$400m in Running Costs for Nauru?

,

I asked Home Affairs if $400 million in annual running costs was reasonable. In their opinion it is reasonable, however what exactly are Australians paying for? I couldn’t get an answer out of them about how many people the facility can hold. We know there were two people there until a boat interception took place in September, which means the facility is now playing host to another 11 residents.

This facility is a sinkhole for hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. The department is tight-lipped about details around the cost-effectiveness of this clearing facility. I touched on Senator Lambie’s question about a potential threat to our security which came from a whistleblower. The Minister responded and a statement was provided to allay any concerns around the vetting of asylum seekers in the current geopolitical climate.

How much does Nauru cost per person? I don’t think we’d like the answer. It isn’t reasonable at all to expect Australians to foot the bill for this facility without a breakdown of the costs versus the benefits. We need better decisions around asylum seekers and better outcomes at a time when too many Australians are struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.

$400 million for a handful of asylum seekers doesn’t make sense, so who is profiting out of this?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions have to do with the costs and, since hearing some things in the last two hours, the cost-effectiveness of maintaining Nauru. We’ve learned that there were two people in detention on
Nauru until September and now there are 13; correct?

Ms Foster: There are two people on island. We didn’t say they were in detention. There are now 11 people who are being held in the regional processing facility. I just make that distinction—that there are 11 people being detained in that facility and there are two others on island.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that clarification. The two people are free to roam, are they?

Ms Foster: I’ll ask Mr Thomas to help me here.

Mr Thomas: There are different circumstances for the individuals. I’m just trying to think of the best way to explain this, noting the privacy reasons for the individuals.

Ms Foster: We are hesitating only because it’s a small number of individuals and speaking about their particular circumstances could well identify people and be an invasion of privacy. They are in different stages of
arrangements with the Nauruan government. That meant that they were unable to leave Nauru earlier this year.

Senator ROBERTS: So they are not in detention but are living in Nauru?

Mr Thomas: They are not in the regional processing centre. So they are not part of the regional processing detention arrangements in terms of their location.

Senator ROBERTS: How much is it costing taxpayers per year to maintain Nauru as an offshore processing facility for asylum seekers?

Ms Cargill: In relation to regional processing, the portfolio budget statement for 2023-24 lays out the project budget for IMA offshore management. For 2023-24 the budget is $400 million.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the capacity in terms of the number of people it can hold?

Mr Thomas: It varies depending on the make-up of any individuals in that. There are a number of facilities in Nauru associated with regional processing.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total capacity?

Mr Thomas: It will depend on the make-up of any grouping—for example, family groupings, different genders and different ages. There might be requirements to house people differently. It just depends on the make-
up. It’s variable. Different sites will come online at different times to accommodate different numbers of individuals depending on the make-up of them.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand it’s complex, but what would be a rough estimate of, in practice, what you could hold at Nauru?

Mr Thomas: I’m sorry. I hesitate to give you an estimate of the number just because it goes to operational capability.

Senator ROBERTS: How many single males could be held there?

Mr Thomas: For the same reason, putting that number out in public would potentially breach operational sensitivity.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go, then, to the arrivals. I think a few of us were caught by surprise that there had been arrivals. How many new arrivals have arrived at Nauru since May 2022?

Mr Thomas: Just the recent 11.

Senator ROBERTS: That it? Okay. That’s September. Can you give us the breakdown by gender and age?

Mr Thomas: As noted to the previous senator, I am hesitant to provide that level of detail. I will take it on notice and come back to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Also, I’d like to know their source in terms of where they boarded the boat and their country of origin.

Mr Thomas: Same as previously, I would ask any operational questions be directed to the ABF at the next outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: On your figure of $400 million per year as a cost, is that reasonable to maintain an offshore facility?

Mr Thomas: The short answer is yes in terms of the requirements to maintain the facilities and services, noting that the enduring capability requires a certain baseline level of capability to keep it at a ready state.

Senator ROBERTS: The key, Minister, is to ensure Australia selects who enters and that we allow no security risk; correct?

Senator Watt: I said before that I’m confident that the security issues surrounding individuals are taken into account by ministers.

Senator ROBERTS: The key is to ensure that Australia selects who enters our country?

Senator Watt: Yes, that is obviously the Australian government’s position.

Senator ROBERTS: And a big part of that is to make sure there are no security risks coming in?

Senator Watt: Yes. There are always, whatever type of entrant to Australia we are talking about, basic health and security checks that are undertaken.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely the best way to reassure the people as to whether or not Hamas sympathisers are coming in is to produce the facts? That’s all Senator Lambie was asking for.

Senator Watt: Yes, there are, and surely the best way to not inflame the community is to have some evidence for making those sorts of claims, like those you’re making now, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Unfortunately, with this misinformation-disinformation bill and so on being bandied around by the Labor government—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you know that’s not—

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Lambie said quite clearly to you that she got inside information. She’s not going to give you the names.

Senator Watt: I know, and we are getting this matter checked. But, Senator Roberts, I would encourage you and all senators be really, really sure of what you’re saying if you’re going to suggest that terrorist sympathisers are entering Australia. That is a very big call to make, and—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s an inflation of what I said.

Senator Watt: at a time when the community is really worried, understandably, around the Middle East conflict—and we’re seeing a lot of tension within the community—it doesn’t help to suggest, without providing
evidence to back it up, that terrorist sympathisers are entering the country.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I did not suggest anything. I was supporting Senator Lambie’s call. Senator Watt, what you’re saying means that you need to be very, very clear and very, very prompt.

Senator Watt: We’ve got a bit of an update on this matter, and it might be helpful for Ms Foster—

Senator ROBERTS: Did you hear what I just said?

Senator Watt: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: You need to be clear and prompt in your answers—

Senator Watt: We are—

Senator ROBERTS: and not make sensational claims.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the minister is attempting to answer your question while you’re interrupting him doing so. If we could get that update, that would be helpful, I think.

Senator Watt: Ms Foster has an update, yes.

Ms Foster: Senator, we undertook to get back as quickly as possible in response to Senator Lambie’s question. I can provide an assurance that no-one with security or terror links has been brought to Australia for a temporary purpose. I understand Senator Lambie may have been informed that there were some, amongst the cohort, who had character concerns; that’s a much broader definition. The ministerial intervention process allows consideration for management in Australia for individuals with character issues, including keeping them in held detention. Some of these, of course, may have been resettled in third countries.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Foster. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. I’m glad we got that answer in the end.

/5 Comments/by

AHPRA Muzzled GPs for Questioning COVID Jabs

,

Many doctors have been targeted or notified by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) simply for questioning the COVID injections.

These injections have since been found to be unsafe, not effective, and testing was inadequate. Doctors were targeted by AHPRA simply for fulfilling their professional duty by proactively warning of risks and providing information in reaction to questions from their patients. In providing patients with the advice and information required to give informed consent, health practitioners were providing a standard of care that is universally accepted as competent. Is political interference acceptable?

When questioning AHPRA recently, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) jumped in and said they do not accept any of my three statements. The government still maintains, in the face of overwhelming international evidence, that the vaccines are safe, effective and that they work. During Senate Estimate in February, I asked Professor Skerritt for details about the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) testing of the COVID injections in Australia. He responded that they did no testing here. He said the TGA relied on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In turn, the FDA have stated they did no testing. Why? Because they relied on Pfizer’s in-house tests, yet Pfizer’s trials were shut down because of the poor results.

There have been strong criticisms of their methods and falsified results. The post marketing release of papers exposes both the flaws and the risks of these mRNA injections. If health practitioners are choosing to practice their duty of care as professionals in providing the advice that allows their patients to make an informed choice around the medicines they take, then this should be celebrated. Any health authority or regulatory body that vilifies or punishes this standard of care is acting only on behalf of pharmaceutical interests and not in the best interests of patients or the healthcare profession.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. Ahpra has made many unjustifiable decisions against doctors and other allied health professionals. Many doctors have told us this. What proportion of Ahpra members are practising doctors? Why is there such a lack of medical input into Ahpra’s investigations of doctors?

Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Senator. There are about 130,000 registered medical practitioners in Australia. I can give you the exact number on notice. It is roughly that figure. The regulation of medical practitioners in Australia is overseen by the Medical Board of Australia. That board has two-thirds medical practitioner members and one-third community members and is chaired by a medical practitioner.

Senator ROBERTS: Many doctors in Australia were suspended for commenting on COVID vaccinations. Many of the concerns expressed have now been shown to be evidence-based. Can you please explain Ahpra’s actions which deprived Australia of valuable medical manpower at a key juncture when doctors were sorely needed?

Mr Fletcher: I think we have previously advised the committee that there were, in fact, 31 practitioners suspended associated with concerns in relation to COVID-19 and the pandemic. There has been no further use of our IA, or immediate action, powers or suspensions since we last met with the committee. There are 15 practitioners who are currently suspended. In nine of those cases, there is an investigation ongoing. In six of those cases, a referral has been made to the tribunal. We make a referral to the tribunal—it is the independent tribunal in each state and territory—where there is a concern about possible professional misconduct. Those tribunal matters are either at a hearing stage or awaiting an outcome. That’s the current status of practitioners who have been suspended. Of the ones who are no longer suspended, there have been two where we’ve completed tribunal proceedings and the tribunal has taken action. In other words, it has upheld the view that there was a finding that required action on the part of the tribunal. Six of those practitioners have either surrendered their registration or moved to a form of non-practising registration. We’ve closed those matters on the basis that there wasn’t a public interest in continuing to pursue those matters. One has surrendered, awaiting a tribunal outcome. Five have had their suspension lifted. Another restriction was imposed by a board. That might be a condition on their registration or an undertaking that they’ve agreed to accept in relation to certain requirements on their registration around additional education, training or supervision.

Senator ROBERTS: Are we able to get the details of those cases on notice?

Mr Fletcher: I can certainly provide that data to you, yes. We need to be careful not to identify individuals. We can certainly give you some of the general themes in relation to the actions we’ve taken.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. I know a number of doctors who have said, ‘To hell with it’, and they’ve left medicine. They are very good doctors. That is because of the way Ahpra has chased them. Ahpra has been reported as having targeted 20 of the 60 addiction medicine physicians in Victoria. It also targeted a leading addiction medicine physician in Queensland. The Queensland doctor’s and the Victorian doctor’s stories were covered in the press. In both cases, they were reinstated. Why was that? Please explain this vendetta against addiction physicians across the country. How can Ahpra suddenly forget their case against community minded doctors who are supported by the media?

Mr Fletcher: Senator, I can’t agree with the opening statement in your question. We don’t target medical practitioners. We don’t target any registered health practitioner. We respond to—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. A lot of doctors think you do. A lot of doctors.

Mr Fletcher: Well, they are wrong to think that. We don’t target practitioners. What we do is respond to concerns that are raised with us, often by members of the public, sometimes by employers and sometimes by other practitioners. We assess each of those in the context of the concern that has been raised and the context of that person’s practice. If there is a concern that we have about a potential future risk for patient safety, that’s when a board would take regulatory action. So we don’t target practitioners. We certainly don’t have a campaign against particular areas of medical or clinical practice.

Senator ROBERTS: So how is it that some doctors have been targeted by Ahpra or notified by Ahpra simply for questioning the COVID injections, which have since been found to be unsafe and not effective and were never tested? Why is it that those doctors have been questioned by Ahpra simply for giving informed information and asking patients to give informed consent?

Prof. Kelly: Before Mr Fletcher answers, we don’t accept—

Senator Gallagher: We don’t accept that proposition.

Prof. Kelly: any of those or all of those three statements. The vaccines are safe.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, let’s have a look at the one they tested.

Prof. Kelly: They are effective—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to let the officials answer.

Prof. Kelly: and they do work.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s have a look at the one they’re testing. I asked Professor Skerritt, and he said, ‘No, they did no testing here.’ That was in February Senate estimates. He said they relied on the FDA. The FDA said they did no testing. They relied on Pfizer. Pfizer shut down its trials because of the poor results. They’ve been heavily criticised. Where is your testing of the COVID injections?

Prof. Kelly: There was a full regulatory assessment, Senator. Our colleagues from the TGA, when you get to ask them, will assure us of that. They were safe, they were tested and they were effective.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come back to that.

/16 Comments/by

Reserve Bank Uses “Blunt Tool” on Inflation

,

The new Governor of the Reserve Bank is not ruling out raising the cash rate again to further control inflation. She refers to these measures as part of a tightening phase.

The Reserve Bank is unwinding the massive expansionary monetary policy it took during the COVID response which created $500 billion out of thin air. Meanwhile the States and the Federal ALP are spending money like it is play money.

This spending acts against the Reserve Bank’s rate rises. This is why I say this Government is hitting the brake and the accelerator at the same time.

The high rate of immigration is expanding the economy and that also acts against the dampening effect of rate rises. The pain and stress of mortgage rate hikes can be attributed to the costly COVID response and to immigration. That is all on Prime Minister Albanese and Treasurer Chalmers.

One Nation will reduce immigration to reduce rents and take the heat of the property market, removing the need for further rate rises.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Congratulations on your appointment.

Ms Bullock: Thank you, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How does it feel being in a highly complex job which is affecting so many people’s lives and livelihoods?

Ms Bullock: I do feel a great deal of responsibility, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Inflation has gone from 7.8 per cent, peak, to 5.4 per cent. In your speech yesterday you went on record to say the Reserve Bank will not hesitate to raise rates again if it looks like inflation is not coming under control. Is inflation coming under control? I’m guessing from your comments so far that you’re wary and there are signs that it’s not.

Ms Bullock: I’d say what I said earlier, which is that we got an important piece of information yesterday. We need to take that away, analyse it and figure out what it means for our forecast going forward. That’s no different to the comment we’ve been making to date, which is that we are—’wary’ is a good word. We’re looking at some of the more persistent parts of inflation and asking ourselves: are there signs that those might be coming down in the future? So, yes, we are wary. We don’t know if the job is done yet, and we’ve made that very clear. Even though we haven’t raised interest rates since our last interest rate rise in June, we’ve made it very clear that we might need to go again. We had not ruled that out, and we’re in the same position now.

Senator ROBERTS: When debating the need for a rate rise, is the effect on mortgage affordability, especially mortgage stress, taken into account? If so, what measure do you use, and what is that measure telling you about how hard life is getting for mortgagees?

Ms Bullock: We do understand that there is a distribution—let me step back for one moment. Higher interest rates and monetary policy work through a number of channels. The one that gets the most attention is what we call the cash flow channel, which is the impact on people who have debt. That gets a lot of attention, particularly in Australia, because, as Chris already mentioned, most of the debt of households and businesses is variable rate debt or very short fixed-rate debt. That’s why that channel gets the most attention, but there are other channels. In fact, Chris gave a speech on that fairly recently. One is the intertemporal channel, which basically means: as interest rates go up, people are incentivised to save rather than to spend, and in fact we are observing that. We are still seeing people in aggregate save, and there’s an incentive even for mortgage holders to save. Their interest rates have gone up, so, for them, there’s an incentive now to try and put even more away into their offset and redraw accounts if they can. That’s the other way that it works. Another channel is the exchange rate channel. The way that works is: as interest rates rise, the exchange rate—if everyone else wasn’t raising their interest rates the exchange rate would rise, but at the moment it means that it hasn’t fallen very much. It has been reasonably stable over the last year. We’re not getting inflation through that particular channel. There are other channels as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you measure the stress?

Ms Bullock: No. We can’t very precisely say: particular channels contribute X to inflation. We can’t do it that way. But they’re all the channels that we’re watching and trying to understand how they might impact.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess whether or not people are under mortgage stress? Ms Bullock: We don’t do individual mortgage stress assessments. What we can observe is data we get from the banks on hardship calls that they’ve got, arrears rates and those sorts of things. We can observe those at aggregate level. The feedback we’re getting at the moment, from the banks and from the data we see, is that that has risen but it’s still at very low levels.

CHAIR: Last question.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely the inflation that’s still hitting Australians has something to do with the Reserve Bank creating $500 billion out of thin air—or, as Dr Debelle said, electronic journal entries—over COVID. Have you thought about that? Your predecessor admitted it was a cause of the inflation problem, creating that $500 billion out of thin air.

Ms Bullock: Basically, you’re referring to the massive expansionary monetary policy that we undertook during the pandemic?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Ms Bullock: I think my response would be that, at the time, we were facing a very, very dire economic situation, and the appropriate response at the time was to run a very expansionary monetary policy. We have now unwound that and we’re in a tightening phase, so, yes, the purpose of the expansionary monetary policy was in fact to encourage demand and encourage growth. That was very much the intention. To the extent that we look back and now say, ‘Well, demand is too strong,’ we are now in a tightening phase to wind that back. But I wouldn’t say it was the sole reason for the increase in inflation. You might remember that there were very big supply chain issues as well, and when constrained supply meets high demand, you get inflation.

Senator ROBERTS: Building on that, you have a very blunt tool to attack inflation, don’t you? Because the cash rate for the entire country is a very blunt tool to try to bring down inflation.

Ms Bullock: Yes, it’s a blunt tool.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/4 Comments/by

What’s the Purpose of the NIAA? 

,

I asked the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) about their audits in relation to fraud and found out how their work on a report of recommendations was progressing. A broader chat followed about releasing aboriginal communities from the aboriginal industry comprising white and black activists, consultants, lawyers, bureaucrats, academics and politicians.

What the main remote communities need is autonomy. Allocating funds directly to aboriginal communities will cut out the middlemen and women. Jobs, health and housing.

I listened to Miss Broun talk about the role of the NIAA. Briefly, the NIAA’s purpose is to lead Commonwealth activities, inform whole of government priorities, coordinate indigenous portfolio agencies, enable policies, programmes and services and advance a whole of government approach to improving lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. What was the purpose of the ‘Voice to Parliament’ when the NIAA has such a broad role and funding?

The administration of the aboriginal industry does need to look hard at whether all these strategies, consultants, reports, and micromanagement are getting in the way of progress.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here today. I’ve got two sets of questions. There are some short ones to get out of the way, and then I’d like to have a discussion through some questions about behaviour change. I’ll get to the mundane questions, although they’re still important. What money was spent by your agency or given to others on promoting the ‘yes’ case for the recent referendum?

Ms Guivarra: None.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I like concise answers. What money has been spent by this agency in relation to any proposed treaty?

Ms Guivarra: We were allocated funding for work associated with the makarrata commission. You will see from the budget papers that that was in the order of $5.8 million, from recollection. I’ll get Dr Gordon to confirm that, and he can give you a breakdown of how much of that has been spent. But, specifically on treaty, again, none has been spent. Our role, essentially, has been to seek information on the processes that states and territories are currently involved in. But I’ll get Dr Gordon to give you a more comprehensive response.

Dr Gordon: That’s correct, yes. No funding has gone towards a makarrata commission. Where the funding has gone in the agency, from that $5.8 million, is towards work on understanding treaty and truth-telling processes underway in states and territories and internationally. As of 30 September 2023, we’ve expended $607,000.66 on that.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s involved in spending that money to gain understanding of what the states and overseas people are doing?

Dr Gordon: It involves some desktop research but also bilateral meetings with states and territories, or multilateral meetings. There have been a considerable number of bilateral meetings over the last year; I think it’s around 25 between the agency and our colleagues in the state and territory agencies, as well as a few kind of broader ones.

Senator ROBERTS: Face to face?

Dr Gordon: It’s virtual, primarily.

Senator ROBERTS: But it’s real humans with real humans? Okay. So you’ve spent six hundred and something thousand dollars out of $5.8 million allocated. What are the prospects for the $5.2 million left? What are the plans, rather?

Dr Gordon: As Minister Burney has stated a number of times, including on 2 August, the government will be considering next steps following the referendum, and that’s a process that’ll happen from this point on. What happens now in relation to that is a matter for government, and that will be informed by engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and also our ongoing work with the state and territory governments.

Senator ROBERTS: That goes to my next question. Minister Burney previously said, prior to the failed referendum, that $1 million had already been spent on the treaty. What is the full figure spent so far on all aspects of that—in the past as well? You’ve just told me zero currently. What is the full figure spent so far, and how much of it is proposed to continue to be spent, given that Prime Minister Albanese has backed away from the commitment to pursuing makarrata and truth-telling?

Dr Gordon: I’m not aware of that particular statement by the minister, but the figure that I just gave you is the amount that’s been spent on work looking at the treaty and truth-telling arrangements. And that process going forward for the remainder is what I just outlined as well.

Senator ROBERTS: A recent ANAO audit found inadequate safeguards and procedures in relation to identifying and dealing with financial risks, including fraud. What plans are being made in response to these
deficiencies?

Mr Worth: The report outlined seven recommendations for improvement in relation to our broader risk and fraud compliance risk management. We have developed, in response to that, an implementation program, making a number of changes to address all the recommendations. We have accepted all of the recommendations. We have completed a number of actions through that, and we’re on track to have closed out all of those recommendations by the end of this financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you list the recommendations, please—what areas? I want to get a feel for it. The reason for that is that the ANAO recently told me they can’t investigate corruption, which includes fraud. So I wanted to find out who can and does.

Mr Worth: The first recommendation was that the NIAA fully implement its risk management policy and framework, including by conducting assessments of enterprise risk, undertaking risk assessments when developing business plans and policies, and undertaking specific activities. The second recommendation was the NIAA conduct fraud risk assessments regularly and develop and implement a fraud control plan. The third recommendation was that the NIAA ensure that advisory committee actions are in line with their terms of reference and that the annual report of ARC, the audit risk committee, to the accountable authority clearly highlights any deficiencies in the risk management and control framework that have been identified. The fourth recommendation is that the NIAA fully implement program and subprogram fraud risk assessments, organisational risk profiles and activity risk assessments, and monitor and fraud risk assessments. The fifth recommendation was that the NIAA implement proactive mechanisms for the detection of provider fraud and noncompliance. The six recommendation was that the NIAA ensure that it maintains a record of referrals, the basis of referral assessment and decision-making against transparent criteria, and makes decisions on whether to proceed with fraud investigations in line with the organisational risk appetite. The final recommendation was that the NIAA monitor and report on resources, time frames and outcomes of compliance reviews and fraud investigations.

Those recommendations were made off the back of the assessments made by the NIAA regarding the effectiveness of the control systems and processes that were in place. So it’s not that things weren’t in place; we did have processes, frameworks and so on. But the conclusion, through the audit processes, was that they were partly effective and not as complete as they needed to be—hence those recommendations. I think it’s worth noting that the audit report itself was issued in May 2023, but a program of improvement had already been well underway and indeed was already underway when the audit team arrived and were doing their work. Work has been progressing, as I said, and is due for completion, to address all of those recommendations, by the end of this financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Who can and does investigate corruption? ANAO told me they don’t.

Senator Gallagher: The National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it does now.

Senator Gallagher: Well, it does.

Senator ROBERTS: No, no—I’m agreeing with you, but is there any federal government agency that has a purview on that? And I notice that NIAA did a lot of this off its own bat. I’m not trying to single NIAA out.

Mr Worth: As with many granting agencies within the Commonwealth, NIAA has processes in place to proactively identify issues of noncompliance, fraud and corruption as well as a responsive mechanism whereby complaints or reports that are received by us are taken on board and investigated. As part of that process, we make an assessment of the accusation or concern and then respond accordingly. In some circumstances, from 1 July, it might be referred to the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In other circumstances, depending on the nature of it, it might be referred internally for further fraud investigation and then, depending on how that investigation goes, it could be referred to the authorities for prosecution, or it could be subject to an ongoing Australian Federal Police investigation, for example, or state police forces. For matters of noncompliance it could be referred internally.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Broun, could you tell me the main purpose of the National Indigenous Australians Agency please. What’s the main role? What do you hope to achieve?

Ms Broun: It’s in the annual report. It’s in our executive order, obviously, and that’s on page 9 of the annual report, if you’ve got it there. I’ll read from the annual report:

  • To lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery …
  • To provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister …
  • To lead and coordinate … Closing the Gap … in partnership with Indigenous Australians;
  • To lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation;
  • To build and maintain effective partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), state and territory governments and other relevant stakeholders to inform whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), and enable policies, programs and services to be tailored to the unique needs of communities;
  • To design, consult on and coordinate the delivery of community development employment projects;
  • To analyse and monitor the effectiveness of programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), including programs and services delivered by bodies other than the NIAA;
  • To coordinate Indigenous portfolio agencies and advance a whole-of-government approach to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s); and
  • To undertake other tasks the Prime Minister and the Minister require from time to time.

That’s the executive order.

Senator ROBERTS: The next question, Minister, is directed to Ms Broun, but it’s an opinion, in some ways, so maybe you’ll have to answer it. What are the main ways of addressing community needs, and what are the main community needs that you see in remote communities? I’ve been to every Cape York community and some of the Torres Strait Islands, and I’ve been to a couple of the Northern Territory ones. It reminds me of when I was a mine manager. Before becoming a mine manager, I worked on the coalface as a miner. When I became a mine manager, I was sent to various mines to turn them around. I’d walk in—and I was told by the previous mine manager, ‘They’re lazy; they’re incompetent,’ et cetera. I gave them accountability and autonomy and they were wonderful people—the same lazy miners! What I see in Cape York communities is people hungry for autonomy, and ready for it, but they seem to be squashed by what I’ll call—and I’m not referring to you—the Aboriginal industry, which is white and black activists, consultants, lawyers, bureaucrats, academics and politicians. The real people are just missing out. That’s why it’s such a—

CHAIR: That’s what everyone says about us, too!

Senator ROBERTS: I think they’re right; I agree with you! Is there any thought to allocating the money directly to communities and getting rid of the Aboriginal industry that’s feeding off—

Ms Broun: Thanks for that question—which is very broad ranging.

Senator ROBERTS: It is. I just want to start the discussion.

Ms Broun: The closing the gap national agreement identifies a whole range of areas we need to do better on. The Productivity Commission draft review identifies that we need to accelerate that effort as well—so it identifies some of the gaps. The minister has also consistently looked at those priorities around jobs, housing, health and education. Jobs is a really critical element of this, and it goes to your statement as well. In terms of funding communities directly, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy has a range of ways that that happens currently—so different programs go to different providers. One of the ones I mentioned in my earlier statement was the Indigenous rangers programs, and the funding that that provides to community organisations directly. It’s about jobs and about connection to country and culture as well. It has lots of elements to it and it currently employs about 1,900 people, with a plan to double that by 2030. That goes to your point around jobs as well. If there is more to that that you’d like answers to, I can get the right people up in terms of housing and jobs.

Senator ROBERTS: I was told by a very bright young councillor at Badu Island—I asked, ‘How’s closing the gap going?’ He said: ‘Mate, it’s not going. Whatever happens to the Closing the Gap campaign, there will be a gap because people are feeding off the money. It’s not the community’s.’ That’s what he said, bluntly. In America they have charter schools—I’m just trying to make a parallel and see what you can come up with. Charter schools are where the money goes from the government directly to the community for their school. They have found that, instead of going from the government to the bureaucracy, the locals have responsibility and the charter school flourishes because the principal and the parents take responsibility. I’m wondering if there is a parallel that can happen with the Aboriginal communities. These are wonderful people, very bright and ready to go; they’re just held back by bureaucracy and the Aboriginal industry. Is there any thought to giving the people the opportunity to develop their own future? That’s a sure way to get accountability.

Mr Brahim: Throughout Australia, there are quite unique and complex circumstances.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not easy.

Mr Brahim: In relation to the schools—and I know Education was here yesterday—across Australia there are—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I meant community things in general—giving more autonomy to the community, not just schools.

Mr Brahim: Using the charter schools as an example: the education department funds Aboriginal independent schools—so that goes straight to the schools. We fund a lot of community as well not necessarily through a provider, so the communities themselves—

Senator ROBERTS: When you say ‘we fund’—

Mr Brahim: The NIAA funds. There are different funding streams that go through different pathways. One pathway is through to the community organisations—so it’s not always through to a provider as such. Some communities are incorporated and will receive the funding directly from us.

Senator ROBERTS: I will finish up with this: I can remember, sometime around 2012-13, I was driving into Canberra listening to the radio, and they had allocated almost $1 billion back then—when a billion was a billion—and built 15 houses in 18 months. The people from the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal communities, were saying, ‘Give the money to us and let us build them.’ I think that was a fine idea, but instead the bureaucrats controlled it and got consultants, workers and contractors in from southern parts of Australia when the Aboriginals were hungry for jobs. It just didn’t make sense, and the outcome wasn’t there.

/6 Comments/by

Impartiality Under Question at Human Rights Commission

,

I raised some concerns — matters that I was asking about for the first time — with the Human Rights Commission on the topic of the Voice referendum. Commissioner Finlay of the Human Rights Commission made several statements criticising the Voice and raising potential human rights implications. You’ll see in this video that Professor Croucher is unwilling to revisit any line of questioning she has answered to other senators in previous estimates.

Despite Commissioner Finlay’s concerns being shared by the majority of Australians, who voted down the referendum, the Commission published a statement on 30th of March that rejected Commissioner Finlay’s human rights concerns. I’ve requested on notice all internal email correspondence in relation to drafting that statement and Commissioner Finlay’s remarks.

The Australian public expects true impartiality and independence of the Human Rights Commission. We haven’t seen this on COVID and now the Voice except for Commissioner Finlay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. As the chair said, my questions are fairly short and straight to the point. What is the latest guidance from the commission on COVID vaccine mandates? Where was that published?

Ms Finlay: I would refer you to the answer we gave you in relation to this at the previous estimates. The advice remains the same in terms of the general human rights principles that we rely on in our approach to both vaccine mandates and all other restrictions that were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator ROBERTS: I must compliment you here and express my appreciation and admiration for your stand on being so clear on the Voice and on misinformation and disinformation. I also want to thank everyone for being here tonight so I could do that. Are you aware of the evidence from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care, Professor Brendan Murphy, at the previous estimates in regard to COVID mandates?

Ms Finlay: In a general sense.

Senator ROBERTS: On 1 June, Professor Brendan Murphy said: At this stage in the pandemic there is little justification for vaccine mandates. That is the most senior health bureaucrat in the country who said that. There doesn’t seem to be any updated guidance from the commission on vaccine mandates despite the fact they are still in effect at employers and are clearly a breach of human rights that’s not proportionate to any supposed benefit. Why haven’t you come out clearly on this issue?

Ms Finlay: I would answer that in two respects. The first is that the guidance in terms of the general human rights principles remains the same. We are not medical experts. I think we discussed that at the previous estimates. Our advice is based on those general human rights principles where in emergency situations governments can restrict human rights but those restrictions need to be proportionate, nondiscriminatory and targeted to risk. So the advice remains the same because of the general principles of international human rights law that we rely on in informing our views about these things and those don’t change.

Senator ROBERTS: So you as a commission essentially follow blindly? The Chief Medical Officer advised me in March 2021 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate, not severe. So it was not a crisis.

Ms Finlay: No, our advice doesn’t follow blindly. Again, I would refer back to the evidence we gave previously and note that, for example, the most recent TGA advice in relation to their vaccination safety report repeated the same advice that we discussed at the previous estimates in terms of the benefits of the vaccination outweighing the risks. It’s on the basis of that that the general principles of human rights law then apply.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate that you probably haven’t got any latitude to investigate, but the TGA told me at Senate estimates in February, I think, that they did not test the injections. They relied on the FDA in America, which did not test injections. It relied on Pfizer, which shut down the trial because of the horrendous results.

Ms Finlay: I can’t provide any information on that—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t expecting that. I’m just—

Ms Finlay: but I would refer to the second aspect of the answer that I was meaning to get to, which is that we welcome the opportunity for these issues to be explored at the COVID-19 inquiry that’s been announced. Certainly we have made public comments in relation to that inquiry about the need to not only look at the economic and scientific impacts of advice that was given throughout the pandemic but at the human cost of the pandemic as well.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s refreshing to hear. Thank you.

/by

Australia Post Flies in the Face of a Cashless Agenda

,

Australia Post’s Bank@Post is expected to fill the hole left by banks closing branches in many rural and regional towns around Australia. I asked Group CEO and Managing Director, Paul Graham, for his views about how that’s going so far. His forthright response confirmed what bank closures mean in the communities where Australia Post is left to try and pick up the pieces. It is not the automatic solution the banks have suggested during the bank closures inquiry, which I knew from constituent feedback through my office.

Customers, explained Paul Graham, are looking for a broader scope of services than they are equipped to deliver. Small businesses particularly feel that they’re not able to access what they used to through their banking branches. Provision of cash has become an issue. Whilst there are those who say cash is going to die, Mr Graham certainly doesn’t see that in many demographics and areas of Australia.

With support from banks, Australia Post could extend the range of banking services. Whether for small businesses, the provision of cash, or even managing large numbers of gold coins following fundraisers, Australia Post rightly sees its over-the-counter Bank@Post services as essential.

More regional and remote towns are being left without a bank. Coober Pedy is a good example of a cash town given the nature of its work. Australia Post is now flying cash into that town on a weekly basis because the banks have all left.

There is obviously a vacuum left by the bank closures and post offices are well positioned to fill it with the right support.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. My questions are fairly short. At the Senate inquiry into regional bank branch closures, I asked Westpac CEO Mr King, ‘How much do you pay Australia Post for a community representation fee?’ The response on notice was: Westpac is happy to provide a specific figure, including the Community Representation Fee, however our contract with Australia Post requires both parties to agree to the release of any commercial details within the contract. Westpac would agree to Australia Post providing these details to the Committee. Are you happy to share those details today or on notice?

Mr Graham: No, we are not. Those are commercially confidential. We have a number of agreements with many banks and institutions. They differ from bank to bank. That would disclose what we believe is
commercially sensitive information.

Senator ROBERTS: Westpac is happy for you to disclose their contract.

Mr Graham: Again, they may be happy but that’s one side of the contract. We have contracts with over 81 financial institutions and would not be comfortable sharing that sensitive information.

Senator ROBERTS: I asked the Commonwealth Bank the same question and also on notice received the same reply, as one would expect from an oligopoly. Are you able to share the Commonwealth Bank’s community representation fee today or on notice?

Mr Graham: No, Senator. We will take the same approach to that. As I say, we have many contracts with many banks. It is commercially sensitive. Disclosing what one bank pays versus what another bank pays would create commercial risk for Australia Post.

Senator ROBERTS: How so? The bank is happy.

Mr Graham: In that we are negotiating with 81 different companies and, if they were aware of what other companies are paying, that would put us under a very difficult commercial situation.

Senator ROBERTS: Show them the high-price contracts.

Mr Graham: It would be good if we could do that, but it’s unfortunate the way that the negotiations would work.

Senator ROBERTS: It would help you if you picked the top one. Are you happy with the fees you’re receiving from your banking partners in Bank@Post for providing their customers with services?

Mr Graham: When the Bank@Post agreement was put in place three years ago, the scope of that was for what we would call rudimentary or very basic consumer banking services—the ability to deposit some money and take out some money. It’s fair to say that since that service has been put in place and since we’ve seen an increase in the number of bank closures the pressure that has been placed on our post offices that provide Bank@Post has increased. Customers are looking for a broader scope of services. Small businesses particularly feel that they’re not able to access what they would traditionally access through their banking branches. And the provision of cash has become an issue. Whilst a lot of people say cash is going to die, we certainly don’t see that, particularly in certain demographics and also in certain neighbourhoods where cash is still prevalent.

When we were set up, we were never established, from both a physical and a service perspective, to deal with cash. We’re happy to extend the range of services we provide to our customers at Bank@Post, be it small business or the provision of cash, but we would need that to be funded by the banks. A good example is Coober Pedy. It is a cash town given the nature of its work. We are now flying cash into that town on a weekly basis because there are no banks remaining in Coober Pedy.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very pleased to hear that you’re supporting cash and keeping it alive. A lot of people are starting to swing back now, because they know it’s essential for freedom. Would Australia Post like to offer a wider range of banking services from an existing partner, such as Suncorp? If so, what services would you like to provide?

Mr Graham: As I referred to in my previous answer, we are seeing an increasing desire by regional towns, particularly when we are the only banking service remaining, to increase the range of services for small business—be that cash floats for the local hairdresser or the local coffee shop. One example recently was a footy team and the Country Women’s Association both ran a gold coin fundraiser over a weekend and our post office was inundated with 1,800 gold coins on the Monday. It was never equipped to handle that type of cash. We see there’s an ability for us to increase the range of services we provide, certainly for small businesses, and for the provision of cash for those small businesses. However, that would need an investment—in some cases in physical infrastructure, for safes and security, and also additional systems and training for our team—which we are prepared to do. That would obviously require support from the banks to enable those services to be extended.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’d welcome something like Suncorp, which is for sale right now? It’s sale to ANZ was blocked.

Mr Graham: We provide services to Suncorp today through Bank@Post—they are a Bank@Post customer—and 81 other financial institutions.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to commit to Suncorp or anything like that, but does the concept of having a bank with branches already, albeit not as many as you have, appeal to you?

Mr Graham: That’s a question of policy, which is for the government. We’re very happy to provide our over-the-counter services, which we are well-equipped to do, certainly for basic banking services. But as I said, if we were to extend the range of those services we would need to look at those post offices on a case-by-case basis. A town in the Snowy is another case in point where the last bank left and our post office there does not have disability access, so, again, that challenge comes on Australia Post and we work with the banks to try to solve that. We see over-the-counter services and providing Bank@Post services, particularly in regional and remote areas, as essential services and we continue to be invested in those services.

Senator ROBERTS: Something Christine Holgate did a very fine job of doing was to listen to and address the problems of the LPOs—the licenced post offices. We haven’t heard much from them lately, so that is probably a pretty good sign, but I’d like to know what you think of your relationship with the LPOs. How’s that going? They’re fundamental.

Mr Graham: Yes, they are. They make up more than two-thirds of our branch network. They are partners in our network. We deal with both the key associations. I think our relationship is a very positive one. We are very transparent on what we are doing, the investments we’re making. We’re currently rolling out our PostPlus new point-of-sale system through every post office in the country—the largest single investment that Australia Post has ever made, over $250 million. This will create efficiencies for both our corporate and licenced post offices, and also create a better service experience for our customers.
Our relationship with them is healthy. We certainly listen to them. We spend a lot of time out in their post offices, understanding their needs and their challenges. I also spend a lot of time out; it’s one of the best parts of my job. But we also see, in certain areas, where they are financially challenged because of the reduction in foot traffic, because of the digitisation of services, and, as I mentioned in my opening address, certainly metropolitan areas where there can be significant overlap, we do see cannibalisation of licenced post offices by their fellow licensees in some of those areas. It is a changing financial environment for many of them, and we look to continue to support them where we can. Bank@Post certainly helps, as does the growth we’re seeing in our parcel business, and also investing in new systems which helps them become more efficient and better at serving their customers.

/3 Comments/by

What Part of the School Curriculum is Drag Queen Storytime?

,

I asked the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) whether Drag Queen story times are part of the curriculum.

Initially the answer was a firm NO from David de Carvalho, before circling back and side-stepping the issue by saying he was processing the question.

I asked what control or influence the national curriculum has over state schools and was told there is some freedom to adapt and adopt before implementing the curriculum.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. We have a number of constituents—quite a few—who are very concerned about the story I’m going to tell you about. Can you please advise me which part, if any—because the ABC got it wrong last time—of the Australian Curriculum relates to drag queen storytime? Right, thank you. We have schools that are hosting drag queen storytimes where they’re getting drag queens in to read stories to children. It’s happening on the Sunshine Coast and in other parts of Queensland. It’s done on school time, so we thought that surely it has to relate the curriculum for them to do that. That’s why I’m asking in that section. My second question—because you’ve denied it, which I thought would be correct—is: what control or influence does the national curriculum have on state schools?

Mr de Carvalho: I’m not sure I denied your question; I was waiting for the full extent of it.

Senator ROBERTS: You indicated quite clearly that it doesn’t exist in the curriculum.

Mr de Carvalho: I indicated, I guess, that I was trying to process the question with a view to giving you a sensible answer. I may ask Ms Foster to contribute there. What was the second part of your question?

Senator ROBERTS: What influence does the national curriculum have over state schools, and is there any compulsion to follow the national curriculum? What are the responsibilities?

Mr de Carvalho: There is an agreement that states and territories will implement the Australian Curriculum, but each of them does that in a slightly different way. The terminology that we use in relation to this is that states and territories are free to ‘adopt and adapt’ the curriculum to suit their local circumstances. That is the agreement, and different states and territories are in different parts of the plan to implement the Australian Curriculum. They’re going through and looking at it and determining to what extent they can adopt it fully. Some states’ curriculums are very close to the Australian Curriculum, and other states adapt it slightly before implementing it.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it done on a state-by-state basis, or are individual schools free to go wherever they want?

Mr de Carvalho: We have three sectors in the country. Jurisdictions—certainly in the state school systems—tend to take a uniform approach for their jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions have different mechanisms for adopting and adapting the curriculum. For example, in Victoria there is the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority; in Queensland you have the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority; and New South Wales has the New South Wales Education Standards Authority. These are the bodies in those major jurisdictions which have a close look at the Australian Curriculum and then determine how, if at all, it should be adapted for those jurisdictions. WA have their School Curriculum and Standards Authority, and they also undertake that adaptation approach. The other jurisdictions tend to be closer—Queensland is closer, as are Tasmania, South Australia and Northern Territory—in terms of their implementation.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/5 Comments/by

TGA Suppresses Superior Safety of Medicinal Cannabis

,

I reminded the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) about information that was provided to me during previous estimates regarding alleged harm from medicinal cannabis. My question was not answered. Instead I was given an excuse as to why adverse events are not recorded for cannabis.

This is not true. There is a second register of adverse events, which is a TGA internal register called AEMS. Medical practitioners have been reporting adverse events to this database for years. The TGA’s own data shows that medicinal cannabis has caused 515 adverse events since 2012. Medicinal cannabis was the sole suspected medication in 454 of these – 174 were serious and 10 were fatal. As Professor Skerritt pointed out in Estimates, cannabis is widely prescribed in palliative care and this outcome is to be expected in end-of-life care where patients are receiving pain relief. In other words, patients died while taking cannabis — not from taking cannabis.

The reason the TGA did not answer my question on the relative harm of cannabis over pharmaceutical medication is because it’s not even a contest. Cannabis has been prescribed over 4 million times across this period and discounting palliative care, medicinal cannabis has not caused a single death or permanent incapacitation. Compare this to over a thousand reports of death just in the last two years from COVID injections. The pharma funded TGA acts in service of the pharmaceutical state and will do everything in their power to ensure medicinal cannabis is not made available to everyday Australians at an affordable price.

One Nation has produced a bill to down-schedule medicinal cannabis so that it can be prescribed by any doctor and filled by any chemist. This simple and long overdue reform has been blocked by the Liberal, National and Labor parties despite strong public support for the measure.

I will continue to advocate for policies that improve the health, well-being and prosperity of everyday Australians.

/5 Comments/by

Will Cutting Human Production of Carbon Dioxide Affect Atmospheric Temperatures?

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are impacting the Earth’s climate above and beyond natural variation. The climate activists’ solution to that perceived problem is to drastically reduce the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and the grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs.

Given that BOM claims carbon dioxide from human activity in Australia is contributing to a global situation in such a way that we must cease these activities, I asked the Bureau to provide me, on notice, with the total number of BOM weather stations such data is collected from.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term have continued to rise, even during the global financial crisis of 2009 and in 2020 during COVID lockdowns. In fact, real-world empirical evidence proves drastic cuts in human carbon output have no effect on atmospheric carbon levels.

I have put several questions on notice with Dr Andrew Johnson, Director of BOM, and look forward to receiving his responses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you again for being here again. You and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are detrimentally affecting climate and that, as a consequence, carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, necessitating cuts in the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and farm grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs. Given what you claim about carbon dioxide from human activity, could you please provide me, on notice, with the total number of bureau weather stations from which weather data is collected for the bureau to use, both those that the bureau operates and those that other individuals or entities operate, and, of them, the number that measure atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?

Dr Johnson: Okay. I can probably answer that now.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

Dr Johnson: The CO2 levels for our region are measured at Kennaook/Cape Grim, north-west Tasmania. That’s one of three, I think, global baseline CO2 measuring stations. That’s where those stations measure. There
are many, many, many pieces of equipment in the field that measure local CO2 emissions for all sorts of reasons, but in terms of the global baseline station, that is at Cape Grim—Kennaook.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know how many stations you have, how many your colleagues—

Dr Johnson: We’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: And how many measure carbon dioxide levels.

Dr Johnson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the locations of any other entities’ stations that are measuring carbon dioxide levels whose data the bureau relies upon for its climate reports and claims, both within Australia
and overseas? You’ve already mentioned three.

Dr Johnson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: That won’t be a problem. Now, if you look at the document I’ve tabled—

Dr Johnson: I’m sorry, I’m not in receipt of it—I’m now in receipt.

Chair: You may want to talk to it.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. These are graphs from—the source data is Scripps institute and CSIRO. These are atmospheric carbon dioxide levels measured at those 10 points around the world. Now, it’s claimed that we need to cut the level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, and to do that we must cut carbon dioxide from human activity, correct? That’s what the claim is.

Dr Johnson: Senator, I’m not in a position to pass an opinion on that. Direct that to the department. All I can tell you is that, from our measurements of the changes that are occurring in the atmosphere, it couldn’t be clearer, in terms of the trends we’re observing, and our science—

Senator ROBERTS: I want to ask you about those trends.

Dr Johnson: And our science is very clear that the causes of those trends, to a very large extent, are human activities.

Senator ROBERTS: You claim that cutting human production of carbon dioxide will cut atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Dr Johnson: No. Just to reaffirm, it’s not our role to do that. Our role is to measure the atmospheric, oceanographic and, in some cases, terrestrial phenomena. We’ve never made such claims. All we’ve said is—

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t—

Dr Johnson: that all of these parameters are rising and that the cause of that increase, to a very large extent—a predominant extent—is human activity. That’s all we’ve said.

Senator ROBERTS: So carbon dioxide from human activity is causing a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Dr Johnson: And other emissions—methane and so on—are causing the escalation in oceanic and atmospheric temperatures.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2009, after the global financial crisis, and in 2020, during the COVID lockdowns, we experienced severe global recessions. During those recessions, energy use fell dramatically and the use of
hydrocarbon fuels like coal, oil and natural gas for transport, residences and industry was cut severely, leading to dramatic reductions of carbon dioxide from human activity. Yet, despite those cuts in human carbon dioxide production, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise.

Dr Johnson: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: All the Scripps and CSIRO measurement stations reveal no decrease or downward inflection, just continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This real-world empirical evidence proves
that drastic cuts in carbon dioxide from human activity have no effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Making the drastic cuts is pointless and is damaging economically and socially. On notice, could you please
specify the dates, quantity and duration of any inflections or downturns on those graphs?

Dr Johnson: I’m happy to, Senator. But, very quickly—with the chair’s indulgence—the premise of your question is false. It is a well-established fact that the consequences of human activity have long lag periods
between when they occur and when they’re observed in the atmosphere. So, even if CO2 emissions were to stop today, the atmosphere is loaded, as is the ocean, and it will take centuries for that signature to work its way through; hence the urgency around the challenge to reduce emissions now.

Senator ROBERTS: How well is carbon dioxide mixed in the atmosphere?

Dr Johnson: How well is it mixed?

Senator ROBERTS: How well mixed is it?

Dr Johnson: I’m not an expert on carbon dioxide atmospheric mixing.

Senator ROBERTS: How does it vary temporally, spatially and with regard to surface cover—for example, vegetation type?

Dr Johnson: I’d have to take that on notice. I’m not in expert in those matters.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take the next question on notice as well. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over—

Senator Whish-Wilson: Could you just put them on notice now? Could it go to us, because people are waiting?

Senator ROBERTS: I want to get this to make sure I’ve got the question right for Dr Johnson. I’ll put the other two on notice after this. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term and without
spatial and temporal context have increased substantially, what impact has this had on global and national atmospheric temperatures? Specifically, what is the rate of temperature increase over the period 1995 to today?

Dr Johnson: Again, you’re asking me a specific question on a specific set of dates. I don’t have that number with me.

Senator ROBERTS: No, on notice. I’m happy for you to do that on notice.

Dr Johnson: If we have that data, I’ll provide it, sure.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you’ve got the temperature data. Could you please specify in your answer the statistical methods and procedures, as well as the data periods and sources of data. Could you please use the
global and national atmospheric temperature data from the following sources: from the Bureau of Meteorology, obviously, atmospheric temperature data for Australia and the world—

Chair: Senator Roberts, you can log them in writing, if you would like. And, if you’re asking for an answer, you probably shouldn’t specify where they get the data from. It would be entirely up to them if you’re asking-

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not specifying the data. I just want some alternatives because there’s variation between—

Chair: But I will speed you up, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to put them on notice.

Chair: That would be lovely.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll also be asking you for NASA’s University of Alabama, Huntsville, and RSS data.

Dr Johnson: You’d probably best direct your questions about NASA data to NASA.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

/14 Comments/by

ABC Won’t Apologise for Defaming Special Forces Commando Heston Russell

,

I confronted the ABC about their humiliating defamation loss to Heston Russell and the culture at the ABC. A federal court judge found that the unreasonable actions of ABC journalists led to protracted litigation.

Australian taxpayers are getting a multi-million bill because the ABC got it wrong and couldn’t bring themselves to apologise. Their entire culture needs an overhaul. Will the journalist responsible for publishing

disinformation, failing to act reasonably and costing the taxpayer millions about an elite veteran be punished at all? Apparently not.

/9 Comments/by