Some people ask why the union would screw over workers like they have with casual coal miners. One explanation could be the $48 million in payments flowing from the labour hire company to the union.
During this Senate Estimate session, I raised concerns about the complexity of donation laws and transparency issues, citing that the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) received significant money from Abelshore, a subsidiary of coal company Glencore, where the union also donates to the Labor Party. Despite $48 million being transferred, the original source, Glencore, is not visible in the Labor Party’s declarations.
Mr Rogers admitted he had not reviewed the specific return in question but said that it was the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) role to ensure that current legislation is adhered to. Further, Mr Rogers noted that if there are issues with transparency or adherence to the law, it is the responsibility of Parliament to amend the legislation, not the AEC. He agreed to review the details once they were provided to him.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Maybe you could elaborate on some of the issues faced with getting a clear picture when it comes to donation law, a really complex situation. The returns for the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union for 2022 and 2023 show they donated huge sums to the Labor Party. The CFMMEU has received more than $39 million from a company called Abelshore, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of coal company Glencore. In 2021-22 they donated $9 million, so over two years they donated $48 million donated by Glencoreowned companies to the CFMMEU, to the Labor Party. So you have tens of millions, $48 million as I said, flying from a coal company through a subsidiary, through a union to the Labor Party but the coal company does not show up in the returns to the Labor Party. Can you explain the difficulties in finding out where the money was originally coming from on the returns that are lodged?
Mr Rogers: First of all, I have not seen that particular return, so I would have to take it on notice and have a look but I am not aware that any of that breaches the existing legislation. Our role is to adhere to the legislation, promote the legislation, ensure that agencies are adhering to that. As you know, the whole funding and disclosure issue is the most complex part of the Electoral Act. It is highly technical. As long as those entities are meeting their obligations for transparency under the act, and I have no information that they are not—I would have to look at that specific issue in detail—as long as they are within the legislation, changing that legislation is a matter for parliament rather than the AEC, which I know you are aware of, and it is something we were discussing earlier this evening. I would have to have a look at in detail.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, we will send you a copy. It is on a register from the CFMMEU, I think I said. That is an awful lot of money to be hidden and it is not deliberately hidden. Perhaps it is inadvertently hidden. I think the intent is deliberate because it seems a bit strange that money is going from a coal company to a mining union to the Labor Party.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Rx2EAtaD-Ew/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-12 18:54:482024-08-12 18:54:53Exposed: 48 Million Reasons to Screw Over Workers
In a recent senate estimate session, I raised questions about the massive purchase of 267 million COVID-19 vaccine doses for Australia’s 27 million population. Despite only using a fraction of these doses, concerns remain about transparency and cost efficiency of that purchase.
Bureaucrats state that there was a need for a diverse vaccine portfolio and future supplies, yet exact delivery figures remain undisclosed due to commercial sensitivities. 👂 Listen as they sidestep the questions.
The question remains, was the expenditure justified and how much has actually been delivered.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?
Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money.
Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.
Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?
Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?
Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?
Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?
Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.
Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.
Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?
Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.
Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—
Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.
Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.
Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.
The Strategic Shipping Fleet proposes tax incentives for selected shipping owners to flag vessels in Australia and employ Australian crews. The plan aims to ensure these ships remain near Australia for potential repurposing during supply crises to maintain essential goods supply.
One Nation supports this proposal, however the published plan lacks detail, particularly regarding the types of freight that would provide commercial viability while keeping these ships nearby. It appears that implementation of this idea is still far off.
The allocated budget only covers planning for another 5 years, yet the Department indicated that the budget did have an allocation for implementation, but that the details were not for disclosure. Publishing such budget information can help guide tendering companies on bid amounts, but it can also be misleading if funding isn’t actually available.
Despite the Minister’s assurance of implementation within 5 years, I remain unconvinced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this evening. I’d like to ask some broad questions on the scoping of the strategic shipping fleet that Labor has announced and that we support. It’s been something we’ve been pushing for a while. Then I’d like to ask a few questions that build on what Senator O’Sullivan’s been talking about. Queensland should be a big winner out of the proposal for a strategic fleet, with a long coastline currently underserved by road and rail transport. A national rail circuit would help that too, and I’ll ask about that later. However, the idea is to encourage private ownership of ships to service the Australian coastline and the Pacific which could then be requisitioned in the event of an emergency, like the next virus or whatever. The report doesn’t go into detail about where the freight will come from, so we don’t know if it’s commercially viable— specifically which companies and how many containers. Do you have any information on where the containers are going to come from to keep container vessels commercially engaged in the scheme? What’s the volume of cargo? Or is it just very early days?
Mr Johnson: The planned approach in terms of selecting the vessels for the strategic fleet is to approach the market, and there are questions for that marketplace about both the capability of vessels they might put forward to join the strategic fleet and the commerciality of those vessels, which really goes to what freight they’re moving currently and how they propose their vessels will fit into the commercial marketplace. That’ll give us the information on the volumes of cargo and those sorts of things that would be moved on a normal day-to-day basis. But the vessel would be Australian flagged and crewed and therefore, as part of the arrangements to join the strategic fleet, would be available for that requisition.
Senator ROBERTS: Am I right in assessing then, Mr Johnson, that it’s very loose, maybe deliberately so— and maybe commendably so—and the arrangement at the moment hasn’t been fleshed out?
Mr Johnson: Part of what we’re looking at in terms of how the fleet’s established is to get the industry to come forward with those views on how that capability might be provided and what’s commercial in the marketplace, rather than us trying to identify what’s commercial. Then the industry would provide that in the proposals put forward to join the fleet, which we would then match up with the capabilities and capacities of the fleet that would suit the purposes for requisition later. So it’d be work with industry to join the two through theapproach to market process.
Senator ROBERTS: The funding in this budget is $21.7 million over five years, which seems enough to keep a small team of bureaucrats busy but little else. Does that not seem to include funding for the tax incentives and other costs in the scheme once operational? Can you confirm whether the funding is pre-operational only?
Mr Johnson: You’re correct; that is the funding to support the administration of the strategic fleet—
Senator ROBERTS: Ongoing.
Mr Johnson: and implementation of the other recommendations in the strategic fleet taskforce report. The amount of funding to actually support implementation of the fleet has been allocated but hasn’t been announced.
Senator ROBERTS: Has been allocated but not announced.
Mr Johnson: Yes.
Ms Purvis-Smith: It is not for publication, and that is so it doesn’t prejudice the government getting negotiations with market players so that we can get value for money.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I know that during COVID our fuel reserves got down to just two days, which is very poor governance in my opinion. This does illustrate why we need a strategic fleet, but the delay worries me. Can you confirm that, within the next five years, there will not be one extra ship with Australian crew operational in Australia as a result of the scheme?
Mr Johnson: The intention is to have the three vessels announced in the budget by the government operational within the next five years.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’ve had the maritime union and a shipping operator on the phone asking for more details—actually asking for a meeting with the department and the minister to see how they can respond to this development and swing freight over to the strategic fleet. Should I tell them to come back in five years or will you meet with them to get the ball rolling on planning new freight routes for container transport?
Senator Chisholm: I’m sure that people would be happy to take a request for a meeting. But, as you heard just then from Mr Johnson, we are keen to get this operating sooner than five years.
Watch as these climate change bureaucrats deflect and squirm when trying to answer basic questions about what their department has been doing.
This session looked at why they sold millions of barrels of oil held in the United States and Labor’s new tax on petrol and diesel cars. Like always, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is completely out of touch with reality while trying to tell you what you can and can’t do.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Can we just continue with this strategic reserve? So Australia sold all of the oil reserves in the United States strategic reserve?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels, around June 2022?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the sale amount? $220 million?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to take that on notice. I don’t have that in my folder.
Senator ROBERTS: Who was the oil delivered to?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to also take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How much was paid in seller’s fees, commissions or whatever it is?
Mrs Svarcas: I’m happy to break that down for you on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How much is the continuing empty lease in the US strategic reserve costing?
Mrs Svarcas: We do have an ongoing contract for that. I will, again, come back to you with the leasing costs on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all I had there. I’d like to move to the ute tax, please.
CHAIR: I think you’ll find it’s not called that, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
CHAIR: We don’t have such a thing. Would you like to refer to the correct program?
Senator ROBERTS: Your new car tax.
Senator McAllister: We don’t have a new car tax, either.
CHAIR: No new car tax?
Senator ROBERTS: You know what I’m talking about.
CHAIR: How about you just say it, Senator Roberts, so we can get the right people to the table.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know the new fees for petrol and diesel vehicles.
Senator McAllister: It’s possible you’re referring to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
CHAIR: Yes, that sounds a bit more familiar.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s another way of saying it. Minister, why were you so secretive about it? You passed it under guillotine with no debate. Yet again, another bill with no debate.
Senator McAllister: The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard brings Australia into line with the very significant majority of the international vehicle market. It’s a policy—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Minister. The people of Australia elected your government to govern. They didn’t elect the United Nations World Economic Forum, the United States, Great Britain, or other global players. They wanted you to govern this country—not on behalf of others.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, could you allow the minister to finish answering the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Chair.
Senator McAllister: The government was very clear and we had extensive public discussion about the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. I believe there were Senate hearings, although I did not participate in them. We discussed it here in the estimates forum and also in the neighbouring committee at the last estimates hearings as well. Officials can talk to you about some of the public consultation that took place, including the position papers that were released. And senators had many opportunities to express their opinions about this particular policy initiative through the course of the Senate’s work.
Senator ROBERTS: So we don’t need to debate anymore in the Senate?
Senator McAllister: We do need debate in the Senate, Senator Roberts. These were important—
Senator ROBERTS: Second reading, third reading and committee stages?
Senator McAllister: I thought you had asked me a question.
Senator ROBERTS: I am! But I was continuing—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to ask you again to allow the minister to answer the question you have just posed and to not speak over her.
Senator McAllister: The government’s view was that this was an important reform, and that there was some urgency to this reform. It was a reform that had been proposed under a previous government, during a previous parliament, and not progressed. The consequences of that were that Australians continue to pay more than they need to at the bowser because the vehicle fleet in Australia is less efficient than it could be, because the range of vehicles available to Australians is considerably less than we expect it will be under the standard. We think it’s an important policy. We wanted to progress it, and we judged that there was a majority of support in the Senate for that, so we brought it on for consideration.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re afraid of letting the people participate through their views, expressed through senators in debates in second reading and third reading and committee stages, and assessing amendments?
Senator McAllister: I wouldn’t characterise it like that at all.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, are you aware, with an increasing amount of smart metres being installed—despite some people saying they don’t want it—and electric vehicle charging happening overnight offpeak, that’s when coal-fired power is supplying most of the electricity. So there’s potentially going to be an increased demand on coal-fired power stations as petrol and diesel vehicles are set aside in favour of electric vehicles. So you’re actually increasing the carbon dioxide intensity of energy.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I will ask some of the officials to talk you through the expectations that we have for demand on the grid. But the Integrated System Plan, which is produced by the AEMO, includes demand that is predicted to arise from the introduction of greater numbers of electric vehicles into the Australian fleet, along with a range of other changes. It also, as you know, shows a very significant shift to renewable energy, so the emissions intensity of the National Electricity Market is expected to decrease over time, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: So, are they like the projections where you told us we would be having lower power costs, and instead we’ve got far higher?
Senator McAllister: Do you want to talk about the issue that you originally asked me about, or do you wish to move on?
Senator ROBERTS: I just wanted to know what your projections were like and how accurate they are.
Senator McAllister: The Integrated System Plan is a long-established piece of analysis undertaken by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Officials at the table can talk to you about the expectations there and any other information we have of that expected demand on electricity.
Mr Ryan: To start with, I’ll talk about some of the different charging solutions we’re seeing and what impact that’s having. ARENA, who I know will be appearing, will certainly be able to tell you about some of the investment and some of the innovations they’re looking at in charging. You’re right, a lot of charging is done at home—80 per cent, we think—but that’s not just from the grid. A lot of those people—not all, but a lot of them— actually have batteries that charge and store solar energy from during the day. So when they’re charging overnight—it might be from a battery but it also might be from the grid—note that the grid is slowly decarbonising as well. So that’s increasing, day to day. There are other innovations where we’re seeing EV charging being provided at places people visit on a regular basis, whether that’s at carparks during the day or the workplace during the day, whether it’s at the kerbside, at the local gym, at the movies—places where there’s charging, more and more. Sometimes that’s in the evening, but a lot of the time that’s during the day. So we’re seeing some innovation, and there’s certainly been funding—not just from the Commonwealth but from the states and territories—to develop that innovation and look to maximise the solar in there. The last thing I’d say on the projections is that I do know that they take into account the grid and the impact on the grid for the uptake of EVs. So they are in the figures that are provided each year when they do the projections.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
Mr Fredericks: Senator, sorry; could Ms Rowley just give you 30 seconds on that, because it is quintessentially the answer to your question about how all of the emissions impacts are brought to bear.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms Rowley: In relation to the annual emissions projections, we look at the change in the vehicle fleet, including the uptake of electric vehicles, which is helping to reduce the direct emissions from transport. But we also take account of the electricity required to meet the growing share of electric vehicles. Just by way of example, for 2030, in last year’s emissions projections, we estimated that there was a seven-million-tonne reduction in transport emissions and a one-million-tonne increase in electricity emissions to meet that additional demand from electric vehicles, so the net effect in 2030 was an estimated six-million-tonne reduction in Australia’s emissions, taking into account both transport and electricity.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure, but I remind you you can’t tell me the impact on climate of that, so you’re basically going with a policy of spending money but not realising the benefit. Minister, do you still maintain—
Ms Rowley: I would note that the new vehicle efficiency standard is projected to save consumers money and reduce the impact of things like health costs on the Australian economy.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question?
CHAIR: Last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still maintain, Minister, that punishing manufacturers of petrol and diesel vehicles won’t reduce the number of petrol or diesel cars available to Australians?
Senator McAllister: Senator, I don’t accept that characterisation of the policy setting.
The wind and solar billionaires are going to leave a trail of environmental destruction across the country. Coal mines, which are unfairly demonised, have to pay an environmental bond before they put a shovel in the ground. When the mine is finished, that money is used to restore the land to how it was before the mine was ever there. Unlike coal, wind and solar do not have to pay environmental bonds.
We’re going to be left with a toxic wasteland of old wind turbines and toxic solar panels that no one will have the money to clean up. Wind and solar aren’t going to save the environment, they’re going to ruin it.
Transcript
CHAIR: Thank you. We’ll take it on notice. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?
Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money.
Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.
Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?
Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?
Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?
Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?
Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.
Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.
Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?
Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.
Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—
Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.
Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.
Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.
In a recent senate estimate session, I highlighted the alarming ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates. Australians from the Middle East died at three times the average death rate, those from Southern Europe twice as high, while sub-Saharan Africans had lower mortality rates.
What’s driving these disparities? The health experts suggest that low vaccine coverage and socioeconomic factors played roles in these differences. As vaccination efforts improved, mortality rates began to align more closely with the general population.
These are just theories, not explanations, and it comes across as a lazy response. There’s no justification for not making an effort to understand the reasons behind such a serious medical issue.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Kelly, you previously brought someone forward to talk about the differences in incidence and severity with a low-socioeconomic profile.
Prof. Kelly: Mr Gould, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Australian residents from the Middle East died at three times the population mean, those from Southern Europe were twice as likely to die and those from North Africa were almost three times as likely to die; however, sub-Saharan Africans were less likely to die. Why are we seeing ethnic differences in COVID mortality in Australia? I understand that ‘ethnic’ is to do with culture.
Dr Gould: Yes. Just talking around the numbers involved, as you say, the ABS has reported, during various stages of the pandemic, mortality rates for people born in different countries and, as you’ve said, there are higher mortality rates for people born in places such as the Middle East. There are a number of potential reasons for that. One of the areas that I discussed in my previous answer, which I think is relevant, is that, for a lot of those communities, initially, vaccine coverage rates were low. So significant work was done during the course of the pandemic to work with those communities to increase the coverage rate, and we really saw quite a dramatic shift during the course of the pandemic in the variation in mortality rates between these communities in the general Australian population; to a large degree, they came into line with the general population experience, so that was a positive outcome. Certainly, there’s an indication that the vaccine rates would have had a role to play. We did talk as well about socioeconomic status. We do know that, for some language groups or groups born in different countries, those rates may correlate with different socioeconomic status as well, so there may be some relationships there.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s an overlap, potentially, in some areas?
Dr Gould: Potentially, yes. It’s not broadly always the case. We find that a lot of recent, skilled migrants live in high socioeconomic areas, so it’s difficult to make a broad generalisation there.
The government’s lies about how many foreigners are buying houses during a housing crisis are coming back to haunt them.
Firstly, the government claims ‘foreign buyers are barely making a dent in the market’. The truth? 11% of new houses in Australia were bought by foreigners (Q4 2023). Secondly, ‘foreign buyers only go for luxury homes’. Reality: the average price of a home bought by foreigners is almost the exact same as the average house price across capital cities. That means foreign buyers are directly outbidding average Australians for an average house. Thirdly, despite saying the don’t make an impact on the housing crisis, the government is now implementing small fines for vacant homes.
Why does the government go through all of this deflection and lying when they could just take One Nation’s policy: BAN Foreign Ownership completely.
That’s just the problems with foreign ownership of housing! Never mind the next topic I asked about: letting a foreign company takeover Australia’s military warship builder…
Does this government understand anything about putting Australians first?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table the transcript of a broadcast by Ben Fordham. Reporting from radio station 2GB indicates that foreign buyers bought 11 per cent of all new housing stock in this country. How are you letting this many foreign buyers snap up houses out of the hands of Australian homebuyers?
Ms Kelley: As we’ve talked about previously, our latest statistics show that foreign investors purchased around 5,360 houses in the 2022-23 financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s been claimed by some that foreign buyers don’t make a material impact on the average Aussie because they’re only buying trophy homes—$30 million mansions down at Point Piper and so on. Looking at the $5.3 billion for 4,700 properties purchased by foreigners, according to these figures, that’s an average price of $1.1 million. The combined capital cities average median house price is $1 million. Those foreign buyers are actually directly competing in the middle of the market, aren’t they?
Ms Kelley: I should note again that the level of foreign investment in residential real estate is under one per cent of the total purchases that occur in Australia. In terms of residential properties with values under $1 million, that accounted for about 78 per cent of the purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, your government is increasing the fines and fees for foreign buyers of Australian houses. You’re acknowledging that it needs to be controlled. Why don’t you just stop fiddling around and ban foreign ownership of Australian houses altogether, like we’ve advocated, like the Canadians are now doing and like the Kiwis are now doing?
Senator Gallagher: We welcome foreign investment in our country. It plays an important role across our economy. But those changes we have announced to foreign investment, both for the application fees and double vacancy fees, are about ensuring foreign investment aligns with our agenda to lift housing supply. It’s aligning it with the other work we’ve been talking about this morning in Homes for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Working families who are returning home at night to sleep in their car won’t be encouraged by that. But let’s move on. How does the Foreign Investment Review Board treat defence-related companies in its approvals? If a company is producing a defence-related product, how is it treated?
Ms Kelley: The foreign investment review framework takes a case-by-case risk based approach. On 1 May the Treasurer announced a range of reforms to the framework. Under that framework we were very clear about the areas we would scrutinise more strongly. The government has made some decisions around those areas, and we are now actively implementing them.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound like being a part of the defence industry enlivens a specific criterion in your approval process.
Mr Tinning: Yes. If it’s a national security business, which includes defence industries, then it’s subject to a zero-dollar threshold under our framework. So all foreign investment approvals—
Senator ROBERTS: So shipbuilding would be part of that, if they’re building defence vessels?
Mr Tinning: Correct. That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Do the current rules ever allow you to approve the sale of a sovereign defence industry asset to a foreign buyer?
Ms Kelley: That would depend.
Mr Tinning: As Ms Kelley said, it’s on a case-by-case basis, so we would need to see a specific application.
Senator ROBERTS: Why would we ever allow that?
Ms Kelley: As the minister has said, foreign investment is essential to our domestic economy and has been for decades. What the framework does is—we assess every foreign investment application in terms of our national interest and in terms of national security.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the potential sale of Austal to a South Korean bidder, Hanwha, had pretty much fallen off the radar. Then Minister Marles reignited it by saying, ‘I don’t see why there’d be any concerns.’ Does the defence minister’s view factor into your assessment at all—that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem?
Ms Kelley: We take into account a range of factors when foreign investments are assessed, and the national security aspects are very important. We liaise across government for views on the issues associated with a foreign investment application and then the advice is then put forward to the Treasurer for a final decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why would the defence minister say that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem? He’s the defence minister and he’s looking at selling a maker of some of our warships.
Senator Gallagher: I haven’t seen those comments, but the defence minister would be very well briefed on all matters relating to that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to the Treasury after the opposition asks questions.
Australia co-operated with the Wuhan Institute and America’s NIH on gain-of-function research on COVID, which led to the COVID pandemic. Subsequently, both of these institutes conducted similar research on bird flu and now we have a mutant bird flu outbreak.
When I asked the Health Department if this was a good reason to discontinue gain-of-function research, their response was NO and instead, indicated a focus on refining messaging to deflect criticism. Even more troubling is the admission that gain-of-function research into pandemic-potential pathogens is being conducted in level 3 labs rather than level 4.
One Nation opposes gain-of-function research and believes that the “scientists” responsible for developing the novel COVID virus should be held accountable for the deaths it caused. Gain-of-function research for pandemic-potential pathogens does not pass a cost-benefit-risk analysis and should be halted immediately.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, China did gain-of-function research in Wuhan on COVID, and we had a COVID outbreak. Then China did gain-of-function research on bird flu, and now we have a bird flu outbreak, so I’m told. Minister, will your government ban Australian involvement in gain-of-function research?
Senator Gallagher: I think Professor Kelly has stated the Australian government’s position in relation to reviews that are underway. I don’t know whether there’s more that he can add to that.
Prof. Kelly: I’d just suggest that be directed to the CEO of the NHMRC, who’s undertaken some of these processes previously, and we’ve had a recent discussion about what else we might need to think about.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Prof. Wesselingh: Gain-of-function research is an important component of genomic research across the board and leads the development of a whole lot of things, like drugs and vaccines et cetera. I think the issue that you’re talking about is the gain-of-function research on pandemic potential pathogens and, obviously, that does need to be closely regulated. Australia has a very strong regulatory environment to do that, particularly through the OGTR, biosafety committees across the country and, obviously, the facilities we have, which are PC3 and PC4 facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they levels or standards for infection security?
Prof. Wesselingh: Yes. PC2 is a sort of standard laboratory, PC3 is additional security and PC4 is very high security.
Senator ROBERTS: And ours are 2 and 3?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. All of the work done on gain-of-function in PC3 and PC4 is on pandemic potential pathogens. We have, I think, a really strong regulatory environment to control gain-of-function research in Australia. But as Paul said, we’ve had some additional conversations between the Chief Medical Officer, the OGTR and the NHMRC, in terms of whether there are additional assurances that we should apply to the very small number of gain-of-function activities that occur with these pandemic potential pathogens. We’re certainly looking at that to see the risk benefit and the public benefit of those aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Has research stopped while you’re doing that review?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. We did a very big review of gain-of-function activities, and that has been reported to this committee previously. There were 17 projects that were being conducted. Only four were being conducted with pandemic potential pathogens, and they were all conducted under the controls of the OGTR in PC3 and PC4 facilities; none were being done on COVID; and we continue to use the current regulatory processes in regard to that.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the status of gain-of-function research in the United States? I understand that it was outlawed under Obama.
Prof. Kelly: I’m not really able to talk about what may or may not be the regulations in a foreign country.
Senator ROBERTS:Do you do much benchmarking with other countries?
Prof. Wesselingh: I can comment on that. Gain-of-function research still continues in the United States. We have been watching, with interest, recent developments in the United States, and they have developed a system, similar to the one that I was saying we are currently discussing with the chief health officer, where gain-offunction research can continue; but increased assurances, in terms of the risk-benefit and the public benefit of those activities, are conducted through the US agencies. We’re looking at that carefully, and that’s the basis for our ongoing discussions with the OGTR and the Chief Medical Officer
The Government made an election promise to address PFAS contamination around Defence bases. Instead of taking direct action, they opted to call for yet another inquiry, consuming their entire term without providing any assistance to those affected.
Mr. Jim Varghese AM conducted an independent review of land use near key Defence bases impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Throughout the process, the team consulted with me on several occasions and I’m hopeful that their recommendations will reflect the outline I was provided.
I am concerned that the issue has been referred to Cabinet, where Cabinet confidentiality rules prevent any further discussion. There was no reason for this to be treated as a Cabinet document, and I suspect it was done to bury the findings.
I remain committed to getting the report released and seeking justice for residents affected by PFAS contamination.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My initial questions are about PFAS. Do we have those people here?
Ms Perkins: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. The PFAS Investigation and Management Program’s 2024 Snapshot document shows that Defence invested $706 million to remediate PFAS contamination on Defence sites. Defence has also been responsible for two class action settlements at $212.5 million and $132.7 million. Are those included in the $706 million, or are they additional costs?
Ms Perkins: That’s a terrific question, Senator. Defence—in fact, the Commonwealth—has settled five class actions, including the ones you referred to there. It’s my understanding, but I’ll confirm this over dinner, that the first figure you referred to, which is our expenditure on—
Senator ROBERTS: The $706 million.
Ms Perkins: the remediation program is separate to the legal settlements that the Commonwealth has made. But I’ll confirm that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What about Defence’s total legal cost to fight the class actions? Are those included in the $706 million? Probably not.
Ms Perkins: I would have to get my colleagues from Defence Legal Division to confirm that for you. I manage the investigation and remediation program, not the legal settlements.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we have expenditure of over a billion dollars so far? That’s $706 million plus the class action settlements—
Ms Perkins: But, as I said, I’ll take that on notice and confirm the elements of the spend over dinner.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I acknowledge the extensive work and resources that Defence is putting into treating the 27 PFAS contaminated sites within the Defence bases, but the remediation will not solve existing contamination in farmland. These are the residents who have been affected the most: what was previously prime productive land—and I’m thinking, for example, about people who I’ve met at Oakey in Queensland—is now unusable for agriculture. Their properties have been depreciated to the point of being impossible to sell. They can’t get out of there and so that’s where their super is tied up and everything—they’ve lost it. This is why the Independent review of land uses around key Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination was commissioned. I thank the department for including my office in the consultation process—from memory, with Mr Varghese. I understand that the report is complete; when will that report be made available?
Ms Perkins: The report was completed and delivered to the government in early April. We’re working now across the parts of government that contribute to the work on PFAS, and the government will consider that review and its recommendations in the coming months.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include whether or not it will release the document?
Ms Perkins: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The report suggests grading land—not grading as in bulldozer grading—and categorising land based on contamination and rezoning so that residents can sell agricultural land as, say, industrial land, which is how many residents along Cabbage Tree Road in Williamtown have been able to get out and start over again. Newcastle Airport is now extending over contaminated land—another sensible use. This isn’t a big-ticket item, and it doesn’t need a large pot of money. There’s no reason to send it to cabinet unless the intention is to let it die under cabinet confidentiality. Is there any reason to send it to cabinet?
Ms Perkins: As I mentioned, the report has been delivered and makes a series of recommendations. I think some of the points you’ve just referred to were the issues that Mr Varghese canvassed in consultation in affected communities and with other stakeholders like you. One of the challenges we’ve always had with the management of PFAS remediation is that accountabilities exist at all three tiers of government and across the community, and we’re very mindful, as we move forward, in both the Defence remediation program and the broader Commonwealth approach, that we consider how we activate across state and local governments and industry integrated responses. That will be the work we take to the Commonwealth government to consider.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s what you’re considering now before you take it to government?
Ms Perkins: As is normal in an independent review, Mr Varghese has done a really valuable body of work— great consultation—and made recommendations. We’re working with colleagues in other parts of government, as you can appreciate from your question—the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the department of agriculture, the department of health and so on—so that we can continue to advise government on an integrated Commonwealth response in affected communities.
Senator McAllister: I think, Senator Roberts, in fairness to the officials, because the report is before the government there are some limits on what they can tell you about the advice that’s been provided. I think Ms Perkins has indicated that there is a process underway but she won’t be able to give you any further information about the particulars of the advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. I’ve worked that out from what Ms Perkins has said quite clearly. I want to commend the way Mr Varghese approached us. We have checked with residents, and he approached them with a very open mind and took good notes, apparently. These are not characteristics of the past ways that Defence has tried to address this, so we can see a change going on. It seems genuine, so we’re looking forward to the report. Minister, was there any additional funding in the budget for measures recommended in this report as opposed to the ongoing remediation report?
Senator McAllister: The answer I’ll provide is probably similar to the one I’ve just given, which is that the report is before the government, and that response is being developed.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, has any consideration been given to suing the manufacturers of PFAS for the damages they’ve done to the community and the environment and added costs to the Australian defence forces? We’re talking billions of dollars here, and these people—DuPont, 3M and others—seem to be just getting off the hook.
Senator McAllister: I’m not trying to be difficult, but I am very reluctant to speculate about how the government might respond to the report that’s before us. So I really can’t provide answers to questions that go to the specifics.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have two final questions on a different matter. There has been reporting that the partner of Lieutenant Nugent, who died in the Whitsunday helicopter crash, was told in the weeks after the crash, by a senior officer from Defence, that she would be able to find someone new. Have you made any efforts in the Army to locate which officer made these absolutely horrific comments to the partner of a soldier who had just died, telling her she would find a new partner? And have you done anything to reprimand or punish them for such heartless comments?
Lt Gen. Stuart: The short answer to your question is yes. We have followed up on that matter, and we remain closely involved with all of the families who lost their loved ones on 28 July last year.
Senator ROBERTS: So that has been rectified with the widow?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes, we remain in close contact. It is a very, very difficult time for everybody involved, and we want to make sure that they’re properly supported throughout this process.
Senator ROBERTS: And the officer has been either reprimanded or punished; what he said has been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: As you know, I can’t go into individual matters, but—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t want the names.
Lt Gen. Stuart: we’re taking it seriously, and we’re making sure that we are addressing all of those kinds of issues. I can certainly assure the committee that all of our efforts since the evening of 28 July last year have been focused on making sure that the families, loved ones and teammates of those that were impacted by the loss of those four soldiers have been and continue to be supported for the long term.
Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you say the officer ‘will be’ addressed or ‘has’ been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Has.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question. General Campbell, you posted on social media congratulating the 2024 Napier Waller Art prize winner, Kat Rae, for her piece Deathmin. It is a 157-centimetrehigh stack of post-death paperwork that Kat Rae revealed after her husband committed suicide after dealing with the PTSD he had from his time in the Defence Force. General Campbell, you have been the commander of the entire Defence Force for six years. You’ve been in the highest positions of the organisation for at least 15 years. You’ve congratulated a widow who is talking about the complexity of the defence and veterans’ bureaucracy. You’ve been in charge of that bureaucracy. What have you done, specifically, to fix her problems?
Gen. Campbell: There has, I think, been a great deal of work done, both within Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and I acknowledge the work of the interim national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide and the work of the royal commission, which is ongoing but which has provided both some harrowing testimonies and also extremely useful insights into how to continue that work to improve our organisation. I am, as are the senior leaders of the ADF and more broadly Defence, committed to ensuring that continues to be the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please give me some specifics of what you’ve implemented to fix these problems?
Gen. Campbell: We are seeking to see a much more trauma informed approach to the way in which we deal with people. We are now much more conscious of and are seeking to embed an awareness of psychosocial risk in the way we work with our people and our people experience service in the military. We’ve greatly strengthened the experience of transition for everybody in the force, and we’ve very substantially enhanced the integration between Defence and DVA. We’ve introduced personnel policies that seek to wrap those policies around the lived experience of an individual from before joining all the way through to beyond transition. They are some examples of our efforts. They are very wide-ranging, and I think that they are fundamental to developing our people, supporting our people and seeing the capability that they create emerge.
Senator ROBERTS: What about transitioning people who are leaving the defence forces out of the workforce? I have enormous respect, as a result of conversations I had with veterans 40 years ago, for the way the Australian recruits, the intake, are actually introduced to the Army and they’re—I mean this in a very positive way—stripped of their past associations and they join into the culture of the defence forces. It’s extremely important, because that is the key to the success of the Australian defence forces. But, as someone said to me, we send them, we bend them but we don’t mend them. We just turn them loose when they’re finished, and apparently that’s causing a lot of strife.
Gen. Campbell: That was my point with regard to the work of the Joint Transition Authority and the fundamental reconceptualisation of how we see transition from military service to beyond military service, and see it as a period rather than a moment. Could I note that, at a graduation for soldiers into the Australian Army a few weeks ago, I was really pleased to see how enthusiastically they spoke of their training and were looking forward to their service, not just saying that to me but saying that to the junior officers and the NCOs who were with me and variously moving around the audience. It was a very positive expression of an introduction to service and it’s exactly the same outcome that we want for transition from service. We are seeing work done that sees that period being about a two-year transition, with the idea that, while you serve today and you serve for a period of time, the transition is seeded at your induction into service in your recruit training. I think it’s a very healthy way to look at service and to then encourage people to start having conversations about transition before they move into that period of transition, with Defence reaching out in support of those who would wish it following two years from transition, typically seeing a glide down of Defence’s engagement and a glide up of DVA’s engagement where the individual would seek it.
At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator Watt why Labor is not deporting unsuitable and dangerous non-citizens from Australia. He explained that those who had been in detention could not be deported, citing two distinct groups affected. The first group consisted of approximately 150 detainees released into the community following a recent High Court decision, 29 of which have re-offended since release and include individuals convicted of serious crimes like murder, rape, and child sexual offences.
The second group comprises individuals whose visa cancellations were overturned by the AAT due to issues surrounding the Giles Directive 99 scandal. Despite subsequent visa cancellations for some in this group, there have been no deportations from either cohort since the mishandling by Labor.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. My questions are concise and straightforward, and I hope the answers will be similar. In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?
Mr M Thomas: All of the releases from detention that we’re talking about with NZYQ were as a result of the new High Court test set in that case around the real prospect of removal from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 37 of these men released into the community have a history of sexually offending, including against children?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April 2024, 39 of those individuals did have a previous conviction for sexually based offending.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that seven of these men were convicted of either murder or attempted murder?
Mr M Thomas: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 72 of these men had convictions for assault or violent offending, armed robbery or kidnapping?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April that number is 73.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of these released detainees have now illegally reoffended?
Mr M Thomas: I believe the deputy commissioner answered that question earlier today.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the number?
Ms Holben: 29.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What offences have been included in the range of charges, including the senior citizen brutally bashed and allegations of a sexual predator being active here?
Mr Outram: We did provide that evidence before the lunch break.
Senator Watt: We went through that in some detail before the lunch break.
Senator ROBERTS: You are aware of Mr Emmanuel Saki, a Sudanese man who was recently released from immigration detention. He has just been charged with the murder of another man here on 12 May this year. That was two weeks ago. Are you aware of that?
Ms Foster: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s now being done to deport these men?
Senator Watt: You’re mixing together a couple of different categories of people here.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want them here.
Senator Watt: I’d point out to start with that, for all 153, I think it is, people who were released from detention as a result of the High Court decision, the government actually had those people in detention for a reason. We don’t want them roaming the streets either, but the High Court has made a decision and we are bound by the law.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you deport these men?
Senator Watt: For starters, as we have gone through before, there are a range of protections in place for the Australian community surrounding these people, such as electronic bracelets, curfews and a range of other requirements that no government has ever imposed on a cohort released from detention. Obviously, in relation to the NZYQ cohort, the government is in the process of applying for preventative detention orders, which would effectively see those people returned to detention. Before the lunch break, there were some questions about where that was up to. That’s the NZYQ cohort.
Senator ROBERTS: But there has been nothing done to deport them?
Senator Watt: No. I would say that one of the reasons is that the reason for the High Court decision is that the High Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of those people being deported, because, for example, they were stateless. They don’t have citizenship in any country. It is not legally possible to deport them. Again, I’m paraphrasing. Officials can jump in if I explain some of this incorrectly. That’s the reason why those people haven’t been deported. That’s the reason why they are now not in detention but subject to all those other protections.
Senator ROBERTS: All of the 150-odd are stateless?
Senator Watt: I don’t think all of them are, but there were other reasons that it’s not possible to deport them. The officials might be able to explain it to you.
Mr M Thomas: It might be because we have protection obligations for them. It could be because they’re stateless. It might be because there are issues with identifying their identity or their country of origin. All of that culminates in there being no real prospect of their removal from Australia in the foreseeable future.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you asked about the Saki case. That is a separate situation. As far as I’m aware, Mr Saki is not one of the NZYQ cohort. He was someone who had come to Australia and was given a visa at some point along the line. The government cancelled his visa because of character issues or criminal offences—whatever the reasons were. He appealed that decision to the AAT. The AAT overturned the decision to cancel his visa. He was therefore—
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is that because of any influence of Minister Giles’s directive 99?
Senator Watt: We’ve spent the best part of two days discussing this. What I have been saying is that the direction that Minister Giles gave did ask government decision-makers and the AAT to take into account the length of time someone had been here in Australia—
Senator ROBERTS: And their ties.
Senator Watt: but not at the expense of the seriousness of their offending. But the AAT has done what it has done, and for that case and other cases they have overturned the government’s decision to cancel those visas, despite the fact the government, in the AAT, argued for the cancellation of those visas. Now Mr Saki’s visa has been cancelled by the minister, and he is seeking urgent advice from the department about the range of other cases that have come to light in the last couple of days.
Chair: I don’t want to be too hardline about this, because I know that there are different sections of the department that deal with both of these issues, but, Senator Roberts, just for your information, we have moved on to outcome 3. I know that there might be some crossover and that the department will seek to answer your questions when they can. We did have extensive questioning about outcome 2 from yesterday onwards. We’re now in outcome 3. If that needs to be clarified at the table for senators, then, if you can, assist Ms Foster when questions arise. I know dealing with the different cohorts is difficult, but we’ll do our best to try to keep on track in that way. Senator Roberts, have you got a question?
Senator ROBERTS: Was the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 simply to ensure incarceration as an alternative to being detained for these men?
Senator Watt: Again, I might begin the answer and let officials explain further. The removals legislation, which the government has introduced and which has not yet been passed by the Senate and which the opposition has not agreed to pass yet, is for a different purpose. It was to deal with a different gap in our legal system. So maybe officials could pick up at that point with some more detail.
Ms Foster: There were two primary purposes to the removals bill. The first was to give us the power to compel people who had exhausted all legal avenues of remaining in Australia to cooperate with their removal so that people couldn’t frustrate our efforts to remove them—by, for example, refusing to fill out applications or come to interviews—and to make it an offence should they not do that. The second element of the bill was to allow us to declare countries who frustrated our attempts to return their nationals to them countries of removal concern and to enable us to take actions about how we manage applications to come to Australia from those countries.
Senator ROBERTS: Surely, Minister, there was a way that the government could’ve addressed this issue before the decision in NZYQ was handed down. Why didn’t you?
Senator Watt: The High Court’s decision in NZYQ essentially went in a different direction to what the law in Australia had always been.
Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t pre-empt that at all.
Senator Watt: Look, we’ve gone over this at length in previous estimates hearings.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on to border security then. Why is our border security policy being made on the run? For example, why has the number of surveillance flights by Border Force of our northern borders by aircraft been reduced over the last year?
Senator Watt: Can I just say one thing. Of course, I don’t accept the proposition that our border security policy is being made on the run. We have increased funding for Border Force and border security to a level that no government has ever provided, and Admiral Sonter, in his role heading up Operation Sovereign Borders, has pointed out that—I can’t remember the exact words—essentially, there has been no change to the policy settings for Operation Sovereign Borders. But the officials can talk to you about surveillance flights.
Mr Outram: Specific to surveillance flights, I have Deputy Commissioner Dale with me. There has been a reduction in hours flown. That has been for two reasons. The first is persistent mechanical issues with the fleet of Dash 8s that the Border Force has. The second, with the contractor that we employ, is their ability to bring on pilots. There’s a global shortage of pilots, and they’re affected by that. I might hand over to Deputy Commissioner Dale to give you more details.
Ms Dale: The commissioner has flagged that there has been a reduction in flying hours this year and the commissioner has already outlined the causes. I think the rear admiral will go to the point that, notwithstanding the reduction in hours that we have had in the Australian Border Force, aerial surveillance has been maintained to the standard he requires—fortunately, through the augmentation of flights through the Australian Defence Force.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that signalling a decrease in hours flown in the future, then, if it meets the standard? Or is it going to be that, in the future, standards are changed?
Ms Dale: No. We’re working very closely with the provider to better understand the barriers. The commissioner has spoken to the issue around crew. There is a global shortage of crew for the fixed-wing aircraft that we’re operating. It’s also true that from time to time we have mechanical issues that are reasonably frequent with any sort of piece of machinery, so they can sometimes be a factor.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the reduction in hours flown a reason for the recent increase in the number of successful arrivals into Australian waters of foreign people smugglers and their human cargo?
Rear Adm. Sonter: There’s no direct correlation there. On a regular basis, I look at what is the threat and risk, and I adjust the posture accordingly. As Kaylene Dale indicated, one of the beauties about this role and the coordination role is that I have both ABF and Australian Defence Force assets to pull on for this mission. While she’s articulated the decrease from the ABF funded actual air surveillance, we’ve increased the ADF air surveillance to ensure that we have an enhanced posture in the north-west.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it the soft policy of Labor Party governments in the past, enticing people smugglers to be prepared to risk the boat and cargo for such rich profits as a full boat of paying passengers for the Aussie Express?
Senator Watt: No. Never has been and never will be.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware, Minister, that Australians now feel unsafe personally in their own country due to this failed migration policy? We’ve got boats arriving, we’ve got people who are murdering people.
Senator Watt: I’m sure there are some people in Australia who feel unsafe. What I can say is that this government is spending more money on border security than we’ve ever done before. Unlike certain others, including people in the room, we are not running down and disparaging our border security policies—which is an incentive to people smugglers—and we are taking action to deal with court decisions that are not of the government’s making and that the government opposed.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t quoting of spending more money just a lazy way of saying you’re trying to do something? I look at your energy policy and never before have we spent so much money and we see the highest price of electricity.
Chair: Senator Roberts, that is not relevant to this instance.
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that money does not equate to success.
Senator Watt: You might say that spending $569.4 million more in this year’s budget on things like more boats, planes and unmanned vehicles for Operation Sovereign Borders is lazy. I wouldn’t put it that way.
