Posts

What Will it Take to Get a Straight Answer?

I asked three simple questions of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and yet again, Senator Watt turned the Senate Chamber into a circus to his obvious amusement and wasted precious time.

Does the government control the level of immigration into Australia? Yes or No? And how many net overseas migrants will arrive in Australia this year?

The Treasurer earlier this year stated that the government had no control over immigration numbers, yet this is not the case. Was this ‘misinformation’?

The Minister gave no specific answers and once again attempted to direct attention back to the previous government and promoted the Labor’s utterly useless housing bill.

Transcript

My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Does the government control the level of immigration into Australia?  

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I note your interest all week in these matters of migration, and the short answer is that under governments of all persuasions, including those who are having a chuckle over there at the moment, the immigration program in Australia is demand driven. That has been the case under this government and the former government as well.  

Senator Roberts: Point of order: it was a very simple, short question. It needs a yes or no answer. That’s it.  

The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant, Senator Roberts. I presume you’ve finished your answer, Minister Watt?  

Senator WATT: As I say— 

Senator Canavan: It’s just a yes or no answer, Murray! 

Senator WATT: Yes, it’s quite normal for ministers who represent others to look at their notes. Senator Canavan, we can’t all be the genius that you are. You are a genius—I pay that—especially when you get into your dark web and your bunker and you dig out all those statistics. You’re an absolute genius! 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, resume your seat. Order across the chamber, but particularly on my left.  

Senator Ayres: Yes, old Telegram Matt! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, you have a lot to say this afternoon. This is question time. Minister Watt, I’m asking you to refer your comments to me and not to particular senators.  Please continue.

Senator WATT: I know Senator Rennick was a bit offended by the fact I singled out Senator Canavan as the only genius in the opposition and the only person who could get into the bunker and find statistics, because we know Senator Rennick is pretty good at that as well.  

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes. I haven’t called you, and I haven’t called you because the chamber was still disorderly. Senator Hughes. 

Senator Hughes: President, you’ve made very clear this week, and we have heard from those opposite— 

The PRESIDENT: What’s your point of order, Senator Hughes?  

Senator Hughes: I would like Minister Watt to withdraw a whole raft of his commentary and reflections on a number of senators over here and his continual snarky personal smears and vilifications.  

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, if you want to raise a point of order about unparliamentary or personal language related to a senator, I need their name at least.  

Senator Hughes: I said Minister Watt! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, don’t backchat once you’re sitting down. You indicated that the minister had had a spray against a range of senators. I have no idea who that was. I am not going to make it up or guess it, so unless you have— 

Senator Hughes: I literally said it multiple times! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, you’ve raised the point of order. You haven’t named a particular senator. You’ve indicated to me who in your view made the offence but you haven’t said about which senator. 

Senator Hughes: I said it multiple times. Would you like to check the Hansard? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, resume your seat. Minister Wong. 

Senator Wong: I think the difficulty—through you, President—is it was a generalised proposition that the senator was making. If there is a request to withdraw particular language that has just been said— 

Senator Hughes: We got multiple lectures this week. 

Senator Wong: If that is the request, I’m sure the— 

Senator Hughes interjecting— 

Senator Wong: Okay. I’m just saying that a generalised proposition is a difficult one to respond to. 

Senator Hughes interjecting— 

Senator Wong: I’m trying to assist here. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham. 

Senator Wong: I haven’t finished. 

The PRESIDENT: I’m sorry, I thought you had finished, Senator Wong. 

Senator Wong: Thank you. I was just waiting. The proposition— 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Do you wish to continue? 

Senator Wong: There is a generalised complaint about Senator Watt saying things about a number of people. I don’t know what those are, but if the request is that Senator Watt withdraw particular language that’s just been used— 

Senator Scarr interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, no interjections. 

Senator Wong: All I’m saying if there is a request to— 

Senator Hughes: And he continues! 

Senator Wong: Wow. I’m really trying. If there is a request to withdraw particular language now, I would ask the President to call the minister. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham? 

Senator Birmingham: Thank you, President. I did want to pick up on one part of your ruling there, which was to suggest it was necessary for the senator to name a particular senator who had been impugned. I will make it clear that it is possible for groups of senators to be impugned or to have improper motives attributed to them by a senator and that is also against standing orders. 

The PRESIDENT: That’s correct. 

Senator Birmingham: President, as you’re well aware, it’s not necessary always for a senator to make a point of order and, in the spirit of this week, it would be helpful for strong proactive intervention if senators can’t restrain themselves to actually ask them immediately to withdraw. Preferably they would restrain themselves, Senator Watt. 

Senator Watt interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: I haven’t called you, Senator Watt. I am going to respond to those points of order. I am not in the chamber all the time. That’s the point that I made in the statement to the chamber yesterday. It is very difficult for me to ask a senator to withdraw when I don’t know where that language has landed. I take your point, Senator Birmingham, that a slur can be made against a group of senators. That’s not what Senator Hughes was implying. My understanding of what was indicated was that the minister had made, in Senator Hughes’s view, a number of comments to senators throughout the week, not to a group of senators. However, I know that Senator Watt is always willing to own his behaviour and I will, as Senator Watt— 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: For the benefit of those interjections, a number of you are always willing, on both sides of the chamber, to withdraw. Some of you are not but most of you are. So I am going to invite Senator Watt, if he thinks he has offended senators this week, to make a general withdrawal without making any comment to comments that you may or may not have uttered. 

Senator WATT: I make a general withdrawal. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, please continue. 

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, the government does have a range of controls in place around the numbers of migrants coming into Australia, the categories of those migrants, whether they be international students or tourists, humanitarian, skilled workers so the government does have a range of controls around the numbers and types of migrants who come into Australia. I think I know where you’re going with this, because you have followed these issues all week and I point out that we haven’t really seen a lot of consistency from the opposition on matters of migration either, because what we do know is that, for instance, when the now immigration spokesperson, the member for Wannon, was in government he was saying things like, ‘We need to get our international students back. We need to get our working holiday-maker visa holders back.’ 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: On a point of order, that’s not relevant to what I asked. 

The PRESIDENT: I’ll bring you back to the question, Minister Watt. You’ve finished. Senator Roberts, your first supplementary? 

Transcript: First Supplementary Question

Senator ROBERTS: On 15 May, Treasurer Jim Chalmers told Australia that the level of net overseas migration is ‘not something the government determines’. Minister, is that a lie, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, I am going to ask you to rephrase that question.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that misinformation, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless?

Senator WATT: I reject the suggestion that the Treasurer has misrepresented the facts on this issue. It is a really important issue that Australia is dealing with at the moment. But, Senator Roberts, in answer to similar questions from you over the course of the week, I’ve pointed out a number of steps the government have taken to fix the fundamentally broken migration system that we inherited from the opposition and, in particular, from the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, who oversaw the migration system as the Minister for Home Affairs for a number of years.

We’ve already scaled back the pandemic event visa. We’re taking action about the working hours for international students, which has been a real drawcard for international students coming to Australia. We’ve made all sorts of improvements to Home Affairs, in terms of its processing of visa applications. And, of course, when it comes to housing, as I’ve pointed out to you already, you and your colleagues have an opportunity to vote for more housing and you chose to vote against it.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, your second supplementary?

Transcript: Second Supplementary Question

Senator ROBERTS: How many overseas immigrants, net, will arrive in Australia this financial year?

Senator WATT: Again, I know that we’ve addressed this issue in previous answers, both in chis chamber and in estimates, and the issues around the number of net overseas migrants is a matter that is handled by the Treasury. I’ve already acknowledged in previous answers on these questions that post COVID, when we had a couple of years of pretty much zero migration to Australia, it was always inevitable that there was going to be an increase in that migration as we had tourists, working holiday-maker visa holders and skilled migrants coming back into the country. That is exactly one of the reasons why our government is trying to fix the broken migration system that we inherited and trying to build more homes, despite your opposition and that of the coalition.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: On a point of order, I asked the question: how much net immigration this year?

The PRESIDENT: The minister explained it is a question that should be directed to Treasury, and the minister was answering it in his capacity. The minister has finished.

/by

Government Ignores Foreign Influence in RMIT-ABC Fact Checks

,

Financial statements show an ABC fact check partnership with RMIT received grants from an organisation that receives funds from George Soros funded foreign organisations, foreign governments and shadowy foundations.

Instead of taking these issues seriously, Minister Watt treats the questions with contempt, rabbiting on with meaningless waffle.

If the ABC has been co-opted into “fact checks” that have been influenced by shady foreign money, then Australians deserve to know.

Follow up to these questions here.

Update: ABC has ended its partnership with RMIT Exclusive: ABC ends seven-year partnership with RMIT Fact Check (crikey.com.au)

Transcript

Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. Why is the ABC receiving funds from potential agents of foreign influence for its fact-checking partnership with RMIT?

Senator Watt: I am not actually aware of the suggestions that Senator Roberts is making. I’m a little wary about taking them at face value, because I know Senator Roberts has a certain view of the ABC that is not a view I share. And I’m not sure Senator Roberts has always accurately represented the situation when it comes to the ABC. I would invite Senator Roberts to present further evidence of that, if he has that evidence available.

What I will say is that this government is a very strong supporter of the ABC. We recognise that it has a very important role as the national broadcaster. It has an important role not just in our big capital cities but also, particularly, in regional parts of Australia. It is often the only way of having local, regional stories told at the national level, and that’s why we are supportive of the ABC. It also plays a very important role during natural disasters as a sort of critical information for people seeking to stay alive during emergencies. They are some of the reasons that we support the ABC, and they are some of the reasons why we were so concerned by the budget cuts that were imposed by the then coalition government on the ABC, because those cuts removed or reduced the ability of the ABC to broadcast those regional stories in some of those areas that Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson like to say they care about. Those cuts reduced the ABC’s ability to provide some of that emergency information that is so vital to rural and regional communities. So we’re very proud of the fact that we’re strong supporters of the ABC. We don’t join in the regular attacks that we see on the ABC from the conservative side of politics, because we think that the institution plays a very important role in our national democracy. We will always remain strong supporters of the ABC.

The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator Roberts: The International Fact-Checking Network’s financial statements show that that foreign organisations gave the RMIT-ABC Fact Check partnership multiple grants. The International Fact-Checking Network receives funds from the US government, a private Norwegian foundation, foreign headquartered tech giant Meta, and a handful of private, shady organisations and foundations. Why didn’t the ABC declare that it was receiving funding from private, foreign organisations and governments for its RMIT fact-checking partnership?

Senator Carol Brown interjecting—

Senator Watt: That’s a fair point, Senator Brown. If there were a fact checker for some of the things that come out of One Nation, they’d be very, very busy. As for Senator Canavan, you wouldn’t even start trying to check facts from Senator Canavan. You’d want to have more than a decade if you wanted to check facts from Senator Canavan.

As I say, I’m very wary of entering into propositions that are being put by Senator Roberts when it comes to foreign interference and foreign influence. He is prone to saying various things about those issues, which don’t always bear fact checking themselves. Again, Senator Roberts, I’d invite you to provide any hard evidence that you have to support the claims that you’re making, but I repeat my position that we are strong supporters of the ABC. In fact, I think the public regard the ABC as the most trustworthy news agency in the country. That is regularly shown in surveys. (Time expired)

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

The government’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill does not define the terms ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ in specifics. It would likely be left to biased and foreign influenced fact checkers. Facebook has suspended RMIT FactLab services after accusations of bias in fact-checking the Voice referendum and reports of lapsed accreditation. Minister, will the government abandon its Orwellian misinformation and disinformation bill given that the fact checker’s credibility has been destroyed?

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, thank you for the question. I know that you and a number of members of the Liberal and National parties have a strong position, you say, in relation to matters of misinformation—

The President: Senator Watt, I remind you to direct your comments through the chair.

Senator Watt: Okay. I know that there are many senators from the Liberal, National and One Nation parties who say all sorts of things about misinformation. It doesn’t seem to prevent them from presenting all sorts of misinformation about certain referendums that we’re about to have in this country. It doesn’t seem to prevent them joining in on misinformation and disinformation campaigns telling people that we’re going to be facing parking tickets being legislated by the Voice and all sorts of nonsense like that. If you want to have a discussion about misinformation, I’d suggest that you keep your own house in order and come to this parliament in good faith rather than providing the constant misinformation we see from the other side.

Related:

Who will fact-check the fact-checkers?
/by