I had the pleasure of joining Laban Ditchburn on the Be Your Own Super Hero podcast! We delved into my current world perspective, offering straightforward explanations of both current and past Australian politics. Plus, I shared my tips on staying sane in a world that often feels completely at odds with common sense.
I asked about the mechanism for the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications between Australia and India, which recognises that an Australian degree awarded here is equivalent to an Indian degree awarded in India. It also allows Indian colleges, including private ones, to offer degrees to anyone globally, which can then be used to improve their chances of getting into Australia as skilled migrants.
However, there are concerns about the integrity of this system, given that India is notorious for exam cheating. This raises the risk of admitting individuals who may not possess the skills their degrees suggest.
Transcript
The mechanism for the mutual recognition of qualifications between Australia and India recognises an Australian degree awarded to an Australian as being equal to an Indian degree awarded to an Indian, including online study. It’s not only degrees. It’s everything from school certificates to doctorates, although some further work may be required for occupations having professional associations, like medicine, although there is no requirement to do so. This is despite the level of cheating and selling qualifications that goes on in India. I await the legal challenges to being refused a job based on a degree the employer knows is rubbish but which the government has decreed is equal to an Australian degree.
The agreement allows an Indian visa-holder to apply for any job in Australia for which having a degree makes their chances of success higher. That’s almost anything. In other words, the vast majority of these new migrants will not work in their area of qualification, which might be a good thing. One Nation opposes this agreement. Twenty per cent of HECS debts in Australia are for amounts over $40,000. Our children listen to their parents, the media and politicians. They study hard, go to university, get saddled with a near insurmountable HECS debt, and then they head out into the workforce to pay it off only to discover they’re competing with an Indian degree of questionable origin that cost a fraction of their own. Of course, Indian graduates can work cheaper than our graduates can afford to.
One Nation will tear up this agreement. We’ll offer mortgages through a people’s bank to young Australians that include the option of rolling their HECS debt into their mortgage with just a five per cent deposit at five per cent fixed interest over 25 years with the homebuyers own super account allowed to provide the deposit and share in the capital appreciation. While Labor is selling out young Australians, One Nation offers real solutions to young Australians. I note in the seconds I have left that every year $11.1 billion was sent home by foreign students, with Indians being the second largest on the list.
Question agreed to.
The Federal Police have finally dropped their vaccine mandate for workers, yet won’t apologise to the people who have been persecuted and lost wages for years.
It’s been known from the very start it didn’t stop workers getting COVID, and it didn’t stop transmission of COVID to others. That hasn’t changed, so why this change four years later?
It’s not good enough! One Nation calls for an apology, backpay, compensation and immediate rehiring of anyone who lost a job because of a vaccine mandate.
Transcript
CHAIR: I also note the time. Can we give Senator Roberts the call for a moment? Senator Roberts, do you have questions for the AFP?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing tonight. Just before the last break, Commissioner, did you say you revoked the COVID vaccine mandates on your police yesterday?
Ms Van Gurp : I can answer that. Thank you for the question. You might recall last time we appeared at this committee back in November, we did disclose that we had undertaken a review of the COVID Commissioner’s Order 10 policy, which related to COVID vaccines. That review, as of November, had been completed and supported by our enterprise operations board. I mentioned at our last hearing in November that the next phase for us to do, as per the legislation, as per the Work Health Safety Act, was to undertake genuine workforce consultation. So throughout December and January we have undertaken that genuine consultation with the workforce, which included comments back that were supportive and not supportive. In consideration of that consultation, the commissioner, yes, he has determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 is to be revoked, and that was announced to the workforce. Our internal website has a range of frequently asked questions and information for staff to address the issues that were raised across that consultation process.
Senator ROBERTS: Am I accurate in saying they were revoked yesterday?
Ms Van Gurp : No. The Commissioner’s Order 10 was signed off as revoked by the commissioner on 13 February. It was announced to the workforce this week.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did you revoke the vaccine mandates? I know you have been through a process—I don’t need to hear about that again, with respect—but what was the reason they were revoked?
Ms Van Gurp : Throughout the process since the Commissioner’s Order was put in place, we did undertake regular reviews looking at that policy. As we talked about before in this forum, it was an important policy for us at a time to protect both our workforce and the community, particularly the vulnerable communities that we are working with across the Pacific and other areas of the globe. But the most recent review in relation to reflecting on the health advice from our Chief Medical Officer as well as ATAGI and others, we determined that that risk posed didn’t necessitate a specific Commissioner’s Order anymore because, rather than it being a global pandemic, the status of COVID had been downgraded, so we made that determination through that internal review and through doing an updated risk assessment treatment plan.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that nothing has changed arguably in recent years—certainly in many, many, many, month many, months—why did it take long to revoke the vaccine mandates?
Ms Van Gurp : As we have talked about here previously, while for some other agencies the advice had changed around the risks of the community, we were conscious that we have a workforce that we need to be able to readily deploy at any time and we are deploying to vulnerable communities, so our assessment was not just to follow the general community advice; it was to undertake our own internal assessment, so we held that policy in place for a longer period of time to protect both our workforce and the community, but we have determined now is the time to revoke that policy.
Senator ROBERTS: Given the injections did not stop people getting COVID and did not stop people transmitting COVID, why were the mandates implemented?
Ms Van Gurp : Based on the health advice both from government and our Chief Medical Officer, it was to minimise the risk to both our members and to the vulnerable communities, so acknowledging, yes, of course, Senator, you are correct—the COVID vaccine didn’t prevent people getting it or prevent people transmitting it but it did mitigate that risk.
Senator ROBERTS: So was that on the evidence of the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI health agencies?
Ms Van Gurp : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Did they provide you with the evidence? I am asking: on what evidence?
Ms Van Gurp : I will have to take that on notice, but essentially we considered the advice coming from ATAGI and others externally. We considered the risk to our people by undertaking our own risk assessment treatment plan internally and that was in consideration of the way in which we deploy staff, where we are deploying to, the nature of our operations et cetera. So, for some time, our internal position was that we needed to maintain that vaccination requirement that the safety of our members and for the safety of the communities were dealing with. But as I said, we have revised that risk assessment treatment plan now and have determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 can be revoked.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I have a copy of the advice from the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI, please?
Ms Van Gurp : I will take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Also in your own deliberations within the AFP, I would like to know what drove the conclusion, particularly your risk assessment. I would like to see the risk assessment.
Ms Van Gurp : I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The inefficacy of the COVID injections in stopping transmission was known well before yesterday. Why did it take so long to revoke?
Ms Van Gurp : As I mentioned, our decision to have that Commissioner’s Order in place was not just based on ATAGI and other advice; it was our internal position as well in consideration of our own risk assessment treatment plans. We went through a thorough process to make sure that, before we revoked it ,we were being thorough in our assessments. As I previously talked about, we did an internal review that Deputy Commissioner Gale’s team led. That review came to our internal enterprise operations board for consideration. We supported the position of the review and then, as per the WHS Act, we undertook workplace consultation prior to making a decision, and that is a requirement under legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I, on notice again, have any evidence that you considered within the AFP in making the decision and on why it took so long?
Ms Van Gurp : Yes, Commissioner. I’m happy to take on notice to provide that plan.
Senator ROBERTS: I haven’t been promoted yet!
Ms Van Gurp : Senator, sorry!
Senator SCARR: It’s coming now—just hold off!
Ms Van Gurp : It’s past my bedtime!
Senator ROBERTS: It’s past my bedtime too. I have two more questions, very briefly. Did you mandate the AstraZeneca shots that were later withdrawn?
Ms Van Gurp : Our Commissioner’s Order 10 required that staff had to have two vaccinations. We didn’t mandate which vaccination that needed to be. But I’m happy to take it on notice if you need more clarity around that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Commissioner, will you apologise to police who were basically forced to take the AstraZeneca shot?
Mr Kershaw : I don’t know what evidence you have there, Senator. I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: They were withdrawn from use in the UK and other countries, I believe, on the basis of a court case in Britain. They were also withdrawn in this country, although I understand the federal health department did not withdraw them until quite some time later. I’d like to know why they were mandated.
CHAIR: Do you mean that type of vaccination, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, the AstraZeneca brand.
CHAIR: I’m not going to answer for the commissioner, but I think he has taken it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, he has. Thank you all for appearing.
CHAIR: I hope you’re enjoying whatever regional town in Queensland you seem to be joining from. I’m sure it’s a fabulous place.
Listening to everyday Australians across Queensland, I’ve heard your concerns about the rising cost of health care. When Labor first took over, they increased the Medicare rebate, boosting bulk-billing rates. But by 2025, that effect has faded. According to Cleanbill’s 2025 report, nearly 80% of GP clinics no longer bulk-bill adult patients. The percentage of bulk-billing GPs in Queensland has halved since Labor came to power, and out-of-pocket costs have risen by 9%.
Medicare is crucial for timely medical treatment, helping people get back to work faster. In the US, unpaid medical bills cause 40% of bankruptcies. One Nation won’t let that happen here. One Nation will increase the Medicare subsidy to encourage bulk-billing, funded by cracking down on Medicare and PBS fraud, which costs $3 billion a year. We’ll also delay social security, including Medicare, for new arrivals.
One Nation is committed to practical solutions for the cost-of-living crisis. We’ll reduce overseas student numbers to create more university places for Australians, especially in health disciplines, and expand bursaries for students from rural areas. While Labor offers bandaids, One Nation offers real solutions.
Transcript
In listening to everyday Australians across my home state of Queensland, one of our highest concerns is the cost of health care. This Labor government increased the Medicare rebate when they first took over. It was a long overdue move which increased the rate of Medicare bulk-billing. In 2025 the effect of that increase has worn off, much like the lustre on this government. According to Cleanbill’s 2025 report, nearly 80 per cent of GP clinics no longer bulk-bill adult patients. When Labor came to power, 26 per cent of GPs in Queensland bulk-billed. In 2025 the figure is projected to be 14 per cent—halved. As a result, the out-of-pocket cost of visiting a doctor has risen by nine per cent.
Any economist can easily make the case for Medicare. As a national insurance policy, it matches medical treatment to the time the person needs it rather than to the time they can afford to pay for it. This optimises health care and gets the person back to the productive economy faster.
In the United States, unpaid medical bills cause 40 per cent of all bankruptcies. One Nation will not accept that happening here. One Nation will increase the Medicare subsidy to encourage bulk-billing. This subsidy will be paid for through cracking down on Medicare fraud, estimated to cost $3 billion a year. This figure doesn’t include fraudulent loaning out of Medicare cards. Some areas in Sydney have more adults using Medicare cards than they have eligible adults. One Nation will delay the granting of social security, including Medicare, to new arrivals. That announcement will be made separately. One Nation have already announced a policy to reduce overseas student numbers and create more places for Australian children to go to university in areas where Australia needs graduates, which includes health disciplines. One Nation will expand bursaries for students to attend from the bush or to practise in regional and rural areas. While Labor offers bandaids, One Nation are offering practical solutions to the cost-of-living crisis.
The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has received a Ministerial directive to investigate wage theft allegations affecting coal miners in the Hunter region. Upon inquiring about the investigation’s status, Mr Steve Ronson, the Executive Director of the FWO shared that there are currently 18 cases under investigation, involving 25 workers and 17 employers, with 2 self-reports also being considered. All complaints are being thoroughly investigated, and the process includes holding meetings with various stakeholders.
A dedicated email address has been established for individuals to contact the FWO regarding these issues. So far, meetings have been held with Coal LSL, the Mining Energy Union, and the Independent Workers Union of Australia. Mr Ronson mentioned that the amounts to be calculated have not yet been assessed, with some claims dating back around 10 years. It’s been estimated that the total claim could potentially reach up to $1.3 billion. He also expressed his willingness to accept a submission from One Nation, which has been advocating for this investigation since 2019, marking it as the largest wage theft claim in Australia.
Interestingly, there has been no liaison with the Fair Work Commission, although other entities are welcome to submit material. Early findings from the investigation may emerge by mid this year, but the final report is expected by mid-2026. Status reports might be discussed through the estimates process. Mr Ronson clarified that while underpayments can be investigated beyond the 6-year period under the Statute of Limitations, enforcement is limited to this timeframe. He committed to securing any identified underpayments through the investigation.
Stay tuned for more updates as this significant investigation progresses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending, everyone. First of all, I understand the Fair Work Ombudsman has received a ministerial directive to investigate underpayments of casual black coal miners working under enterprise agreements; is that correct?
Ms Booth: We have been asked to conduct that investigation. On the last occasion, you’ll recall, Mr Ronson gave you a thorough rundown. Since that time our enforcement board has approved an investigation plan. I will turn to Mr Campbell to give you any further updates.
Senator ROBERTS: Before he does so, would it be possible to get a copy of the ministerial directive, please?
Ms Booth: I’m not sure I would describe it as a ministerial directive, although others might be more aware of the protocol in these matters. I believe it was a letter.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I have a copy?
Ms Booth: I see no reason why you shouldn’t. I’ll hand over to Mr Campbell and Mr Ronson to give you more details.
Mr Campbell: Is there a particular aspect of our inquiries that you’re interested in, or are you looking for a general update?
Senator ROBERTS: I’d specifically like, please, an overview of the status of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s activities, and could you in particular describe the process the Fair Work Ombudsman is using to conduct its investigations.
Mr Campbell: I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist.
Mr Ronson: I can give you an update on the status of the investigation. The Fair Work Ombudsman is currently investigating 18 black coal mining industry matters that involve 25 workers and 17 different employing entities. We’ve also received two self-reports from the sector. All the requests for assistance that we’ve received are being investigated, and as part of our project plan we’re meeting with a whole range of stakeholders. We’ve begun meeting with them to talk about the investigation, to enhance and increase awareness and to encourage those in the sector to come forward. We have a dedicated email address to receive any allegations or information from any member of the sector or the community. So far, we’ve had some very constructive and positive meetings. We’ve had two meetings with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, we’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union, we’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia, and we’ve got a whole range of other stakeholder meetings lined up in the next couple of weeks.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I assume that there’s a dedicated process that casual coalminers can now use to lodge complaints about underpayment with the Fair Work Ombudsman?
Mr Ronson: That’s correct. There’s a dedicated email address we’ve set up for the whole project so that anyone in the sector or anyone with information relating to the sector can feel confident that they can go straight through to contacting us through that email, or they can give us a call—whichever way they want to make contact with us. Of course, there’s still the anonymous report function as well, which is available to all members of the community.
Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Independent Workers Union of Australia. I take it that some of the submissions, or complaints, have been lodged through that and some of the others have been individually lodged, for individual work.
Mr Ronson: That’s right. Probably two-thirds have come through the agency of the Independent Workers Union of Australia and the other third are just individual workers in the sector who have requests for assistance that we’re looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate your succinct and direct answers. Can the Fair Work Ombudsman provide the range of possible underpayment amounts currently being looked at by the Fair Work Ombudsman?
Mr Ronson: It’s hard to assess at the moment what potential underpayments, if any, exist. Some of the allegations date back at least 10 or 11 years. There are some individuals who’ve worked in the sector for many years. If the allegations are upheld and if the evidence is obtained, there could be significant underpayments owing to certain workers. But at this stage it’s too early. We’ve requested a series of documents, a lot of information from various companies, that will assist us to begin, if you like, the assessment of these particular claims.
Senator ROBERTS: How many employers—not only mine owners but the labour hire firms—are subject to investigation so far? How many?
Mr Ronson: All up, it’s 17.
Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned that—okay. Will the Fair Work Ombudsman advertise to coalminers in the black coal mining sector, encouraging them to lodge and apply to the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to underpayments they believe they may have been subject to?
Mr Ronson: By ‘advertise’, do you mean increasing awareness, as in media statements?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes: letting them know you’re open for business and you’re aware that this is an issue.
Mr Ronson: Yes, that’s definitely an option available and one we’re considering. There are some other ideas that we have as well about enhancing awareness. For example, there’s nothing to prevent us writing to all labour hire providers and employing entities in the sector. This is one of the suggestions that has been put to us and one we’re currently considering.
Senator ROBERTS: Would that be a wise move in terms of trying to get to the miners? Some of these labour hire firms—some—have been deliberately suppressing this?
Mr Ronson: That’s right—good point. In terms of former workers, that’s a different sort of ‘audience’, if you like. That’s one we’re turning our minds to in thinking about how we ensure people who either are in the industry now or were formerly in the industry are aware of this investigation. The second point I was making, yes, was in relation to employers. That’s something we’ve done in the past. We’ve written, for example, to the ASX Top 100 companies and encouraged them to review their status, and if they self-identify they can self-report any potential noncompliance.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that some of the miners are not aware of it, but it’s a major issue, because we estimate that about 5,000 miners at least have been the subject of Australia’s largest wage theft case, and it’ll cost, ultimately, around $1.3 billion—they’re rough estimates. So I think these people need to be told that there’s an option for them to seek justice and repayment.
Mr Ronson: Yes. As I say, it’s something we’re definitely turning our minds to, and we’re considering what’s the best way to get the word out, if you like.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s hope you can get that out fairly soon. The Fair Work Ombudsman would be aware that One Nation has pushed for investigation into this issue and that One Nation released a detailed report in February 2024. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman taking submissions on how the alleged underpayments have occurred, and would the Fair Work Ombudsman accept One Nation’s report as a submission? We can provide data, companies involved, amounts, enterprise agreements and underpayment.
Mr Ronson: Yes, sure. We welcome all and any information and any submissions.
Senator ROBERTS: So we would make submissions in the same way anyone else would?
Mr Ronson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Would One Nation be involved in any follow-up discussions on the nature of the issue and its resolution?
Mr Ronson: Yes, if there is information that’s material and actionable, by all means, we’ll be in contact.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the Mining and Energy Union, which is what’s left in the coalmining sector after the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union split, are not seeking back pay. They seem to be hiding it because they were involved in agreeing to the enterprise agreements and signing off on enterprise agreements that were paying much less than the award. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman inviting submissions from other organisations and individuals? If so, who specifically has been approached?
Mr Ronson: To date, as I said before, we’ve met with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, and we’re asking that agency to provide us with any relevant information. We’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union; we’ve extended the same invitation. We’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia. As you know, they’re actively involved, and they’re assisting our investigation. We also intend to meet with the Queensland Labour Hire Licensing Compliance Unit; RCSA, the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association, which is responsible for labour hire; the Minerals Council of Australia, with which we have meetings lined up; and safe work bodies in New South Wales and Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you be covering more than the wage theft case and the specific amounts of the wage theft? In other words, will you be covering loss of other entitlements, protections and safeguards?
Mr Ronson: Our jurisdiction only extends to entitlements or conditions that are actionable or have been created under the Fair Work Act and the regulations, so it’s only what is within our remit.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman consulting with the Fair Work Commission on the issue?
Mr Ronson: Not to date. There’s been no need at this stage. I’m confident that we said at our last hearing that we don’t have the power or the capability to question any approvals of any agreements that have been made in the past. Others can take that issue up.
Senator ROBERTS: Who are the others who can do that?
Mr Ronson: Parties to an agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So only the Mining and Energy Union; its predecessor, the CFMEU; and employers, such as mining companies?
Mr Ronson: I’ll defer to the chief counsel as to who in particular can question agreements.
Ms Volzke: I think Mr Ronson has given a reasonable list. I would just say more broadly that one of the issues that I raised at the last estimates is just to remember that we still have that statutory timeframe of six years that applies under the Fair Work Act as well. Obviously, that won’t preclude us from investigating, but it’s important that the miners that we’re looking at also bear that in mind.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’m pleased to say that it wouldn’t preclude you investigating. It may, at the moment, preclude addressing the issues that are raised in the investigation, but it would not preclude the investigation. The premise for my next question is as follows: the black coal award does not allow for casuals. Enterprise agreements were made, and some are still current, but the agreement’s pay rates are demonstrably less than what should be paid under the award if the award allowed for casuals. To an ordinary person, paying casuals less than the award casualised rate—that’s a full-time rate plus 25 per cent—is plainly wrong. That’s the pub test, as people say. And yet the Fair Work Commission endorsed the enterprise agreements. I assume the Fair Work Ombudsman must somehow determine which instrument prevails, being either enterprise agreements that pay less than the casualised award rate or an award rate that incorporates a casualised 25 per cent add-on to a full-time rate. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have an idea as to how this may be resolved?
Mr Ronson: That’s the $64 question, if I can confirm it. I think, as with previous evidence we’ve provided, there remains uncertainty regarding the legal consequences of the Black Coal Mining Award’s lack of provision for employees in these roles as it hasn’t been authoritatively determined by a court. So it remains an open question.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman be issuing a report or reports on its findings of the investigation? If so, what would be the anticipated timeline for such reports? I think the minister made some comment as to [inaudible].
Mr Ronson: At this stage we’re more than happy to provide status updates in this forum as we go along, but we’re hoping that we’d have early preliminary findings towards the middle of this year or just after the middle of this year. I think I said last time, and I think it’s still the case, it could be at least until mid-2026 before we’re in a position to provide a final report. But we will keep this committee posted.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you be in a position to provide interim reports as the investigation progresses?
Mr Ronson: It’s probably easier if we provide status reports, like I have today. The thing about how long an investigation takes is it all depends—
Senator ROBERTS: It depends on the [inaudible] and what you find. I get it. Would any reports you provide be public and unredacted, except of course for retaining confidentiality of workers allegedly underpaid?
Mr Ronson: I see no reason why it wouldn’t be. A report that we provide would be as fulsome and comprehensive as we could publish.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re not expecting names of individuals to be disclosed.
Mr Ronson: No.
Senator ROBERTS: We would expect them to be redacted. Would the reports indicate the employers involved, the organisations involved, the employers and organisations under investigation and any findings that the Fair Work Ombudsman has in relation to the specific employers?
CHAIR: Just before you answer that question, Senator Roberts we’re running an hour and a bit late. I don’t want to cut off your questions, but if there are some that can be on notice that would be helpful. Otherwise, I will come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The way Mr Ronson is answering the questions directly, it won’t be long at all. I’ve only got a few more to go. And I have to move on too.
CHAIR: No worries.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Ronson?
Mr Ronson: The best way of answering your question is: it’s the long held practice of the Fair Work Ombudsman to provide reports of all its major investigations. We’ve published all of them and they’re available on our website. It is our practice and it would be our expectation to do so again.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If the Fair Work Ombudsman were to conclude that underpayments had occurred, and based on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s past experiences, does the Fair Work Ombudsman have ideas of scenarios for compensation for any worker underpayments?
Mr Ronson: Well, we have ideas. As to whether they’re actionable or realisable, that will be determined in due course.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. This is something Ms Volzke raised. What is the effect of the statute of limitations and how would that apply to someone lodging a complaint today? Can they still lodge it?
Mr Ronson: Yes. As the chief counsel answered, it doesn’t preclude our investigations. The provision in the act only relates to enforceability in the event of proceedings, but there’s no reason why we can’t go back historically and look at historic underpayments and, if the allegations are upheld and there is an entitlement owing, to seek to secure that underpayment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman investigating beyond the statute of limitations to ascertain full amounts possibly underpaid?
Mr Ronson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Chair, I want to express my appreciation for Mr Ronson being direct. It enabled me to get through my questions. I also want to communicate to the secretariat that I’ll be on the road, so I won’t be able to ask the Fair Work Commission questions in the hearings, but I will put them on notice. And it’s the same with the coal long service leave.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.
We had hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) would be a significant improvement over the old Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which was overwhelmed with thousands of immigration appeals, often being assessed by Members who were friends of the Labor government.
The new ART was supposed to be made up of Members based on merit, which would be a significant improvement—provided the new appointments are not again filled with Labor mates.
I proposed the creation of a new Refugee and Immigration Review Tribunal to handle only Migration disputes. This would alleviate the heavy caseload that is delaying decisions in the new ART and help expedite the overall review process.
Transcript
Thank you, Deputy President. We hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal would be a significant improvement over its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The old Administrative Appeals Tribunal was a failure. It was top-heavy with Labor lawyers, making it a Labor lawyer fest with appointments made based on a reward system for leftist-aligned lawyers, and there are plenty of them—lawyers doing the bidding of their Labor masters, pushing poor Labor policies, and enshrining woke and harmful leftist ideals.
The Liberals and Nationals stacked appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, favouring lawyers sympathetic to the LNP. So much for justice under the uniparty! This stacking was a recipe for disaster and a significant reason why Labor’s jumbled and catastrophic immigration policy continues to fail Australians and continues to hurt Australians catastrophically. Look at the number of people who are homeless and who are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in their cars and in tents. If a noncitizen’s visa has expired or has been breached, to slow down the deportation process, the decision to deport could be delayed through an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is a fact, and it was done many times, ensuring that there was a high chance that bleeding-heart Lefties would delay or overturn the decision. Few Australians know that there are currently more than 75,000 illegals in Australia right now. More than 75,000 foreigners are living here in Australia on cancelled or expired visas, taking up homes that could be used by those people who are currently homeless. The whereabouts of these illegals is unknown, and the government doesn’t care, with limited resources to locate these illegals for deportation.
It’s welcome that the current membership of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be declared vacant and that vacancies will be filled on a merit based system. My concerns are that the Administrative Review Tribunal membership will still be loaded with Labor government favourites and that the workload will still create long waiting periods before appropriate reconsideration of major decisions. It would be better to remove the review process for immigration decisions from the Administrative Review Tribunal and consider the reintroduction of a refugee or immigration review tribunal, to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal does not become bogged down with migration appeals, as it is currently. Instead of a delay mechanism for illegals to exploit, abuse and avoid at Australians’ expense, we need to deport illegals. We need to deport more than 75,000 lawbreakers and free up housing for Australians—working families who are currently sleeping in their cars, in tents or under bridges. Australian families deserve roofs over their heads and beds for their children.
Under the One Nation plan, anyone that owns residential property yet isn’t an Australian citizen or permanent resident, will be given two years to sell their property back to an Australian. The two-year grace period will ensure there isn’t a flood of properties onto the housing market.
Let’s get Australians into affordable houses while keeping the market sound.
Transcript
Australians are rightly stunned and confused. Why are foreigners, people from other countries, allowed to buy real estate while Australians are made homeless and sleep on the street? China dominates foreign purchases of Australian real estate, snapping up the most of any country in the world. China snaps up houses and farmland across our country, yet Australians are banned from buying a house in China. Add to that Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, the United States and the United Kingdom. The list of countries that grab Australian real estate goes on and on.
Australians are suffering through a housing crisis, a catastrophe. The average mortgage size has never been higher, with expensive repayments crushing household budgets. A house in Brisbane used to cost three times the average income. Now it’s 10 times. This combination of high house prices and high interest rates means the average Australian is paying more of their wage on mortgage repayments than a homeowner would in 1990, when the Reserve Bank of Australia’s cash rate was at 17 per cent. I’ll say that again. As a proportion of income, mortgages are more expensive today than when the RBA had rates at 17 per cent.
The rental market in Australia is broken. Vacancy rates, a good measure of whether it’s even possible for people to find a rental, have been at crisis levels for years. The average rent for a house in Brisbane has gone from $467 a week in 2020 to $740. For a unit in Brisbane, rent has gone up from $381 to $587 in the same period, since 2020. What’s the government’s response to the hurt Australians are feeling trying to get into a house? Labor will keep letting foreigners buy residential real estate.
While the Liberals signal they might do something about it, their proposal doesn’t go far enough. Peter Dutton doesn’t want to stop foreign ownership of real estate. He wants foreigners to be back here buying up the farm in two years. The Liberals’ temporary pause is not good enough. Australia needs a complete ban on foreigners owning houses in this country. The Liberals won’t do anything about the houses that are foreign owned right now—they can keep them. In 2017, ANZ estimated that foreigners owned up to 400,000 Australian homes. That’s enough for a million Australians to live in, and that number of homes can only have increased since then.
One Nation would implement a true ban on foreign ownership. Under our plan, anyone that owns residential property yet isn’t an Australian citizen or permanent resident will be given two years to sell their property back to an Australian. The two-year grace period will ensure there isn’t a flood of properties onto the housing market. Let’s get Australians into affordable houses while keeping the market sound. When the Liberals would be opening back up purchases for foreigners, One Nation would be completing the greatest transfer of houses out of foreign hands and into Australian hands in history. In this debate, we will hear Labor senators get up and claim that foreign ownership is less than one per cent. We’ll hear them claim it’s foreign investment. That’s a lie. It’s ownership. And their numbers aren’t true.
In that 2017 report I mentioned, ANZ said, based on Foreign Investment Review Board data, foreigners had purchased an estimated 25 to 35 per cent of new Queensland homes. Later in 2017, the government introduced a new annual vacancy fee for foreign owners of residential properties. You won’t believe this next coincidence. After the government started charging a fee on foreign owners, the number of foreign owners declaring themselves to the government dropped from between 25 and 35 per cent to one per cent. It was just like magic! When NAB asked real estate agents directly how many foreigners they were selling to, the percentages were in the double digits. That’s more than 10 per cent. We know that. It’s a fact. The New South Wales government has even recorded foreign purchases at more than double what the federal Labor government claims they are. It doesn’t matter what the real number is anyway. One foreign purchase is one too many while Australian families are sleeping on the street.
Foreign ownership is one part of the housing puzzle. One Nation has comprehensive solutions to all of the levers we need to pull to get Australians into affordable houses. These including pausing immigration to reduce demand, abolishing GST on building materials, establishing five per cent fixed rate mortgages, enabling HECS debtors to get a loan and deporting 75,000 illegal residents now.
On foreign purchases and ownership, we are clear. Only One Nation will implement a real, permanent ban on foreign purchases. Only One Nation will force foreign owners to sell their houses to Australians. Only One Nation will extend the ban on foreign ownership to our valuable farmland, to protect our ability to feed Australians first. Only One Nation can be trusted to truly put Australians first.
Ever wonder how we ended up where we are today, both as a nation and in the West? Curious about what the future holds?
In today’s show, we’re diving deep into the last 60 years to make sense of the present and uncover what’s ahead.
We all have stories about the contradictions, the government lies, and the misinformation surrounding COVID—from exaggerated fears to the low severity of the virus, all amplified by propaganda.
To help us navigate this, we’ve got an expert who can explain it all: Dr. David Martin.
With unmatched experience in medicine, healthcare, national governance, finance, research, and industry, Dr. Martin is one of the most qualified voices to shed light on the truth. He’ll be sharing his knowledge and offering a platform for facts over ideologies.
A data-driven expert, David has been uncovering the truth since the anthrax scare. He’s not interested in opinions, just the facts.
Joining me in this discussion is Dr. Philip Altman, an Australian pharmacologist with a deep knowledge of Big Pharma. With 40 years of experience, Dr. Altman has seen it all.
Tune in for a powerful conversation.
The treatment of our veterans has been a national shame for too long.
The government is trying to do something different – trying to simplify and harmonise the many and overlapping rules that govern what veterans are entitled to.
Will their plan or this bill work and achieve that? The only proof will be when it gets up and running.
A worrying development before this bill was passed was a large amendment dropped on the bill late in consideration. It doesn’t give One Nation great hope that the government has done what it needs to fix the treatment of veterans once and for all.
Transcript
One Nation supports measures to simplify veterans’ entitlements. At the moment, it seems to many veterans that they need to be a lawyer just to receive entitlements that should be easily accessible. In this government bill, the Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, it’s difficult to say whether the government’s proposal will meet veterans’ needs for clarity and ease. Until we see the legislation put into action, when the guidance filters its way through to the service agents, as the saying goes: the proof will be in the pudding.
We’re willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to converting three acts, two thousand pages of legislation and more than 800 legislative instruments one act. As other senators have mentioned, it’s not rare for veterans to have claims under all three separate acts. This obviously needs desperate change. Throughout this process, we do not want to see any veterans worse off. One Nation notes with concern submissions that state some changes may have the intention of easier administration not achieving the veterans’ full entitlements. That’s a deep concern. We’ll be supporting the amendments codifying the Senate’s intent that no veteran is left worse off after this bill’s passage.
In relation to the government’s amendment on sheet ED101, we’ve received concerns from the Families of Veterans Guild, as have many other senators, I’m sure. I’ll read them out so that they’re on the record from the impressively confident chief executive officer of the Families of Veterans Guild on this government amendment to its own bill. Why is the government having so many amendments?
The letter is as follows:
After being alerted to the amendment, I’ve read through the detail and have a number of concerns with it which are as follows:
There has been no public announcement or public communication from the Department of Defence or Veterans Affairs about it, and as a result there has been no consultation with the veteran community regarding its content. This amendment proposes a significant structural change to the Defence and Veteran system in Australia. It is arguably a Bill in its own right, and ought to be treated as such. Our view is that it ought to be introduced as an amendment to the Defence Act 1903 and debated accordingly. Instead, it is being added on to the VETS Bill in order to be rushed through the parliament—
Here we go again, Labor rushing. She continues with No. 2:
The intent of the VETS Bill is to harmonise the legislative frameworks that govern the provision of veteran entitlements and supports, it is not to make fundamental structural changes to the veteran system. That is a separate issue—
She says. She goes on to No. 3:
The object outlined in the amendment, “improve suicide prevention”, is extremely broad, unclear, and lacks any insight into tangible work that will be done to achieve the objective. This objective requires significant work to be more specific, focusing on issues we know are challenges in the veteran community like reducing the incidents and rate of suicide among the Defence and Veteran population, and improving the effectiveness of suicide prevention initiatives within this community.
The amendment outlines that the commission only needs to provide two public reports on the status of the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. This isn’t good enough. The reason the concept of the independent body outlined in the amendment received initial support from the veteran community was because for too long recommendations from previous inquiries have been shelved. 700+ recommendations which could have resulted in better health and wellbeing outcomes for veterans and their families were left to collect dust. The amendment ought to compel the commission to report annually to the Parliament, the veteran community, and the Australian public on the status of the Royal Commission’s recommendations until such time as they are implemented and their effectiveness evaluated.
She goes on, under No. 5:
The amendment provides the Minister with the power to direct the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. However, before the Commissioner reports to the Minister (at which point the report is to be tabled) the Minister may vary or withdraw the request. Does this mean the inquiry results are never made public? This point must be clarified.
In No. 6, she says:
The amendment outlines that the commission can inquire into the ‘entire Defence ecosystem’ but doesn’t define what that is. With the amendment providing significant powers to the proposed commission, this must be defined understood and consulted. As it stands, the authority this commission would have could affect more than 5,000 non-profit organisations in Australia who provide support to veterans.
She says, under No. 7:
Veteran families once again are omitted from this amendment, other than a mention that they will be ‘listened to’. The Royal Commission highlighted the important role of veteran families and the significantly implications (including related to mental health) that service and suicide have on them, yet they are excluded from the commission’s remit. Will it require a Royal Commission into the ill health, wellbeing and high suicide rates amongst veteran families before they are taken seriously by their government?
It’s a good question she’s asking. Under ‘our expectations’, she says:
The Families of Veterans Guild supports the establishment of an independent body to oversee the defence and veteran system and the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. However, it fundamentally disagrees with rushing an un-consulted amendment through parliament which could have significant consequences for the system, and the communities within it.
She goes on:
The Guild’s expectations were set by the Minister in his media release on the appointment of the interim Commissioner—
where the minister said:
“Mr Manthorpe will head the organisation and work across government to deliver the establishment of a legislated oversight body by September 2025.
As part of the Albanese Government’s response to the Royal Commission, we have committed $9.5 million of funding, as part of MYEFO, to support its implementation, including:
$5 million over two years to fund the appointment of the Interim Head of the Defence and Veterans’ Service Commission, and to establish a cross-agency taskforce to provide advice to Government”—
that’s the end of the minister’s quote. She goes on:
We expected DVA and Defence to therefore consult with those who could and would be impacted by this amendment. That hasn’t happened.
She said, ‘We are especially shocked by this, considering the unwillingness of the minister and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to support and implement amendments to the vets bill aimed at removing archaic and offensive language, due to concerns it would hold up passage of the bill. Yet an amendment which does bring cost implications and hasn’t been consulted on is deemed acceptable.’ This is the last paragraph: ‘We’d like to see this amendment withdrawn so that it can go through the proper process, including consultation, to ensure it is fit for purpose and reduces the risk of having unintended consequences on and within the defence and veteran community.’ That quote is from the letter from the Families of Veterans Guild, and that’s where it ends.
One Nation is greatly concerned that the government is operating this way and dropping significant changes on the Senate suddenly. We won’t even get time to discuss the bills tonight. We will be voting against this amendment because of those concerns and the lack of consultation.
In the North Queensland floods, three Sydney Harbours a day of fresh water flowed out of the Burdekin River into the sea. The government cancelled the Hells Gates Dam on the Burdekin River only two years ago.
How many more houses are going to flood in the future because of this cancellation? How many families will have to leave their town or go thirsty because not enough dams have been built to get us through the droughts.
One Nation says bugger the UN who says we shouldn’t build dams – droughtproof and floodproof as much of the country as possible, and stop that liquid gold uselessly flowing out to the ocean.
Transcript
One Nation is proposing an inquiry into the cancellation of Hells Gates Dam west of Townsville, which this Labor government cancelled for reasons that are still secret today. Some in the Canberra bubble might not be aware that North Queensland is currently very wet. It’s underwater. Hells Gates Dam was proposed on the Burdekin River north of Charters Towers and west of Townsville. Right now, downriver of the Hells Gates proposal, the Burdekin Falls Dam is at 217 per cent capacity, or three times what it’s designed to hold. Right now, a torrent of water is flowing over its spillway. Right now, just under 1,600,000 megalitres is overflowing out of the dam and straight into the ocean. Do you want to know how much is a megalitre? It’s one million litres. That’s 1,500,000 megalitres of rain and water flowing into the ocean. That’s 1,600 gigalitres. This is a lot of water. Using a common cliche, that’s the equivalent of three Sydney Harbours flowing over the dam wall into the ocean every day. Before all the climate scaremongers start to call this unprecedented and blame it all on cow farts, let’s be clear: this is not unprecedented. It’s happened many times before and has been worse. The dam still hasn’t broken its record set in 1991. The Burdekin is seemingly receding after thankfully failing to hit the peak levels recorded in 2009, 1998, 1991 and in many more years in the hundreds before those records began. This is common.
What’s unprecedented, though, is this government’s incompetence in cancelling the Hells Gates Dam—one of the first things it did. Despite the claim of the former climate chief, Tim Flannery, in 2005 that drought conditions would become permanent in Eastern Australia and that ‘the rain that comes won’t fill our dams because of climate change caused by man’s use of hydrocarbon fuels’. Australia continues to be a country of flooding rains. Inevitably, in the iconic Australian cycle of droughts and floods, another drought will come. That’s why we build dams. At least, any responsible government who takes their duty to Australia seriously would build dams. The Greens have stopped that, and you’re afraid to counter them. There will come a season, and Australians will think with envy about the time when an equivalent of three Sydney Harbours flowed out to sea every day from that river, the Burdekin. Those people will condemn the politicians of today, who have done nothing to try to capture a bit more of that liquid gold called water.
We know flooding rains will come again. We know seasons of drought will come again. Why is this government failing to build dams that would help us get through both droughts and floods and help us protect people? We seem to be forgetting that. In cancelling Hells Gates Dam, how many North Queensland homes and farms has the Albanese government condemned to flooding in the future? Every decade, there are fewer. How much blame does the coalition take for failing to start a single nation-building dam in their 10 years of government before Labor? Under the supercharged immigration policy being inflicted on the country, Australia will need much more water. Then I think of the rich farmlands that are potential irrigation areas that can be used and developed. That’s why water is like liquid gold to our agricultural sector. When the next drought comes, our existing water reserves will be sucked dry far more quickly because no government has built water storage to keep up with the massively increased population. Mark my words: the next drought will be a man made disaster. It will be the fault of more than a decade of politicians who were scared of the woke foreign organisations that told them not to build dams. Many politicians seem more scared of being called unpopular than of their grandchildren dying of thirst.
That’s why we need this inquiry—to get to the bottom of why Labor killed the Hells Gates Dam. The Labor Party has given no compelling justification—none—to the people of North Queensland, Queensland or Australia. It’s the Australian economy that will be affected. All that Labor is saying is: ‘It’s gone. Good luck in the next flood and the next drought.’ What happened in the department? What happened in the minister’s office? What possible reason was there for ditching such an important piece of infrastructure for an area that receives so much rain so often? This is what I hope an inquiry would be able to peek behind the curtain on. We would send a strong message that potentially life-saving infrastructure cannot just be subject to government whim without a proper explanation. Lives are at stake. Livelihoods are at stake. A whole region is at stake. A whole state is at stake.
The people of North Queensland deserve better. The people of Queensland and Australia deserve better. As a servant to the people, One Nation will continue to push for Australia to exit the worldwide organisations that try to dictate that we can’t build life-saving infrastructure, like dams. To protect people from floods, droughts and famines, One Nation will continue to push for work for dams that capture our flooding rains and sustain us through the precedented droughts to come. With our plentiful resources, Australia could be unbeaten on the world stage, but we can only make a start on more productively using our resources for the people’s wealth once our life source, water, is secured for future generations.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hughes): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, on a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on Hells Gate Dam, be agreed to. Since we’re past 6.30 pm, a division will have to be rolled over to tomorrow.
Pages
Malcolm’s Fight
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am
Categories
- April 2022
- Assets
- Budget 20-21
- Climate Change
- COVID
- Digital Identity Bill
- Energy
- Events
- February 2022
- Foreign Ownership
- Hybrid Bradfield
- Industrial Relations
- Infrastructure
- March 2021
- May/June 2021
- Media
- Media Release
- Murray Darling Basin
- National
- October 2021
- October 2023
- Podcasts
- Property Rights
- Queensland
- Senate Estimates
- Senate Inquiry Public Hearings
- Speeches
- Uncategorized
- United Nations
- Water