Posts

Visa Approvals and Security Checks Amid Rising Global Tensions

,

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

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

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

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

Security criteria was confirmed to remain uncompromised throughout the process.

Transcript

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: That’s permanent?

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

Senator ROBERTS: What was that category?

Mr Kilner: That was temporary residence visas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Does that apply to refugees?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Willard: No, the criteria are not compromised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Willard: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/0 Comments/by

Australia’s Imported Crime Wave

,

In light of the crime wave sweeping our nation, I asked the Department of Home Affairs what they’re doing to ensure Australian’s security and to make sure we are not continuing to import violence and terror into Australia.

As it turns out, those illegal immigrants released included murderers, rapists and child sex offenders and the government chose not to say where in the community these persons were living. Of the 149 detainees released, 24 have already re-offended.

The Department did not provide any information that would diminish concerns about safety in the community, other than to say they were being monitored (not very well).

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing today. I’m going to ask questions in Outcome 3 about the High Court decision that resulted in terrorists being released.

CHAIR: We’re in Outcome 2.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct. We’re in Outcome 2. The Queensland government’s casual, relaxed approach to crime has people worried. Last week we had a series of violent crimes by African immigrants, including the horrendous stabbing and killing of a grandmother in a car theft near Brisbane in broad daylight last week while she was out shopping with her six-year-old granddaughter. These incidents are spreading further fear in the community of activities of violent immigrants who have not been assimilated into the Australian notions and culture of nonviolence. Given the current record immigration levels, what actions are being taken by Home Affairs to ensure the security of Australians from imported risks of violence and terror?

Mr Willard: I might make a few comments in response. Anyone who applies for a visa from outside Australia is subject to the same criteria for the granting of that visa, regardless of their nationality. It involves assessments of their character, security, health and a range of other items. So that’s the first threshold in terms of visa consideration. I am aware of the tragic incident, which received a lot of media reporting. I don’t want to go into the details of the incident, but in the normal course of events, if someone were a visa holder, there might be consideration given to cancelling a visa if someone was subsequently convicted of an offence. In respect of this particular matter, it remains a criminal matter for the courts. I would make the point, though, that it doesn’t necessarily follow that the people involved were immigrants. From our initial considerations, the people involved were not visa holders.

Senator ROBERTS: I have two questions from that. The first is that you and I are both public servants, and what I’m doing is relaying some of my constituents’ fears. I’m serving my constituents, and many constituents in Queensland are afraid of the crime wave that’s taking over our state. How many people have had their visas revoked and been deported in the last 10 years?

Mr Willard: That actually sits in outcome 3. I can try to provide some information on visa cancellations at that time.

Senator ROBERTS: Visa cancellations due to criminal activities?

Mr Willard: That’s an item in Outcome 3, when we look at visa compliance.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll be back.

/by

The Labor Government’s War on Space

I spoke in support of a motion to protect Australia’s space program. The Albanese government’s decision to terminate the national space mission for Earth observation (NISMO) is shortsighted and false economy.

Investment in a homegrown space program designing, building and launching satellites was a recommendation by the Australian Academy of Science in a 2022 report. Apart from the career opportunities and jobs the program would have offered, it also provided national security. It would provide Australia with its own remote sensing capabilities and reduce sovereign risk. It would give us the ability to respond to emergencies and track bushfires, floods and extreme weather events.

Does PM Albanese not understand remote sensing? The cancellation of NISMO follows last month’s axing of the Australian Spaceports Program, which would have seen government funding assist the establishment of launch facilities on Australian soil.

This is not about saving money — we still need this capability somehow. It would be far better to have the capability under public control rather than relying on a patchwork of private and foreign suppliers.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Fawcett for his matter of public importance, which One Nation supports. The Albanese government’s decision to terminate the National Space Mission for Earth Observation, NSMEO, will cost jobs in North Queensland. Abbot Point is a perfect location for a space facility. It’s close to the equator and offers consistent beautiful Queensland weather, providing for a reliable launch. A North Queensland space industry and launch facility would be able to capitalise on the Abbot Point steel park, already gazetted and just waiting for the Iron Boomerang steel mills. An Australian Academy of Science report from 2022 called for:

… investment in a home-grown Earth observation satellite program, which would design, build, launch and operate the satellites and the sensors on-board used to collect a wide range of data types.

The program providing Australia with its own remote sensing capabilities, with all the jobs and expertise this would involve, was designed to reduce sovereign risk. Remote sensing is the mapping of Australia from space, providing, firstly, an emergency capability to track bushfires, floods and the usual extreme weather events; and, secondly, routine commercial mapping that would have grown Australia’s productive capacity. Did the Albanese government not know what remote sensing was or the importance of having this capacity under public control rather than relying on a patchwork of private and foreign government suppliers? It’s not as if we can save the money. We still need this capability somehow.

The cancellation of the NSMEO follows the axing last month of the Australian spaceports program, which would have seen government funding assist in the establishment of launch facilities on Australian soil. The effect of these decisions, taken together, is to decimate the Australian space industry at a time when the industry was moving into a commercial phase. This decision is damaging regional Australia, damaging our national productive capacity, damaging our national security and reducing opportunities for career choices for our children.

/1 Comment/by

Labor Must Not Cut the Budget for Antarctica

Australia is fortunate, as one of the original Antarctic treaty signatories, to lay claim to the largest portion of the Antarctic continent. To cut back on infrastructure and research leaves Australia open to other nations’ claims to part of our territory.

China already has four bases within our Australian Antarctic territory for mapping, research, communications and resources. Based on their activity, they could claim our territory when the treaty comes up for review in 2048.

If we don’t treat our claim seriously and use it, we will lose this vitally important territory that sits on our doorstep.

We need Antarctica for our future security, for our future productive capacity, and for human progress.

We hold Antarctica through our efforts as a nation.

Don’t let Labor lose it through lack of effort.

One Nation will always put Australia’s interests first.

Transcript

Labor must not cut the budget that supports our presence in the Australian Antarctic Territory. We must support our presence through enhanced research and enhanced infrastructure. To not do so opens the gates to other nations’ claims over a part of our territory. Australia, as one of the original Antarctic Treaty signatories, lays claim to the largest portion of the Antarctic continent based on Australia’s significant role in the early days of Antarctic exploration and Australia’s proximity to the continent.

China already has four bases within our Australian Antarctic Territory for research, mapping, communication and resources, which are all vital to China. Based on China’s investment and activity, when the treaty is up for reconsideration in 2048, China will lay claim to Australia’s portion of Antarctica. When we cut the budget, our future claims will not be treated seriously if we do not treat our own claims seriously now. This is a matter of security, productive capacity and human progress.

One Nation will always put Australia’s interests first.

/by

Mining is keeping Australia out of a depression.

,

The industry the ALP and Greens want to phase out – mining – is driving a record $10 billion a month balance of trade surplus. This money is going into the local economy, creating jobs and increasing Government revenue. Without the contribution from mining each month Australia would be in a depression.

One Nation supports the mining industry and the ability of Australians to get ahead through their own hard work and endeavour.

Transcript:

The national accounts figures published yesterday carried great news for our community and very bad news for those in the Senate for whom ‘mining’ is a dirty word. Australia’s balance of trade surplus is now at a 10-year high, just over $10 billion in June, up from $9 billion in May.

Every dollar of surplus is $1 of growth for the Australian economy, generating jobs and economic security and making Australia more resilient. Every $10 increase in the iron ore or coal price adds $1 billion to government revenue. Overall, metal ore exports reached a record high in April of $16½ billion.

That’s $16.5 billion in mining exports in one month. Consider all the employment this is creating—the breadwinner jobs, the families supported by individual labour rather than by government handouts. Investment in mining is an investment in our future security—it’s that simple. Iron ore is now at $154 a tonne and coal is at $171 a tonne—both against budget projections of $40 a tonne.

The government has a windfall here. Copper is up 23 per cent, steel is up 24 per cent, nickel is up 15 per cent and cobalt is up 57 per cent. Our mining recovery is broadly based and sustained. This revenue must go, in part, to building Australian infrastructure, which is our future, and, in part, to paying back our profligate deficit, caused by temporary COVID measures that now somehow appear permanent. Yet Labor and the Greens are telling miners, ‘Bad luck,’ because both want to ban any new mines and extensions of existing mines.

Their policy will devastate the economy and the government revenue base. Entire communities will be reliant on government welfare and any rules imposed on them in order to keep the benefits. No wonder the Greens and Labor hate mining. There will be none of this supporting of ourselves under a government Anthony Albanese and Adam Bandt lead.

We are one community, we are one nation, and mining will keep us free.

/by

Questions to the Minister: COVIDSafe App

,

This morning I asked a number of questions of the Foreign Minister about the COVIDSafe App, its performance so far and necessary improvements.

Disturbingly, she claimed not to know how many times a COVIDSafe App user had tested positive with COVID19 and their tracing data uploaded. “We do not have access to that information nor should we.”

/by

COVID Safe App

,

This afternoon I spoke on the governments COVIDSafe App and why I won’t be downloading it. I understand this Government feels the need to get this app in wide use and is prepared to write good data protection rules to achieve that.

I would ask the Government to show it really cares about the privacy of everyday Australians by revisiting the wider issue of Government use of private data.

Transcript

Senator Roberts.

Thank you Madam Acting Deputy President. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I have pleasure in saying that One Nation will be supporting this bill. That doesn’t mean that I will be downloading the app as I’ll explain.

But firstly, I would like to compliment the attorney general for the work that went into this bill. When Minister Hunt’s regulations came out to accompany that app launch, my office had a number of reservations about the level of security provided on the data.

This bill is needed to clear up those issues and it has done so. I will mention these in passing for the benefit of our constituents. Then I’ll move on to the security risk that the app itself still represents. I did have a concern that the government was giving bad players an opportunity to access data on the server without detection.

So there are two aspects to this Madam Acting Deputy President, there’s the app itself and then there’s the uploading of data to the server and the storing of that data and the use of that data. So I did have a concern that the government was giving bad players an opportunity to access data on the server without detection.

The decision to ask the Office of the National Data Commissioner, the commissioner, to overview data storage and access is a wise choice that addresses this concern. We are pleased with that. I was also worried about Amazon having access to both the client file, which is needed, to identify app users and the data file for COVID positive users.

This in effect gave Amazon access to significant personal information of app users. So let me explain a bit more. The separation now of the key file and the data access, the data file itself, under the supervision of the commissioner is the best way of making sure Amazon and the government keep each other honest, well done.

So in other words, we’ve got the government storing the data, we’ve got Amazon storing the data and the government having the keys. Both are needed. It can’t be separate. There is one reason not one party can have control. There is one issue here to do with the cryptography on the unique user IDs.

The open-source app that the COVID-safe app took as a starting point only requires 32 bit encryption. I would have hoped the app developers have taken that up to 128 bit and we’d ask the commissioner to consider that. Now let me turn to a number of security issues in the app itself that need to be addressed.

My office has put out a detailed sheet on this, so let me quickly mention them here and move on. The user ID can stick in the phone case causing a phone to broadcast multiple different user IDs over extended periods of time, which increases the chances of a phone being tracked.

Secondly, the COVID-safe app overrides phone security settings to use the same handshake address for a phone over the life of the app instead of changing every few minutes. This is a major security issue in the app. Thirdly, the COVID-safe app stores the make and model of the other phones it has matched within plain text where it can be easily read.

This approach is not necessary since this data could easily be trapped when the app is registered instead of storing it in the phone. Fourthly, if someone has named their phone such as, in my case Malcolm’s iPhone under some circumstances, this real name is what the other phone stores, app users who have named their phone with their real name may be exposing themselves to danger.

This results from the app using different ways of broadcasting data to maximise the chance of a match. This tells us that the developers have taken a deliberate decision to compromise safety to achieve the most number of matches. Fifth, data stored to the cloud is not deleted.

If a cloud service is used to backup or sync a phone, the COVID-safe app contact blog gets backed up to the cloud. This can be viewed by anyone with a sign in without the phone user’s knowledge. So I acknowledge that this bill makes the behaviour illegal, but not storing some of the data in plain English would have been a far better choice.

Sixth, an app running in the background will not match with another app running in the background on an iPhone. The app does not meet the government’s, number seven the app does not meet the government’s own standard for app accessibility.

WCAG 2.0 A. It fails accessibility tests on font size and field width and people with a disability the first people that need to get this app. So that was sloppy. Eight errors that were detected early in the release of the app have still not been fixed. Registration fails over WiFi, which is used in poor reception areas.

Bluetooth conflicts with external devices. Power management on an iPhone interferes with the app. 3% of older phones cannot use the app an alert message advising users that they have tested positive for COVID was being accidentally triggered. This was fixed by deleting the message.

So currently the app can’t be used to alert users when they actually do test positive. I must however compliment the government for the sudden concern about security. Where was the concern about people’s privacy in this government’s capture and use of the metadata of every Australian?

This government is storing texts, telephone call details, social media posts, websites visited and website comments for every Australian. At Senate estimates, we discovered that in 2019 there were 297,000 accesses of the metadata records of everyday Australians by 22 different government agencies.

How many of these accesses were accompanied by a warrant? Madam Acting Deputy President? None. Not one warrant. Now I understand this government feels the need to get this app in wide use and is prepared to write good data protection rules to achieve that.

So I’d ask the government to show it really cares about the privacy of everyday Australians by revisiting the wider issue of government use of private private data. Because the government’s track record on security is poor.

So as I’ve explained Madam Acting Deputy President, the shortfalls initially in our assessment of the app were to do with the data storage and access of that. That has now been resolved or will be resolved once this bill, Privacy Bill passes. However, the reverse is the case for the app.

We were originally happy with the app. We now see a number of flaws in it. So that leaves security issues in regard to people being able to track the phone owner, the phone user and that is not acceptable. I also wanna make a comment about the blackmail that’s being used by the government to push this app.

Minister Hunt said, “you wanna go to the 40?” “Download the app.” We’ve just heard here Senator Bragg saying, “this is that ticket to freedom.” No it’s not. There are far more effective tickets to freedom.

The Australian people have already shown a highly responsible approach to managing this COVID virus and we need to extend that. We need to stop the blackmail stop the control that is pushed over us. We need to get back to the freedoms that are inherent and being everyday Australians.

That is part of our birthright, part of our citizenry that we have, are entitled to rights and freedom. When we have permission from something to do something from a government that is not a freedom, that is the reverse because there is being withheld until the permission is granted.

So we need to rely upon the trustworthiness and the competence and a sense of responsibility of everyday Australians right around the country. So Madam Acting Deputy President, let me summarise by saying that this bill is necessary, and that is why One Nation will be supporting it. It is welcome.

Secondly, the app is not up to scratch and that’s why I won’t be downloading it. And thirdly, we need to get back to freedom properly.

/by