This framework introduces race-based rights, perpetuating racial discrimination in Australia, which contradicts the principles of equality.
The lack of action by Labor, Liberals and Nationals to review and rectify these issues underscores a failure of democratic governance, which should prioritise serving and representing the people, not controlling them.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race
I rise to speak about the racial divisions that continue to be perpetrated by the Liberal-Labor uniparty and their toxic native title system. One Nation ‘s candidate for the Queensland seat of Keppel, James Ashby, is doing a wonderful job holding the Miles Labor government accountable for its failure to meet $30 million worth of commitments to Great Keppel Island. Further, James Ashby deserves credit for exposing the latest native title claim on the island on the weekend. This claim, if successful, would mean that 84 per cent of Great Keppel Island would be excluded from non-indigenous Australians. One of the jewels of Central Queensland and an Australian tourism icon could effectively be closed off for all time from the Australian people, from local businesses and from international visitors.
This isn’t the first time an Indigenous group has tried to close off Great Keppel Island from the rest of us by using a divisive native title claim. In 2021 the Federal Court denied a native title claim over the Great Keppel Island leases held by Tower Holdings because of pre-existing infrastructure of commercial value. One Nation calls on this latest claim to be thrown out, too, and for the Miles Labor government to honour its $30 million promise to clean up and restore Great Keppel Island. Yet we must go much further than that. We’re calling for a comprehensive review of the entire native title system and a sunset clause on native title claims, because it’s getting out of hand and it’s excluding from any consultation on these processes the most important stakeholders of all: the Australian people.
More than 50 per cent of Australia is now under native title claim, yet fewer than three per cent of Australians have had any say in it. The rest of us are excluded from the process. While state governments, councils and the Federal Court get a say, they almost never represent community views, because they don’t ask us for our views. We’re not asked, because they don’t want to hear our views. This is what happened in the lead-up to the Voice referendum. There was a lot of consultation, costing a lot of taxpayer money, but only with Indigenous groups. There was none for the rest of Australia. It’s one of the main reasons it was such a spectacular $450 million failure, a flop. Consultation was undertaken in an echo chamber where dissent was absent, where dissent was chastised, where dissent was suppressed. Native title claims are resolved in this sort of bubble as well—a bubble from which most Australians are always excluded, deliberately. Even those people who are specifically intended to benefit from native title are excluded from those benefits.
I often visit remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, and the No. 1 complaint from Aboriginal Australians right across Cape York and the communities I visited in the Northern Territory is the inability of Aboriginals to get land title while unaccountable land councils act as robber barons building fiefdoms. This was expressed to me again by Aboriginal elders who’d heard I was visiting Maryborough and Gympie last week and came to see me and attended a forum I hosted. There’s another agenda going on in the background. The Native Title Act’s preamble is littered with references to the United Nations policy and declarations. Why is this so? It fits with the UN agenda of attacking private land ownership and locking the land away from use. Unfortunately for local Aboriginals, they’re denied the opportunity of actually owning their piece of Australia by buying it to live on, to invest, to build, to develop, to farm or to use as collateral for a business loan to set up a business.
Native title holds Aboriginals back from doing what all other Australians can do with land. It works to maintain the gap, not close it. When British colonists arrived there was no form of landownership on the mainland. There was no recognition of individual landownership, security or passing the land onto heirs. Land title existed only in limited form, in some Torres Strait Islands. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to the mainland of Australia—incorrectly. Native title perpetuates racial discrimination in Australia by creating rights based on race. This is wrong and must be reversed. The whole concept is consistent with Labor’s policy of waste and arrogance and disdain for Aboriginals and all Australians as part of a global agenda.
Labor is one part of the uniparty. The Liberals and Nationals have done nothing to review this act to fix things for all Australians. Democratic government is supposed to work for the people and serve the people. Instead, in recent decades the uniparty governments have worked to control the people. They push a global agenda to control people and steal property and transfer wealth to the party’s corporate globalist masters. We need a comprehensive review of native title urgently so that we can get back to helping Aboriginals get some land.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/00nyp1Gv3Rs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-11 16:38:322024-07-11 17:06:07A Thorough Review of the Native Title System is Critical
In their recent Motion, the Greens criticised property investors. Perhaps they should heed the saying: “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” or in this case, “Those with housing portfolios shouldn’t throw Senate motions.”
Greens’ Senators Faruqi and McKim reportedly own four properties each, with Senator Faruqi even clearing native trees in koala habitats to build luxury rentals in Port Macquarie. It seems ironic that these Greens, who are themselves property investors, proclaim themselves champions of both property investor critics and koala conservation. The old saying seems true: every accusation is actually a confession.
In well-balanced housing markets, investors play an important part in housing supply. Excessive immigration, however, under successive governments has devastated the Australian dream of home ownership. 547,000 immigrants arrived in 2023 alone, creating a shortfall of 120,000 homes just to accommodate them, not including natural population growth.
One Nation will cut immigration, boost home construction and prioritise Australians first—no more immigrants until every Australian can afford a roof over their head. To assist first home buyers, One Nation proposes 5% fixed-rate mortgages that would save over $800 per month.
It’s time to put Australians first and ensure everyday Australians have a fair shot at home ownership.
Transcript
When will this government actually care about Australians? For most people, the Australian dream of buying a home is dead. This government would rather have people as housing slaves: either debt slaves to the banking cartel, with unaffordable mortgages, or rent slaves, with overseas investment funds like BlackRock and Vanguard as landlords.
In their motion, the Greens criticise property investors. Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, or, rather, those with housing portfolios shouldn’t throw Senate motions. Greens Senators Faruqi and McKim reportedly each own four properties. Remember Senator Faruqi’s native tree clearing in koala habitat to build luxury rentals in Port Macquarie. Yet the Greens property investors say they’re the enemies of property investors and the saviours of koalas. The old saying seems true: every accusation is actually a confession.
I’ve got nothing against property investors. In well-balanced housing markets, investors play an important part in housing supply, yet successive governments pushing record immigration destroyed the dream of owning a home in Australia. In 2023 alone, 547,000 immigrants arrived. For arrivals alone, we were short 120,000 homes. That’s not counting the housing shortfall for natural population growth. The extraordinary demand for housing for new arrivals must be turned off. One Nation is the only party that can be trusted to make the tough decisions on cutting immigration to reduce housing demand, getting more houses built and putting Australians first—no more immigrants until Australians can afford a roof over their head. Send some visa holders back to their countries until house construction catches up. Our building codes are distorted with overly complicated nonsense to comply with the United Nations and World Economic Forum demands. That stops our tradies building more houses. We’ll get rid of it. We’ll bring the banking cartel into line.
For first home buyers, One Nation’s five per cent fixed mortgages will be more than $800 a month cheaper. To get people into their own homes, put Australians first.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/rTzJ5Eyv_RI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-11 14:30:002024-07-11 17:09:46What is Civil Disobedience and Is There a Time for It?
At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator Watt why Labor is not deporting unsuitable and dangerous non-citizens from Australia. He explained that those who had been in detention could not be deported, citing two distinct groups affected. The first group consisted of approximately 150 detainees released into the community following a recent High Court decision, 29 of which have re-offended since release and include individuals convicted of serious crimes like murder, rape, and child sexual offences.
The second group comprises individuals whose visa cancellations were overturned by the AAT due to issues surrounding the Giles Directive 99 scandal. Despite subsequent visa cancellations for some in this group, there have been no deportations from either cohort since the mishandling by Labor.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. My questions are concise and straightforward, and I hope the answers will be similar. 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?
Mr M Thomas: All of the releases from detention that we’re talking about with NZYQ were as a result of the new High Court test set in that case around the real prospect of removal from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 37 of these men released into the community have a history of sexually offending, including against children?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April 2024, 39 of those individuals did have a previous conviction for sexually based offending.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that seven of these men were convicted of either murder or attempted murder?
Mr M Thomas: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 72 of these men had convictions for assault or violent offending, armed robbery or kidnapping?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April that number is 73.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of these released detainees have now illegally reoffended?
Mr M Thomas: I believe the deputy commissioner answered that question earlier today.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the number?
Ms Holben: 29.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What offences have been included in the range of charges, including the senior citizen brutally bashed and allegations of a sexual predator being active here?
Mr Outram: We did provide that evidence before the lunch break.
Senator Watt: We went through that in some detail before the lunch break.
Senator ROBERTS: You are aware of Mr Emmanuel Saki, a Sudanese man who was recently released from immigration detention. He has just been charged with the murder of another man here on 12 May this year. That was two weeks ago. Are you aware of that?
Ms Foster: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s now being done to deport these men?
Senator Watt: You’re mixing together a couple of different categories of people here.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want them here.
Senator Watt: I’d point out to start with that, for all 153, I think it is, people who were released from detention as a result of the High Court decision, the government actually had those people in detention for a reason. We don’t want them roaming the streets either, but the High Court has made a decision and we are bound by the law.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you deport these men?
Senator Watt: For starters, as we have gone through before, there are a range of protections in place for the Australian community surrounding these people, such as electronic bracelets, curfews and a range of other requirements that no government has ever imposed on a cohort released from detention. Obviously, in relation to the NZYQ cohort, the government is in the process of applying for preventative detention orders, which would effectively see those people returned to detention. Before the lunch break, there were some questions about where that was up to. That’s the NZYQ cohort.
Senator ROBERTS: But there has been nothing done to deport them?
Senator Watt: No. I would say that one of the reasons is that the reason for the High Court decision is that the High Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of those people being deported, because, for example, they were stateless. They don’t have citizenship in any country. It is not legally possible to deport them. Again, I’m paraphrasing. Officials can jump in if I explain some of this incorrectly. That’s the reason why those people haven’t been deported. That’s the reason why they are now not in detention but subject to all those other protections.
Senator ROBERTS: All of the 150-odd are stateless?
Senator Watt: I don’t think all of them are, but there were other reasons that it’s not possible to deport them. The officials might be able to explain it to you.
Mr M Thomas: It might be because we have protection obligations for them. It could be because they’re stateless. It might be because there are issues with identifying their identity or their country of origin. All of that culminates in there being no real prospect of their removal from Australia in the foreseeable future.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you asked about the Saki case. That is a separate situation. As far as I’m aware, Mr Saki is not one of the NZYQ cohort. He was someone who had come to Australia and was given a visa at some point along the line. The government cancelled his visa because of character issues or criminal offences—whatever the reasons were. He appealed that decision to the AAT. The AAT overturned the decision to cancel his visa. He was therefore—
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is that because of any influence of Minister Giles’s directive 99?
Senator Watt: We’ve spent the best part of two days discussing this. What I have been saying is that the direction that Minister Giles gave did ask government decision-makers and the AAT to take into account the length of time someone had been here in Australia—
Senator ROBERTS: And their ties.
Senator Watt: but not at the expense of the seriousness of their offending. But the AAT has done what it has done, and for that case and other cases they have overturned the government’s decision to cancel those visas, despite the fact the government, in the AAT, argued for the cancellation of those visas. Now Mr Saki’s visa has been cancelled by the minister, and he is seeking urgent advice from the department about the range of other cases that have come to light in the last couple of days.
Chair: I don’t want to be too hardline about this, because I know that there are different sections of the department that deal with both of these issues, but, Senator Roberts, just for your information, we have moved on to outcome 3. I know that there might be some crossover and that the department will seek to answer your questions when they can. We did have extensive questioning about outcome 2 from yesterday onwards. We’re now in outcome 3. If that needs to be clarified at the table for senators, then, if you can, assist Ms Foster when questions arise. I know dealing with the different cohorts is difficult, but we’ll do our best to try to keep on track in that way. Senator Roberts, have you got a question?
Senator ROBERTS: Was the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 simply to ensure incarceration as an alternative to being detained for these men?
Senator Watt: Again, I might begin the answer and let officials explain further. The removals legislation, which the government has introduced and which has not yet been passed by the Senate and which the opposition has not agreed to pass yet, is for a different purpose. It was to deal with a different gap in our legal system. So maybe officials could pick up at that point with some more detail.
Ms Foster: There were two primary purposes to the removals bill. The first was to give us the power to compel people who had exhausted all legal avenues of remaining in Australia to cooperate with their removal so that people couldn’t frustrate our efforts to remove them—by, for example, refusing to fill out applications or come to interviews—and to make it an offence should they not do that. The second element of the bill was to allow us to declare countries who frustrated our attempts to return their nationals to them countries of removal concern and to enable us to take actions about how we manage applications to come to Australia from those countries.
Senator ROBERTS: Surely, Minister, there was a way that the government could’ve addressed this issue before the decision in NZYQ was handed down. Why didn’t you?
Senator Watt: The High Court’s decision in NZYQ essentially went in a different direction to what the law in Australia had always been.
Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t pre-empt that at all.
Senator Watt: Look, we’ve gone over this at length in previous estimates hearings.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on to border security then. Why is our border security policy being made on the run? For example, why has the number of surveillance flights by Border Force of our northern borders by aircraft been reduced over the last year?
Senator Watt: Can I just say one thing. Of course, I don’t accept the proposition that our border security policy is being made on the run. We have increased funding for Border Force and border security to a level that no government has ever provided, and Admiral Sonter, in his role heading up Operation Sovereign Borders, has pointed out that—I can’t remember the exact words—essentially, there has been no change to the policy settings for Operation Sovereign Borders. But the officials can talk to you about surveillance flights.
Mr Outram: Specific to surveillance flights, I have Deputy Commissioner Dale with me. There has been a reduction in hours flown. That has been for two reasons. The first is persistent mechanical issues with the fleet of Dash 8s that the Border Force has. The second, with the contractor that we employ, is their ability to bring on pilots. There’s a global shortage of pilots, and they’re affected by that. I might hand over to Deputy Commissioner Dale to give you more details.
Ms Dale: The commissioner has flagged that there has been a reduction in flying hours this year and the commissioner has already outlined the causes. I think the rear admiral will go to the point that, notwithstanding the reduction in hours that we have had in the Australian Border Force, aerial surveillance has been maintained to the standard he requires—fortunately, through the augmentation of flights through the Australian Defence Force.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that signalling a decrease in hours flown in the future, then, if it meets the standard? Or is it going to be that, in the future, standards are changed?
Ms Dale: No. We’re working very closely with the provider to better understand the barriers. The commissioner has spoken to the issue around crew. There is a global shortage of crew for the fixed-wing aircraft that we’re operating. It’s also true that from time to time we have mechanical issues that are reasonably frequent with any sort of piece of machinery, so they can sometimes be a factor.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the reduction in hours flown a reason for the recent increase in the number of successful arrivals into Australian waters of foreign people smugglers and their human cargo?
Rear Adm. Sonter: There’s no direct correlation there. On a regular basis, I look at what is the threat and risk, and I adjust the posture accordingly. As Kaylene Dale indicated, one of the beauties about this role and the coordination role is that I have both ABF and Australian Defence Force assets to pull on for this mission. While she’s articulated the decrease from the ABF funded actual air surveillance, we’ve increased the ADF air surveillance to ensure that we have an enhanced posture in the north-west.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it the soft policy of Labor Party governments in the past, enticing people smugglers to be prepared to risk the boat and cargo for such rich profits as a full boat of paying passengers for the Aussie Express?
Senator Watt: No. Never has been and never will be.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware, Minister, that Australians now feel unsafe personally in their own country due to this failed migration policy? We’ve got boats arriving, we’ve got people who are murdering people.
Senator Watt: I’m sure there are some people in Australia who feel unsafe. What I can say is that this government is spending more money on border security than we’ve ever done before. Unlike certain others, including people in the room, we are not running down and disparaging our border security policies—which is an incentive to people smugglers—and we are taking action to deal with court decisions that are not of the government’s making and that the government opposed.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t quoting of spending more money just a lazy way of saying you’re trying to do something? I look at your energy policy and never before have we spent so much money and we see the highest price of electricity.
Chair: Senator Roberts, that is not relevant to this instance.
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that money does not equate to success.
Senator Watt: You might say that spending $569.4 million more in this year’s budget on things like more boats, planes and unmanned vehicles for Operation Sovereign Borders is lazy. I wouldn’t put it that way.
The ink isn’t even dry on Minister Gallagher’s Digital ID Bill, yet abuses are already surfacing. Digital ID is supposed to be voluntary, with an alternative method of identification available, however this is not happening. Federal and State Government departments, alongside crony corporations, are mandating Digital IDs and failing to offer paper alternatives. This blatant disregard for their own legislation reveals the government’s true intention: to force everyone to get a Digital ID for greater control.
Thanks to Minister Gallagher and Prime Minister Albanese, we’re falling into a dystopian future of digital prisons.
Transcript
In the break, opposition leader Peter Dutton joined Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to support a uniparty age ban of 16 on social media. When Minister Gallagher introduced the digital ID, she promised that every Australian over 16 would need a digital ID and that it would be voluntary. The ink was not dry on that legislation when the uniparty advanced this idea for a compulsory social media age limit, a simple idea raising many red flags. The issue is not who signs into social media; the issue is who’s using the account. This requires the device camera to always be on, to check the user’s image against their digital ID to prevent, for instance, younger siblings from taking over the session. Penalties for spreading misinformation, or opinions, as they used to be called, can then be levied against the correct person, with a photo of you making the post to prove it was you.
The uniparty campaign to stamp out wrong-think on social media will require a camera in every adolescent’s bedroom, running every moment their computer, tablet or phone is in use. Hacking into cameras is easy. This proposal will be a paedophile’s paradise and will increase crimes against children. Using social media in public— cafes, public transport, shops—will be a nightmare. Social media companies will need to run artificial intelligence to work out which image is the person operating the device and which is someone in the background.
To answer the question, ‘Is this person over 16?’ will require every Australian’s biometric data. Who knows what else this identification and surveillance AI will do without our knowledge? The uniparty that introduced this bill under Mr Morrison and passed it under Mr Albanese will produce unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefit. One Nation believes in the primacy of parents over the state. Parents must be free to raise their children as they choose, not as the government dictates.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. The Digital ID Act was passed with the promise that it would not be compulsory, per section 74(1). Your act includes a provision that alternative methods of establishing identity must be provided, in section 74(1A). My electorate office is receiving complaints from members of the public who are being required to obtain a digital ID in order to, in one instance, get their own medical report as part of a job application. This was a real-world application, not an online application. Minister, what options are available to a person who is not offered an alternative method of identity verification, as the act requires? Where can people complain, and what penalties are imposed on an entity who fails to follow your legislation?
Senator GALLAGHER: I thank Senator Roberts for the question. As you’d know, Senator Roberts, the digital ID legislation has not come into effect yet. It doesn’t come into effect until 1 December this year. Essentially, we’ve legislated the existing system, which was unregulated. That’s what we’ve done with that legislation.
There is a requirement, in the legislation, to continue to provide alternative opportunities or ways for people to engage with government for their personal use. Of course, businesses already engaging with the tax office do use the myGovID system, but, for your personal use, the law is very clear that there must be alternative ways provided for the community to engage with government. That has been made very clear across government.
I would say that, if you want to forward me that constituent’s issue, even if it’s de-identified, I’d be very happy to look at it, but we have been very clear that it is a voluntary system, it is a safe system and it is a secure system. It’s simply a means of verifying yourself in a way that gives you control of your own documentation. So, instead of having all your ID documents photocopied or emailed around the place, you are the one verifying your identity and you’re able to hold those documents to yourself. It’s actually a much safer way of engaging with government than paper based systems, and I am very hopeful that more people will take it up once the legislation and the regulator are in place. Of course, once that legislation is enacted, there will be a regulator. The ACCC will perform that role. So there would be the ability to make complaints and have those complaints investigated.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The entity responsible was the Queensland state government. Will you now instruct the Queensland Labor government to follow the legislation and ensure an alternative option is allowed or will you do so after the legislation is enacted?
Senator GALLAGHER: The legislation does enable a national digital ID system, or ecosystem. There are private sector digital IDs and there are also state government versions. But what the legislation means is that those state governments can apply for accreditation through the national system, and we are hopeful that they will do that. In fact, in a meeting I had on Friday with states, they are all certainly indicating that they will be part of that national system. But, for a state based system which has its own processes for engaging on rates and other things, that is a matter for the Queensland government and would have to be taken up with the Queensland government.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, was the failure to include penalties for not providing alternative verification options a failure of this government or was the imposition of a mandatory digital ID the plan all along?
Senator GALLAGHER: The legislation is very clear. It’s a voluntary system—that is, people, for their personal engagement with government, have the right to choose whether they use a digital ID or they use the more traditional way of engaging with government. In terms of penalties, the legislation does set up the ACCC as the regulator of the system. That would be the way that complaints and other issues would be assessed. So there is a system in place. I don’t have the legislation right in front of me, but we were very clear that putting the digital ID ecosystem in legislation is actually about ensuring that it is safe and that consumers’ needs are fundamental, are front and centre and are protected through a regulated system. At the moment, I have a digital ID, but it doesn’t exist under a regulated system. All that the legislation did was take a lot of what’s happening now outside of a regulated system and regulate it.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to digital ID.
The Digital ID Act was presented to the Senate and to the Australian public as a convenient way to establish identity and that it would not be compulsory. It has taken precisely two weeks to discover that’s a lie. Already federal and state government departments are demanding digital IDs be created for the most mundane tasks. A constituent of mine in Queensland who attended a health clinic to undergo a physical before starting a job with the Queensland government for which a medical was mandated was told he couldn’t have the results of his physical until he got a digital ID. This is a real-world transition. The clinic knew who he was because he had to prove his identity before starting the physical. The digital ID requirement came from the Queensland government. In this case, there’s no earthly reason for a digital ID except that the public service have taken it upon themselves to impose a digital ID on every person in the country. Without penalties, there will be no attempt to provide the alternative method of verification that the minister promised.
COVID proved the power of using employment for the purposes of blackmail, and it’s a lesson the government has embraced. The digital ID website, digitalidentity.gov.au, rolled out the new webpages for the digital ID within days of the legislation passing. The public education campaign on TV and online started within just a few days. The regulations upon which so much of the bill relies are finished and on public display already. All the ducks were in a row to introduce a digital prison in Australia before the Senate even voted and well before the new law’s implementation date in December. No wonder the government did a dirty deal with elements of the crossbench, guillotined the debate—there was no debate—and delivered government the powers they crave. What a disgraceful display. What an abuse of the social contract between the government and its requirement to act in the best interests of the public. One Nation will repeal the digital ID and legislate privacy protections for all Australians.
https://hugh.cdn.rumble.cloud/s/s8/6/P/F/w/I/PFwIs.qR4e.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-04 13:17:002024-07-04 13:20:12Our Dystopian Future of Digital ID Prisons
The Banking Code of Practicewas originally designed to safeguard consumers from bad banking practices, however since the first code was issued, there has been a continual watering down of these protections, effectively rendering the code meaningless.
Currently, ASIC is conducting a review of the code. During the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired whether certain protections would be included, such as protections against de-banking, ensuring access to cash, and maintaining in-person banking services at branches.
Unfortunately, the responses provided were not encouraging. If this review fails to restore consumer protections to the Banking Code, One Nation will pursue a legislated response by way of a mandatory code.
Additionally, I inquired about ASIC’s handling of the recent crypto scandal, where Australian investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to ASIC failing to advise of the risks. This contrasts with the Mayfair scandal, where ASIC’s enforcement action actually caused the company and their investors to undergo a loss that would not have occurred without ASIC’s actions.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Last estimates I raised a series of concerns regarding the Banking Code of Practice, and Ms O’Rourke was very forthcoming in her answers; thank you for that. At one point, Ms O’Rourke, you said you would update me if there was any progress on the negotiation for the new banking code. Could you provide an update now, please, in respect of these four matters. Is ‘prudent and diligent banker’ still in there? It’s a meaningless phrase.
Ms O’Rourke: Yes, we had that discussion at the last hearing, about the code of practice. I’m happy to update in relation to the discussions we’ve been having. To step back a moment—
Senator ROBERTS: On those specific four points: is ‘prudent and diligent banker’ still in there?
Ms O’Rourke: I think, prior to that particular question, you said, ‘What’s the state of play?’ The state of play is that there’s not yet a final code that has been finalised by the ABA to put to us for approval. The answer is that it’s not yet determined whether or not that phrase ‘prudent and diligent’ will or will not be in the final code. Can I give a little bit more detail?
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms O’Rourke: It is in the existing code. In the draft code published by the ABA last year, in relation to which we’ve had a consultation process, there was a proposal to narrow the application of ‘prudent and diligent’ to very specific circumstances and for other circumstances to rely on other legal provisions. That has been something through the consultation process we have had submissions in relation to, and it is something we have been speaking to the ABA about. The ABA is still considering its position, and there isn’t a final outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a guarantee of face-to-face banking services?
Ms O’Rourke: That is not in either the existing code or the proposed code from the ABA. Like I say, there is no final position in relation to what the final code will look like but that’s one that’s not been proposed, nor was it particularly raised in the submissions we received.
Senator ROBERTS: This is not a comment aimed at you, Ms O’Rourke, but we’re not interested so much in whether or not something was in there or will be in there; we’re interested in—purely, that’s something we believe is necessary. Is there a guarantee of access to the King’s currency of cash?
Ms O’Rourke: The current code does not have that, nor does the proposed code.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a guarantee not to debank a customer for competitive or social reasons like, ‘We don’t agree with your politics’?
Ms O’Rourke: That’s not in the current code nor is it proposed to be in the revised code.
Senator ROBERTS: I believe you took on notice the debanking issue, but the response only answered ‘other matters’. Has ASIC considered the debanking issue? It’s a device by which the banks harm the business of their competitors and manipulate the markets to their financial advantage—as they have, for example, with cash in transit. This says misuse of market power to me. Has ASIC considered the debanking issue?
Ms O’Rourke: ASIC has been part of discussions around the cash-in-transit issue you referred to. I’m not sure whether you’ve had an opportunity to speak to other agencies, including the RBA, Treasury or others involved on the government side, or, indeed, if you’ve had opportunities to speak to the ABA or others. We’re more interested observers than participants in relation to cash in transit. We don’t have any regulatory hooks or provisions that particularly go to the provision of cash or its transportation.
Senator ROBERTS: What about debanking?
Ms O’Rourke: Similarly, there is no requirement to bank or to take steps in relation to debanking in relation to which we could take action.
Senator ROBERTS: On the crypto scam: Senator Hume asked some very fine questions today. Your testimony was that you were aware of this scam for quite some time, yet the scam companies Infinity CapitalG, Topmarketcap, Iron Bits and Richmondsuper were added to the scam list just yesterday. Why did it take so long to get those companies onto the scam list?
Ms Court: As I said in my answers to Senator Hume, when that information came in to us it was for the purposes of a continuing criminal investigation at that time. At that time, in August 2023, we didn’t have up and running the investor alert list we have now; that commenced in November 2023. We hadn’t received any reports of misconduct or any indication that any of those entities referred to in the article—that consumers were continuing to invest or lose money as a result of investments in those entities. However, following the media reporting, we went back and had a look at those entities, and I think we took a decision that we would put four out of the five—even though we had no information about continuing losses to investors—on the investor alert list, for completeness.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. On Mayfair 101: ASIC went after a company that appears to have been trading *legally. Mayfair 101 were up-to-date with repayments to lenders and, as demonstrated over the last three years, had financial resources as they fought your action. ASIC considered Mayfair’s advertising misrepresented their investment product and took immediate action to freeze the company’s asset. By doing that, ASIC almost cost 500 Australian investors $200 million but the company has survived. ASIC’s actions have, however, caused a lot of damage to investors and the company for no good reason we can see. One Nation, I must mention, as I previously stated, is one of those investors. This matter has been dragging on for three years and now ASIC is going for another round. What’s the state of play now?
Ms Court: I gave quite a long answer to Senator Bragg earlier, when you weren’t in the room, about the status of Mayfair—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; we’ll leave it. I want to get on. Thank you for that. Your actions were ostensibly to protect investors, yet the investors in Mayfair have not had access to their funds or a return on their investment since you started your action, despite the entity they invested in still being viable. Why are you hurting the people you profess to protect?
Ms Court: As I said in my response to Senator Bragg earlier, ASIC acted quickly in relation to the Mayfair matters for the purposes of protecting future investors. The matter’s been before the court, and Mayfair has been found to have engaged in misleading conduct. The court has imposed a $30 million penalty on Mayfair, which I understand remains unpaid. There are still several matters currently before the courts, and the courts are testing ASIC’s claims and the defences to those claims. That is an appropriate place for them to be determined now.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ASIC.png?fit=1297%2C750&ssl=17501297Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-04 13:16:322024-07-18 08:34:37ASIC Grilled on Banking Code of Practice and Crypto Scandal
