Senate Estimates provides an opportunity for us to raise concerns from our constituents. One such issue I brought up was the abduction of Australian children to Japan.
I asked the panel if they were aware of the situation and the Secretary, a former ambassador to Japan, responded by explaining that Australia has been actively working with Japan to update its family law system. He mentioned that joint custody would be introduced in Japan by 2026.
Senator Penny Wong confirmed this and elaborated on the steps Australia has taken to address this tragic situation where families are being separated.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/qpFqgLQ1hco/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-21 12:17:002024-11-21 13:29:41Australia Advocates for Joint Custody Reform in Japan
In five years there’s been a 111% increase in parents choosing to home-school their children. Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) says there’s no problem with woke or politically biased content in the curriculum.
Our children are suffering from these authorities who are telling the education system to lose their focus on the basics like literacy and numeracy. It’s a simple problem to fix, but we can’t begin until people acknowledge the problem exists.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Between 2003 and 2015, national averages in mathematics declined 26.7 points. That’s 5.1 per cent. As of today, almost 50 per cent of Australian students in year 10 are failing science literacy tests. Around 30 per cent of students are not making sufficient progress in both literacy and numeracy, falling short of the NAPLAN proficiency benchmark. In the average classroom, eight out of 24 students—that’s one-third—cannot read at the expected grade level, lacking proficiency. Would you agree that improving literacy and numeracy should be the No. 1 priority of the agency?
Mr Gniel: Just to be clear, I think you’re quoting from some PISA reports there, from between 2003 and 2015—just so I know the reference point for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Normally I’m provided with it, but I don’t have it.
Mr Gniel: That’s alright.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re pretty startling figures.
Mr Gniel: Yes, and to 2015, which was a while ago now. There has been some movement. That’s why I’m asking whether those are PISA results. I think we’re all well aware, as I said previously to Senator Henderson, that there continue to be areas of challenge. You’ve mentioned two there. Of course, literacy and numeracy are the foundation for knowledge acquisition across the curriculum, and they are incredibly important, as you say. As to whether they are the only ones, I would say no, particularly in this day and age. They provide the foundational skills. I think it was in the Shergold review that there was an argument that digital literacy was becoming a third foundational component. That is something that we all need to consider—that the foundations are expanding in terms of what we want our children to learn and understand to engage with society at large at the moment. Part of our challenge is how we support those students with the broader range of skills that they will need in the future, whilst ensuring they have the foundational skills that they will need to support all of that for their entire lives. Just to be clear, yes, literacy and numeracy are foundational skills that are of utmost importance.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s pleasing to hear. Are you aware of any political bias in the educational system or the national curriculum?
Mr Gniel: No. Political bias—I think you’d probably need to give me an example.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll give you some examples in the next couple of questions. In 2005 the Australian Education Union president, Pat Byrne, spoke about the union’s success in influencing curriculums in the educational sector. She said: We have succeeded in influencing curriculum development … The conservatives have a lot of work to do to undo the progressive curriculum. Are you denying there has been any influence on curriculum development by political partisans? They seem to be taking credit for it.
Mr Gniel: The ministers across the country approve the Australian curriculum, so I think that probably answers your question. You’d have to talk to them about the factors that go into their mind. ACARA provides advice on the curriculum content through extensive consultation and work with experts about what should be the content.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you do research into what could be happening in the curriculum, in the implementation?
Mr Gniel: Yes. That’s part of our remit.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. I’ll quote from an article in the Australian from September 2023, ‘Universities deliver “woke” degrees to trainee teachers who demand more practical training’. It says: … lecturers have critiqued the “social and political content” of the Australian Curriculum, mandated by the nation’s education ministers—presumably states—for teaching children from primary through to year 10. A lecture slide notes, “we aren’t even doing a very good job”, tallying up 19 references to social justice, Aboriginal rights, invasion, colonisation, the Stolen Generation, assimilation, social justice and racism. It doesn’t sound like we’re focusing solely on literacy and numeracy; it sounds like we’re getting a lot of distractions that people can make up for in their own interest.
Mr Gniel: I think the curriculum has eight key learning areas already. Of course, mathematics and English are in there. Literacy and numeracy are part of the general capabilities, which, as you would understand, are across all of those eight key areas. You need literacy and numeracy skills to engage with science.
Senator ROBERTS: And even for digital?
Mr Gniel: Correct. Digital is one of those general capabilities as well. Part of the challenge is the breadth of the curriculum and what we’re asking our children to learn. The foundation is literacy and numeracy, but that is insufficient. It needs to be much broader than that. We talk a lot about knowledge acquisition. You’ve heard Dr Donovan here today talk about the best way to do that—the research that’s being done on cognitive load theory and how we get students to learn and understand the content we expect of them through the Australian curriculum. You’re right: it isn’t just about English and maths; it’s much broader than that. I don’t think anyone would disagree that we need science and digital, as you’ve been talking about. This committee has also asked me previously about behaviour. We do expect teachers to teach personal and social capabilities as part of the curriculum as well. These are important building blocks to pull all of that together, so when they leave school they can work in and contribute to society, a society that is ever-changing.
Senator ROBERTS: What makes us unique as a species—maybe dolphins have it—is numeracy and certainly language, except maybe dolphins and whales. We have sophisticated language, and it seems like numeracy and literacy are playing second fiddle to many other things that are just being shoved into a woke agenda, as that teacher said. In just five years, between 2018 and 2023, Australia has recorded a 111 per cent increase in homeschool registrations. Do you take any responsibility for setting the curriculum that’s driving that shift? In other words, what I’ve heard, anecdotally, from many people in different states is that children came home during COVID lockdowns and they followed a curriculum. Parents were absolutely shocked and said, ‘You’re not going back to normal school. You’re staying homeschooled.’ I know a lot of people are homeschooling their children because of that. They’re not happy with the curriculum at all.
Mr Gniel: It’s not really something I can comment on. We set the Australian curriculum and then, in terms of the states and territories and the individual school systems, they regulate homeschooling. If there’s evidence out there that you’re talking about—I understand that you’re saying it’s anecdotal evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: The 111 per cent is measured, the increase in homeschooling.
Mr Gniel: Sure, but—
Senator ROBERTS: The driver I’m talking about is anecdotal.
Mr Gniel: That’s right. I’m not aware of any research that’s saying the driver is curriculum. I accept that that’s what you’ve heard.
Senator ROBERTS: It might be the states’ interpretation or implementation of the curriculum. I don’t know.
Mr Gniel: Potentially. Yes, that’s right. I guess that’s why it’s hard for me to comment; I don’t have that information.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any interest from ACARA to go and research that? What do you do research on? Do you research with parents about their satisfaction or otherwise with the curriculum?
Mr Gniel: As part of our work, when we reviewed the curriculum, for instance, there was a public review of that. We took all of that into account when we provided that reviewed curriculum to ministers. So, yes, there’s a forum for the public to contribute to that process.
Senator ROBERTS: A forum but no formal research, apart from a forum that’s one-off when you do a review?
Mr Gniel: They’re an incredibly important stakeholder group, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: Parents? Absolutely.
Mr Gniel: I met with parents associations a couple of weeks ago, and whenever I go to different states and territories I also meet with the local parents associations. That’s across the sectors of government schools, Catholic and independent as well, so I get feedback from them. One of the things I mentioned in my opening statement was the translation of some of that information into other languages. That specifically came from parent groups saying, ‘It’s really important that we have information that’s accessible to all parents, including those where English is a second language.’
https://img.youtube.com/vi/H6AKj2cFgm4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-21 11:18:002024-11-21 13:31:46Schools Go Woke – Parents Go to Home-Schooling
At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired about the recent turmoil at the Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Authority (NAAJA), which has seen six CEOs appointed over a two-year period. One of the CEOs was found by the Federal Court to have been unfairly dismissed and chronic staff shortages have led to the suspension of legal representation, leaving approximately 75 Aboriginal individuals unrepresented in court. I questioned how someone with a history of domestic violence could be appointed Chairman of the Board and still remain a Director of the agency. The answer – this individual was elected by the other Directors.
Currently, a grant controller has been appointed to oversee the funds being given to the NAAJA to ensure they are spent appropriately. The grant controller is part of an external firm, adding another layer of bureaucracy to prevent misuse. Refunds of unspent funds are under review and an audit decision is expected by late November. A new Annual General Meeting (AGM) is scheduled for later this year. I asked why the government opposes full audits. Senator McCarthy denied any misuse of funds, though community members claim that money is not reaching the grassroots level. Performance audits will be provided to me on notice.
When government discounts expire, Australia will be facing their highest electricity bills ever.
This is despite claims that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity.
With the largest amount of wind and solar on the grid, electricity prices have never been higher – go figure. Australia is incredibly rich in resources and should be an electricity super power.
Instead, we have Minister Ayres and the once respected Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) who continue to destroy our country.
Defence generals tell me that, despite a large number of troops being relocated to Townsville during a housing crisis, there’s no problem with finding accommodation for our diggers. This claim comes despite Townsville having a “dangerously low” rental vacancy rate of just 1%.
If you or your family are experiencing difficulties in finding accommodation after being directed to move to Townsville, please email my office as I’d like to hear from you.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: How many extra people have been moved to Townsville? What numbers will Townsville increase by and are there adequate homes in Townsville?
Senator McAllister: I think, as part of your answer, Lieutenant General Stuart, you might respond to the first part of the senator’s question, which was about making diggers homeless. You may wish to include a response to that in your answer.
Lt Gen. Stuart: That’s just not a factually correct statement. We’re not making soldiers homeless. We have a plan that’s been worked through with our team mates in the Security and Estate Group, who are our liaison with Defence Housing, and manage the on-base accommodation. And, of course, we have a very strong relationship with local government in Townsville. It’s a staged plan, over the next three career management cycles, the first of which is—
Senator ROBERTS: What’s a management cycle—how long?
Lt Gen. Stuart: It’s a posting cycle—every 12 months. The moves occur roughly between December, January and February. This coming posting cycle will see the first of those soldiers that have volunteered, or have been asked to, go to Townsville to have those skills that we are building in the brigade there. To go to your point about shortages in some of our numbers, we are well under our authorised strength in Townsville. So the additional numbers don’t actually fall above the authorised strength in the next two years. That is notwithstanding the fact that the rental market in Townsville is quite tight.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s tight all over Australia—almost at record levels because of massive immigration. Immigration has doubled the previous records, so I understand the dilemma. So what you’re saying is that you understand the housing pressures, but you’re managing that?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/81viFiQupe8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-20 14:48:082024-11-20 14:53:17Defence Claims No Housing Issues for Troops in Townsville
Angus Campbell’s DSC (Distinguished Service Cross) is still a live issue and retiring won’t bury it. Now we know Campbell’s replacement, CDF Johnston, was the person who nominated Campbell for his DSC.
Johnston maintains he was just doing what everyone else did at the time. He did not disclose the specific action, with enemy forces in contact, he saw Campbell in that justified a combat award.
Anyone hoping that there would be new type of direction and integrity leading the Defence Force might be worried that this doesn’t signal a change of pace.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:What about leadership and integrity and truth?
Adm. Johnston: That was the third in terms of what I understood when you said ‘culture’: leadership is key to culture.
Senator ROBERTS: We are on the same track. There’s been a long process, revisited over multiple years now, of estimates sessions, questions on notice and freedom of information requests on a particular issue. You’ve been in this room while I questioned your predecessor, Angus Campbell, over his Distinguished Service Cross, which I’m sure you will recall. Admiral Johnston, you were the officer who recommended Angus Campbell for that Distinguished Service Cross, weren’t you?
Adm. Johnston: I was on the nomination for it, yes, that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: According to Defence freedom of information request 522/23, you recommended him for that award on 29 September 2011. At that time, the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross required the recipient to be ‘in action’. Admiral Johnston, can you, once and for all, as a person who recommended Angus Campbell for his DSC, clarify what contact with the enemy you saw General Campbell in, in action, that led to your recommending him for a combat medal?
Adm. Johnston: If I could answer—the nomination was provided to me in my role as the Deputy Chief of Joint Operations at the time. That position has, as one of its responsibilities, to look at the performance of commanders in our deployed forces, of which General Campbell was one at the time. So I progressed the nomination because of the function that I had in Joint Operations Command. I did, as part of that, indicate that the submission of the nomination should be after the period when General Campbell completed his tenure, which was the case. The definition of ‘in action’ that I applied is consistent with that which had been standing for some time, as to commanders—and certainly in General Campbell’s case, I believe, he spent more than 100 days in Afghanistan, as part of his command role, in an area that was classified as a warlike zone.
Senator ROBERTS: ‘A warlike zone’?
Adm. Johnston: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Was he in a war zone?
Adm. Johnston: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: And facing fire?
Adm. Johnston: He was, as part of his duties, rotating through the places where Australian soldiers and others were located, experiencing the same threats as they had in those locations.
Senator ROBERTS: What is your definition of ‘in action’?
Adm. Johnston: The definition I applied is the same as what had been applied by my predecessors and over, I think, eight commanders prior to General Campbell, who had been nominated for a Distinguished Service Cross. It was an individual who is operating in an area where it is a warlike zone and there are threats from hostile forces.
Senator ROBERTS: Did that definition come into place the day after his nomination? I think beforehand it was direct action.
Adm. Johnston: The definition changed before his nomination, but the application of what we understood that to be is consistent before General Campbell’s nomination.
The pornographic publication – Welcome to Sex – which is aimed at children, was shortlisted for the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards. This book is unclassified, meaning it can be accessed by children of any age, and is found in the children’s section of many libraries.
I asked Creative Australia how this could happen. The answer was disturbing and effectively amounts to a confession that their industry experts and selection panel have become so desensitised to sexual content for children that no one thought teaching young children about sexual techniques—topics that most adults would find inappropriate—was a problem. Instead, it was seen as something that should be encouraged, leading to it being shortlisted for the award.
One Nation is committed to implementing measures that will allow children to be children, protecting them from exposure to adult sexual material before they reach their teenage years.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/M4FsoKhu4yw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-18 07:51:392024-11-18 07:51:43Pornographic Book for Kids Shortlisted for Prime Minister’s Literary Award
The Digital Restack is a simple concept. When digital television was introduced in Australia, each station was given six channels but opted to use only five. In fact, they often struggle to provide entertaining content on even those five. The bandwidth from the sixth channel has been sitting unused between stations all this time.
A digital restack would simply move the channels closer together, freeing up a block of bandwidth that could be auctioned off for between $1 billion and $2 billion—funds that taxpayers could benefit from now. More importantly, this revenue could help grow the economy and create jobs.
One Nation believes a small portion of this bandwidth should be dedicated to two Community Television channels, providing community access to broadcasting, defeating the media monopoly on TV programming. Melbourne’s C31 is an excellent example of the quality and audience reach that community television can achieve.
I asked the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) what happened to the restack that was due this year. The answer was extraordinary. According to the Minister, they are conducting “a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs, in looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed.”
In other words, they have no plans to proceed—just a stream of bureaucratic word salad instead.
The eSafety Commissioner has the power to issue takedown notices on various types of material, with exploitation material being the most common. One Nation supports these powers being used for this purpose. A small portion of their work involves removing material that is deemed “violent or distressing.” This was the power used in the case of the Bishop Mari Mari Emmanuel video. One Nation is concerned that these powers could be misused, as they are subject to political interpretation regarding what is and is not “violent or distressing.”
I asked the eSafety Commissioner if her department had a transparency portal where Senators and the public could see the material being taken down. The Commissioner responded by including exploitation material in her count, to show why such a portal was not feasible, yet I did not ask about exploitation material; my question specifically concerned material categorised as “violent or distressing.”
It is my belief that social media platforms primarily use AI to remove most of this material and that the department has only had to issue a small number of notices. I want to know what those notices were issued for and I will continue this inquiry during the next estimates session.
Earlier this year, I asked the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services numerous questions about his oversight of workers that help out at Parliament House. Despite earning $480,000 a year and only needing to attend Estimates three times a year, there was no explanation for the type of leave Stefanic was on that prevented him from fronting up to answer questions.
There are serious questions he needs to answer, and I’ll continue to ask these questions on behalf of former employees of Parliament House.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. What is the nature of your boss’s leave?
Ms Hinchcliffe: In my opening statement I indicated we don’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not? I heard your opening statement.
Ms Hinchcliffe: They go to personal matters for individuals, so we wouldn’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Surely this is affecting the morale, which you want to turn around, of the DPS staff. As Senator Hume pointed out, the taxpayer is paying for it.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure that it’s affecting morale of staff. I walk around the building and talk to our staff, and my sense of staff is that they are very committed to this building and are very committed to the work they do.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree, but many of come up to me and they’re not happy. They’re very dissatisfied with the way the department has been run. What is the nature of his leave?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that we won’t be discussing—
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard that he’s being paid while he’s on leave. How long will he be on paid leave, noting that on Wednesday it will have been four weeks since he informed DPS staff he had gone on leave?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I indicated to an earlier question that I don’t have an end date for his leave.
Senator ROBERTS: Was Mr Stefanic’s decision to take leave on 9 October 2024 related to the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s raid on DPS in Parliament House on 3 October?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve indicated that I’m not speaking any further in relation to the execution of the warrants by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware it was specifically requested that Mr Stefanic be here to answer questions that he has personal knowledge of.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I wrote to the committee chair to indicate that he would not be available and to request that he be excused from this.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re aware that he was specifically requested. I specifically requested him.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m aware now that you specifically requested. As I said, I went through the process, wrote to the chair and asked that he be excused.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has to appear at estimates only three times a year. He knew these hearings were coming up. He was formally requested and has failed to show up. How is this not contempt of the Senate?
Ms Hinchcliffe: As I already indicated in my evidence, I wrote to the chair and asked for him to be excused.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you feel like you’ve been thrown under the bus?
Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I do not.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has repeatedly said that complaints about DPS are purely due to former employees with an axe to grind. Do you share that view?
Ms Hinchcliffe: You may remember my evidence at the last hearing, where I said that I think that feedback is gold. We talked particularly about things like the staff survey and the importance of staff having the availability to provide to management their feedback on how they consider things are going but also where they’d like to see the department go into the future.
Senator ROBERTS: The employees of DPS that I hear from, especially security, are not at all happy. Do you know whether Mr Stefanic was in a relationship with Cate Saunders before or after he appointed her to the deputy secretary position?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge about Mr Stefanic’s relationships, and I’m not willing to answer anything further on that. That’s not a matter for me.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to the case of ACD 13—it almost sounds like a rock group—in the Federal Court involving DPS. There’s a suppression order over that case except for hearings of parliament. I remind you that estimates is a hearing of parliament. I understand that the complainant, ACD 13, has consented to lifting that suppression order but DPS will not consent to lifting the suppression order. Is DPS resisting lifting that order?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have a lot of details on that matter, but as I understand it there’s currently a consultation underway. I can understand that our lawyers have been approached and that we’re going through consultation processes at the moment, so that’s an ongoing matter which I won’t comment on any further.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you find out that the status is and give us an update on notice, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What does DPS have to hide that you want to keep under suppression? What is it?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I have nothing to add in relation to that matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand Mr Robert Brigden instructed solicitors in ACD 13 that Rob Stefanic had ‘no involvement’ in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee. Is that what was instructed?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware of this matter in any detail. It occurred before I came to DPS. I don’t have anything I can add to that, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the statement that Rob Stefanic had no involvement in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee true?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge of this matter to provide you with any further information.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the records of the first interview that took place with Barbara Deegan of Ashurst Lawyers?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware, no. I have no awareness of this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is, in those records of the interview, contrary to the statement that he wasn’t involved, the facts show the contents of the envelope were taken and shown to Mr Stefanic and they were then kept in Mr Stefanic’s safe. Is that true?
Ms Hinchcliffe: As I just said, I don’t have any awareness of this matter. It occurred before I became to DPS.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice to find that out, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I can take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Please take on notice to produce the transcripts of record of first interviews by Barbara Deegan from Ashurst with Andrew Brigden, Rob Stefanic and Cate Saunders. Note that the suppression order from the Federal Court has a specific exemption for this hearing, so it does not apply to this request. Can you take that on notice, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Did Cate Saunders make any intervention to ensure that the statement that Rob Stefanic was not involved in the envelope interception was included?
Ms Hinchcliffe: As I said, I have no knowledge of this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and find out, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take it on notice, but whether I can find anything out is a different matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could check with the people involved that I’ve just named. Can you please confirm exactly when Cate Saunders began her employment?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I can. She was engaged with DPS on 17 December 2017.
Senator ROBERTS: How many branch or division managers have left their position over the last three years?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I would need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That is understandable. Broadly, in relation to the NACC raid on raid on DPS of 3 October 24, have any DPS executives been stood down pending the NACC investigation and, if so, how many?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that I won’t be speaking any further in relation to the NACC matters, but I can say that no senior executives have been stood down.
Senator ROBERTS: How many DPS executives are on paid leave while the investigation is underway?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Again, I’ve said that I’m not going to answer any other questions in relation to the—
Senator ROBERTS: This is in relation to your department, not the NACC.
Ms Hinchcliffe: No, you’re asking questions about people who might be on leave that go to whether or not they’re being investigated. At that point I need to consider whether or not that actually starts to go to a public interest question, so I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and, if you want to claim public indemnity, then it needs to go through the minister.
CHAIR: Public interest immunity.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—I get tangled up. Ms Hinchcliffe, when did you become aware that the NACC was investigating DPS?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I haven’t indicated what the NACC is investigating; I’ve indicated that the NACC has executed search warrants on DPS, and I’ve also indicated that I won’t answer any further questions.
Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of that investigation?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I have indicated that I won’t answer any further questions in relation to the investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of the warrants?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I became aware that the NACC were going to issue warrants on DPS on 2 October.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that your first indication?
Ms Hinchcliffe: That the NACC was going to execute a warrant on 3 October? Yes, it was.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ms Hinchcliffe, during your time working at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, were you part of the team that dealt with the complaint about the handling of a Public Interest Disclosure Act disclosure at DPS?
Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I was not.
Senator ROBERTS: When did you first work with Rob Stefanic?
Ms Hinchcliffe: When he started as secretary at DPS, and I think that was in the second half of 2015. It might have been in December.
Senator ROBERTS: So you were already there, and he came in as your boss?
Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s exactly right.
Senator ROBERTS: What year and date?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I think Mr Stefanic started in 2015. It was towards the end of the year; I started in April 2015.
Senator ROBERTS: So you preceded him by about six or seven months?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I think so.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you consider Rob Stefanic to be a personal friend?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I consider Mr Stefanic to be a colleague. He’s been somebody that I’ve worked with previously, and I’ve come and worked for him as the deputy secretary. I don’t have any outside engagement with him, and I work with him as a colleague.
Senator ROBERTS: So you were there when he arrived? He arrived after you?
Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you work with him before that?
Ms Hinchcliffe: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you please take on notice to provide the total number of sexual harassment claims that DPS has settled over the previous five years and include the average settlement amount, the standard deviation and how many of them have been under non-disclosure agreements?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I’ll take that notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The upper management of DPS obviously has a lot of work to do to earn back the trust of DPS employees. We know that from just walking around the building. People come up to me frequently. I would say to you that that work to restore trust starts with accountability and transparency. Surely, you could start the transparency with how you answer these questions and allow the suppression order to be lifted.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that as a comment, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, will you lift the suppression order? I’d like that on notice.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already taken on notice of where that is up to, and I think that forms part of that question. If it’s not, if it’s a separate question, then I’ll take that on notice too.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. President, Minister—
The President: President.
Senator ROBERTS: President, thank you. Could I have your answer to that question as well please?
The President: What question?
Senator ROBERTS: I would say that trust starts with accountability. Could the suppression order be lifted?
The President: That’s got nothing to do with me, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Nothing at all?
The President: No. It’s a departmental matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, President. Thank you, Chair.
