Senate Estimates Archives - Page 4 of 35

Visa Approvals and Security Checks Amid Rising Global Tensions

I asked Home Affairs about the total number of permanent residency visas issued in the last financial year, which totalled 185,000. For temporary student visas in 2023-24, there were 580,193 applications and 376,731 visas were granted, with 86,473 issued up to September this year. In the same period, 315,632 temporary residency visas were issued, with an additional 64,820 granted by September.

Visitor visas in 2023-24 reached 4,713,442, with another 1,203,891 granted by September. Working holiday visas numbered 234,556 in the last financial year, with 95,371 issued up to September.

With the crisis in Lebanon, 8,330 temporary visas have been issued to Lebanese nationals, with 15,525 applications lodged. All applicants undergo rigorous vetting, including identity and character checks, with applications screened against a 1,000,000-person immigration alert list. All security checks are completed before applicants arrive in Australia. Applications from Lebanon are typically processed within a few weeks, some prioritised for faster processing if necessary.

Regarding Palestinian visa applications, 3,041 have been granted, 7,252 refused, and 200 remain under review as of September 30.

Security criteria was confirmed to remain uncompromised throughout the process.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. How many permanent visas are currently issued for residency in Australia? How many temporary visas are currently issued for residency in Australia?

Mr Kilner: For the Migration Program, the current numbers for this program year will be 185,000 migrant visas. That’s the program numbers for this year.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s permanent?

Mr Kilner: They would be permanent visas, yes. For temporary visas there are a range of different visas that we have. For student visas—most of the key programs for student visas are demand driven—I’ll give you a figure for last program year, as an example, and I can give you a figure for visas that have been granted so far this year. For the last program year there were 580,193 visas granted. There have been 99,868 visas lodged so far this year, from 1 July to 30 September, with 86,473 granted. The number granted for the last program year was 376,731 for students. For temporary residence visas, the number granted for the last financial year was 315,632. So far this program year, up until 30 September, there have been 64,820 visas granted. I’ll also go to visitor visas.

Senator ROBERTS: What was that category?

Mr Kilner: That was temporary residence visas.

Senator ROBERTS: The previous one was temporary visas for students.

Mr Kilner: Yes. There’s a different category—so that was student, and the next one I gave you was temporary visas. For visitor visas, the number granted for the last program year was 4,713,442. For this year to date, up to 30 September, it’s been 1,203,891. For working holiday maker visas, last program year there were 234,556 and so far this year there have been 95,371.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to another tack now. Now that the war in the Middle East has progressed to responding to attacks by Hezbollah, a terrorist group from Lebanon, how many migrants from Lebanon were
received into Australia at the end of last year?

Mr Kilner: I’ll have to take that figure on notice. I’ll just check if my colleagues have a figure. We may need to take that one on notice.

Mr Willard: I provided some evidence earlier on the number of visas we’ve granted to Lebanese citizens over the past 12 months. Your question was specifically about permanent visas, as I understand it. I don’t have that breakdown but I have that figure, which I could repeat. Since 7 October 2023, 8,333 migration and temporary visa applications have been granted to Lebanese nationals.

Senator ROBERTS: You can get the migrants on notice—the permanents?

Mr Willard: I can get the breakdown on notice, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications for visas over the last year from Lebanon have been received to come into Australia?

Mr Willard: The figure for applications since 7 October 2023 to 15 October 2024 is 15,525 migration and temporary visa applications lodged.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the vetting process for these visa applications?

Mr Willard: All applications are assessed against criteria for grant of a visa, which covers character, security, health, and a range of other criteria depending on the visa that is granted. We have to be satisfied of someone’s identity, and there’s a range of processes that sit behind all of those assessments.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you lead me through the process? A person makes an application; what then happens to that application?

Mr Willard: Typically, the application is lodged online, which is how over 99 per cent of our applications are received.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that go to a consulate or something in Lebanon, or does it come here?

Mr Willard: It goes to one of our processing offices around the world. Some of them come here. Some go to our embassy in Beirut. Some go to other locations. When the application is lodged, there is a series of risk alerts in place that identify concerns or characteristics to look for around fraud, disingenuity and other concerns. To give you a sense of that process: there are well over a million alerts in place that relate to identities and documents of concern. That’s on something called the migration alert list.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you work with intelligence agencies, home affairs and cybercrime?

Mr Willard: Yes. We get a whole range of information from a range of sources, including security agencies, other agencies within the Commonwealth, law enforcement agencies and partners around the world. In addition to those alerts that relate to identities and documents of concern, there are another 3.4 million entity details which are matched against visa applications. I don’t want to go into too much detail in a way that sets out exactly what the process is, because that provides an opportunity to game the process, but entity matches are any piece of information that we’ve collected that might be able to be matched against an application. There are also 1,000 rules based alerts, which are alerts that come up to the decision-maker to take a particular action on a particular application, depending on the characteristics of that application. We also have 43 predictive models that give a decision-maker an indication of the risk associated with a particular application. That’s not all that happens, but that’s the starting point. Then there is an assessment of the application, the claims that are made and documents that are submitted in support of the application. That’s all considered against the criteria for the grant of the visa. If all the criteria are met, then the application is granted.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the estimated time taken to process visa applications? I’m guessing there is a wide range of times here. Would it be better to process these visa applications prior to these persons being
allowed to enter Australia?

Mr Willard: All the applications, when they’re lodged offshore, are processed prior to them entering. In fact, they can only enter if they have been granted a visa—if they’ve gone through that process and have met all the criteria for a visa grant.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that apply to refugees?

Mr Willard: That applies to all of those applicants, including refugees. I’m sorry; can you repeat the first part of your question?

Senator ROBERTS: What is the estimated time taken to process these visa applications?

Mr Willard: At the moment in Lebanon, we’re looking at about a couple of weeks. As you said, there’s a range of processing times, but that’s roughly what we’re looking at.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a fast-track for people from Lebanon? I’ve got nothing against people from Lebanon. I buy my lunch from them every day. They’re wonderful people, some of them

Mr Willard: What we’re doing in respect of Lebanon is supporting circumstances where Australian citizens are seeking to leave, and a close family member might be someone who needs a visa. It might be their partner. It could be children. It could be a parent. In that circumstance, we’re prioritising that assessment, but everyone still has to meet all of the criteria for the grant of a visa, and that process is taking a couple of weeks at the moment.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration being given to staying applications for visas for people from Palestine and Lebanon until hostilities cease?

Mr Willard: Across many years, we’ve seen in all sorts of circumstances situations where there are challenges in various countries. The role of the officers who make the decisions, the delegated decision-makers, is to
consider applications against the criteria and make an assessment of whether or not someone can be granted a visa.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. My interpretation of what you just said is that the criteria are not compromised.

Mr Willard: No, the criteria are not compromised.

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the most important thing—criteria? But if there’s a human rights crisis, as there is right now in Palestine and Lebanon, you may try and put more resources in. How would you shorten the
period?

Mr Willard: It’s an exercise in prioritisation—for example, triaging applications when they come in and, where there’s additional information required, making sure that that’s actioned promptly and that people get
information about what they need to provide to satisfy the criteria. It’s also about making sure we’ve got contingency, particularly in Lebanon at the moment, to be able to handle unexpected circumstances. For example, we have a capacity to collect biometrics through a mobile collection facility. We also have some additional officers in country who are supporting staff who are already there and who’ve been going through a long period in Lebanon where it’s been a crisis situation. Providing some additional staff to support them is part of what we’re doing as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Would those staff already be in Lebanon? I think that’s what you said. And they’re redirected to that task?

Mr Willard: We’ve got two posted officers and 10 locally engaged staff in Beirut, and they’ve been doing a tremendous job in difficult circumstances. We’ve had some additional people go in to provide support and
capacity for them to rest, recuperate and actually have a break as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Are they from Australia or from somewhere else in Europe or the Middle East?

Mr Willard: There are a few from Australia, and some have been cross-posted from other posts overseas.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you make sure that they can understand the cultural signs in Lebanon?

Mr Willard: There is a series of training and assessments that we do before we post people, and they are trained on cultural awareness training. But for this particular situation they’re also trained in working in high-
threat environments. They’ve also been assessed in terms of resilience, because sometimes it is a very difficult circumstance, and officers are selected on those particular qualities.

Senator ROBERTS: So the cultural training is to be familiar with the local culture so that people understand the flags; it’s not DEI cultural awareness?

Mr Willard: It’s a broader training that people go through on their overseas preparation course around cultural awareness. It’s not specific to each country. When they do go into country, though, they are briefed by the local post, particularly around the security circumstances.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll switch to Palestine. How many visa applications from Palestinians have been finalised over the last year, with full risk vetting completed?

Mr Willard: I provided some evidence earlier, and I’m happy to repeat that. There have been 3,041 visas granted to holders of Palestinian travel documents. There have been 7,252 visitor visas refused. In addition,
another 45 migration and temporary visas have been refused, eight protection visas have been refused and fewer than five humanitarian visas have been refused.

Senator ROBERTS: So, out of about 10,300 visa applications, 3,041 have been approved?

Mr Willard: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true, as the media stated, that some of those visa applications were processed in around one hour?

Mr Willard: I do have some processing time information that could perhaps provide some detail. Since October 2023 and going through to the end of September 2024, the median processing time for all visas finalised
for holders of Palestinian travel documents is 116 days. The average processing time in that same period is 107 days.

Senator ROBERTS: Medians and averages—and I’m not accusing you of hiding anything—can hide many, many things. Were some of the visas approved in less than an hour, or in around an hour?

Mr Willard: We’re not able to report on that level of detail. I would be very surprised if that were the case, but I can’t provide a report to—

Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the claims made in the mainstream media, the mouthpiece media?

Mr Willard: I am familiar. In fact, some of it may have related indirectly to evidence I provided previously, before this committee, in which I was making a reference to, globally, visitor visas processed in one day. But, in making that reference, with all visa applications from all nationalities around the world, the median processing time is a day. That median processing time is on our website.

Senator ROBERTS: From an application being received to the visa being granted is a day?

Mr Willard: It’s the median processing time for a visitor visa for all nationalities around the world. It doesn’t mean it’s the median processing time for holders of Palestinian travel documents. I just provided that figure at 116 days.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of those Palestinian visa applications are still outstanding?

Mr Willard: I gave some evidence earlier. I think the figures—

Senator ROBERTS: How many of them are connected with Hamas or Hezbollah sympathisers?

Mr Willard: For the visa applications outstanding outside Australia, as at the end of 30 September, that figure is 200. I can’t provide a response to the second part of your question because the fact they’re outstanding means they’ve not yet been assessed.

December 19, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Australians Deserve a Proper COVID Royal Commission

COVID, National, Senate Estimates

The government’s COVID inquiry: * No power to compel witnesses * No ability to take evidence under oath * No power to order documents * Only talked to people who volunteered for interviews

Australians deserve a full COVID Royal Commission with: * Power to compel testimony * Evidence under oath * Full document access * Complete transparency

Even Health Minister Butler admitted there was ‘lack of transparency’ and ‘lack of evidence-based policy.’ Australians deserve real answers and accountability, not a toothless inquiry.

It’s time for a proper COVID Royal Commission so that charges can be laid.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Going to the government’s COVID-19 response inquiry, the panel only talked to people who volunteered to talk to it, didn’t they?

Ms Hefren-Webb: Senator, there was no compulsion. People weren’t compelled to talk.

Senator ROBERTS: You must be a mind reader; that was my next question. It was an inquiry that had no ability to compel witnesses, order documents or take evidence under oath—correct?

Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: The then government put in place the largest economic response in history, dropping money from helicopters. We had some of the worst invasions of Australian civil liberties, between surveillance, vaccine mandates and lockdowns. The supposed health advice relied on to do this has still not been published, yet Australians are meant to just accept the results of an inquiry that can’t even take evidence under oath. Is that right?

Ms Hefren-Webb: The inquiry had excellent cooperation from a wide range of people. They spoke to nearly all the state premiers who were premiers at the time of COVID. They spoke to nearly all the chief health officers. They spoke to groups representing people impacted by the pandemic in particular ways—for example, aged-care groups, people with disability, CALD groups. They spoke to and received submissions from people who were not supportive of the use of vaccines et cetera. They received evidence from and spoke to a wide range of people, and their report reflects a broad set of views that were put to them. They have assessed those and made some recommendations in relation to them, and the government is now considering those recommendations.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I had the opportunity to listen to Minister Mark Butler, the health minister, discuss the report. He said there was a lack of transparency on rationale and evidence around decisions that have profound impacts on people’s lives and freedoms. He said that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary principle at the start of the response to the COVID virus—which we accept—and that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary to evidence based; it never occurred. There was no balancing of risks and benefits. There was no taking account of non-health impacts of decisions imposed on the community and in a non-proportionate way. He said this was compelling insight from this report. There was a lack of evidence based policy, yet we were told repeatedly at state and federal level, ‘This is all based on evidence.’ The evidence changed from day to day, week to week, within and between states. We were lied to, and there was a lack of transparency—as the minister admits. Then he said it’s driven a large decline in trust and that the measures are not likely to be accepted again. This is a serious problem. Health departments across the country are in tatters, yet there’s no recommendation in this report that says we should establish a royal commission; correct?

Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How are we going to restore accountability, Minister, and trust without holding people accountable for the tragic errors they made?

Senator Wong: This was a very comprehensive inquiry into the multifaceted aspects of Australia’s response. Whilst I’m not the minister responsible, it was something we considered. I think it is a very good piece of work that is very honest about the things that Australia did very well—and we did do some things extraordinarily well. We didn’t see the overwhelming of our hospital systems and the death tolls we saw in some other developed countries. There are also things which we didn’t do as well and things which we weren’t set up to do. Where we differ from you, in terms of the last part of your question, is that we want to be constructive about the failings as opposed to simply pursuing those who might have made the errors. The inquiry goes through, as you said, the precautionary response in a lot of detail. There is a question about whether some of the findings about what was evidence based or partially evidence based—that is perhaps not as black and white as your question suggests.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m paraphrasing the minister.

Senator Wong: Yes, but that’s a matter for discussion. I think it’s also true to say that you don’t get a global pandemic of that ilk very often in most people’s lifetimes, and so, understandably, you are going to make mistakes as a nation as well as do things right. That’s what the inquiry shows. The minister has been clear that we need to learn from this, and the Centre for Disease Control was one of the key recommendations which the government responded to.

Senator ROBERTS: I wrote to the then prime minister and the then premier of my state, Premier Palaszczuk, and said, ‘We’ll give you a fair go in the Senate.’ I said that with their response in March and their second response in April, for JobSafe and then JobKeeper—and I told them I would hold them accountable. I wrote letters to the Premier and the Prime Minister in May. I got no evidence back at all.

I wrote to them again in August and September, and, again, no evidence; I was seeking evidence. The Chief Medical Officer gave me evidence in March 2023 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate. When you figure in the overwhelming majority of people, it was very, very low when you removed the people who had high severity. We did this all for a low-severity virus. There was no pandemic of deaths. We’re expecting Australians who have lost trust in the health system and who see no accountability to just accept it. This is dancing away from responsibility and accountability in the health system.

Senator Wong: I think it’s a very accountable report, with respect. It’s many hundreds of pages, which go through in great detail a lot of the aspects of the nation’s response to the pandemic—Commonwealth, state, territory, the medical sector, how we handled borders, how we handled hospitals, the community. I think it is a very comprehensive report, so I don’t know that I agree with the assertion about the lack of accountability. I also would say to you, if you want to talk about evidence bases, that I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that this was simply—I can’t recall the phrase you used.

Senator ROBERTS: Low-to-moderate severity.

Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some who say that it was—

Senator ROBERTS: That was the Chief Medical Officer.

Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some that look to what happened in the US, what happened in Italy and what happened in Spain in terms of what we saw there and the hospital systems and the consequent rates of death. I don’t dismiss those as made-up news. The fact that we averted that kind of scenario in Australia is something we should reflect upon.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree.

Senator Wong: You and I have different views on the vaccines. I’d say to you that there were mistakes made, yes, and people have to accept that and front up for that. But I hope we can use this to make sure we equip the country better because, given the more globalised world, we know from most of the experts—WHO and our own experts—that pandemics have become more likely.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to New Zealand. We had a Senate inquiry as a result of a motion that I moved in the Senate that developed the terms of reference for a possible future royal commission. The terms of reference are wonderfully comprehensive. Nothing has been done. The Prime Minister won’t even share them with the people.

The terms of reference were so comprehensive that they were adopted, largely, by the New Zealand royal commission. The New Zealand royal commission that was underway thanks to Jacinda Ardern was a sham. It had one commissioner and very limited terms of reference. The terms of reference developed by the Senate committee in this country have now been adopted by the New Zealand royal commission. They have expanded it to three commissioners. That came about because Winston Peters—who initially was in a coalition with the Labour Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—went and listened to the people in Wellington at a large protest, and he realised that so many people had died due to the vaccines and so many people were crippled due to vaccines. He also realised that so many people were gaslit, saying, ‘It’s not a vaccine injury; it’s just a mental health issue.’ He then formed a coalition with the current National Party government, and the condition was that they have a proper, fair dinkum royal commission. The terms of reference have been expanded, broadened, extended and detailed; they’ve now brought vaccines and vaccine injuries into that. Isn’t that the least that we can do for the people who’ve been injured? Tens of thousands have died as a result of the vaccines; we know that from the statistics and the correlation. We also know that hundreds of thousands have been seriously injured, and they’re being laughed at. No health department in this country—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts—

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t we get justice for those people?

CHAIR: I don’t think that’s a question.

Senator ROBERTS: I just asked a question.

Senator Wong: If you want details about vaccines, Health would probably be the place to go in terms of the estimates process.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re going there, Minister!

Senator Wong: I’m sure you will; I think you regularly do! I’d make this observation: I know you don’t accept the medical evidence, but that is the medical evidence both governments have received—

Senator ROBERTS: On the contrary, I do accept the medical evidence.

Senator Wong: Well, I don’t think you accept the weight of the medical evidence. The second observation is that I am concerned—I think the inquiry might have gone to this. We’ve had a pretty good history in this country of vaccination across measles, whooping cough et cetera, and the concern about vaccines means that we are dropping below herd immunity for diseases which we had largely won the battle against. I don’t think that is a responsible thing to do.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s another matter altogether.

Senator Wong: I would say we have a responsibility in this place to understand where our words land, and I don’t think it’s a good thing if we’re not vaccinated against whooping cough or measles—

CHAIR: Or HPV.

Senator Wong: or, frankly, COVID.

Senator ROBERTS: The fact is that people were vaccinating their children for whooping cough and so on. The fact is that so many people have lost complete trust in the health system; they’re saying, ‘Stick your vaccines.’ That’s why it’s so important. How will you restore accountability?

Senator Wong: How will you? If you said to them, ‘You should get your kids vaccinated for whooping cough’, that might actually cut through.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve done some research on that.

Senator Wong: You don’t want them vaccinated?

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. It should be the parents’ choice.

Senator Wong: I disagree with you. I think parents always choose medical treatment for their children, but I disagree with you that people can choose their facts. The facts are—

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental.

Senator Wong: that we know what whooping cough does, and what it does to kids.

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental—

Senator Wong: Alright. We’re not going to agree.

Senator ROBERTS: that parents have responsibility for the health of their children.

Senator Wong: Fair enough, okay. We’re going to disagree on the issue of vaccinations.

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian people deserve transparency and answers. They deserve a COVID royal commission now, and some people deserve to be in jail for the overreach and damage inflicted on Australians. How is your government going to restore trust without accountability?

Senator Wong: I think we’ve just been discussing this, haven’t we?

Senator ROBERTS: I raised it earlier on, but you didn’t answer the question.

Senator Wong: Which bit do you want? We don’t think we need a royal commission because we’ve had a—

Senator ROBERTS: How can you restore trust without accountability?

Senator Wong: I’m inviting you to help us restore trust, but you don’t agree with many of the vaccinations. My point is—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that.

Senator Wong: That is what you said. You had your own views on whooping cough.

Senator ROBERTS: I said parents have the right to choose what to do. Parents are responsible for their children. That’s fundamental.

Senator Wong: Yes, that is true, but what I meant was that parents should not be given incorrect facts by people in a position of authority.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree entirely.

Senator Wong: I’m saying to you that I think it is not responsible to be telling people that they shouldn’t have their children vaccinated for whooping cough.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that; I said that it’s the parents’ choice. I recommend a book, Fooling Ourselves, written by a statistician in Queensland. That’s evidence. I give that to parents and say, ‘Decide for yourself.’

Senator Wong: So you don’t think the medical evidence and—

Senator ROBERTS: This is medical evidence.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t deny evidence.

December 19, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Children Deserve Care and Love – Not Life Changing Surgeries

National, Senate Estimates

The Australian Human Rights Commission has previously argued for minors to be given life changing surgeries and puberty blockers under the ‘gender affirmation’ model. They claimed these treatments could be reversed, weren’t risky and were supported by science: none of these are true.

The UK Cass review has completely discredited ‘gender affirmation’ for children. It’s time for the taxpayer funded Human Rights Commission to rule out ever supporting children being put onto puberty blockers or sex-change surgery ever again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve got questions on gender—sex change. My questions are to the commissioner who looks at gender-affirmation care and children. That may be Dr Cody; is that right?

Dr Cody: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make clear, from the start of these questions, that I support adults doing whatever they like if they want to transition or attempt to transition. However, I draw the line at children. Previously, the commission has argued in court that puberty blockers were ‘reversible’, the risk of a wrong decision to give a child puberty blockers was ‘low’ and the outcome of a wrong decision would not be ‘grave’. My questions to the commission are: do you still stand by that position completely, and why the hell are you in court arguing to put children on puberty blockers?

Dr Cody: I believe that you are referring to family court decisions in which we have intervened as amicus. I’m not aware of the details of those specific cases. I would have to educate myself around exactly what our argument was. We do not have any intention to—or any cases in which we are intervening, or have sought to intervene, as amicus in relation to the use of puberty blockers or gender-affirming care with children.

Senator ROBERTS: But your words are significant. Are you a medical doctor?

Dr Cody: I’m not.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no good evidence that puberty blockers are reversible, and the effects of puberty blockers on the developing brain of a child are simply unknown. Why should the Australian taxpayer be funding the commission to argue for children to make irreversible changes to their body that we have no good clinical evidence for?

Dr Cody: One of the fundamental human rights that we all have is a right to health care. That includes children—the importance of all children having the appropriate access to health care from the moment they are born right through until they turn 18. Gender-affirming health care is a part of that access to health care.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s continue. The Cass review in the UK—have you heard of that?

Dr Cody: I have.

Senator ROBERTS: It was one of the most sweeping and intensive inquiries into puberty blockers for children. The Cass review said that the evidence for puberty blockers is so poor that they should be confined to ethically controlled clinical trials, and cross-sex hormones for minors should only be used with extreme caution. The Cass review had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. Do you know what it scored?

Dr Cody: I’m sorry, what scored? I didn’t catch the first part of that question.

Senator ROBERTS: It had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. It scored 19 out of 100—very low rigour. Are you aware that, in the United States, there was a US$10 million report over nine years that was not published because the lead author didn’t want the results to be public? Those results were that there were no improvements in the mental health of children who received puberty blockers after two years. Are you aware of that?

Dr Cody: I’m not aware of that study in the United States. In relation to the Cass review, one of the findings of that review was recognising the importance of having a holistic approach to health care—which we have in Australia—that includes a psychologist’s treatment, social work treatment and having wraparound services with a GP and psychiatric assistance for any child who has any issues around their gender. One of those recommendations is something that we actually have within Australia and that we’re lucky to have within our healthcare system.

Senator ROBERTS: Until recently, it’s been almost automatic in some areas to put children who suffer from gender dysphoria, which is not uncommon in adolescents, on affirmation to change their gender. I can’t remember the name of the institute—it’s either the Australia-New Zealand society of psychiatrists or psychologists that has come out recently saying gender affirmation is not recommended. When are you going to stop going to court at taxpayer expense arguing for these experimental, life-changing, irreversible, mentally damaging chemical treatments to be given to children.

Dr Cody: At the moment, we are not intervening as amicus in any cases before the Family Court.

Senator ROBERTS: I think this question will probably go to the president. In your opening statement, you say:

Human rights are the blueprint for a decent, dignified life for all. Human rights are the key to creating the kind of society we all want to live in …

Could you tell me what is the field of human rights? What rights are encompassed in the field of human rights?

Mr de Kretser: The modern human rights movement started after World War II with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the international community, after the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust said, ‘No more. These are the basic standards that everyone, no matter who they are or where they are, needs to lead a decent, dignified life.’ They have then been expressed in two key international treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and various other treaties have codified aspects of rights since then. The human rights in those treaties have only been partly implemented in domestic Australian law, which is why we’re calling for a human rights act to properly implement Australia’s international obligations and to properly protect people’s and community’s human rights in Australia. Is there a specific human right or aspect that I can address for you?

Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know what you see as the core human rights that humans have and that you’re overseeing in this country?

Mr de Kretser: The legislation that we have—our discrimination laws—implements the obligations to protect aspects of the right to equality, for example. We have seven commissioners. Six of the seven are thematically focused on different rights: Commissioner Cody, obviously, is focused on equality rights; Commissioner Hollonds is focused on child rights; Commissioner Fitzgerald is focused on the rights of older persons—and the like. The key international treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

CHAIR: I don’t want to interrupt this really helpful lecture on human rights law. If you’ve got a punchline question, you should get to that now.

Senator ROBERTS: Is freedom of speech seen as a human right?

CHAIR: Yes. Good question.

Mr de Kretser: Absolutely. Freedom of expression—our freedom of speech—is an aspect of that. Freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion and the like are critical human rights.

CHAIR: That’s all the questions we have for you this evening. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the work that you did on the framework and delivering that in the last couple of days. I know it’s taken an enormous amount of work.

December 10, 2024/3 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

ABS Avoid Key COVID Data Links

National, Senate Estimates

I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) about their new publication, which compares excess deaths against a baseline using regression analysis. This approach is the proper method for reviewing excess deaths. The dataset relates to excess deaths DURING COVID, so it would make sense for the ABS to include vaccination rates in the analysis. This would enable a direct comparison of COVID vaccination rates and excess deaths.

The claim that the data comes from other sources is specious. The ABS website is replete with datasets that combine data from multiple sources. Furthermore, the ABS utilises data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), so the suggestion that “they do that” is not acceptable. In fact, in this case, the AIHW does not compare vaccination status to excess mortality or the increased prevalence of conditions like Alzheimer’s and cancer.

Who is instructing the ABS and AIHW to AVOID producing data that allows direct comparisons between these datasets? I also highlighted a recent paper from UNSW, which made the comparison that found a strong correlation of 0.71 between booster shots and excess mortality.

I will not give up on my quest to get honest data on our COVID response so that we can all identify where the Senate went wrong and ensure the Government never repeats these mistakes again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just table this for my second question. My first question refers to your comparison of all-cause mortality—you’d be familiar with this—

Dr Gruen: Broadly, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: and COVID deaths against baseline using regression data. Firstly, thank you for the analysis. It provides a clear idea of where we are. I note that excess deaths are staying above the baseline, above the upper range of the baseline. It is something the monthly provision of mortality data also shows has continued into 2024. My question should be familiar to you. Is the ABS doing enough to produce the wealth of data the government and our health agencies need to review their decisions during COVID? Specifically, why haven’t you added vaccination rates to this data?

Dr Gruen: The mortality data we get from births, deaths and marriages from each of the states and territories—I will make certain that this is correct, but my understanding is that vaccination status does not come with the births, deaths and marriages data that we get and publish. This is the publication that come out two months after the period?

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not sure of the agency’s name. I think it’s the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or maybe the national institute of health and welfare—

Dr Gruen: No, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Senator ROBERTS: They are able to provide the vaccinations, I think.

Dr Gruen: Then they may well have done the analysis. Vaccination status exists, and it’s, for instance, in our integrated data assets, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare does analysis on our data and produces reports. So I’m not saying the data doesn’t exist. I’m saying it’s not in the form that we get from the births, deaths and marriages from each of the states and territories on which we base the mortality statistics that I think you’re talking about.

Senator ROBERTS: So isn’t it just a matter of adding another dataset, getting that from somewhere—because this would be valuable information for health authorities.

Dr Gruen: The answer is that it requires analysis, and that’s not what we do for that publication.

Senator ROBERTS: Do the health departments and health agencies use your data?

Dr Gruen: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So wouldn’t it be helpful to them to understand the vaccination rates?

Dr Gruen: I think there’s been quite a lot of work on vaccination status and the implications of vaccination status for mortality. There was a very big study published in the Lancet that was done by the University of New South Wales which looked at that. It followed 3.8 million Australians over 65 in 2022. So there have definitely been studies.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. The scientific paper that I tabled—Melbourne university have done the work that you haven’t done, and they’ve used regression analysis to test for the relationship between COVID boosters, if you have a look at the abstract—

CHAIR: The committee tables the document.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. If you have a look at the abstract, it summarises what I’m saying. I’ve circulated their paper, published by the European Society of Medicine. This is their conclusion: ‘The results suggest a strong regression relationship with an adjusted R squared of 71 per cent.’ Correlation of zero is no correlation. One is a perfect correlation. In this paper, they found a correlation of 0.71. That’s very strong, and it suggests that boosters are linked to excess deaths. As you already do this work—that’s the graph again—why won’t you just add vaccinations and boosters to the data and give the Senate better information upon which to base better decisions?

Dr Gruen: I’ve already answered that question.

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t happy with the answer.

Dr Gruen: The point is—

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t explained it.

Dr Gruen: the data comes from somewhere else.

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you do that?

Dr Gruen: I explained. Those data come from births, deaths and marriages from all the states—

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.

Dr Gruen: Right. The vaccination status comes from elsewhere. It comes from the Australian Immunisation Register.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t merge the two together; you won’t do that?

Dr Gruen: We publish the data that is available to us. Others do analysis on that data. It is perfectly open to anyone who has a well-defined project to use the data that we have generated and to produce research on that. That’s completely up to them. We are an organisation that produces the data, and it is predominantly others who do the analysis.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So you collect data from various agencies, you summarise it and present it, and other people use that data to do the analysis.

Dr Gruen: Yes. There are circumstances where we do some analysis, but in this case it’s others who do the analysis on linking vaccination status and mortality.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you.

December 5, 2024/6 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The Climate Alphabet Soup

National, Senate Estimates

There are numerous government organisations dedicated to implementing United Nations climate policies, making life increasingly harder for Australians. It’s hard to keep track of them all. One such organisation is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). It incurs $537 million in annual expenses and has $7.3 billion of taxpayers money tied up in assets. The wage bill for their top 15 employees is $7.4 million a year.

Ian Learmonth, featured in this video and head of the CEFC, received a $614,000 bonus last year, taking his total remuneration for the year to $1 million dollars or 1.7 times the salary of the Prime Minister.

It’s no surprise he didn’t want to disclose this when I asked.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an alphabet soup of agencies and government departments involved in the energy transition. As simply and as specifically as possible, what do you do at the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, what are your basic accountabilities and what are the unique qualities you bring?

Mr Learmonth: The object of the CEFC, as per the act, is to facilitate the flows of capital funds into the clean energy sector and to deliver on the government’s climate targets. We’re using a significant amount of capital deployed out there in the Australian economy, effectively, to decarbonise Australia. That’s really what we’re doing. We have 165 people, most of whom are very skilled at going out into the marketplace and finding places that we can use this catalytic capital to drive emissions reduction.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total wage bill for all employees? Do you have any casuals and contractors or are they all full-time permanents?

Mr Learmonth: We just tabled our annual report that has all that information in there. If you’d like any further details that aren’t obvious or available in the annual report, I’m very happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: There have been no changes since the annual report was released?

Mr Learmonth: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total budget for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Learmonth: Do you mean over the forward estimates? What time period?

Senator ROBERTS: This current financial year and if you want to bring it into the forward estimates, that would be handy, too.

Mr Learmonth: Once again, I will take that on notice. It’s probably best that we do it that way. My CFO might be able to dig that number up for you. We’ve certainly got what’s in the budget papers.

Senator ROBERTS: Just getting in the chairperson’s good books, last question: what is the total salary package of everyone at the desk here who is attending right now?

Mr Learmonth: Once again, it is in the annual report. Certainly, Andrew and I are explicitly there on page 215 of the annual report. If you’d like any further information about that, we can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: Why the reluctance not to share it?

Mr Learmonth: It’s there and there’s a whole raft of different short-term incentives.

Senator ROBERTS: If it doesn’t meet our needs, we can send a letter to you and get the details? Is that right?

Mr Learmonth: I would be positioning it the other way. If there’s anything that’s not in that public document around the remuneration of the CFO and myself, we could provide it to you on notice.

2023-24 Annual Report Download

December 5, 2024/2 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Sexuality Question for Teens in 2026 Census Not the Government’s Business

National, Senate Estimates

I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) about the decision to include a question in the 2026 Census asking every Australian over 16 about their sexuality. One Nation believes that a person’s sexuality is not the government’s business and that there is no overarching need for the government to know. A person’s sexuality has no bearing on housing requirements, road usage, or the consumption of medical or educational services—areas which the Census is designed to address in order to plan infrastructure.

Families usually complete the Census together. Asking a 16-year-old about their sexuality could start a conversation the child is not ready for. Even selecting “prefer not to say” could expose a child to danger in a household that is not tolerant of LGB individuals.

This question should not be included in the Census, which needs to return to its core purpose—providing data to support government services.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Moving on to the 2026 census and referring to the table, ‘status of potential new topics’—it’s on your website—the sexual orientation of children aged 16 and up is listed as a new topic. Is that correct?

Dr Gruen: Sexual orientation of people 16 and over?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It says, ‘”sexual orientation and gender” will be included in the 2026 Census, for people aged 16 years and older’. It’s in—

Dr Gruen: That’s right. That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Families fill this form out together, I’d assume.

Dr Gruen: Sorry, could you say that again?

Senator ROBERTS: Families would fill out the census together.

Dr Gruen: That’s often the way it’s done, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So they can see each other’s responses. The question is, are you exposing a child to a conversation they may not be ready to have with their parents, or which they may not be ready to have with themselves yet?

Dr Gruen: That’s an important issue, Senator. The way that we handle this is that, for these forms, the household form, there’s always the option of ‘prefer not to answer’. That is an option for these sensitive questions, and the other important thing is that if a young person living in a household chooses not to discuss this with their parents but wishes to record answers that they do not wish to share with anyone else, they can fill in a private form and we will override the answers that they provide. So their form will take precedence over the family form.

Senator ROBERTS: Wouldn’t the other members of the family know about that? If a family member over 16 was reluctant to answer, then that might start a conversation that no-one’s ready to have.

CHAIR: This is the last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: What business is it of the ABS to know the sexual orientation of children?

Dr Gruen: The answer is it’s not our business. The answer is that we provide the option for people to fill in the form privately without having the conversation with their family, and they can choose to do that or not do it. We have an option in those questions of ‘prefer not to answer,’ so we have done the best we can to provide an environment where people do not have to reveal this information if they would prefer not to.

Senator ROBERTS: But just having the question there—

CHAIR: Senator—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Chair, I’m just following up on that.

CHAIR: Sorry. We’ve got three minutes.

November 27, 2024/4 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Public Service Not Impartial on Net-Zero Policies

National, Senate Estimates

The Australian Public Service Commissioner (APSC) is tasked with ensuring our bureaucrats are kept in line and are living up to the standards expected by the Australian public. One of those standards is impartiality.

I raised the issue that government organisations appear to be offering support or endorsement of net-zero policies, rather than simply providing comments on what would be required to implement them.

The APSC doesn’t appear to view this as a problem, based on their responses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve only got two short questions. There seems to still be an abundance of public servants, agencies and departments making submissions outlining explicit support for net zero policies. We visited this before, but I’m still unclear about how that meets the Public Service standard of impartiality. Shouldn’t those submissions not endorse government policy and only talk about the mechanics of implementing it?

Dr de Brouwer: I think it’s also the obligation of public servants to implement government policy, and I’d be reading from what you’re saying around that characterisation that the public servants are implementing government policy, and they’re talking about how to go about that implementation.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my point there. They’re endorsing policies. I can accept that they can discuss the mechanics of implementation, as I said, but not the endorsement of policy.

Dr de Brouwer: I would have to see the material to make any comment on that. Essentially, it is their responsibility to explain that.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go to the second question. I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, for example, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ Net zero is a government policy, so I’m still struggling to understand how supporting or opposing a particular government policy meets the standards of impartiality.

Dr de Brouwer: I think you really need to ask that to them, Senator. With my familiarity with cabinet documents, I’ll say that it may be that they’re talking about a particular implementation pathway, and they can see that implementation path as being feasible and practical, and they’re saying, ‘Yes, we can do that.’ The term that officials may use in that is to say, ‘I support that,’ because they can do that, rather than they necessarily agree—

Senator ROBERTS: I can see some merit in what you’re saying, but, as I said, I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ They’re basically saying the whole department supports net zero.

Dr Bacon: It’s hard to tell in the abstract without seeing the context of what you’re quoting from, but I do wonder if they meant ‘support’ in the sense of deploying resources, expertise, personnel to implement the government of the day’s policy. When we talk about implementation, as Dr de Brouwer said, sometimes we, in a public service setting, use the word ‘support’ to talk about the deployment of personnel, expertise and resources.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, but do you still agree that public servants should not express their opinion about a policy, just the implementation of it?

Dr Bacon: The job of public servants is to implement the policies of the government of the day, and also we have a role in explaining the policies of the government of the day as well. The Australian Public Service Commission has guidance that we issue that steps out how those judgements ought to be made about when it is appropriate for public servants to comment, how public servants might comment and how the code of conduct and the values that are set out in the Public Service Act apply in different circumstances. It is something that is difficult to comment on in the abstract, because it’s a judgement on a case-by-case basis—that’s what our guidance says—taking into account a range of factors that we recommend people apply. That draws on High Court case law, for example.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t intend to take it to High Court.

Dr Bacon: Sure. These principles have been considered, and we’ve incorporated that into our guidance.

November 27, 2024/2 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Australia Post’s Horizon System Faces System Failures

National, Senate Estimates

Australia Post has rolled out a new point-of-sale system in post offices called Horizon. I have received many complaints from Australia Post licensees about system failures, including outages and missing funds. Payments that previously went directly into the licensees’ accounts are now being deposited into Australia Post’s account, forcing licensees to wait several days to access their money.

I questioned Group Chief Executive Paul Graham about the rollout. His responses were entirely at odds with the information I have received from numerous post office licensees. While Mr. Graham claimed there had only been one outage, I was informed of multiple outages, including one that occurred during the Estimates session when Mr Graham was present.

Both the licensees and Mr Graham have offered to hold meetings and conduct inspections to clarify the situation. I look forward to uncovering where the truth lies.

Transcript | Part 1

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Graham, and your colleagues for being here. I am advised by multiple Australia Post licensees that the new Australia Post point-of-sale system, Post+, is in most aspects of its operation not fit for purpose, yet licensees are required to operate using this system. My questions test that contention, which I’m sure you will disagree with. On Monday, 27 May, the system went down for several hours. Australia Post offices were unable to process transactions. According to the licensed post office network, this cost their outlets $200,000 in lost transactions and wasted staff time over several days due to the errors generated in the breakdown. Who pays that loss—you or the licensee?

Mr Graham: Australia Post pays that loss. We repaid that. This is a brand new point-of-sale system that has been rolled out to almost 4,000 post offices. It is a state-of-the-art system replacing what was a 30-year-old system that was well beyond its use-by date. It is fair to say that when you implement any brand new system to the scale that we have implemented it, there will be teething problems. However, I challenge and ascertain that the vast majority of post office licensees are very pleased with the system. I have been around our post offices a lot, particularly in recent months. It does what it says on the box. It has delivered and will continue to deliver even greater efficiency than the old system. That one outage was an unfortunate event. We were still able to transact, but not obviously online. Any cost to the licensee for that was fully compensated by Australia Post.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In the outage, some transactions that were in the process of completing when the system went down failed to complete. In some cases, money went missing. Your helpdesk instructed post office licensees to put in the amounts that went missing from their own pocket to ensure your system balanced with the promise that you would investigate and pay them back if it were sorted out. How much money went missing in the outage? How much money was put in by licensees?

Mr Graham: Well, those statements are not correct, Senator. We did not ask the post offices to put the money back in to balance it out. We provided a report for all those transactions that were not processed through. We did a reconciliation and audit trail working with the individual licensees. We balanced the books with them and had them put through those transactions when the system was up and running.

Senator ROBERTS: Judging by your reaction—we’ve heard this from licensees—you don’t think it’s fair for licensees to put their own money in to make your system balance when the fault was not with the licensees but with the system. So you would disagree that it is happening?

Mr Graham: Well, they didn’t put their money in. They weren’t asked to put in their money.

Senator ROBERTS: So you would disagree?

Mr Graham: Yes. We strongly disagree, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the longest outage Post+ has experienced? I have received reports that Post+ can go down for days and that, while it is down, the post office can’t trade.

Mr Graham: No. That is completely false, Senator. I think we are talking minutes. We had that one outage, as you said, for a couple of hours in the very early days when it was launched. We are talking in minutes. I can’t
remember when we last had a P1 on that system. As I say, it is built with state-of-the-art architecture. It sits in the cloud. It is fully backed up every day. The reconciliation process that happens at the end of the day, which used to be a very manual process for the licensees, is now fully automated. We’ve launched a new suite of reports that show them every transaction. It enables them to get detailed analysis of the trading during the day. This is a modern system. Those statements are totally incorrect. I strongly object to those statements. I would also say that it is a very small minority of licensees who have made the noise around this system and have done so, in my view, not because of the fact that the system is not performing—it is—but for other mischief.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s continue. Licensees report that the system does not provide an adequate reporting function, with the outcome that the licensees don’t have the data they need to run their daily business.

Mr Graham: Again, Senator, as I said, we have had a reporting system from day 1. We have recently launched the latest update of that. That report, and indeed the review of the system, is done in conjunction with licensees. We have a licensee steering committee that meets on a regular basis to look at enhancements and improvements to the system. We have a whole team of people who are working on these systems and improvements on a day-to-day basis. This is a very collaborative effort. I argue that if you were to go around and speak to licensees, you would get a very positive reaction to the system.

Senator ROBERTS: Maybe that is what I should do. Licensees are reporting Post+ runs slower than the system it replaced, meaning licensees are having to put on extra staff at their own expense. How is that an improvement? LPOs are small businesses. They can’t afford to bankroll your system development. That is the way they see it.

Mr Graham: Well, again, I would say that is a very small minority of licensees. Obviously when you are replacing a system that is 30 years old that people basically know how to operate in their sleep and you introduce a brand new system, it is like going from a rotary phone to a smartphone; it takes time for people to get used to the new navigation of that system. That is something that we highlighted to every post office before the implementation. The actual system itself, in terms of processing transactions, providing more meaningful insights and data, is significantly superior to the 30-year-old COBOL coded system that was in place.

Senator ROBERTS: You have a helpdesk which logs every disputed transaction from a post office. It must be a simple matter to get out data on those reports?

Mr Graham: It is, Senator. We have released, as I say, an updated and enhanced data report a couple of weeks ago that gives insights, visibility and transparency to every transaction that takes place in that system.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could you please provide the number of transactions that have needed to be sorted by the helpdesk, the total value of those transactions, how many are currently in the process of being resolved and, finally, how many were resolved in a manner that required the post office to make good the transaction?

Mr Graham: I’m happy to do so, Senator. I know from looking into that issue that it is a very small amount. We will provide that detail.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The next issue is a missing transaction. Licensees have suspected that money is going missing in the normal operation of the system. Some have started running transaction reports hourly. This is catching your system out by showing the licensee putting the money in for the customer and the money then just disappearing into the ether—gone. At this point, your help desk tells them to put the money in again out of their own pocket. Licensees are reporting thousands of dollars have to be made up per outlet. Are you aware of the problem of missing money?

Mr Graham: That is totally incorrect, Senator. I dispute those claims strongly. The system provides clear transparency on everything that is transacted. There is a complete electronic audit trail, which didn’t occur in the old system. We know every transaction that is reported. What we do find from time to time is that there are operator errors. For example, someone processes a cheque but they put it in as cash. We have to go into the system and talk to the licensee and reverse that transaction so that we can actually record the right dollars going into the right account. This is a modern, state-of-the-art point-of-sale system. As I say, it is replacing a 30-year-old system that was not cybersafe and that had lots of challenges and issues. I would say very strongly that the value that the system will create and is creating will be of significant benefit to the licensees going forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Previously, sales of merchandise through the Australia Post Shop went into the licensee’s bank account on the day of the sale. Under Post+, the money goes into your bank account and is sent back to licensees in 48 hours. It is longer on weekends. How is adding that extra step and introducing payment delays to LPOs an improvement?

Mr Graham: Senator, I’m not aware of that issue, but I’m happy to take it on board. I wouldn’t see any reason why we would want to delay payment. We understand the importance of cash flow to the licensees. We have done a number of things to improve cash flow to the licensees. In terms of merchandise they buy, we give them credit for that merchandise straightaway even when it has not been delivered by us. We don’t take the money out until they physically do it. I am happy to take that query on notice. It doesn’t sound correct to me.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.

Mr Graham: Yes, certainly.

Senator ROBERTS: This is a question of whether or not you’re abusing power over licensees by requiring the LPOs to cover the losses of a system you are requiring LPOs to adopt. What incentive is there for Australia Post to get this right if you don’t wear the losses from this going wrong?

Mr Graham: Well, first of all, Senator, again, I would restate that we do not expect the licensee to suffer any loss for what may or may not be a system failure. That is not an expectation of Australia Post. If the system is down and we have caused any financial harm to the licensee, we will refund whatever harm that is. We are very clear—indeed, it would be a breach of the franchise code if we were to do that—so that does not occur. If the licensees can show us that they have suffered a financial situation because of the system or an error in the system, we will happily make good on that loss.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure they’re watching.

Mr Graham: I’m sure they are. I am happy to talk to them.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the budget for Post+ implementation?

Mr Graham: The total budget for Post+ was about $270 million.

Senator ROBERTS: That is $270 million?

Mr Graham: Yes. It is a very large investment we made. Australia Post made that investment to improve the efficiency, improve the security and improve the features and benefits that were available to our customers as well. It has many benefits to our customers in terms of electronic receipts and SMSs et cetera. It does a number of other things that benefit the end customer.

Senator ROBERTS: Where did the money for Post+ come from?

Mr Graham: It came out of our normal capital investment cycle.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there software code commonality between the UK system known as Horizon and Post+?

Mr Graham: Absolutely not, Senator. The Horizon system was built 16 years ago. This is a brand-new state-of-the-system built in the cloud and built with global best practice around point-of-sale systems.

CHAIR: I will need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts. Make this your last question.

Senator ROBERTS: I need to come back afterwards.

CHAIR: Sure.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it your testimony, then, just to make sure I’m clear, that if a review of the software was done, there would be no code commonality between your system and Horizon?
Mr Graham: I am not a technical expert, Senator. Given the Horizon system was built in a completely different software language 14 or 15 years ago, I would be very surprised if there were any coding similar to that and done by a completely different company.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Transcript | Part 2

Senator ROBERTS: I have a brief few questions. Do you, Mr Graham, or Australia Post have access to the software code for Post+ to review? Did Australia Post review the code before implementation?

Mr Graham: Yes. We have a comprehensive review process. We have also had that process externally validated. We have ownership of the source code of that software platform. It is a core, obviously, operating platform for our retail business. Therefore, it is really critical that it does what it says it does on the box and that we maintain and continue to invest in updating that software to reflect improvements we can make both in its operating system in relation to the enhancements that can be provided to customers when they transact with us over the counter and being able to make it more efficient for our team members and the licensed post offices that use it. I will give you an example. One of its features is an online training program. If you are in a transaction and you are stuck, you can go to the screen. It will show you and explain how that transaction could be managed. None of that was available in the old system. The old system was literally a rotary telephone equivalent to what is now a smartphone.

Senator ROBERTS: So you manage it yourself internally—your Australia Post people?

Mr Graham: No. We work with the software provider who worked with us to build the software. They work with us. We have our own team of software engineers. They have their team. We work with them to implement the enhancements, do the normal backups and all the other things you would do with a large-scale technology system.

Senator ROBERTS: So the company installing the point-of-sale system is Fujitsu. Is that correct?

Mr Graham: No. That’s not correct, Senator. They are installing the hardware—the screens and the keyboards. The company that is involved is a company called OVC, which is an American company.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the name of the company?

Mr Graham: It is OVC. They specialise in point-of-sale systems. They built the software in conjunction with Australia Post. The role that Fujitsu plays is a role that they’ve played with us through a contract. They have responsibility for servicing our screens, laptops, keyboards and all the normal—

Senator ROBERTS: Hardware only?

Mr Graham: Hardware only—correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Fujitsu is the company that provided the UK Horizon system. Correct?

Mr Graham: Fourteen or 15 years ago, that’s correct, Senator. Correct. They’ve had no role in the software provision of Post+.

Senator ROBERTS: They cannot go in and change the data in a system such as account balances, as they testified they could in the UK?

Mr Graham: Correct. It is a closed system. They have no access to the software. They have no role in the software. It’s completely closed. The only people who have access to that are our engineers. Again, we have a clear technology audit trail for when people access the system as well as OVC.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is the last question in this thread. I have a few more after that on another topic.

CHAIR: You are the only one left, Senator Roberts. You can keep going.

Senator ROBERTS: Money is going missing, according to the LPOs. Where is that money going? It has to be going into someone’s bank account.

Mr Graham: Senator, first of all, again, I would strongly challenge that claim. Money is not going missing. We have a full electronic audit trail of every single transaction that takes place. We provide that report both to the licensees and to our own internal team. Again, I would highlight that there is a very small noisy contingent of one licensee group that is not representative of the vast majority of licensees. I have been out there. I have met with them. I have been in town halls. I have been around the country, as has our retail team. The vast majority of people—again, I am happy to accompany you to visit our licensees—are very positive about the system, having replaced an old creaky system that was 30 years out of date.

Senator ROBERTS: So is this small disgruntled group scattered across the country, or are they in a locality?

Mr Graham: I couldn’t give you that. I know it is a very small group. As I said earlier, we believe they are pushing a broader agenda, not just around Post+. Therefore, they are creating noise when we believe there is no noise. We take very seriously to ensure that the system does what it says it does. We have spent $270 million. It had better do what it does. This is going to be around for a long time. We have made sure that we will do an upgrade of this system every year. That is unlike the old system, which was well out of date and had not been upgraded and was a cyber risk. This system, again, is built in the cloud with modern architecture and modern infrastructure. We are committing tens of millions of dollars to continually make sure it is upgraded and reflects the needs of both the users, which includes the corporate post offices as well as the licensees, and our customers.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how big this small group is that you’re talking about?

Mr Graham: No. We believe it is a small minority based on surveys we’ve done in relation to Post+, activity when we have been out talking to licensee associations and, indeed, the day-to-day backwards and forwards we have with all licensees.

Senator ROBERTS: So they are not in any one of the two licensee groups?

Mr Graham: They may be, Senator, in one group.

Senator ROBERTS: What are their main issues? What are they disgruntled about?

Mr Graham: Well, I think it has been a longstanding issue with Australia Post over a long time. As I have said, I cannot fix the problems of the past. They are in the past. My job is to fix today and tomorrow and to listen and to respond to any genuine concerns they have. We have done that. We are not perfect. Occasionally we do make mistakes. We open up and put our hand up about those mistakes. They have, I guess, motives around the role that Australia Post should play in banking, for example. We believe that our Bank@Post service is the right service for us. We don’t believe we should go beyond that. As I say, there are historic gripes that go back some time. We have worked very hard to ensure that we resolve any outstanding issues. I say again, and with strong conviction, that the vast majority of our licensees have a very positive attitude to Post+ and have a very positive attitude to the investments we are making. Both associations stood behind our licensee buyback program in metropolitan areas. They clearly recognised the significant overlap and the financial strain that a lot of these licensees in metropolitan areas were undergoing.

Senator ROBERTS: I will move to the next topic. Can I pay my Telstra mobile telephone bill at Australia Post?

Mr Graham: You can. You will pay a fee for that, which Telstra has imposed on you as a Telstra customer.

Senator ROBERTS: Who gets the fee?

Mr Graham: The fee gets split, I believe. I will take it on notice. I believe it gets split between the licensee, who gets money for the transaction, and Telstra.

Senator ROBERTS: Recently, Telstra updated their terms of service for some mobile phone customers. It no longer allows payments to be made at post offices. Have you just lost a customer?

Mr Graham: Well, this is not uncommon, Senator. As I said, our over-the-counter transactions outside Bank@Post have gone down 28 per cent over recent years. More and more companies are encouraging their customers to pay bills digitally or electronically or online. We have seen a significant decline in what we call our Billpay services for paying gas bills and telephone bills et cetera because customers are being encouraged to pay electronically or, indeed, are being penalised if they pay over the counter.

Senator ROBERTS: The banks like doing that to us anyway.

Mr Graham: Well, that’s an opinion one could express, Senator, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking for your opinion. Has a long-term solution been found for the cost of carrying cash, such as with Armaguard?

Mr Graham: It’s a very good question, Senator. I don’t believe a long-term solution has been found. Again, this is where Australia Post plays an important role. Whilst we’ve had the banks and, indeed, the RBA, confirm that cash use in the economy is declining, we cater to a demographic and a profile of society where cash is the main form of transacting. It is the elderly. It is people who don’t have English as a first language. It is areas where there is a high immigrant intake or a distrust of financial institutions. We are on the other side. We are seeing growth in that area of transactions. My observation is that these are customers who may not be that attractive to the bank because they don’t have mortgages or they don’t have business banking accounting. We are the service provider that is providing that service and will continue to provide that service. As I said in my opening statement, whilst we remain very happy to do that, we need to do that at a small margin so we can continue to invest in that service. That service is on track to make a loss for Australia Post.

Senator ROBERTS: Didn’t you say maybe 12 months ago when I saw you that Australia Post has the largest retail network in the country?

Mr Graham: We have, in terms of our footprint, over 4,181 branches, correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I will come back to that in a minute. Do you have plans to change any post offices from manned to unmanned using kiosks?

Mr Graham: We have a whole range of different formats, including unmanned kiosks for self-service terminals. They are both our parcel lockers as well as where you can go to buy a stamp, envelope or satchel. That’s part of the broad range of services we provide. As I said, when we look at a suburb or a neighbourhood, we look at what services they are demanding. For example, a group in a Sydney area recently was looking for postal services. We had a town hall. We met with the community. It’s a community where a lot of parents both work. They wanted the convenience of picking up their parcels out of hours, so we installed three locker banks. That more than satisfied that local community along with some self-service terminals. In other cases—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. That is to enhance a manned post office rather than to replace a manned post office?

Mr Graham: It’s to enhance availability and convenience. In other places, such as growth corridors that we see in Western Melbourne or, indeed, Newcastle and west of Newcastle, we will work with community to put in a new post office or a new range of services. We continue to see customers demand convenience with their parcels. They want to be able to pick them up 24/7 and access them through the postal pap. It’s not a simple one-size-fits-all. We look to try to adapt a range of offerings to meet community needs.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question and the last topic. Some months ago, you were very positive about the possibility of an Australian postal bank. What are your thoughts now on the possibilities of that? Are you getting any support from the government?

Mr Graham: Senator, I’ve always made it clear that is a matter for government. We are very happy to continue providing our Bank@Post over-the-counter transactional services. We would be even happier if we make a small margin and our licensees could get more money for that. Anything beyond that is a matter for government.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

November 26, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

AFP Questioned on Tainted Blood Complaint

National, Senate Estimates

During this session with the AFP, I inquired whether they had received a complaint about several individuals who had received tainted blood as a result of failures by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Red Cross to ensure the safety of blood donations used in medical treatments. The question was taken on notice.

Transcript

Thank you all for appearing tonight. I’ll get one question out of the way first. In October this year, several haemophiliacs and parents of haemophiliacs filed criminal complaints with the Australian Federal Police commissioner, Commissioner Kershaw. The complainants have not received any acknowledgement of their submissions. Is the federal government aware of these complaints? When can the complainants expect a response?

Mr McCartney: I’m not across the matter. I’ll take that on notice, and we’ll come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve supported these people and we’ll continue to support them. They’ve got a serious case. It’s an injustice that’s very strong and sustained. Their counterparts in Britain have been dealt with properly. These people over here are not being dealt with.

November 26, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

ASIO’s Role in Monitoring Security Threats

National, Senate Estimates

During my session with ASIO, I asked why they did not intervene when terrorist flags were flown, which is an offence, at demonstrations. Mr. Burgess explained that he was actually pleased when such incidents like this occurred because it made it easier to identify persons of interest and monitor them more closely in the future. He stated that it’s not ASIO’s role to enforce the law, as that responsibility falls to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

He clarified that ASIO functions as a security service. From a security perspective, Mr. Burgess noted that they would assess whether a visa applicant was a Hamas or Hezbollah sympathiser. He also confirmed that ASIO collaborates closely with the AFP and international partners.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the last five minutes. We’re finishing on 10.30.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess and others, for attending. At recent pro-Palestinian rallies in Australia, the Hamas and Hezbollah flags and symbols have been highly visible and displayed by participants. This is an offence. Why did ASIO not step in with the AFP and arrest the offenders?

Mr Burgess: Firstly, and again, ASIO is not a law enforcement agency. We don’t arrest anyone. What I can say on this matter is that, as the head of a security service, I welcome when individuals fly the flag, so to speak, and indicate that they’re someone we should have an interest in. If people are silly enough to do that—whether it’s unlawful or not is a matter for law enforcement—I personally welcome people declaring their hand, which allows ASIO to conduct lines of inquiry and investigation into those individuals should they be a threat to security.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you sending two messages there? One is to encourage people to fly their flags even though it’s illegal. Or are you encouraging people to do that and be identified?

Mr Burgess: No; I’m just making the comment that if people are silly enough to do that, then it actually is something that we can use as a point of interest. Of course, if people are actually flying symbols which are unlawful, then they’re breaking the law. But I’ll leave that to our Federal Police colleagues to talk about when they’re up at estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think you had the power to arrest people, but what are your responsibilities? What avenues do you have?

Mr Burgess: We’re a security service. We get to investigate threats to security, including politically motivated violence, promotion of criminal violence, sabotage, foreign interference, espionage and anything that jeopardises the integrity of Australia’s border or attacks Australia’s defence systems.

Senator ROBERTS: The flying of a flag would be seen as flagging someone of suspicion to you, but it’s up to the police to prosecute.

Mr Burgess: It’s an indicator that there may be a violent ideology behind that. It might just be the actions of a misdirected individual who doesn’t really know what they’re doing.

Senator ROBERTS: By the way, I’ve read your opening statement, and I won’t be asking questions about the Gaza visas. Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah?

Mr Burgess: Let’s get into a conversation about what a sympathiser is. Are you asking whether there are people who actually support listed terrorist organisations?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Burgess: Yes. Are they all supporting listed terrorist organisations? No. The nature of that support is actually—when we get involved in a process of looking at someone, a visa holder, if it’s referred to us or intelligence indicates that we should look at someone, we’ll look at everything that’s before us and available to us through our international partnerships to make an assessment of whether someone in that case represents a direct or indirect threat to security.

Senator ROBERTS: You look at individuals.

Mr Burgess: We’ll look at individuals when they’re referred to us or intelligence indicates that we need to look at someone, and we’ll investigate them with rigour.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah. I’m told you do the screening in terms of security.

Mr Burgess: We’re looking at security, yes. A very small number of them turn out to be an indirect or direct threat to security, based on our current work.

Senator ROBERTS: At mosques in Sydney and Melbourne, there have recently been speakers preaching hate and violence to their followers in relation to antisemitic themes. Why have ASIO and the AFP not intervened and arrested these pedlars of death and destruction? I know that you can’t arrest someone.

Mr Burgess: I obviously won’t talk about specific cases, but if we’re looking at individuals who are actually very cleverly staying on the right side of the law but could be interpreted by someone as actually still giving permission for violence, of course we would be interested, and our investigative efforts would be applied with rigour. How much effort they get depends on what we find as we make our inquiries and up through our levels of investigation, including the use of special powers if warranted.

Senator ROBERTS: What do those special powers involve?

Mr Burgess: A range of interception, computer access warrants, enter and search operations. We get highly intrusive under a warrant authorised by the Attorney-General, if we have the grounds that warrant that.

Senator ROBERTS: If it involves a breach of the law, will you report it to the police?

Mr Burgess: We pass that straight to our partners in the law enforcement joint counterterrorism teams.

Senator ROBERTS: You work together with the AFP and the state police forces, presumably.

Mr Burgess: In every state and territory, there is a thing called a joint counterterrorism team, which includes the state or territory police forces, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO officers.

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to Senator Rennick’s questions, what do you see as your responsibility once exposing a foreign agent?

Mr Burgess: If we’ve got a threat to security, someone’s engaged in foreign interference or espionage, we will deal with it through either an intelligence-led disruption or pass that matter over to our mates in the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, and the Australian Federal Police will take it from there, as was the case with the two Russian-born Australian citizens this year.

Senator ROBERTS: You and Senator Rennick may not have agreed on the words and not understood each other’s words, but do you need any laws passed to enable you to do your job better?

Mr Burgess: No, not at this stage.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess.

November 26, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Visa Approvals and Security Checks Amid Rising Global Tensions

Transcript

Australians Deserve a Proper COVID Royal Commission

Transcript

Children Deserve Care and Love – Not Life Changing Surgeries

Transcript

ABS Avoid Key COVID Data Links

Transcript

The Climate Alphabet Soup

Transcript

Sexuality Question for Teens in 2026 Census Not the Government’s Business

Transcript

Public Service Not Impartial on Net-Zero Policies

Transcript

Australia Post’s Horizon System Faces System Failures

Transcript | Part 1

Transcript | Part 2

AFP Questioned on Tainted Blood Complaint

Transcript

ASIO’s Role in Monitoring Security Threats

Transcript

Pages

Malcolm’s Fight

Categories