Here’s Anthony Albanese only a couple of weeks ago repeating a promise he took to the election. How can we trust anything he says?
Posts
Tues 5-Dec-2023 | This was voted down by Labor, Liberal-Nationals, the Greens & the Lambie Network.
What have these parties got to hide that they DO NOT WANT an agency that decides billions of dollars in government projects to divulge conflicts of interest?
The transparency and accountability systems that are meant to apply to government are broken.
Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, this Labor Government is pulling out every trick in the book to keep Australians in the dark about how they’re spending money and what they’re doing.
Transcript
Former Senator Rex Patrick said to me that transparency is a word that’s only ever shouted from opposition benches. After years and years of virtue signalling from Labor while they were in opposition about the importance of transparency and accountability and the importance of Senate estimates hearings, now that they’re in government it’s an entirely different story. Before they were elected to government we heard endlessly from Labor that the government should be accountable and one of the ways they should be held accountable is an order for the production of documents. Labor has resisted, has voted against or refused to comply, with almost every order for the production of documents on which this Senate has voted. That same attitude is prolific, and they’ve show up again over two weeks of Senate estimates hearings.
I’ve got plenty of criticisms about the Labor Party, yet I’ve got to ask some of the senators from the Liberals: it’s a little rich, don’t you think? While you are in government, there were plenty of motions for the production of documents and evasiveness at Senate estimates. When it comes to accountability and transparency of government information, unfortunately, the Liberal and Labor parties are two wings of the same bird. As former Senator Rex Patrick said so accurately, ‘Transparency is a word that’s only shouted from the opposition benches.’ Once in government it’s all quiet.
Let’s have a look at just some of the transparency that Labor has blocked. Motion No. 124, an order for the production of documents to tell the Australian people how much extra Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cost them to call parliament back for a ridiculous one day of sitting to push his gas industry nationalisation through. It likely cost millions of dollars, just so Labor could pull a stunt and claim they were doing something on electricity prices. Six months later, it’s done nothing. Looking good, not doing good—that’s what matters to Labor.
What was Labor’s response to the Senate ordering them to tell Australia how much this exercise had cost? They may as well have just put a middle finger in the envelope. Not one dollar in costings such is the contempt they have for this Senate and for Australian taxpayers.
Let’s look at motion No. 176, an order to produce documents relating to millions of dollars being paid to political parties for ill-defined grants and programs. What was Labor’s answer? Contempt. Not a single document related to the funding was produced.
What about motion No. 200? Just yesterday, documents were requested in relation to the MRH-90 helicopter crash in Jervis Bay, documents that would uncover if we are putting our Defence personnel at risk of death flying in dodgy helicopters. The government refused to return a single document—not a single document.
Of course this culture of secrecy extended to Senate estimates. We saw witnesses tell outright lies to the Senate and the Labor ministers sit by idly. Ministers raised flimsy public interest immunity claims, if they bothered to raise them at all. In the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade hearings, Chief of Defence Force, General Campbell, simply flatly refused to answer questions from myself and from Senator Shoebridge. That’s not how Senate estimates works. If a witness does not want to answer a question, they are obliged to take it on notice and then it is up to the minister to raise a claim of public interest immunity—not the witness. General Campbell knew this. He’s attended many estimates sessions. The Labor minister at the table knew this, yet sat there in silence as the witness treated questions with outright contempt. Again, transparency is a word only shouted from the opposition benches.
Now, we’ve had two constituents, one from Queensland and one from New South Wales, telling us about specific instances that indicate a senior member of one of the departments lied. We’re chasing that up now with a question on notice following Senate estimates. Let’s not forget the unanswered questions on notice. Answers to questions on notice were flowing in while the next Senate estimates had already started. Make no mistake, many of these answers were no doubt available, yet they probably sat on the minister’s desk waiting for a final sign-off. That’s why many of the questions on notice don’t arrive in time: ministers are holding them up. So much for transparency. There is no reason a minister needs to sign off on answers anyway. The truth is the truth. The agency’s answer is their evidence; it’s not for the minister to change.
None of this will change until the Senate fulfils its duty to bring contempt charges against those who treat it with contempt. It is within our power to enforce accountability. A few contempt charges and a couple of witnesses in jail should send a message to the others.
High Speed Rail! It’s a great slogan for politicians in election campaigns, but it just doesn’t work for Australia.
Our cities are too small, the distances too long and geography too complex to build it cheaply enough.
Our money is much better spent on other infrastructure like dams, power stations and a national rail circuit that’s up to scratch.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak to the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022—or, as I prefer to call it, the ‘elect Chris Minns as New South Wales Premier bill’. It’s not a coincidence that this bill provides for the national high-speed rail network proposal to start with just one section: between Sydney and Newcastle—just in time for the New South Wales state election in the coming March. Oh, the photo opportunities and announcements! I can see them now—for example, ‘Vote Labor and we will get you to work in 40 minutes.’ What dishonesty. What treachery.
I appreciate that that the Central Coast and Hunter are now dormitory suburbs of Sydney. Every day, more than 100,000 residents use rail and road on their daily trek to Sydney for work. High-speed would be a wonderful way to make that trip. One problem with making that promise is that high-speed rail on that route is never going to happen. It’s impossible. Here’s why. The route consist of mountain ranges, massive sandstone cliffs and waterways. Unless the High Speed Authority sprinkles magic dust, there is no way it will make a straight, flat track with the solid foundations necessary to sustain high-speed rail through the Hawksbury, Central Coast and Lower Hunter.
The current discussion involves sending high-speed rail along the existing alignment through the Central Coast, through the Gosford waterfront, through residential areas to Wyong and then via YE into the lower Hunter. The area’s geography makes any other route almost impossible, at least without substantial environmental impact, meaning massive, long tunnels and cuttings through national parks and equally long and heavily engineered bridges across the frequent waterways and soft ground.
Anything can be done at a cost, although the cost here will ensure a white elephant for taxpayers that will never recover the investment. I shudder to think how much the tickets will cost, certainly more than working families can afford, the families who are being targeted with this false, deceptive promise.
While Australia does need a modern rail network connecting our capital cities, airports and major ports, high-speed rail is not the answer. The federal government last examined the possibility of building a 1,748-kilometre high-speed rail link from Brisbane to Melbourne in 2013, when the cost was estimated at $114 billion, with the Sydney-to-Newcastle section costed at $17.9 billion. At that time, by the way, the Inland Rail was costed at $4 billion. It’s now $20 billion. That’s five times higher. So I would expect this same inaccuracy factor would apply to the fast rail, costing out the Sydney-to-Hunter section alone at $90 billion in today’s dollars.
The Grattan Institute has found high-speed rail projects have little chance of passing the cost-benefit test based on the typical discount rate used for transport infrastructure of about seven per cent. Marion Terrill, the current director of the Grattan Institute’s Transport and City Program, has said:
Australia is just not suited to high-speed rail because our cities are too small and too far apart.
Too small means the passenger volume will not be sufficient to justify the capital expenditure, leading to prohibitive fares or massive government subsidies—or, most likely, both.
To illustrate this point, when New South Wales XPT trains were purchased in 1982, the intention was to create fast rail in New South Wales. The XPTs are designed to travel at just 150 kilometres per hour. So what stopped fast rail at that time was the inability to build a track capable of supporting those speeds. This is essential for safety and reliability. Our rail lines curve around too much. The Great Dividing Range provides serious hurdles to fast rail, and our waterways along the coast complicate the flat sections that we do have. For clarity, fast rail is generally speeds up to 150 kilometres per hour. High-speed rail is 250 kilometres per hour to 300 kilometres per hour. Fast rail requires entirely different and substantially more expensive rolling stock and track.
It may be feasible with a large government investment to upgrade existing rail lines on the Sydney-to-Hunter route to travel express services at fast-rail pace rather than high-speed rail pace. One Nation would strongly support immediate feasibility studies on upgrading the Sydney-to-Hunter line to fast rail since New South Wales already has the rolling stock.
Senator McKenzie will be moving an amendment to this bill that will introduce Productivity Commission oversight of proposals and a transparent reporting system. If this amendment is passed, this bill will gain the checks and balances it should have had all along, and One Nation will support it. Without those checks and balances, One Nation will oppose this bill. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and we don’t lie for any reason—certainly not to the public to get votes.
The National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC) has passed Parliament and will be established next year.
So what’s covered by the NACC and what is One Nation’s view on these issues? I spoke on this in Parliament this week.
Something to tackle corruption is long overdue, we’re looking forward to having this body up and running and fine tuning it so that corruption is punished.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. Shoddy governance is Australia’s greatest problem and biggest threat. The absence of data in making policies and legislation—some parties go to great lengths to avoid data and substitute emotion. That is partly corruption, but this bill that we are discussing today goes to real corruption, illegal corruption.
Initially I thought parliament contained the procedures for self-accountability. After two years, I realised I was wrong. Then I started participating enthusiastically in presentations and discussions in this building and outside, around a national crime and corruption commission. I thank that many people I listened to—lawyers, judges, former judges and everyday Australians concerned about corruption. I appreciate the conversations that I had with former senator Bill Heffernan. I realised when I spoke out about the fact that we need to have a commission in place to provide oversight of four main groups: federal members of parliament, federal bureaucrats and public servants, federal judges and federal police.
Now I turn to the government’s proposal. For too long corruption in government has been almost impossible to deal with because current protections are totally inadequate. Each state has a body to deal with corruption at the state level of government. All the state bodies, however, face jurisdictional and evidential hurdles. Whistleblower protections, particularly for private-sector whistleblowers, have failed to provide assumed protections. In recent years, many whistleblowers have had their lives and/or careers publicly and privately trashed—destroyed. Some have faced criminal charges or been destroyed financially through civil actions.
Integrity as an expected attribute of those in public office has been invisible and left to chance. That lack of integrity destroys the people’s trust in the governance of this country. This bill, when passed with appropriate amendments, will go a long way towards setting up a workable scheme, ensuring that integrity becomes a fundamental feature of our legislative and executive arms of government.
To get this bill right, a number of issues need to be addressed through internal or external amendment. One thing this bill does not address is third-party corrupt conduct, where the person being dealt with is an otherwise innocent public official dragged unknowingly into a circle of corruption. This is a scenario included within the jurisdictions of most state anticorruption bodies, except those of Tasmania and Western Australia. To be comprehensive, the bill must include this scenario to ensure that corruption, even involving innocent public officers, can still be investigated for corruption.
It’s important to understand that this bill is not designed to be purely or only punitive. It’s much more than that. It’s designed to get to the root cause of corrupt processes, practices and systems, to rectify, eliminate and prevent corruption and to systematically do that and systematically prevent corruption. This provision will assist in identifying relationships vulnerable to abuse and exploitation so that processes may be introduced to provide effective risk management, oversight and accountability. This will be an alternative to relying on the ability to satisfy the restrictive requirements of proving crime beyond reasonable doubt. That’s highly restrictive. We need better than that. Another power that should be clarified in the bill is the commission’s power to commence investigation of its own volition, without being reliant on external referrals from other agencies and individuals. This clarification would ensure that the source of complaints or information did not limit the full ambit of justification for investigations.
The issue of public hearings has challenged those in favour generally of establishing this commission. It has been suggested that holding public hearings may expose a person to vilification of their reputation, and potentially there may be insufficient evidence to establish an offence. People are worried that this will be used as a mechanism to turn into unjustifiable political witch-hunts, as we’ve seen in some of the states. This was one of my concerns, and it was the reason for my rejection of the bill in its earlier form. To address this, the bill indicates that hearings may be held in private unless the commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances—exceptional circumstances, as it says in the bill—justify holding the hearing in public and it’s in the public interest to do so. The phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’, if included in the bill, would make it virtually impossible to hold public hearings, as it would require a court to determine whether circumstances are in fact exceptional. That’s a lawyer fest for sure. The removal of the requirement for exceptional circumstances is essential, and there are proposed amendments before the Senate that will fix this problem. I support these amendments. It would be appropriate that, if a public hearing were held, the commissioner or a deputy commissioner preside, because they are legally qualified to deal with the more obvious legal issues.
Another concern raised with me is the composition of the proposed parliamentary joint committee, where the chair is required to be a member of the government. This raises questions on the independence of the joint committee. A better solution may be that the chair should not be a member of a political party forming government or should at least be a person enjoying bipartisan support of the committee. It’s important that an extensive whistleblower protection authority be established to ensure protection for genuine disclosures. The government assures me that the introduction of such an authority is imminent and an essential supportive element of this bill’s operation.
Next, I raise what Senator Bill Heffernan has raised with me in extensive personal discussions, as well as senior judges and practitioners of the law. What’s missing from this bill is the jurisdiction to overview the misconduct and actions of the judiciary. This option is desperately needed, and there is information showing that this jurisdiction has been overlooked for far too long. It needs to be included—it must be included. It would be welcome to think that our judges are all free from human weaknesses, but they’re human. In practice, it’s not a realistic conclusion that they are free from human weaknesses. Judges are human and susceptible to the human frailties that may lead to misconduct in their offices. We know that. The judiciary must have a mechanism that provides independent review of the conduct of its members.
I look forward to the development of a bill to cover judges and senior police and associated amendments to strengthen the safeguards designed to protect our society from evildoers hiding behind public office—a bill the government has flagged with us. The Australian public deserves protection and reassurance. The people deserve integrity. To be effective, government must be trusted. We do not have trust in governance at the moment, but that’s what we need. We have one flag above this building, one flag for the nation. We are one community. We are one nation. And we support the integrity of our political representatives and public officers whose duty is one of service to the people.
Today in the Senate we mourn the passing of Kimberley Kitching. An Australian with integrity and courage, we have truly lost someone special.
Transcript
Senator Roberts
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Roberts.
Thank you. I support this motion concerning the need to create a credible and effective integrity commission. The integrity commission once established must offer the features as identified by the Centre for Public Integrity, which I firmly support. I’ve also had the opportunity to see the government’s recently released draft Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill and note that in its present state it requires considerable amendment prior to receiving full support. A sound Integrity Commission would maintain a broad jurisdiction to investigate corrupt conduct within the public sector with strong investigative powers. It should be empowered to hold public hearings whenever this was in the public interest to do so. This is fundamental to the operations of an effective integrity commission. The commission should be able to investigate corruption independently on its own initiative, even if based on tip-offs from the public and their referral process should be broad. There should be no limitations on the possible findings of corrupt conduct of parliamentarians or public servants. The bill must be able to operate retrospectively so as to deal with recent alleged anomalies in the conduct of persons managing the Great Barrier Reef fund and Murray-Darling water buybacks
8 September 2020
Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk
Premier of Queensland
PO Box 15185
CITY EAST QLD 4002
Dear Premier
Re: Repeal of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 2019
Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef is an immense treasure and multi-dimensional asset belonging to the people of Queensland.
Our beautiful reef is a spiritual asset connecting people with nature’s universal awe and wonder, an ecological asset and an enormous economic asset with vast unrealised potential value in tourism, fishing, research, healthcare, recreation and other activities. It is a living part of Queensland, a renewable asset for generations to come.
I hope you agree that it is the duty of elected officials to work for the benefit of all citizens within their jurisdiction and that in our country governments have a duty to listen to, understand, work for, and serve the people.
On Monday 27 and Tuesday 28 July 2020 I took part in the Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the identification of leading practices in ensuring evidence-based regulation of farm practices that impact water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef, held here in Brisbane. I was amazed yet not surprised with the answers to fundamental questions that senators asked on behalf of all Queenslanders. Among many facts the academics presented to us about the reef, we learned that what some groups say about the reef is incorrect. Specifically, that:
- “Cloudy water” affects only the inner reefs being three per cent of the reef and is natural. Indeed, the portion adjacent to farm runoff is only half that, being 1.5 per cent with the other 1.5 per cent being off Cape York whose coastline is largely agriculturally undeveloped. The cloudy water effect is natural with no effect from modern farming methods.
- Targets for pesticides near the reef and on the reef are not being exceeded and results shows there is no need for your Labor government’s most recent reef regulations.
- Middle and outer reefs are pristine and show no impact from farming.
- There is no direct evidence that dissolved nitrogen is having any effect on inshore coral reefs and certainly no effect on the middle and outer reefs;
- There have been no measurements of coral growth rate since 2005. That’s fifteen years with no data and the question this raises is – what is the basis for the Labor government’s regulations?
- Over recent decades farmers have made massive changes to farming practice, yet academics say there has been no impact from these changes and that leads logically to the conclusion that farming is having no discernible impact on the reef. Thus, there is no need for the Queensland Labor government’s reef regulations.
- The cost of the Queensland Labor government’s regulations to each farmer is or will be tens of thousands of dollars per family farm. There is no benefit to the reef, and it will increase the price of the food we buy.
Secondly, it became clear during the inquiry that the Labor government is not meeting farmers’ needs to be heard and that agriculture seems to be a dirty word to your government. Neither is your government meeting farmers’ and communities’ needs to be treated with respect and consideration. Farmers are understandably frustrated and angry and have lost confidence in your government because they have never been presented with the empirical scientific evidence needed to justify the changes your Labor government is imposing.
Thirdly, farmers today are environmentalists and not criminals. Farmers know that their main asset is their farm soil and they protect it. Farmers today know that the future productivity and value of their farm depends on the quality of the surrounding natural environment. Farmers know that productive farming and the natural environment have a mutually beneficial relationship, not as you portray, as being mutually exclusive. Productive farming depends on a healthy natural environment and in turn the natural environment depends on healthy, economically productive farming communities.
These days farming must be internationally competitive, and farmers cannot afford to waste money applying fertilisers if those fertilisers run-off their farm. Technology today places fertilisers where they are needed and no more.
In giving evidence under questioning, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, AIMS, admitted:
- “There is lots we don’t know about the Great Barrier Reef”;
- The term “Consensus Statement” may be misleading;
- “Climate change is not connected to farming”.
Your Labor government and senior public service bureaucrats seem to operate under the spell of ideologically driven activists including the notorious WWF, who are pushing their agenda to destroy Queenslanders’ rights to use their land and to destroy basic freedoms. These few activists and your government pandering to people who lack understanding of the source of their food are demonising farmers, farming and food production. You and they are doing so in contradiction of the science and in conflict with common sense.
The inquiry was told that the 30 per cent nitrogen reduction target has been modelled to cost $110 million annually for sugar cane farmers and sugar millers. Yet the science shows that this is and will be for no environmental benefit. That means that all this pain is for no gain.
I hope that you will support my recent call for an Office of Scientific Integrity to ensure the validity of science in making policies that are claimed to be based on science.
I enclose a copy of my report titled Restoring Scientific Integrity, together with a copy of Dr Alan Moran’s report titled The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables. These show that your government’s destructive energy policies are costly mistakes for which the people of Queensland are paying heavily and for which you have no justifiable scientific basis.
I request that you reconsider your farming, climate and renewable energy policies. Your Labor government’s reef regulations will destroy east coast farming and your energy policies will smash all industries across the state, destroy livelihoods, export jobs and place a frightful burden on all families and on people’s cost of living.
I look forward to your reply and request that your government holds an independent inquiry into the unfounded “science” underpinning its reef regulations, repeals the legislation and apologies to farmers across the state.
Yours sincerely
Senator Malcolm Roberts
Senator for Queensland
Photo by Daniel Pelaez Duque on Unsplash
When policy development is at the mercy of the political whims of which ever party is in government, it cripples industry and Australia’s future economic prosperity.
Instead of reputable evidence, policy makers defer to political beliefs and vested interests, resulting in a policy failure that wastes an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money.
Senator Roberts said, “We must have an Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) to scrutinise science, protect scientists from politicisation, and give all industry players the confidence that the policy is warranted and just.”
Politicians often ignore the vast uncertainties in many areas of science used for policy development, and true scientific oversight will enhance public debate and transparency.
“Australia’s climate policies are a stunning example of policy determining the scientific “evidence”, rather than science informing policy,” added Senator Roberts.
The diminishing trust in government’s use of data for policy development is being felt across a range of industries.
In the area of science governing Queensland’s reef regulations and farming, Dr Peter Ridd says, “It’s not until we can get our scientific institutions to be trustworthy that we will finally be able to trust science again.
Evidence-based policy making is not a new concept, though it needs more prominence in Australian political debate. The design of good policy depends on a solid foundation of reputable science.
“I am committed to more transparency in justifying policy, and welcome contributions to the development of an oversight body, such as the Office of Scientific Integrity,” concluded Senator Roberts.
Transcript
Thank you, Madam Deputy President, as a servant to the people of Queensland in Australia, I support this bill, with reservations. Firstly, there is a growing belief among our governing class that Australian federalism relies, in many areas, on shared endeavour.
I do acknowledge that coordinated federalism, where each government works with the other, yet retains total determination over and exercise of, its own constitutional powers, needs some honing today. After all, the internet runs as a thread throughout society and connects us all across state borders.
Yet this does not mean, transfer of power, from the states to the Federal Government. This most definitely does not mean that. I’m advocating generally the reverse, that we need to send some powers back from the Federal Government, to the state governments, in accordance with our constitution.
It is fundamental to our constitution, and it is common sense, that the best service delivery, occurs when the person making a decision, is located closest to the people affected by that decision. I mean, that is obvious. That is the reverse of what has happened in our country since 1944.
The greater the distance apart, the worse the decision making. We need to stop centralising and restore competitive federalism. Competitive federalism, with six states working independently, yet together, is highly effective.
Our country was leading the world, in terms of per capita income from 1901, when we formed as a nation, to about the 1920s. And that was because of competitive federalism. I am concerned, secondly, that this bill… So before moving from that, I’ll just reiterate, that it is very important, to actually get back to competitive federalism, with the states working independently yet together.
My second point, is that I am concerned this bill will give the states, the chance to wash their hands of responsibility, for the integrity of the data in this register. I urge the Federal Government, to ensure that when this register is designed, there is suitable, effective grievance reporting, so people with an error in their entry, or who have been mistaken for someone else, can correct the record.
Australians have recently seen firsthand, a total failure of the Federal Government’s ID function, with the chaotic tragic Robodebt scheme. That’s not just a matter of having an apology from the government. It’s not just a matter of, hundreds of millions of dollars, approaching close to a billion being an error.
It’s wrecking people’s lives. And it’s important to understand, that the government never pays for its mistakes, the people do. And what I mean by that, is that the people pay twice. Once for what the government did, through our taxation system, and then through our own hip pockets.
For the consequences of the government’s error. And we can see that with the live cattle, banning that the Gillard government, put in place capriciously. Now we see the federal government, lining up to take over business registrations.
And people know that outsourcing the IT function, did not turn out so well for the government last time. Thirdly, I am concerned this bill, is not a bill about making a better system, for controlling business registrations and keeping track of company directors.
I am concerned, that the government has spotted yet another chance, to sling yet more taxpayers money, at one of their corporate backers. Who will it be? Mr. Acting Deputy President. KPMG, Indue, we can hardly wait to find out. But we will be watching.
All parties to this register, must show that the respect that is required, for the Australians whose livelihoods, whose legal liabilities are bound to this register. Please, Minister, take your time and get it right. Remember our constitution and competitive federalism, care about the people you are serving.
The government must do better this time. Because after all, government is here, by permission of the people, on behalf of the people, to serve the people. In accordance, and that service from government, must be in accordance, with our people’s governing document, our National Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. acting Deputy President.
Malcolm’s Fight
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am