The public servants in the Canberra bureaucracy are meant to be impartial. Being impartial would mean they only comment on their ability to carry out laws, not whether they agree with policies ideologically. What we see again and again is that the bureaucrats are not impartial. They make submissions that support the woke policies of the Canberra elite, like net-zero.
I asked the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), who are meant to be the enforcers of the code of impartiality, about one particularly bad example where an agency endorsed the government’s net-zero ideas. Their response? “Well that’s just your opinion.”
The Canberra public service and their referee are so out of touch with everyday Australians that they can’t even comprehend the question. It’s easy to see why Canberra was the only state or territory in all of Australia to vote Yes on the Voice.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. The Australian Public Service works under or in accord with the code of conduct. Is that correct?
Dr de Brouwer: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How does that work in practice? I know that is a broad question.
Ms Talbot: As we alluded to earlier in our evidence, we have the APS Code of Conduct, and that sets out the standards and, I guess, the expectations on all public servants. In particular, the Public Service Act is quite clear around articulating what the APS values are and how they apply to all public servants. I can go into more detail around the code of conduct requirements if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the code drives behaviour or indicates the behaviour or values that are appropriate.
Ms Talbot: It sets out what the appropriate behaviours are, what the appropriate expected standards of conduct are, and it does outline the APS values and goes into some detail about those values.
Senator ROBERTS: So it is broad not specific because it doesn’t apply to just one department or one agency? It’s very broad.
Ms Talbot: It applies to everyone, but sitting underneath that there is quite a detailed document, and in particular sitting under the Public Service Act there are also commissioner’s directions, which go into more detail as well around how everything actually applies.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you elaborate on the Australian Public Service value of impartiality, specifically how the Public Service should be interpreting it practically in making submissions to inquiries?
Ms Talbot: Is there some specific inquiry?
Senator ROBERTS: My concern is that it seems some agencies aren’t being fully impartial in making submissions, especially in the area of climate policy, for example. This is dangerous because it leads to group think. My interpretation of the value of impartiality is that if an agency or department is making a submission on, for example, a law change, that submission should be limited to the agency’s ability to carry out the policy change. That might mean resource considerations and practical issues of whether they can enforce a policy. Is that what you would be expecting in a submission that meets those values of impartiality, rather than making a submission in favour of or against a policy on the basis of political aspects?
Ms Talbot: What I can say is that the guidance around impartiality is reminding public servants that in conducting their duties they are to be apolitical and they are obviously not to be biased in the way in which they conduct their duties. I think you’re asking me more for an opinion around a particular instance that you have in mind.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about several instances. It seems we have some agencies and departments making submissions that endorse the policies being put forward from an ideological standpoint, not only commenting on the practicalities of implementing the policy for that agency or department, as I said. For example, the Australian Energy Regulator made a submission to the national energy laws amendment bill. In that submission they endorsed the net zero policy setting of the government and said they support it, which doesn’t seem to be impartial. Shouldn’t they only be commenting on their ability to implement the changes, not endorsing the policy driving the changes?
Dr de Brouwer: The requirement of impartiality, as Ms Talbot outlined, is that the APS is apolitical. But it also provides advice—and I will quote from section 10(5) of the act—’that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence’. This is within the CER’s view of what is the best available evidence, what is coherent with that and what is required to achieve that.
Senator ROBERTS: So they would be informed by scientific evidence, would they?
Dr de Brouwer: That is what I think the CER will say. You should ask them.
Senator ROBERTS: You are smiling.
Dr de Brouwer: We used to deal with this in estimates 10 years ago.
Senator ROBERTS: Net zero policy is within climate policy. That’s subject to a lot of contention in the public, so supporting that would seem to me not to be upholding impartiality, especially when there have been no logical scientific points, including empirical scientific evidence, to back up net zero anyway in the world. They failed the science test, so surely they are acting partially?
Dr de Brouwer: I think that is your view, Senator Roberts, and it is up to that authority to explain how it views the evidence and provide the explanation to you of why it’s acting impartially.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/c3vqS0T05kM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-26 13:50:452023-12-01 12:11:03The Bureaucrats are Out of Touch and Out of Control
Emerging industries was the topic in this Senate Estimates attended by AgriFutures, an organisation set up by the Australian government to help fund research and development in our rural industries.
I’m pleased to see that AgriFutures is active in hemp research and investing in grants for trials, including one in the Northern Territory. I visited a successful hemp farm in northern Queensland earlier this year and was curious to know if AgriFutures had looked into trials in this part of Australia too.
Although AgriFutures claims its operations are free from political bias, they are tied into the United Nations sustainability goals. Levies paid to AgriFutures are also being spent on carbon farming for carbon trading, which is a contrived market.
Bug farming is another area that AgriFutures is promoting. It involves growing bugs in intensive urban facilities, which is not supporting the farmers in the regions. AgriFutures’ bias towards these policies is doing people out of their jobs. Taking regional jobs and shoving them close to the cities is political no matter how you characterise it.
One of the purposes of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is to allow the globalists to get control of agriculture and food, centralising people into urban landscapes. AgriFutures’ excitement about turning crickets into dog food is just another step towards that future.
ASIC received a significant, detailed complaint of misconduct concerning a company that sells gold, silver and palladium to the public, and then stores the bullion on behalf of their customers.
The complaint suggested the company was selling bullion it did not own, failed to purchase that bullion and had a storage vault incapable of holding the volume of bullion they were minding. Further, that customers are having trouble getting their purchased bullion and there are questions around council approvals and the suitability of their “vault”.
ASIC investigated and found nothing wrong, however there is doubt around the veracity of the audit.
ASIC offered to brief me on this matter, which I accepted.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will move to another topic quickly. As per ASIC’s response to questions on notice, ASIC conducted an investigation involving a precious metals business in financial year 2022-23. This was in response to a complaint regarding the company not holding the precious metals it was supposedly charging storage for. The questions relate to that. Can ASIC describe the nature of the investigation? Was ASIC investigating whether the bullion was fake or missing? What was the purpose of your investigation?
Ms Court: Senator, that’s right. As you say, ASIC has had a complaint. I think as we’ve advised the committee previously, if I talk broadly in relation to gold bullion—
Senator ROBERTS: I thought it mentioned a company name. That’s fine.
Ms Court: Sitting here today, I’m not sure if we have mentioned that company name publicly or not. I’m certainly very familiar with the matter—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, good.
Ms Court: that you are referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s assume we both know the name.
Ms Court: Yes. We received a report of misconduct in relation to that company in April last year, 2022. We have been investigating that carefully. We’ve done a very thorough—
Senator ROBERTS: What was the aim of the investigation? Was it to investigate whether the bullion was fake or whether it was missing?
Ms Court: At a high level, Senator, the aim of our investigation is to ascertain whether or not there has been a breach of the ASIC Act or the Corporations Act, which is—
Senator ROBERTS: So it was both, was it?
Ms Court: Which is what we administer. I’m cautious about how much I say publicly. We certainly took the allegations very seriously. We did ascertain the extent of the holdings, if I could put it in that broad term, to make sure—
Senator ROBERTS: How many clients it has and how much gold it is supposed to have?
Ms Court: Yes, indeed, we did. Indeed, part of the reason that it has taken us some time to conclude that investigation, Senator, is that we have engaged experts in that area to do a physical check, if you like, to ascertain those holdings. We had a significant detailed complaint. We’ve taken that complaint very seriously. We have expended considerable resources on that investigation over the course of the last 18 months.
Senator ROBERTS: How much advanced notice did ASIC provide the company before conducting a physical site inspection?
Ms Court: I would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I understand that ASIC gave the company sufficient time so that it created an opportunity to alter its business affairs before a physical site inspection was allowed—in other words, move gold in.
Ms Court: Senator, as I say, I will take that on notice. I should put on the record that I highly doubt that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The complainant had reports that a large quantity of gold was moved into storage to perhaps make the books balance, a feat that was possible because of the long notice that was provided. Why didn’t you just get a search warrant and turn up for a surprise check?
Ms Court: Senator Roberts, I dispute that characterisation of what has taken place.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you get a search warrant?
Ms Court: I’m not going to comment on our investigatory process in relation to a particular company. Of course, we’re very happy to give you a briefing, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, and a time line?
Ms Court: Yes, indeed. We can take that on notice, Senator.
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: The company claims to have tens of thousands of storage clients. I would like to know whether you confirmed the clients as well as the amounts of gold that are supposed to be there? Why did ASIC use taxpayer money to test the authenticity of the physical bullion rather than charge the subject?
Ms Court: Senator, I will take all those questions on notice. They do involve a particular investigation. We are conscious that a range of allegations have been made and continue to be made about this matter. As I said earlier, we have focused significant resources in getting to the bottom of these issues. We will finalise our investigation shortly. I’m very happy to give you a briefing in relation to that and to take your questions on notice, Senator. Please be assured that we have treated this with the utmost seriousness.
Senator ROBERTS: Could your office contact my office to arrange a time for a briefing? We are going to be in Canberra quite a bit in the next couple of months?
Ms Court: Yes, indeed.
Senator ROBERTS: That would be good.
Ms Court: We’ll go through the appropriate processes and do that, Senator. We would be very pleased to assist you with that information.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/FFiV_CipmzI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-26 13:08:482023-11-03 14:20:46ASIC and the Case of the Missing Gold
At Senate Estimates, I asked the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) about their input into Labor’s Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill.
Both ACMA and the Minister claim the bill will retain the democratic right to freedom of speech and freedom of political expression. I don’t believe them! The coercive threat of future government action on tech companies will definitely restrict Australians’ political expression.
How can this basic human right be retained when the government and its mouthpiece media will be the only ones with carte blanche to say whatever they want while everyone else’s views will be open to censorship?
Once a government gives itself an advantage like that over its opponents, both in the political arena and among the public, history informs us of the outcome. Democracy enters decline, every single time.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/TiNLHpiM7GQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-25 18:15:302023-11-03 14:20:48Clarifying Where ACMA Stands on the Censorship Bill
I was successful in having the project known as Iron Boomerang referred to a Senate Inquiry. Iron Boomerang is a railway that is really a shopping cart on rails — bringing iron ore, rare earths and agricultural product from West Australia to North Queensland for easy export to markets around the world.
The iron ore will be combined with beautiful Queensland coal in a steel park in Queensland for domestic use, and for export to Asia and the Americas. The trains will then return to Western Australia loaded with coal, where another steel mill in the Pilbara will make steel for export to the subcontinent, the Middle East and Europe.
Estimates predict this project could add $200 billion (10%) to Australia’s GDP creating 50,000+ breadwinner jobs, while securing the nations’ future.
The Committee found in favour of the project and instructed Infrastructure Australia to contact the project sponsors to get started.
In today’s Senate Estimate session, Infrastructure Australia had the hide to say they ignored the request of the Senate Committee. As a result, this nation-building, jobs-rich project has not progressed. Watch this space!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/MEsvnDluY-A/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-25 11:00:572023-11-22 16:02:03Linking the Top End Coast to Coast by Rail
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) assures me that as Australia has very good sunshine and solar energy is the cheapest form of energy on the planet, we can expect to have cheap electricity. That’s nonsense because they don’t take into account all of the extra costs of firming, storage, extra transmission lines and general unreliability. Any Australian who looks at their electricity bill knows solar isn’t cheaper.
I was even more surprised to learn about the agency’s support of solar in renewable iron and steel manufacturing on a massive scale. The idea of such energy intensive industrial process being powered by cheap solar, which is currently too expensive and unreliable for Australian households, is pipe dream stuff.
This government is driving Australia off the cliff and is in the drivers seat essentially saying – “It’s not my job to think about the cliff, I’m just driving the car.” The idea of a net zero future with wind and solar providing base-load power and creating “green steel” is not real.
The net zero pipe dream is a nation killing fantasy that is already hurting the regions, ruining small business and driving up the cost-of-living all over Australia.
This is the second Senate Estimates I have raised questions about Chinese Communist Party contact points (or Chinese overseas police stations) in Australia. We know they exist and that this issue has been investigated and confirmed by mainstream media.
I asked Home Affairs, the department responsible for Australia’s security, why there is a CCP contact point office in Sydney. Home Affairs avoided answering – this from the department responsible for national security policy. What hope have we got? This is the same department that helps META censor accurate social media posts from Australians, yet it won’t discuss CCP activity within Australia.
I was told Home Affairs was not the correct agency to ask these questions and was directed to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The head of ASIO said he has no knowledge of a contact point in Sydney and referred me to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), who likewise stated that they had no evidence or information of this.
There must be a reason why they refuse to discuss this and are maintaining the secret.
Transcript below.
Transcript below.
Transcripts
Home Affairs
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Given the general concern about the Chinese Communist Party’s global involvement in overseas affairs, in many countries’ affairs, why is there a Chinese contact point in Sydney? The contact point is a Chinese Communist Party-staffed office set up in a country outside China.
Mr Smyth: I would refer you to the Department of Foreign Affairs for matters in relation to that?
Senator ROBERTS: Well, you’re in charge of security.
Mr Smyth: I look after policy in relation to issues. But issues that go to bilateral relations with foreign governments or countries or their activities is a responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m after program 1.2, national security and resilience, so I’ll continue.
Senator Watt: With respect, Senator Roberts, you can’t just ask any question that includes those words in it. There are particular departments that are better suited to answering certain questions, and I think DFAT is probably the best department to answer the questions you’ve just asked.
Senator ROBERTS: I would doubt that, Senator Watt, because this is a security issue.
Senator Watt: Sure, but we want to make sure that you get the very best possible answers. You’ve already heard from the officials that DFAT is probably best placed, and they’ll be up on Thursday.
Senator ROBERTS: The AFP deputy commissioner investigations, Reece Kershaw, addressed this matter in a Senate estimates hearing in November 2022. He said that he did not believe the Sydney contact point was active, without going into further detail. So these questions are being asked to update the current situation. Is there still a CCP supported contact point in Sydney? That’s a yes or no answer. It doesn’t need to upset anyone.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the AFP will be appearing a little bit later today. If you’ve got questions for them or are following up from answers that they’ve given at previous estimates, they will be available for you to ask those questions then.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m stunned that the Department of Home Affairs cannot face questions about security?
Senator Watt: That’s not a fair way to put it.
Senator ROBERTS: It is true.
Senator Watt: That’s your take on it, Senator Roberts. We’ve tried to assist you by—
Senator ROBERTS: Let the people of Australia decide on what their take is.
Senator Watt: We’ve tried to assist you by telling you the two different groups you could put those questions to. We’re all going to be here all week and there are opportunities for you to ask those questions.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the role of Home Affairs with regard to national security and resilience? Minister?
Senator Watt: I’ll suggest that the deputy secretary in charge of that area answers your question, Senator Roberts.
Mr Smyth: In relation to resilience, we have a task force that was established in November 2022, and that’s to better position Australia for what we see as a significant set of risks and challenges that it faces across the full spectrum of national and human induced crises. The task force leads on national resilience policy and strategy. That ensures that the Commonwealth has the necessary policy, legislation and capability to manage what is really an increasingly complex and cascading set of concurrent national crises in the current geostrategic and geopolitical environment. We provide advice to government around issues in relation to national security. We look after national security policy. We look after legislation for intelligence services. We look after countering foreign interference policy, terrorism policy et cetera.
Senator ROBERTS: Counter and foreign interference policy—that’s what I’m talking about.
Mr Smyth: And we do that in collaboration with other portfolio agencies.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know your role in that collaboration.
Mr Smyth: My role is as the National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator.
Senator ROBERTS: What would be your role in knowing whether or not there’s a CCP-supported contact point in Sydney?
Mr Smyth: I’d have to take that question on notice. I think the evidence that was given to you by Commissioner Kershaw was that that is not an active—
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what it is now.
Ms Foster: I think that the difference perhaps is that Mr Smyth is responsible for the overall policy and coordination, but operational issues will typically fall within the purview of the operational agency which is why the Australian Federal Police is best placed to answer questions about current operations.
Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful! Before you start getting into policy—unlike climate change, where there’s no data, despite driving that policy—what is the purpose of the Chinese Communist Party contact point in Sydney? What is its purpose?
Mr Smyth: I would refer you to the AFP in relation to the evidence that has been previously given by Commissioner Kershaw.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what it is now. That was 12 months ago.
Ms Foster: Yes, Senator, and that’s an operational issue, which Senator Kershaw is well placed to answer, and he will be appearing later tonight.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what your take on it is, because we’re trusting you with our security.
Ms Foster: I’ve just made a distinction between our role in providing the overall policy framework and coordination and the role of individual operational agencies to manage specific operational issues. I think it’s evident from the fact that the evidence last time came from Commissioner Kershaw that this is an operational issue which the AFP is best placed to deal with.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s your policy for handling the Chinese Communist Party contact points, and what’s the basis of that policy?
Mr Smyth: The issues that relate to that, I think, are best referred to the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, which is an ASIO and AFP led taskforce that deals with operational matters in relation to foreign interference activity on Australian soil.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll acknowledge that you’re talking about operations with other people. I want to know what the basis for your policy is in regard to the Chinese Communist Party contact points in Sydney, because initially they weren’t existing and then we find out they do.
Mr Smyth: Where foreign governments seek to interfere in the democratic process of Australia, we take an interest, but those issues relate more to operational matters for taskforce agencies. In relation to the contact point that you’re referring to, I’d have to take on notice any specific information that we have that resides in this portfolio.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. That’s two questions you’ve taken on notice. Are there Chinese police officers working out of the premises? You can take that on notice. And are—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts!
Mr Smyth: That would be an operational matter for the taskforce members and also a matter potentially for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Ms Foster: Senator, we’re not seeking to be unhelpful. It’s just not helpful to you if we take something on notice which we’re then going to refer to someone else.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any concerns of the security agencies about potential breaches of Australian national sovereignty?
Ms Foster: That would have to be addressed to the security agencies.
Senator Watt: ASIO will be on later today as well, Senator Roberts. There are opportunities for you to ask these questions. It’s just that they’ve got to go to the people who can answer them.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d would like to know that Home Affairs knows something about this. Should Chinese people living in Australia be concerned? You’re in charge of security.
Mr Smyth: Again, I’ll refer you to previous answers that we’ve given.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, are those all the questions you have?
Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Chair.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess and your staff, for being here. I asked a question of Home Affairs, and they said to come here and also AFP. Given the general concern about Chinese Communist Party global involvement in overseas affairs, why is there a Chinese contact point in Sydney? A contact point, I’m sure you know, is a Chinese Communist Party staffed office set up in a country outside China.
Mr Burgess: I’m not aware of a Chinese contact point in this country other than the official consulate and embassy presence.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner of investigations, Reece Kershaw, addressed this matter in a Senate estimates hearing in November 2022. He said he did not believe the Sydney contact point was active, without going into further details. These questions I’m going to ask are to update the current situation. You’re not aware of it, so what is the purpose of a CCP contact point?
Mr Burgess: I can’t comment about the purpose of something I’m not aware of. What I will say is my agency does consider and look for signs of foreign interference, and it’s more the behaviour we’re focused on in terms of anyone in this country that might be here doing something which is against our national interest, represents a threat to security and is not publicly declared.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it be something you’d investigate if it wasn’t a threat necessarily to Australian security but a threat to the security of Chinese citizens or former Chinese citizens?
Mr Burgess: Anyone in this country gets our protection.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. As I said, Reece Kershaw addressed the matter and said he didn’t believe it was active, without going into further detail. You can’t tell me how long it’s been in operation? You can’t tell me, a year later, whether there are Chinese police officers working out of the premises?
Mr Burgess: I would stand by my judgement that there is not a Chinese contact point in this country.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there concerns at the security agencies about potential breaches of Australian national sovereignty?
Mr Burgess: Every day in my line of business.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you surveil any threats from the CCP in this country that could affect Chinese residents or Taiwanese residents?
Mr Burgess: I do not talk about operational matters publicly.
Australian Federal Police
CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Scarr. Against my better judgement, Senator Roberts has got two minutes. That probably equates to two questions, and we thank you for your brevity.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The 60 Minutes program broadcast on 18 June this year—an investigative story—showed interviews with several Australian citizens who had been intimidated by Chinese authorities and showed proof of the existence of at least one Chinese overseas police station in suburban Sydney. What actions have been taken by the AFP with whom the information was shared?
Mr McCartney: I think we’ve been asked this question a number of times during past Senate estimates and I think we’ve been consistent. In terms of the construct of a Chinese police station operating in Australia, I also heard the Director-General of ASIO state today that we’ve got no evidence or information on that. But, having said that, is Chinese foreign interference a threat? Yes, it is, and we continue to work very proactively with ASIO and other agencies in relation to that space.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. The Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner of investigations, Reece Kershaw, addressed this matter in Senate estimates hearings in November 2022, I understand. He said he did not believe the Sydney contact point was active, without going into further detail. These questions are asked to update the current situation.
Mr Kershaw: Senator, I’m the Commissioner of the AFP. I think you called me ‘deputy’. You’ve demoted me!
Senator ROBERTS: I have a lot of respect for the AFP; believe me. And I’m pleased you can see it with a sense of humour.
Mr Kershaw: So what was the end of a question?
Senator ROBERTS: Reece Kershaw said that the Sydney contact point was active, without going into further detail. I was going to ask more questions.
Mr McCartney: Senator, I think it was actually me who said that at the last Senate estimates. I would go back to my first answer: there’s no information that indicates that a Chinese police station is operating in Sydney, and that’s a position that’s supported by ASIO.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Chair.
CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Roberts. We appreciate you keeping to your word. That’s all the questions we have for the Australian Federal Police. Thank you, Commissioner.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/dtUwEP53odo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-25 07:44:032023-11-03 14:20:51CCP Office in Sydney? Nothing to See Here!
Principal Medical Officer at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has been absent during our previous senate estimates sessions despite my requests for her presence.
I asked her questions about her other roles and responsibilities, including her role as supervising GP and her other board positions. I also asked about her knowledge of pilot adverse events and what research underpins her position that such adverse events as myocarditis are predominantly caused by the COVID infection rather than the COVID injections.
It’s been a long wait to ask these questions of Dr Manderson and her staff appeared anxious to shield her from my line of inquiry. What do they have to hide?
The $100-$200 million tunnel-boring machine known as Florence has been bogged in muddy water on soft ground for a year.
I followed up on previous estimate questions, where I was categorically lied to by bureaucrats who were trying to cover up this expensive and embarrassing disaster.
Why is the government allowing executives from the Snowy Hydro Authority to deliberately mislead the committee about the main tunnel being blocked by a boring machine that has not moved in a year? Why did Snowy 2 executives and the government cover up the toxic gas in the tunnel that is coming from the chemicals used to unsuccessfully free Florence?
The cost has now blown out to $12 billion, with another $5 billion needed to carve a 50 metre wide easement through the Snowy Mountains National Park. This is to build transmission lines to take the power into the grid and to upgrade, to carry 2200 MW of power for 20 minutes in the morning and evening peak, which is all Snowy 2.0 will generate.
I look forward to receiving the answers to my Questions on Notice for the Minister.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again today. Mr Whitby, in the November 2022 estimates, I asked you:I note that the tunnelling machine Florence was bogged up near Tantangara Reservoir. Can you confirm how long it was bogged and confirm that it’s now back in operation? The answer you gave was: The tunnel-boring machine hasn’t been bogged. It encountered soft ground, which we expected. We have been progressing the tunnel-boring machine through that zone with care and diligence. In February 2023, I was reassured Florence was not bogged, and, in May 2023, was advised it would progress shortly. Minister: today, the ABC published photos of Florence clearly in mud and water in a story that says it was flooded in and unable to function from the moment it hit the soft ground a year ago. It moved a matter of metres. Further, the article goes on to say Snowy Hydro authority knew it was bogged even as they testified in senate estimates that it was not. The authority was covering up the machinery to progress Florence. A slurry machine that lays down a base for the machine to travel over was not ordered when the waterlogging was discovered. It was only ordered when Florence became bogged. Why is the government allowing the authority to deliberately mislead the committee?
Senator McAllister: Thank you for the question, Senator Roberts. I don’t quite recall the evidence being provided in the terms that you suggest in your question. But I confess I don’t exactly remember all of the testimony that was provided at all of the estimates. I will invite Mr Barnes to respond.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, before you do, were they lying to you? When did you know about the machine being bogged?
Senator McAllister: I will take that on notice. You will understand that I don’t have all of the communications between the authority and shareholder ministers, so I will see what I can provide.
Senator ROBERTS: I would like to know when you found out the machine was bogged, if you made inquiries beforehand, were they lying to you, and whether or not you were misled.
Senator McAllister: I will take those questions on notice.
Mr Barnes: Obviously, there are many engineering terms, but bogged, paused or stuck, all have subjective definitions. There has been no point since Florence encountered this incredibly soft and wet ground in November 2022 that the machine has not been able in some way to move forward. In fact, as part of its stabilisation and commissioning of the slurry treatment plant since December 2022, it has in fact moved 10 metres as part of that activity, so it is not bogged; it is able to move. In May I apologised for my perhaps optimism regarding the ability to get Florence moving at pace again. The full story on the slurry treatment plant is that Florence is going to hit what we know to be naturally occurring asbestos about seven kilometres into its journey.
Senator ROBERTS: Naturally occurring what?
Mr Barnes: Asbestos.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you mean naturally in the strata?
Mr Barnes: Yes, and the slurry treatment plant is designed to handle those conditions. The incredibly soft ground it hit early in its journey was not predicted at that stage, so the slurry treatment plant, which was always envisaged—just not envisaged that quickly—was ordered and started to be designed as early as December 2022. It is now complete, commissioned. Once we receive an approval from the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment, we will be able to move forward.
Senator DAVEY: I agree with your recollection, Senator Roberts. Mr Barnes, you spoke in May about the fact that the slurry treatment plant was coming. I took it from that evidence that it would be activated sooner rather than later, but are you saying it still hasn’t been turned on?
Mr Barnes: To jog your memory, I think I said weeks, not months. I should have said months, not weeks. It wasn’t a mistake, it was my optimism at the time. The physical works to get the slurry plant complete and Florence able to move. We’ve all progressed. What I underestimated was the process with which to go through the approval process, given the sinkhole that formed in December is just outside our construction boundary.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Barnes, could you give me on notice the movement of the machine, in metres, between November 2022 and February 2023, between February 2023 and May 2023, and from May 2023 to now?
Mr Barnes: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, it seems on the face of it that this is government misinformation covering up a massive failure. I’m not blaming you entirely for that, because this whole thing was started under Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister and Scott Morrison as prime minister. There was no fully disclosed business case. It was heavily redacted. There was no cost-benefit analysis done. The whole thing is based on a false premise. This is what happens when the top is rotten. I’m not referring to you as being rotten, Minister; I’m referring to the project when it was first given the go-ahead. But you’re now carrying the can.
CHAIR: Is there a question?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Minister, what questions are you asking about the rest of the project, because this is serious stuff?
Senator McAllister: You are right in this regard: the project as first announced by the Turnbull government does not reflect the dimensions and characteristics of the project as we now understand it. Some of those changes and issues were known to the previous government and not revealed. Minister Bowen has made it very clear how disappointed he was when he came to government and discovered that aspects of the project, including significant delays in cost increases, had not been communicated. As I indicated earlier in my evidence, when Mr Barnes was appointed, the expectation from the shareholder ministers was communicated very clearly to the board and, I understand, through the department to Mr Barnes that we wanted to see this project back on track. We wanted the new management to examine it and provide advice about how to get it back on track. It took some time. It wasn’t possible to do that in weeks; it has taken Mr Barnes some time. When that advice was provided, it was to the Minister, who then sought to communicate it directly to the Australian public. These are complex projects. We accept that. We have noted a constructive tone and a more open approach to communication from the engagements we are presently having with Snowy Hydro, and we hope to see this project—which, as I indicated, is an important project for the energy system and the Australian people—back on track.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move to something else that the government has lied about. This might not be ministerial staff or the ministers themselves, but we know that the agency has lied about the toxic gas in the shaft coming from isocyanate, used to strengthen the ground in the absence of proper machinery—the slurry machine. That was more government misinformation, wasn’t it, Minister?
Mr Barnes: I’m happy to talk to this. You are referring to an incident that occurred in early July. When polyurethane foam, which is sometimes used in front of the tunnel boring machine, comes into contact with water it can create isocyanate gas. It did so. The incident was reported quickly, access to the site was restricted, additional personal protective equipment was provided and monitoring was put in place.
Senator ROBERTS: What was that personal protective equipment?
Mr Barnes: You can do positive-pressure face masks which stop any gases entering.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that involve carrying air or oxygen?
Mr Barnes: No. I don’t how the reverser flow works, but you picture the large face masks with a positive flow meter. They have a filter. I don’t know the details of how those machines work, but they do protect the individual. We have actually stopped using the polyurethane foam and reverted to grout on that.
Senator ROBERTS: So lives are at stake?
Mr Barnes: Absolutely. This is a complex project with many hazards.
Senator ROBERTS: And the economy is at stake if this project doesn’t live up to nameplate design. How much is Florence worth, and who pays if you can’t get it out or if it comes out as scrap?
Mr Barnes: Florence is not identified as a single item in the project line, but between $100 million and $200 million would be an estimate of a tunnel boring machine. But Florence is able to progress its journey once we receive the necessary approvals.
CHAIR: We’ll need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts. Do you have a final question? We can come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: In May I asked about the updated cost, and Mr Barnes replied, ‘We haven’t got an updated cost here and will provide that in months.’ Your updated cost is now $12 billion? Is that it?
Mr Barnes: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include two major expenses: transmission lines to get the power in and out and the ongoing cost of Florence still being bogged?
Mr Barnes: It is the cost to complete the project to the transmission lines at the power station, including all action necessary to complete the head race tunnel, which is where Florence is.
Senator ROBERTS: So any additional transmission lines needed to take the power out are not part of that project cost?
Mr Barnes: We have one transmission connection from the power station up to the grid, which Snowy Hydro pays for on an ongoing tariff.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that the current transmission lines will not be adequate after Snowy 2 comes in.
Mr Barnes: For snowy 2 to get its full potential, there is an extension to the transmission grid required.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So the total cost of this project—
CHAIR: We need to move on, Senator Roberts. We need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Senator McAllister: Senator Grogan, I took on notice a series of questions from Senator Roberts. I had previously indicated that these were questions for shareholder ministers and I would take them on notice on their behalf. I just want to clarify that that’s also what you were seeking in the other questions that you put to me later on?
Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to get an answer from the government ministers. It doesn’t have to be you; just the person in charge would be perfect.
In the May/June Estimates, I asked questions about former MP Craig Kelly being booted off Facebook (META) for posting alleged misinformation about COVID, which turned out to be accurate. Initially, Home Affairs denied involvement in censoring parliamentarians, however it transpired they were involved. These questions are following up to those asked in the previous Senate Estimates, where we have confirmation that Home Affairs censored a sitting Parliamentarian.
An international advertising agency was employed to identify posts that were contrary to the government’s narrative on COVID. Over $1,000,000 of taxpayers’ money was paid to M&C Saatchi to act as the thought police against the Australian people.
These referrals enabled social media companies to make what Home Affairs calls ‘their own determinations’ about flagged posts and accounts should they go against the platform’s own guidelines.
This is significant. Home Affairs claims it’s not in the business of censorship, but what else would you call such an arrangement? If the Labor government legislates its bill to combat misinformation and disinformation, we will see even more of this dystopian censorship.
Judging by the strained and carefully worded answers in this video, Home Affairs would like us to believe it had no influence on the censorship of Australians online during the COVID response. We’re not so naïve to believe their collaboration with social media companies such as META, which resulted in de-platforming an elected member of parliament, was anything other than authoritarian overreach.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. At the last Senate estimates, I was given many assurances by the witnesses from the Department of Home Affairs that no parliamentarians would have been referred for censorship under your COVID-19 program. We now know that that was false. The Department of Home Affairs did refer the post of a sitting parliamentarian to the social media companies for censorship, and we’re meant to believe that the senior witnesses at this table knew nothing about it. Either the Senate was misled or the witnesses at this table do not actually know what’s going on in your department, as they refer parliamentarians for censorship. Is your department out of control?
Ms Foster: Our department is happy to respond to your question. Mr Smyth can take you through the detail.
Mr Smyth: I think, as referenced in previous hearings, the department is not in the business of censoring. We referred posts to social media platforms to take action at their discretion as to whether or not they felt that particular posts breached their service standards. I know that, from the previous hearings in relation to whether or not there were posts that were from particular members of parliament, the secretary at the time said that he would be surprised. You are quite correct that there were referrals for a particular member of parliament that were made. They shouldn’t have been made, and the department has looked at its processes. But we do not now engage in any of the same activity. That activity ceased in late May of this year.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re enabling censorship and you were serving the social media giants—Meta, in particular—with the provision of their own services.
Mr Smyth: As I previously said—
Senator ROBERTS: Is that correct?
Ms Foster: No, that’s not correct, Senator.
Mr Smyth: we are not in the business of censoring.
Senator ROBERTS: But you enable censorship.
Ms Foster: No, we provide referrals to social media companies in order that they can decide whether or not the activity meets their own service standards.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re providing a service to Meta. Do you charge them an invoice?
Mr Smyth: No. The issues that were at play at the time related to public health and safety. We operated on advice and criteria that were provided to the department from the Department of Health. That was then assessed through a service provider that we had— M&C Saatchi. The department then reviewed the references from M&C Saatchi as to whether or not they were likely to have been in breach of the service standards of particular platforms. The platforms were then informed of that, and they made their own decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t Meta big enough to look after itself? Can’t it do its job? Are you helping them?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I want to draw you back to the question—as being relevant to outcome 1.
Senator ROBERTS: They referred it, it seems to me, Chair—
CHAIR: Yes, absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: with the intent of taking it down.
CHAIR: The relationship is obviously relevant. Direct questions about Meta might be better directed to them and is outside of outcome 1’s relevance.
Senator ROBERTS: You referred it with the intent of it being taken down, Mr Smyth.
Mr Smyth: No, we referred it with an intent as to whether or not the platform could determine whether it breached their own service standards.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you in the business of helping large global multinationals conduct their own affairs? Surely—
Mr Smyth: We’re in the business of looking after public health and safety, and it was in the middle of a global pandemic where a lot of people were dying.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you received legal advice on whether your department has breached the implied freedom of political expression with this program?
Mr Smyth: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not? This is pretty significant.
Mr Smyth: Because the posts that were referred to were a decision of the platforms themselves as to whether or not they would take any action.
Senator ROBERTS: The department has paid more than a million dollars to M&C Saatchi for their part in this COVID-19 censorship referral program. Did M&C Saatchi determine what was misinformation or did the department? Did M&C Saatchi or the department determine whether or not it complied with Meta’s guidelines?
Mr Smyth: The funds that were paid to M&C Saatchi from March 2020 to July of last year were $256,000 in relation to the COVID information. There was a previous contract that was already in place that was around $500,000-plus.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a question on notice—BE23-193—about M&C Saatchi payments. This is your response:
Of these payments, World Services Australia (trading as M&C Saatchi) has been paid a total of $1,000,911 (GST inclusive) from 1 July 2019 to 31 May 2023 for their work to produce analytical reporting on COVID-19 malign information in the Australian social media environment.
I jump in there to say that some of what is known as ‘malign’ is now vindicated.
This can be broken down into the following payments by financial year:
2020-21: $757,470 – that’s three-quarters of a million.
2021-22: $127,908
2022-23: $115,533
That’s a lot of money going to an international advertising firm.
Ms Foster: You’ve asked us to take that on notice. We will be happy to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: This was your reply.
When people said they thought the government was censoring posts around COVID, that wasn’t a conspiracy theory; it was actually true. You were helping Meta to censor posts that have now proven to be correct.
Ms Foster: I think the officer has provided this evidence a couple of times already. We were referring posts to social media companies for their own decision.
Senator ROBERTS: In accordance with their guidelines—helping them out? Right. Minister, the pending misinformation/disinformation bill legitimises suppression and censorship with no definition of truth. It relies on ministers’ rules. I want to read a quote from Mr Pezzullo—
Senator Watt: I don’t think I would agree with your characterisation.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s no definition of ‘truth’ in your pending bill.
Senator Watt: The entire statement you made—I wouldn’t agree with your characterisation of this bill. I think it’s a bill designed to deal with an increasingly important issue in society, which is the use of social media platforms to spread misinformation and disinformation. That’s what I would say this bill is about.
Senator ROBERTS: But the government is exempt. The mouthpiece media, the mainstream media, is exempt. Social media is not and individual citizens are not. How can that be fair? I will read from Mr Pezzullo in the last estimates:
If we’ve inadvertently—and it would be inadvertent—made a referral of a sitting member or a senator, then I would find that regrettable because, in a sense, you’re held to account by your peers and by your electors; it’s not my job to hold you to account.
Since when has it become the government’s job to hold senators to account on what they say?
Senator Watt: Mr Smyth has already acknowledged—I can’t remember the exact words he used, but it was to the effect that it was regrettable that this had occurred on one occasion. The department looked into that issue after it was raised at the last estimates. Mr Pezzullo said that it would be regrettable if it had occurred, and Mr Smyth has already addressed that this morning.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me make it clear. I’m not talking about the department anymore. I’m talking about Labor’s pending misinformation/disinformation bill.
CHAIR: If that’s what you’re doing, that’s not relevant to outcome 1. I’ve given you—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m using—
CHAIR: No. Senator Roberts, I’ve given you two direction about asking relevant questions in this section. If you don’t have relevant questions then we do need to share the call.
Senator Watt: Chair, I make the point that not only are Senator Roberts’s questions not relevant to this outcome; they’re not relevant to this committee, because this bill that he is referring to is actually being led by the Minister for Communications. Perhaps Senator Roberts could take up those questions at that estimates hearing.
Senator ROBERTS: He will do.
Senator Watt: That is on now—today.
CHAIR: It is happening today and tomorrow, so you do have an opportunity to ask those questions to the appropriate officials.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Senator Watt. Thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/CR_KYCMyru0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-24 14:12:462023-11-08 09:02:21Home Affairs Collaborated with Social Media During COVID
