Minister Makes ABYSMAL Defence of Net-Zero

,

When government discounts expire, Australia will be facing their highest electricity bills ever.

This is despite CSIRO claims that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity.

With the largest amount of wind and solar on the grid, electricity prices have never been higher – go figure. Australia is incredibly rich in resources and should be an electricity super power. 

Instead, we have Minister Ayres and the once respected Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) who continue to destroy our country.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are fairly short. CSIRO didn’t give a direct answer to my question on notice about the cost of Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, but I have the latest figure the CSIRO is using for the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro in Queensland: $12 billion. We now know the Queensland government internally have the actual cost at $36 billion—triple. Snowy 2.0 has blown out from $2 billion to $20 billion, and I forecast that in 2017. That’s if you include the connecting infrastructure—everything to turn the power on. Why do you continue to tell Australians this is a cheap pathway to follow when every step we take proves you wrong—repeatedly wrong. Why?

Dr Mayfield: These numbers are embedded in our GenCost report and, with every technology, we’re looking for actual projects to base our numbers on. I don’t believe we’ve been using the numbers for the Queensland project as part of that. Mr Graham can probably clarify that for me, but we update that on each cycle based on what’s actually happening out there. So the numbers are as up to date as they possibly can be, as we get more project information.

Senator ROBERTS: That worries me more—that they’re up to date. Your GenCost is nothing more than a fairytale. Considering the assumptions, when we include, then, all of the additional costs, like pumped hydro, that are needed to make it work in Australia, we’re not going to have a cheaper energy system, are we, under GenCost?

Dr Hilton: Chair, could I just object to the use of ‘fairytale’? I think that’s a pretty derogatory way of describing what is a well-considered report that has opened itself up to input from a large range of experts over an eight-year period and, I think, provides excellent guidance to the community about the levelised cost of energy.

CHAIR: I think you’ve put that—

Senator ROBERTS: As I said, when we go into the assumptions, it’s a fairytale.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts!

Senator Ayres: Can I just make a couple of comments about this? I think it’s—

Senator ROBERTS: The assumptions have been proven wrong repeatedly.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts!

Senator Ayres: It’s the kind of badgering of our key national scientific organisation that you should not do—you should not do. It’s an organisation that has served Australia well for decade after decade after decade. It is composed of scientists and staff who work diligently on these questions. It is, of course, open to people—particularly people who have got some peer-reviewed scientific background, but it’s open to people—to ask questions and to criticise the findings of the CSIRO and any other research institution. I don’t mind the scrutiny. I don’t think it does your cause any good when you ask these questions, but I don’t mind it. What I do mind is the use of derogatory language. The problem is it’s not just a One Nation Senator who does it. We sort of expect that. It’s the Leader of the Opposition who said on GenCost: It’s a discredited report—let’s be clear about it. It’s not relied on. It’s not a genuine piece of work.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct.

Senator Ayres: What is wrong with the Liberal and National Party that you allow a bloke to run the show who pours scorn—

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this is taking up my time. It needs to stop.

CHAIR: Alright.

Senator Ayres: who pours scorn on science and engineering. It has it has got—

Senator ROBERTS: You’re just taking up my time to shut me down.

Senator Ayres: But you’re the one who applied the derogatory comments. It’s got to stop.

CHAIR: Minister!

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my opinion.

Senator Ayres: It’s got to stop.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my opinion.

Senator Ayres: It’s got to stop. It’s disrespectful.

CHAIR: Minister. Senator Roberts, can I just have a conversation with you?

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

CHAIR: You still have the call. You’ve asked a question in a certain way. Dr Hilton has put some comments on the record about that. The minister has put some comments on the record about that. My job is just to make sure that you ask your questions in a courteous way. And you can ask questions about GenCost. I’d just ask that you put them in a courteous way.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get a move on to the next question. Can you guarantee—guarantee—the entire electricity system, from generation to poles and wires to the electricity bill to the cost of taxpayers, is going to be cheaper if we continue down your pathway? The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act was passed in the year 2000 under the Howard LNP government. So for more than 20 years, government has forced an increasing amount of wind and solar onto the electricity grid. I have here a graph of the cost of electricity over the past 20 years. It has tripled, largely under your guidance. Can any one of you experts here please tell me in which year on this graph putting more wind and solar onto the grid has brought down the price of electricity? I’m happy to table this.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Dr Hilton: Senator, we don’t have a pathway; we provide data to our elected representatives for them to make policy decisions about our electricity system. We’ll continue to do that through the GenCost report in a manner that is objective and that is open to feedback with each iteration of the report, as it’s been over the last eight years, and it’s up to our elected representatives to make the policy decisions about pathways, as they’ve done over the last 30 years, as you showed in your graph.

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t guarantee a pathway.

Senator Ayres: It’s not up to Dr Hilton or the CSIRO—

Senator ROBERTS: The CSIRO has advised there are three pathways, Senator.

Senator Ayres: They don’t run the energy strategy of the Commonwealth or the states. They provide expert advice on what the cheapest technologies are in the Australian context. That’s what they do. They are scientists. They provide advice. It’s a matter for government to follow it. It’s not their pathway. The government—and the private sector too—takes advice about what the cheapest forms of technology are, and if you persist in supporting the most expensive ones, that’s a matter for you.

CHAIR: Okay. Thank you, Minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s take the word of the RBA governor this morning. She said the key factor is supply and demand. When you add electrification to this, what the hell are we going to do with prices? Are you aware that higher electricity prices cascade and multiply throughout the economy, devastating manufacturing, devastating agriculture, devastating household bills when you remove the subsidies. Are you aware that in every nation in the world, increasing solar and wind increases electricity prices? The real-world data shows that. Within you, does this fact about increasing solar and wind driving increasing electricity prices in every nation across the globe raise any questions and, if so, what questions?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking.

Senator Ayres: I’m answering. If you’d approached this issue in a straightforward way, you would’ve explained that the graph that you waved around is the electricity CPI. Right? It’s not the real cost over time; it’s got inflation built into it. If you were straightforward about it, you would pose the counterfactual: what happens if you put more expensive than the—

Senator ROBERTS: I just told you what happens, around the world. Every nation that increases solar and wind increases electricity prices.

Senator Ayres: What the government has to do, serious government that’s actually interested in the future of manufacturing—we will need more electricity.

Senator ROBERTS: The most important factor in the manufacturing cost is electricity, and you’re driving the price up.

Senator Ayres: We’re going to build more manufacturing, and we’re going to drive the price down by delivering more supply and a modern generation facility.

Senator ROBERTS: When you add the demand of—

Senator Ayres: You can hold up your silly graph as long as you like, but it doesn’t alter those facts.

CHAIR: Okay. I’m about to—

Senator ROBERTS: One more question.

CHAIR: Hello, everyone! I’m about to share the call, but I take Senator Roberts’s point that we’ve also had some long answers.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m on my last question.

CHAIR: Ask your final question.

Senator ROBERTS: The federal government says it relies on the CSIRO for advice on energy and future climate. Do you take responsibility for destroying Australia’s position as the cheapest supplier of electricity in the world, with it now being among the most expensive and hurting people and industries, while Mr Mayfield, during a cost-of-living crisis, two years ago was on a total remuneration package of more than $613,000. I’m thinking of people with a median income of $51,000, and half the Australian population is earning below $51,000.

Dr Hilton: I’m always impressed with the quality and influence of the work that our scientists do, but the capacity to directly alter the cost of living for Australians is not one of those gifts our researchers have.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Defence Claims No Housing Issues for Troops in Townsville

,

Defence generals tell me that, despite a large number of troops being relocated to Townsville during a housing crisis, there’s no problem with finding accommodation for our diggers. This claim comes despite Townsville having a “dangerously low” rental vacancy rate of just 1%.

If you or your family are experiencing difficulties in finding accommodation after being directed to move to Townsville, please email my office as I’d like to hear from you.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How many extra people have been moved to Townsville? What numbers will Townsville increase by and are there adequate homes in Townsville?  

Senator McAllister: I think, as part of your answer, Lieutenant General Stuart, you might respond to the first part of the senator’s question, which was about making diggers homeless. You may wish to include a response to that in your answer.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: That’s just not a factually correct statement. We’re not making soldiers homeless. We have a plan that’s been worked through with our team mates in the Security and Estate Group, who are our liaison with Defence Housing, and manage the on-base accommodation. And, of course, we have a very strong relationship with local government in Townsville. It’s a staged plan, over the next three career management cycles, the first of which is—  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s a management cycle—how long?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: It’s a posting cycle—every 12 months. The moves occur roughly between December, January and February. This coming posting cycle will see the first of those soldiers that have volunteered, or have been asked to, go to Townsville to have those skills that we are building in the brigade there. To go to your point about shortages in some of our numbers, we are well under our authorised strength in Townsville. So the additional numbers don’t actually fall above the authorised strength in the next two years. That is notwithstanding the fact that the rental market in Townsville is quite tight.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s tight all over Australia—almost at record levels because of massive immigration. Immigration has doubled the previous records, so I understand the dilemma. So what you’re saying is that you understand the housing pressures, but you’re managing that?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes. 

/by

New Chief of Defence Johnston Faces Integrity Questions

,

Angus Campbell’s DSC (Distinguished Service Cross) is still a live issue and retiring won’t bury it. Now we know Campbell’s replacement, CDF Johnston, was the person who nominated Campbell for his DSC.

Johnston maintains he was just doing what everyone else did at the time. He did not disclose the specific action, with enemy forces in contact, he saw Campbell in that justified a combat award. 

Anyone hoping that there would be new type of direction and integrity leading the Defence Force might be worried that this doesn’t signal a change of pace.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: What about leadership and integrity and truth?  

Adm. Johnston: That was the third in terms of what I understood when you said ‘culture’: leadership is key to culture.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are on the same track. There’s been a long process, revisited over multiple years now, of estimates sessions, questions on notice and freedom of information requests on a particular issue. You’ve been in this room while I questioned your predecessor, Angus Campbell, over his Distinguished Service Cross, which I’m sure you will recall. Admiral Johnston, you were the officer who recommended Angus Campbell for that Distinguished Service Cross, weren’t you?  

Adm. Johnston: I was on the nomination for it, yes, that’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: According to Defence freedom of information request 522/23, you recommended him for that award on 29 September 2011. At that time, the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross required the recipient to be ‘in action’. Admiral Johnston, can you, once and for all, as a person who recommended Angus Campbell for his DSC, clarify what contact with the enemy you saw General Campbell in, in action, that led to your recommending him for a combat medal?  

Adm. Johnston: If I could answer—the nomination was provided to me in my role as the Deputy Chief of Joint Operations at the time. That position has, as one of its responsibilities, to look at the performance of commanders in our deployed forces, of which General Campbell was one at the time. So I progressed the nomination because of the function that I had in Joint Operations Command. I did, as part of that, indicate that the submission of the nomination should be after the period when General Campbell completed his tenure, which was the case. The definition of ‘in action’ that I applied is consistent with that which had been standing for some time, as to commanders—and certainly in General Campbell’s case, I believe, he spent more than 100 days in Afghanistan, as part of his command role, in an area that was classified as a warlike zone.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘A warlike zone’?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was he in a war zone?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And facing fire?  

Adm. Johnston: He was, as part of his duties, rotating through the places where Australian soldiers and others were located, experiencing the same threats as they had in those locations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your definition of ‘in action’?  

Adm. Johnston: The definition I applied is the same as what had been applied by my predecessors and over, I think, eight commanders prior to General Campbell, who had been nominated for a Distinguished Service Cross. It was an individual who is operating in an area where it is a warlike zone and there are threats from hostile forces.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did that definition come into place the day after his nomination? I think beforehand it was direct action.  

Adm. Johnston: The definition changed before his nomination, but the application of what we understood that to be is consistent before General Campbell’s nomination. 

/by

Pornographic Book for Kids Shortlisted for Prime Minister’s Literary Award

,

The pornographic publication – Welcome to Sex – which is aimed at children, was shortlisted for the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards. This book is unclassified, meaning it can be accessed by children of any age, and is found in the children’s section of many libraries.

I asked Creative Australia how this could happen. The answer was disturbing and effectively amounts to a confession that their industry experts and selection panel have become so desensitised to sexual content for children that no one thought teaching young children about sexual techniques—topics that most adults would find inappropriate—was a problem. Instead, it was seen as something that should be encouraged, leading to it being shortlisted for the award.

One Nation is committed to implementing measures that will allow children to be children, protecting them from exposure to adult sexual material before they reach their teenage years.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Who decides which publications are listed in the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards? Is that entirely a decision of Creative Australia, or does the Prime Minister make recommendations?

Mr Collette: It is neither, in fact. It is certainly not either the Prime Minister making recommendations or Creative Australia. We have a robust process. We appoint industry experts to act as adjudicators. We then call for nominations. Then all those books are read. I can’t recall by how many—I can find that out for you—but literally hundreds of books are read over the course of six months. Our selection committee will then choose the shortlist and eventually the winners of each category.

Senator ROBERTS: How many people are on the selection committee?

Mr Collette: I think there are about eight. I’d have to check. I haven’t got that with me.

Senator ROBERTS: Industry experts—that means authors, or publishers, or both?

Mr Collette: It means people with a significant record in the book industry.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the age range for each of the categories young adult and children?

Mr Collette: The young adult range goes from 13 to 19 years.

Senator ROBERTS: And children?

Mr Collette: Under that.

Senator ROBERTS: Everything less than that?

Mr Collette: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: The book Welcome to Sex is unclassified, meaning it’s available for children of any age. The author of the book has stated it’s suitable for eight-year-olds. The book is sold by the publisher without an age guidance. Why was the publication listed under young adult rather than children’s?

Mr Collette: I wasn’t aware of that, Senator. I would have to check that. The entries were assessed by an independent panel of judges with expertise across young adult writing, which is a category for works written for readers, as we said, between 13 and 19. I can tell you the names of the judges. They’ve since been published. The title, as you probably know, has been a bestseller in Australia, widely respected by teachers, psychologists and academic researchers. The title won the 2024 Australian Book Industry Award Book of the Year for Older Children in May 2024.

Senator ROBERTS: What are older children?

Mr Collette: Thirteen to 19. The book is clearly aimed at a teen audience, and the book’s introduction states, ‘Welcome to a book about sex and being a teen.’ I note, too, that Welcome to Sex has now been recommended as an educational resource for young people 14-plus by eSafety Kids, which is a trusted e-safety provider endorsed by the eSafety Commissioner. I’m not aware of the details of the question you’ve asked me. I will certainly investigate it. But there is a lot to recommend the excellence of that book, and indeed it has now been endorsed as a text for older children.

Senator ROBERTS: Older children being teens and 14-plus under the eSafety Commissioner—okay. I think the answer to this is no, but I’ll ask it anyway. Did the Prime Minister or any member of his staff or department make any representation regarding this publication, either for it to be included at all or for it to be included in a particular category?

Mr Collette: No, certainly not.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought so. Can you confirm that it was your decision to list that publication for a Prime Minister’s Literary Award, or was it the committee?

Mr Collette: It was the committee’s decision.

Senator ROBERTS: Who made the decision for the publication not to win? If it’s won so many awards, why didn’t it—

Mr Collette: It would be the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: The book was reprinted with a splash on the cover, ‘Prime Minister’s Literary Award nominee’ and sold many copies based on your endorsement. Did you receive any representation on behalf of the publisher for that work to be included in the awards? I imagine publishers would love the extra sales that result from that recommendation?

Mr Collette: Publishers do love the extra sales. One of the things we’ve done since we took responsibility for the awards was to bring it forward in the calendar year because, as a former publisher myself, I understand that two-thirds of our books are sold in three months before Christmas. So we had publishers, but more importantly booksellers, urging us to announce these awards early because they mean so much to keeping bookshops afloat. So, yes, we did all that. But the entire selection of that book was made by the panel of experts, as was the winner.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Millions Lost to Bureaucratic Stalling

,

The Digital Restack is a simple concept. When digital television was introduced in Australia, each station was given six channels but opted to use only five. In fact, they often struggle to provide entertaining content on even those five. The bandwidth from the sixth channel has been sitting unused between stations all this time.

A digital restack would simply move the channels closer together, freeing up a block of bandwidth that could be auctioned off for between $1 billion and $2 billion—funds that taxpayers could benefit from now. More importantly, this revenue could help grow the economy and create jobs.

One Nation believes a small portion of this bandwidth should be dedicated to two Community Television channels, providing community access to broadcasting, defeating the media monopoly on TV programming. Melbourne’s C31 is an excellent example of the quality and audience reach that community television can achieve.

I asked the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) what happened to the restack that was due this year. The answer was extraordinary. According to the Minister, they are conducting “a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs, in looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed.”

In other words, they have no plans to proceed—just a stream of bureaucratic word salad instead.

This government is failing us.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. And we’ve seen how that goes. This is my final question. It is about the digital restack. I looked through your annual work program report and found this comment regarding the digital television channel restack. I quote:

Exploring possible parameters and solutions for channel planning relevant to possible new shared multiplex arrangements. This work will provide evidence to inform any future restack—

The restack was to be a closing up of digital TV channels. This sounds like you have something else in mind for the sixth channel, the gap between each station. What is the plan for the restack now?

Ms O’Loughlin: The Minister for Communications gave a speech a couple of weeks ago at our RadComms conference. They were talking about a program of work that needed to be done around the future of television. Her emphasis in that was that free-to-air television is incredibly important in Australia because it reaches 99 per cent of the population. It is free to air. How is that going to evolve over the next 10 years? Will it be terrestrially driven or will some of it go online? The minister was talking about a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including the broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs. It is looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed. A small part of that is what happens to the spectrum that may be freed up over that process. Part of our job is what that might be and when that might occur. The annual report says that requires channel planning. A whole lot of spectrum planning would have to be done to facilitate any movement of the broadcasters and the freeing up of that spectrum over time.

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean in English, so that people can understand? What is the reality? You have said managed and staged, which indicates to me that it is more than just a premonition of an idea that something might happen. Something is happening.

Ms O’Loughlin: The minister’s announcement was about some things that have happened recently. For example, in Mildura, the Channel 10 services were turned off because the local providers who provided that service didn’t think it was financially feasible to continue it. It has an impact on consumers. WIN has made some changes to its arrangements in other parts of the country, where it is sharing its own infrastructure. That has an implication. That has actually not affected those audiences very well. I think what the minister is saying is that if there is going to be an end state where broadcasting wants to go, we need to think about all the steps that have to take place for that to get there effectively. That is what is alluded to. There is what is called a future broadcasting working group, which the minister has asked to be reinvigorated, to start thinking about these issues for the next 10 or 15 years, not the next two or three.

/3 Comments/by

Concerns Raised Over eSafety Commissioner’s Powers

,

The eSafety Commissioner has the power to issue takedown notices on various types of material, with exploitation material being the most common. One Nation supports these powers being used for this purpose. A small portion of their work involves removing material that is deemed “violent or distressing.” This was the power used in the case of the Bishop Mari Mari Emmanuel video. One Nation is concerned that these powers could be misused, as they are subject to political interpretation regarding what is and is not “violent or distressing.”

I asked the eSafety Commissioner if her department had a transparency portal where Senators and the public could see the material being taken down. The Commissioner responded by including exploitation material in her count, to show why such a portal was not feasible, yet I did not ask about exploitation material; my question specifically concerned material categorised as “violent or distressing.”

It is my belief that social media platforms primarily use AI to remove most of this material and that the department has only had to issue a small number of notices. I want to know what those notices were issued for and I will continue this inquiry during the next estimates session.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. My first question is about your newsroom statement from 4 October about the social media platform X and a transparency notice on the measures it’s taking to combat child sexual exploitation material. Is this the only transparency notice that has not been complied with?

Ms Inman Grant: Thus far, yes. Where we issued an infringement notice, we issued something called a service provider notification to Google for the same set of child sexual abuse material.

Senator ROBERTS: The only other platform is Google, and that hasn’t been issued with a transparency notice. Are there any others like Telegram or Facebook? Telegram does a lot of work in that area.

Ms Inman Grant: We are in the midst of a process around a series of very complex transparency notices in relation to terrorist and violent extremist material. Telegram is amongst them, and we’re engaging with them.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This thread asks about a subset of your work—material that is violent or distressing. Do you have a transparency portal where your instructions to social media platforms to take down such material are registered in as close to real time as possible so we can see what you’re censoring?

Ms Inman Grant: We weren’t set up as a censor, Senator. We have frameworks provided through complaint schemes. Members of the public report content to us, particularly when the social media platform or messaging platform hasn’t responded. With respect to illegal and harmful online content, we also have very well legally defined requirements. We have both notice powers under the Criminal Code and then removal notices under the Online Safety Act and formal removal notices, which we exercised against both X and Meta during the Wakeley terrorist incident.

Mr Dagg: Can I just explain how we achieve the objective of transparency in terms of our actions. You may know that the Online Safety Act requires us to publish, under section 183, actions that we’ve taken in relation to a variety of harms. Our annual report has been published. You can find all of the information—

Senator ROBERTS: Your report has been published?

Mr Dagg: The annual report has been published, and we are required to report all of that information in the annual report. You can find that from page 223 in the appendices that relate to the eSafety Commissioner. That will show you all of the actions that we took for the financial year 2023-24.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give us a bit of background on each one?

Mr Dagg: No—these are aggregated figures, so there’s no specific breakdown of each individual matter.

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no breakdown and no opportunity for people to see how you’re doing it?

Mr Dagg: It would not be operationally feasible for us to report in real time the actions that we’re taking. Parliament expected us to report on an aggregated basis about the actions that we’ve taken, including requests, but we haven’t broken them down—

Senator ROBERTS: It’s just the aggregate numbers—

Mr Dagg: The aggregate numbers for a range of operational purposes, including security and operational feasibility.

Senator ROBERTS: So the platforms have to be transparent, and you don’t?

Mr Dagg: Well, the platforms report on things in an aggregated way, too, Senator. They’re not reporting on each individual specific matter that they deal with. They deal with millions of matters on a yearly basis. So, again, that just wouldn’t be feasible for them to do.

Senator ROBERTS: But the platforms have to be transparent to you.

Mr Dagg: Through the exercise of our compulsory transparency powers under the basic online safety expectations. But it’s important to note, Senator, that those transparency powers are around how the platforms are meeting the expectations. We’re not extracting from them specific information about how they’re dealing with this matter or that matter that might be reported to them. We’re interested in understanding how they take user reports, for example—if they’ve got reporting schemes in place, how their terms, services and policies are developed to meet the objects of the basic online safety expectations. The most recent determination includes some measures in relation to generative AI and how the companies are ensuring that these technologies aren’t being used, for example, to produce child sexual abuse material on a synthetic basis. That’s the kind of information that we’re drawing from the companies. We’re not drawing information about how they’re dealing with individual complaints.

Senator ROBERTS: The police force has long had transparency to the public through the court system. Whether you agree that the court system is perfect or not, that’s not the point. Who do you go through to provide transparency? How can we assess what you’re doing, rather than just in the aggregate?

Mr Dagg: When it comes to the principles of open justice, as a former police officer myself, the matters that make their way to court represent a tiny fraction of all matters that are reported to police. The matters that are reported to police are not reported on an individual basis. There are strict privacy concerns, for example, that ensure the protection of complainants’ identities and the specific matters that are reported to police forces. The Wakeley matter—the section 109 notice that we issued to Twitter X—is a good example of how that principle of transparency plays out in the Federal Court. The online file, for example, includes all of the evidence that the eSafety Commissioner relied on to make the case that the interlocutory measures ought to be accepted by the court.

Senator ROBERTS: The Senate is the house of review. What facility exists for the Senate to review your take-down notices of material? Where’s the supervision of your activity? Who oversees you?

Ms Inman Grant: There are a few different ways. One is through FOI, which you’ve exercised yourself, Senator. We’ve had a 2,288 per cent increase in FOIs over the past year. We are held accountable. We have reporting requirements that include any informal actions we take. Of course, we can be challenged in the Federal Court. We can be challenged at the AAT, or now the ART. We can be challenged by the Ombudsman, and a complainant can ask for an internal review to be done. So there are a number of different ways that we can provide transparency when it is asked for or required.
But, as Mr Dagg said, with 41,000 reports this year—and I think Mr Downey, who is now running the investigations branch, is expecting at least 60,000 reports next year—it would operationally be infeasible, and it would violate the privacy of the complainants. As I said before, that confidentiality is important. Even young people understand that one of the reasons children don’t report cyberbullying is they don’t want to be the dobber or the snitch, and they fear retribution. If we were to not treat some of these complaints as personal information—and the Information Commissioner agrees with us—I think it would undermine trust in us as an organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: I get that. Did you say that there was a 2,000 per cent increase in FOIs?

Ms Inman Grant: Yes, 2,288 per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a huge increase. It tells me that people are hungry to learn more.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes, and there have been some campaigns that have also encouraged people to put in FOIs, which we respond to.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve used the defence of having so many infringements to take care of. That’s a big workload. What I’m interested in is not so much that but how you’re being held accountable. How can we see transparently what you’re doing?

Senator McAllister: Here we all are, Senator. What is the question that you seek to ask?

CHAIR: We call it estimates.

Senator McAllister: We are at estimates. The commissioner is here to answer your questions. If there are particular things that you’re interested in, you really should ask her.

Senator ROBERTS: What about the public? They need to know.

Senator McAllister: You are their representative, as you so often remind us.

CHAIR: You can send them the video of this.

Senator McAllister: You are a humble servant of the people of Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to freedom of information 24118, which asked for any guidelines you have with regard to the implied right to political communication to make sure you aren’t infringing on it as you issue take-down notices. I note that your freedom of information decision says: ‘There are no dedicated guides or policies with respect to the interaction of the implied right of political communication in use by the eSafety Commissioner or personnel who implement the various schemes under the OSA.’ There are no dedicated guides or policies?

Mr Dagg: We would need to assess each and every action we take through the lens of whether or not the implied constitutional right to political communication is infringed. That’s just operationally infeasible.

Senator ROBERTS: So are you saying, ‘To hell with the Constitution’?

Mr Dagg: No, not at all. The concern that a particular person’s interests may have been infringed in such a way as to raise a claim that the operation of the Online Safety Act is invalid is absolutely a matter that can be pursued through merits review or judicial review. But, to the commissioner’s point, we are going to be dealing with 60,000 complained URLs this year, which produces a significant percentage of actions we take. I’m sure you can understand that rigorously assessing whether or not they raise any specific issues in relation to the implied constitutional right makes it very difficult for us to make rapid decisions in line with the threshold set by the act. I think it’s important to note that the act contains very clear thresholds and very clear parameters for us to apply in terms of operational decision-making. The act itself, as you would have seen, is supported by a bill which was subject to exhaustive human rights review in its construction. We believe that, by properly administering the act on behalf of the commissioner, we’re taking actions which are in line with parliament’s expectations. If a person believes that their constitutional right—the implied right—has been infringed, there are avenues for review of that decision.

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t see how bypassing the Constitution or not including it as a consideration is in any way okay. The eSafety Commissioner and the delegates ordinarily—this is the quote: ‘The eSafety Commissioner and the delegates ordinarily proceed on the basis that the powers given to them under the OSA by the Australian Parliament are reasonably appropriate and adapted’. So you don’t turn your mind to whether you’re acting constitutionally at all; you just assume you are. How can this Senate be convinced that you are able to act within the Constitution when you don’t even have a document outlining the fundamental right of Australians to communicate in political matters? If you infringe on someone’s constitutional rights, then they complain? That’s it?

Senator McAllister: As you know, the constitutionality of any piece of legislation that comes before the parliament—

Senator ROBERTS: Not the legislation—

Senator McAllister: is quite frequently a matter of some discussion. Unless you seek to challenge it, we can assume that the legislative framework within which the commissioner and her staff operates is constitutional.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a misrepresentation of what I said, Minister. I’m not saying that the act is unconstitutional; I’m saying that the consideration to take someone down needs to maintain constitutional rights—particularly political.

Senator McAllister: I think the two things are interconnected, Senator, because the powers that are exercised by the commissioner and the staff that work with her are enabled by the parliament and by the legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: I get that.

Senator McAllister: As I have indicated to you already, that is quite often subject to a discussion among senators about constitutional arrangements.

Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question—the right to political communication.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am going to move on.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/2 Comments/by

Top Bureaucrat Skips Senate Estimates

,

Earlier this year, I asked the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services numerous questions about his oversight of workers that help out at Parliament House. Despite earning $480,000 a year and only needing to attend Estimates three times a year, there was no explanation for the type of leave Stefanic was on that prevented him from fronting up to answer questions.

There are serious questions he needs to answer, and I’ll continue to ask these questions on behalf of former employees of Parliament House.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. What is the nature of your boss’s leave?

Ms Hinchcliffe: In my opening statement I indicated we don’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not? I heard your opening statement.

Ms Hinchcliffe: They go to personal matters for individuals, so we wouldn’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely this is affecting the morale, which you want to turn around, of the DPS staff. As Senator Hume pointed out, the taxpayer is paying for it.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure that it’s affecting morale of staff. I walk around the building and talk to our staff, and my sense of staff is that they are very committed to this building and are very committed to the work they do.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree, but many of come up to me and they’re not happy. They’re very dissatisfied with the way the department has been run. What is the nature of his leave?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that we won’t be discussing—

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard that he’s being paid while he’s on leave. How long will he be on paid leave, noting that on Wednesday it will have been four weeks since he informed DPS staff he had gone on leave?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I indicated to an earlier question that I don’t have an end date for his leave.

Senator ROBERTS: Was Mr Stefanic’s decision to take leave on 9 October 2024 related to the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s raid on DPS in Parliament House on 3 October?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve indicated that I’m not speaking any further in relation to the execution of the warrants by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware it was specifically requested that Mr Stefanic be here to answer questions that he has personal knowledge of.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I wrote to the committee chair to indicate that he would not be available and to request that he be excused from this.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re aware that he was specifically requested. I specifically requested him.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m aware now that you specifically requested. As I said, I went through the process, wrote to the chair and asked that he be excused.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has to appear at estimates only three times a year. He knew these hearings were coming up. He was formally requested and has failed to show up. How is this not contempt of the Senate?

Ms Hinchcliffe: As I already indicated in my evidence, I wrote to the chair and asked for him to be excused.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you feel like you’ve been thrown under the bus?

Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I do not.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has repeatedly said that complaints about DPS are purely due to former employees with an axe to grind. Do you share that view?

Ms Hinchcliffe: You may remember my evidence at the last hearing, where I said that I think that feedback is gold. We talked particularly about things like the staff survey and the importance of staff having the availability to provide to management their feedback on how they consider things are going but also where they’d like to see the department go into the future.

Senator ROBERTS: The employees of DPS that I hear from, especially security, are not at all happy. Do you know whether Mr Stefanic was in a relationship with Cate Saunders before or after he appointed her to the deputy secretary position?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge about Mr Stefanic’s relationships, and I’m not willing to answer anything further on that. That’s not a matter for me.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to the case of ACD 13—it almost sounds like a rock group—in the Federal Court involving DPS. There’s a suppression order over that case except for hearings of parliament. I remind you that estimates is a hearing of parliament. I understand that the complainant, ACD 13, has consented to lifting that suppression order but DPS will not consent to lifting the suppression order. Is DPS resisting lifting that order?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have a lot of details on that matter, but as I understand it there’s currently a consultation underway. I can understand that our lawyers have been approached and that we’re going through
consultation processes at the moment, so that’s an ongoing matter which I won’t comment on any further.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you find out that the status is and give us an update on notice, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I will take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What does DPS have to hide that you want to keep under suppression? What is it?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I have nothing to add in relation to that matter.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand Mr Robert Brigden instructed solicitors in ACD 13 that Rob Stefanic had ‘no involvement’ in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee. Is that what was instructed?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware of this matter in any detail. It occurred before I came to DPS. I don’t have anything I can add to that, sorry.

Senator ROBERTS: Is the statement that Rob Stefanic had no involvement in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee true?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge of this matter to provide you with any further information.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the records of the first interview that took place with Barbara Deegan of Ashurst Lawyers?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware, no. I have no awareness of this matter.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is, in those records of the interview, contrary to the statement that he wasn’t involved, the facts show the contents of the envelope were taken and shown to Mr Stefanic and they were then kept in Mr Stefanic’s safe. Is that true?

Ms Hinchcliffe: As I just said, I don’t have any awareness of this matter. It occurred before I became to DPS.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice to find that out, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I can take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Please take on notice to produce the transcripts of record of first interviews by Barbara Deegan from Ashurst with Andrew Brigden, Rob Stefanic and Cate Saunders. Note that the suppression order
from the Federal Court has a specific exemption for this hearing, so it does not apply to this request. Can you take that on notice, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Did Cate Saunders make any intervention to ensure that the statement that Rob Stefanic was not involved in the envelope interception was included?

Ms Hinchcliffe: As I said, I have no knowledge of this matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and find out, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take it on notice, but whether I can find anything out is a different matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could check with the people involved that I’ve just named. Can you please confirm exactly when Cate Saunders began her employment?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I can. She was engaged with DPS on 17 December 2017.

Senator ROBERTS: How many branch or division managers have left their position over the last three years?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I would need to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: That is understandable. Broadly, in relation to the NACC raid on raid on DPS of 3 October 24, have any DPS executives been stood down pending the NACC investigation and, if so, how many?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that I won’t be speaking any further in relation to the NACC matters, but I can say that no senior executives have been stood down.

Senator ROBERTS: How many DPS executives are on paid leave while the investigation is underway?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Again, I’ve said that I’m not going to answer any other questions in relation to the—

Senator ROBERTS: This is in relation to your department, not the NACC.

Ms Hinchcliffe: No, you’re asking questions about people who might be on leave that go to whether or not they’re being investigated. At that point I need to consider whether or not that actually starts to go to a public
interest question, so I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and, if you want to claim public indemnity, then it needs to go through the minister.

CHAIR: Public interest immunity.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—I get tangled up. Ms Hinchcliffe, when did you become aware that the NACC was investigating DPS?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I haven’t indicated what the NACC is investigating; I’ve indicated that the NACC has executed search warrants on DPS, and I’ve also indicated that I won’t answer any further questions.

Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of that investigation?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I have indicated that I won’t answer any further questions in relation to the investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of the warrants?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I became aware that the NACC were going to issue warrants on DPS on 2 October.

Senator ROBERTS: Was that your first indication?

Ms Hinchcliffe: That the NACC was going to execute a warrant on 3 October? Yes, it was.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ms Hinchcliffe, during your time working at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, were you part of the team that dealt with the complaint about the handling of a Public
Interest Disclosure Act disclosure at DPS?

Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I was not.

Senator ROBERTS: When did you first work with Rob Stefanic?

Ms Hinchcliffe: When he started as secretary at DPS, and I think that was in the second half of 2015. It might have been in December.

Senator ROBERTS: So you were already there, and he came in as your boss?

Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s exactly right.

Senator ROBERTS: What year and date?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I think Mr Stefanic started in 2015. It was towards the end of the year; I started in April 2015.

Senator ROBERTS: So you preceded him by about six or seven months?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I think so.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you consider Rob Stefanic to be a personal friend?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I consider Mr Stefanic to be a colleague. He’s been somebody that I’ve worked with previously, and I’ve come and worked for him as the deputy secretary. I don’t have any outside engagement with
him, and I work with him as a colleague.

Senator ROBERTS: So you were there when he arrived? He arrived after you?

Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you work with him before that?

Ms Hinchcliffe: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please take on notice to provide the total number of sexual harassment claims that DPS has settled over the previous five years and include the average settlement amount, the standard
deviation and how many of them have been under non-disclosure agreements?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I’ll take that notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The upper management of DPS obviously has a lot of work to do to earn back the trust of DPS employees. We know that from just walking around the building. People come up to me
frequently. I would say to you that that work to restore trust starts with accountability and transparency. Surely, you could start the transparency with how you answer these questions and allow the suppression order to be lifted.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that as a comment, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, will you lift the suppression order? I’d like that on notice.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already taken on notice of where that is up to, and I think that forms part of that question. If it’s not, if it’s a separate question, then I’ll take that on notice too.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. President, Minister—

The President: President.

Senator ROBERTS: President, thank you. Could I have your answer to that question as well please?

The President: What question?

Senator ROBERTS: I would say that trust starts with accountability. Could the suppression order be lifted?

The President: That’s got nothing to do with me, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Nothing at all?

The President: No. It’s a departmental matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, President. Thank you, Chair.

/by

$60 Billion Tunnel or Smarter, Cheaper Port of Gladstone Solution?

,

Inland Rail is a crucial project for Australia’s future and for the viability of the national highway network. As our population grows, the road network will become increasingly congested with large trucks. Creating an inland rail link between Melbourne and Brisbane will remove hundreds of thousands of truck movements off the road, while providing safer and faster freight transit.

Inland Rail has been problematic from the start due to the LNP Government’s decision to use a route (an alignment) that favoured certain landholders, airport owners, and port owners – in other words party donors. To please these interest groups, Inland Rail was designed to cross the Condamine River floodplain east of Millmerran before going across to Toowoomba, then down the range into Brisbane, with the The Port of Brisbane being the primary export port.

This route is patently stupid for several reasons. Crossing the Condamine floodplain is not technically feasible. The embankment necessary is located on about 30 m depth of clay, which becomes waterlogged and soft with a rain event known to occur, on average, every two years. Running a 40,000 tonne train across soft ground is unsafe. Even a few days of rain will require speeds to be slowed to 40 km/h, causing shipment delays, higher cost and destroying agriculture in the region through frequent flooding as flood water builds up behind the embankment.

Have we learnt nothing form the MITEZ rail link, which was also built across a floodplain and has been a drain on taxpayers ever since.

The second reason is because the Brisbane rail network is close to capacity and the corridor is constrained, meaning extra lines can’t be added. By the time trains are running along Inland Rail, there will be no slots left to bring the freight to the port. This is why there is now an insane suggestion to build a 60 km TUNNEL under Brisbane to bring the freight through.

You think cross-river rail is a disaster? This project is ten times the length, and should be ten times the cost = $60 billion – just for the tunnel. And remember, this is all taxpayer’s money that will never be repaid from rail revenue.

One Nation supports directing Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, where a modern container facility is currently under construction. This would require the alignment to turn north before Millmerran and head up to Dalby, with Wellcamp Airport and Brisbane freight coming back to the existing line, something that will be no slower because of the higher speeds available on this alignment.

Port of Gladstone is best located, cheaper and more efficient than Brisbane, with room to grow. The best news of all – the Millmerran to Port of Gladstone route has a strong advocate with IPG and is already holding offers of finance from infrastructure investment funds.

One Nation’s solution means no public money and a smarter route. ALP/LNP means $60 billion of taxpayers money for a slower, unreliable and more costly option.

/2 Comments/by

ABC Never Apologise When Called Out

,

The ABC published a video that had additional gunshots inserted into it to try and accuse Special Forces Soldiers of War Crimes. Veteran Heston Russell has been asking for a (deserved) apology for years and if he’d been given one, the ABC could have avoided a multi-million dollar court case.

Now they tout the results of an “independent” review. The person who conducted the review held senior positions at the ABC for decades and is likely still close friends with people who work there. 

The ABC is failing to live up to the standards Australians expect of a $1 billion taxpayer organisation.

The Terms of Reference for the review are so narrow that they likely restricted the review.

The reviewer is an award-winning journalist with a positive reputation. However, when appointing a supposedly “independent” reviewer, it’s important that the reviewer is appropriate in terms of background and experience and that the reviewer has no perceived connection with the organisation they are reviewing.

This reviewer spent decades with ABC-SBS, beginning as a cadet at the ABC in 1979.

The interim report’s recommendations raise integrity as an issue with ABC News, which leads me to conclude that, at best, ABC News is sloppy.

The ABC has blown millions in taxpayer dollars defending its defamatory treatment of Heston Russell and leaves itself open to further scrutiny, yet despite losing the defamation case, the ABC refuses to apologise.

The arrogance here is astounding.Just apologise.

/4 Comments/by

Huge Win! Federal Police to Drop Vaccine Mandate

,

I was surprised and overjoyed to hear that the Australian Federal Police will be dropping their vaccine mandate, which has been in place for more than three years. The facts about COVID vaccines are becoming increasingly clear and hard to ignore.

I only wish they had recognised these facts earlier, sparing their dedicated employees, who want nothing more than to do their jobs properly and with care, the unnecessary hell they faced.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is just a comment in your support that’s not requiring an answer. You have police stationed overseas as well, so it’s a far-ranging jurisdiction. Is it fair to say that a lot of your officers might be working harder to cover more work than they used to?

Ms Van Gurp: Certainly, the complexity and volume of our work is up; that’s correct. We put a lot of effort into our operational prioritisation through our A-TACC and how we prioritise our workforce resources across those changing priorities day-to-day to make sure that we’re delivering outcomes for the Australian community.

Senator ROBERTS: You mandated compulsory COVID vaccinations through the commissioner’s order 10 in 2021, and you reiterated it in 2022. In 2024, you’re still mandating it, despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s not needed or necessary. Why are you still forcing good people who want to do good police work to sit on the sidelines over what they choose to put in their body?

Ms Gale: I might start the response and then hand over to the acting chief operating officer again. What I would say in relation to that particular policy, which is currently a commissioner order, is that we are in the process of revoking that particular order. The COO can talk to the governance arrangements that we’ll be undertaking while we go about the process of revocation, but I can assure you that we are in the process of revoking that particular order.

Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like a decision has been made.

Ms Gale: Yes.

/4 Comments/by