As we head into another election season, Australia’s trust in politicians is at rock bottom. It’s no surprise people feel betrayed by endless promises from the major parties that are never carried out.
A recent Roy Morgan survey reflects the truth — Australians believe in straightforward, principle-driven politics, and they recognize these values in One Nation.
It’s time for politicians to be accountable, communicate openly, and restore faith in our democratic process. One Nation stands firm against the censorship bill— because free speech and public debate are vital for democracy.
Transcript
Ask anyone in the real world what they think of politicians, and the answer is, ‘I don’t trust the bastards.’ And why should they? We’re again about to enter an election season where the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties will make endless promises about things they will never do. If you lie to the people, they won’t trust you, and Liberal, Labor and the Greens have done plenty of lying. It’s telling that in this chamber we can’t call out a lie. I can say that the Labor Party lies, that the Liberal Party lies and that the Greens party lies, yet I can’t say a particular senator has lied in a debate. That’s unparliamentary. Well, Australians are listening to this discussion live right now, and tens of thousands more will listen later on social media. Listening to the comments, Australians think the never-ending lies are what’s unparliamentary.
Teenagers make a lot of those social media comments, and teens certainly are not fans of the government. The memes that teenagers come up with in picking apart the government are as funny as they are cutting. Has Prime Minister Anthony Albanese started reading the comments on social media? Is that why he’s trying to get teenagers banned from social media?
Eighty-nine per cent of Australians agree most politicians will lie if they feel the truth will hurt them politically. The Australian people aren’t morons, and they aren’t just seeing things. Many politicians do lie, and they lie all the time. That’s not how it should be. It’s not what I believe in. Ministers stand up in this place and avoid answering simple, direct questions. They give themselves a pat on the back and cheer themselves, thinking they’re so clever for not giving an answer. Well, ministers, out in the real world, no-one believes the spin and the lies. They can see through the distractions and smears from ministers—for example, Ministers Watt and Ayres. People are laughing at and ridiculing you. Ninety-four per cent of surveyed respondents believe that a politician who is caught lying to the Australian people should resign their position. Liars are destroying trust in the democratic process and parliament. This place should deserve respect and trust as a gathering of representatives of the people. Every dishonest answer is a chip away from the health of our country.
So I say to the other parties: the proof is in the data, and the solutions are obvious from the data. On 18 October, the Courier-Mail in Queensland reported the Roy Morgan survey on political trust. They surveyed the number of people who trusted and distrusted four of the largest parties and looked at the difference to get a net figure. Have a listen to these figures: net trust for the LNP, minus 12 per cent; net trust for the Greens, minus 13 per cent; net trust for the Labor Party, minus 17 per cent. Guess which is the only party with a net positive trust rating? One Nation. It turns out that, if you have principles and you say what you mean, people trust you. Many people agree with what One Nation says. Some people don’t agree, yet everyone knows where we stand.
If politicians stuck to their guns as Pauline Hanson does and if they listened to the people and stood up and said, ‘This is what I believe in, and I can’t be changed,’ no matter what side of politics you’re on, our country would be in a better place. No matter how embarrassing they are in the short term, honest answers are better for politicians and for the country in the long term. What will it take for politicians from the major parties to understand this? The Australian people are not mugs. They can make up their own minds, and they sure know when you are lying, so it’s time to stop lying.
The misinformation bill treats people as if they’re all idiots who can’t be trusted with the facts. There’s nothing more damaging to trust and integrity than censorship. Australia doesn’t trust them, so the question immediately becomes: what are the Liberals, Labor and the Greens hiding? The answer is everything, because you stand for nothing. That’s why One Nation will move a motion asking the Senate to throw out the misinformation and disinformation bill this Monday. I’ll say that again. This Monday, One Nation will be moving a motion asking the Senate to throw out the misinformation and disinformation bill—the mad bill, the censorship bill, the one that doesn’t trust the people. To restore trust in politics, politicians must be trustworthy. No-one who seeks to censor the opinions of Australians deserves their trust. While Labor pushes for a censorship regime under the excuse that it’s about protecting your safety, One Nation pushes for you to be allowed to see the true facts and make up your own mind. There is nothing better for getting to the truth and being the arbiter of truth than free, open, public debate. Why do you not like free, open, public debate?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): The time for this discussion has expired.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/sd92VsBRd3w/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-21 12:15:002024-11-21 13:26:35It’s Time for Accountability, Transparency and Restoring Trust
Earlier this year, I asked the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services numerous questions about his oversight of workers that help out at Parliament House. Despite earning $480,000 a year and only needing to attend Estimates three times a year, there was no explanation for the type of leave Stefanic was on that prevented him from fronting up to answer questions.
There are serious questions he needs to answer, and I’ll continue to ask these questions on behalf of former employees of Parliament House.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. What is the nature of your boss’s leave?
Ms Hinchcliffe: In my opening statement I indicated we don’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not? I heard your opening statement.
Ms Hinchcliffe: They go to personal matters for individuals, so we wouldn’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Surely this is affecting the morale, which you want to turn around, of the DPS staff. As Senator Hume pointed out, the taxpayer is paying for it.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure that it’s affecting morale of staff. I walk around the building and talk to our staff, and my sense of staff is that they are very committed to this building and are very committed to the work they do.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree, but many of come up to me and they’re not happy. They’re very dissatisfied with the way the department has been run. What is the nature of his leave?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that we won’t be discussing—
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard that he’s being paid while he’s on leave. How long will he be on paid leave, noting that on Wednesday it will have been four weeks since he informed DPS staff he had gone on leave?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I indicated to an earlier question that I don’t have an end date for his leave.
Senator ROBERTS: Was Mr Stefanic’s decision to take leave on 9 October 2024 related to the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s raid on DPS in Parliament House on 3 October?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve indicated that I’m not speaking any further in relation to the execution of the warrants by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware it was specifically requested that Mr Stefanic be here to answer questions that he has personal knowledge of.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I wrote to the committee chair to indicate that he would not be available and to request that he be excused from this.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re aware that he was specifically requested. I specifically requested him.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m aware now that you specifically requested. As I said, I went through the process, wrote to the chair and asked that he be excused.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has to appear at estimates only three times a year. He knew these hearings were coming up. He was formally requested and has failed to show up. How is this not contempt of the Senate?
Ms Hinchcliffe: As I already indicated in my evidence, I wrote to the chair and asked for him to be excused.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you feel like you’ve been thrown under the bus?
Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I do not.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has repeatedly said that complaints about DPS are purely due to former employees with an axe to grind. Do you share that view?
Ms Hinchcliffe: You may remember my evidence at the last hearing, where I said that I think that feedback is gold. We talked particularly about things like the staff survey and the importance of staff having the availability to provide to management their feedback on how they consider things are going but also where they’d like to see the department go into the future.
Senator ROBERTS: The employees of DPS that I hear from, especially security, are not at all happy. Do you know whether Mr Stefanic was in a relationship with Cate Saunders before or after he appointed her to the deputy secretary position?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge about Mr Stefanic’s relationships, and I’m not willing to answer anything further on that. That’s not a matter for me.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to the case of ACD 13—it almost sounds like a rock group—in the Federal Court involving DPS. There’s a suppression order over that case except for hearings of parliament. I remind you that estimates is a hearing of parliament. I understand that the complainant, ACD 13, has consented to lifting that suppression order but DPS will not consent to lifting the suppression order. Is DPS resisting lifting that order?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have a lot of details on that matter, but as I understand it there’s currently a consultation underway. I can understand that our lawyers have been approached and that we’re going through consultation processes at the moment, so that’s an ongoing matter which I won’t comment on any further.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you find out that the status is and give us an update on notice, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What does DPS have to hide that you want to keep under suppression? What is it?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I have nothing to add in relation to that matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand Mr Robert Brigden instructed solicitors in ACD 13 that Rob Stefanic had ‘no involvement’ in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee. Is that what was instructed?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware of this matter in any detail. It occurred before I came to DPS. I don’t have anything I can add to that, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the statement that Rob Stefanic had no involvement in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee true?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge of this matter to provide you with any further information.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the records of the first interview that took place with Barbara Deegan of Ashurst Lawyers?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware, no. I have no awareness of this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is, in those records of the interview, contrary to the statement that he wasn’t involved, the facts show the contents of the envelope were taken and shown to Mr Stefanic and they were then kept in Mr Stefanic’s safe. Is that true?
Ms Hinchcliffe: As I just said, I don’t have any awareness of this matter. It occurred before I became to DPS.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice to find that out, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I can take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Please take on notice to produce the transcripts of record of first interviews by Barbara Deegan from Ashurst with Andrew Brigden, Rob Stefanic and Cate Saunders. Note that the suppression order from the Federal Court has a specific exemption for this hearing, so it does not apply to this request. Can you take that on notice, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Did Cate Saunders make any intervention to ensure that the statement that Rob Stefanic was not involved in the envelope interception was included?
Ms Hinchcliffe: As I said, I have no knowledge of this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and find out, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take it on notice, but whether I can find anything out is a different matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could check with the people involved that I’ve just named. Can you please confirm exactly when Cate Saunders began her employment?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I can. She was engaged with DPS on 17 December 2017.
Senator ROBERTS: How many branch or division managers have left their position over the last three years?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I would need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That is understandable. Broadly, in relation to the NACC raid on raid on DPS of 3 October 24, have any DPS executives been stood down pending the NACC investigation and, if so, how many?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that I won’t be speaking any further in relation to the NACC matters, but I can say that no senior executives have been stood down.
Senator ROBERTS: How many DPS executives are on paid leave while the investigation is underway?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Again, I’ve said that I’m not going to answer any other questions in relation to the—
Senator ROBERTS: This is in relation to your department, not the NACC.
Ms Hinchcliffe: No, you’re asking questions about people who might be on leave that go to whether or not they’re being investigated. At that point I need to consider whether or not that actually starts to go to a public interest question, so I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and, if you want to claim public indemnity, then it needs to go through the minister.
CHAIR: Public interest immunity.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—I get tangled up. Ms Hinchcliffe, when did you become aware that the NACC was investigating DPS?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I haven’t indicated what the NACC is investigating; I’ve indicated that the NACC has executed search warrants on DPS, and I’ve also indicated that I won’t answer any further questions.
Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of that investigation?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I have indicated that I won’t answer any further questions in relation to the investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of the warrants?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I became aware that the NACC were going to issue warrants on DPS on 2 October.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that your first indication?
Ms Hinchcliffe: That the NACC was going to execute a warrant on 3 October? Yes, it was.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ms Hinchcliffe, during your time working at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, were you part of the team that dealt with the complaint about the handling of a Public Interest Disclosure Act disclosure at DPS?
Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I was not.
Senator ROBERTS: When did you first work with Rob Stefanic?
Ms Hinchcliffe: When he started as secretary at DPS, and I think that was in the second half of 2015. It might have been in December.
Senator ROBERTS: So you were already there, and he came in as your boss?
Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s exactly right.
Senator ROBERTS: What year and date?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I think Mr Stefanic started in 2015. It was towards the end of the year; I started in April 2015.
Senator ROBERTS: So you preceded him by about six or seven months?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I think so.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you consider Rob Stefanic to be a personal friend?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I consider Mr Stefanic to be a colleague. He’s been somebody that I’ve worked with previously, and I’ve come and worked for him as the deputy secretary. I don’t have any outside engagement with him, and I work with him as a colleague.
Senator ROBERTS: So you were there when he arrived? He arrived after you?
Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you work with him before that?
Ms Hinchcliffe: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you please take on notice to provide the total number of sexual harassment claims that DPS has settled over the previous five years and include the average settlement amount, the standard deviation and how many of them have been under non-disclosure agreements?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I’ll take that notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The upper management of DPS obviously has a lot of work to do to earn back the trust of DPS employees. We know that from just walking around the building. People come up to me frequently. I would say to you that that work to restore trust starts with accountability and transparency. Surely, you could start the transparency with how you answer these questions and allow the suppression order to be lifted.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that as a comment, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, will you lift the suppression order? I’d like that on notice.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already taken on notice of where that is up to, and I think that forms part of that question. If it’s not, if it’s a separate question, then I’ll take that on notice too.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. President, Minister—
The President: President.
Senator ROBERTS: President, thank you. Could I have your answer to that question as well please?
The President: What question?
Senator ROBERTS: I would say that trust starts with accountability. Could the suppression order be lifted?
The President: That’s got nothing to do with me, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Nothing at all?
The President: No. It’s a departmental matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, President. Thank you, Chair.
Transparency and accountability are essential in a democracy, yet this government continues to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, especially when it comes to the higher brass in the Department of Defence.
The refusal to release the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force isn’t about national security—it’s about avoiding embarrassment. We need a process that allows senators to confidentially review sensitive documents, ensuring accountability while protecting the public interest. We must demand a government that serves the people, not itself.
One Nation will fight for our Defence Force personnel to be treated fairly by senior officers. One standard must apply to all.
Transcript
Well, the minister’s explanation is pitiful. Look at paragraph (a)(iv) of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge’s motion. Senator Wong failed to comply. She did not provide the names. Who has been consulted in relation to the release of the report of the 20-year review of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force? Why is the government continuing to hide? This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. This is the government’s response. The claim isn’t that there was anything classified in the report of the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force that Senator Lambie had been seeking; the claim the minister makes is that this report wasn’t meant to be released because the government didn’t want it to be released, not that national security was under threat, not that there was classified information in it. The government didn’t want it to be released because that would be embarrassing and they would be asked to do something about it. That’s not good enough.
An order to produce documents that passes this Senate is constitutionally superior to acts of law. The government doesn’t get to decide that they can toss those orders in the bin. This is a rare occasion where we get to see the report even though the government refused to hand it over. Credit must go to Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge for pushing this and to their offices for managing to get a copy of the report. Usually, as senators, we’re left in the dark. The government makes a public interest immunity claim and refuses to hand over anything. The government tells us that if this report was released the sky would fall in, that there would be an earthquake that shatters the public interest. Now, as senators, we’re quite reasonable and responsible. We know that truth reinforces truth. While we might desperately want that information we somewhat trust that the government hasn’t lied to our face and that there would be an actual risk to the public interest if the document were published. Yesterday and today show once and for all, yet again, that the government is completely undeserving of that trust.
The minister’s explanation clearly isn’t sufficient, and the current process for ordering documents is failing the Australian people and the senators seeking information on behalf of the people—information that belongs to the Australian people. To that end, I’ll again be proposing a new, additional way for handling orders for documents. When ministers make a public interest immunity claim, the claimed harm results from releasing the document to the public. There’s a way to make sure this is a win-win. I’ll go through it again. It’s making sure sensitive information isn’t released while at the same time ensuring senators get the information needed to make informed decisions. The way to do this is to establish a process for senators to confidentially review ordered documents without releasing them to the public.
This proposal may sound familiar to some. I first raised it in 2022, and this Senate supported a reference to the Procedure Committee for inquiry. With respect to the senators on that committee, the response was lacking. The inquiry was given four months to report on the issue, did not seek any submissions and produced the Procedure Committee’s first report of 2023 of a towering two pages. While the committee declined to endorse the proposal, they did confirm that it’s feasible. The committee committed to further report on the process for the order for the production of documents later in 2023. No report was delivered. Imagine that. Given the increased frequency of orders for the production of documents and the nearly blanket ban the government seems to be applying on transparency, it’s time to deal with this issue again.
This proposal is relatively simple. If the minister makes a public interest immunity claim, they wouldn’t have to release it to the public but they would have to release it to us—the senators—confidentially. A majority of the Senate could then decide whether the minister’s claim is legitimate and the document deserves to be kept secret from the public. It’s true that, just like a normal order for the production of documents, the minister could refuse to hand over the documents to the committee. Since no harm could flow from public disclosure in this process, it would be apparent that the only harm the government would want to avoid would be embarrassment. That gives us a better reason to apply sanctions for noncompliance, which the Senate is rightly cautious to do under the current process. In making a public interest immunity claim the minister would be automatically required to nominate a standing committee to receive the document, and only senators would be allowed to review it.
I will be submitting a notice of motion with some draft amendments to the standing orders for senators to consider over the break. I welcome their input and any suggestions to make these changes better. The Australian public deserves transparency, and as the Senate, the house of review, we must deliver accountability on this government. Recent weeks in this chamber have shown debacle after debacle. The government is in chaos. Australia has a chaotic government, and the people pay for that—enlisted people and veterans pay for it. The Senate’s scrutiny will help the government to govern and reduce the chaos. We are willing to help you, and that’s what our help will do. The people deserve the truth, openness and accountability. (Time expired)
The disrespect by Labor towards the Senate Estimates process is reprehensible, especially for a government elected on promises to be ‘transparent and accountable’.
As a representative of the people of Queensland and Australia, it’s my duty to uphold the sanctity of this Senate as the House of Review. The government’s audacity in cherry-picking what information it deems fit for our consumption reeks of contempt. This blatant obstructionism frustrates the very essence of our democratic institutions.
The culture of secrecy by Labor extends far beyond the Senate Chamber. Orders for document production are routinely disobeyed, undermining the integrity of our oversight mechanisms. It’s time we punish these acts with the sanctions they deserve.
The cost of running the Federal Government is an important issue for One Nation. We believe that a smaller government is better and strongly advocate for reducing its size to align with the constitution.
I’m an avid reader of the budget volume that lists out the cost of Government. This year, the figures don’t add up. The budget appears to be assuming there will be no increase in the cost of Government for the next four years.
In a period of high inflation, which will be at least 13% over forward estimates, an assumption that the Federal Government administration cost (wages, office expenses, etc.) will not go up in those four years is, at best, improbable and at worst, dishonest.
I asked the Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher to “please explain”. Aside from small savings from reducing the use of contract labour, there are no explanations for the figures presented in the budget. The outcome is that the deficit over the forward estimates is more than likely understated by as much as $50 billion.
Transcript
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and will reference Budget Paper No. 4: Agency resourcing, page 186, department expenses table. The government has been conducting a program of reducing spending on external providers—contractors; consultants—and hiring employees directly instead, to perform those duties, and One Nation supports that. These conversions, from external providers to employees, save taxpayers money, being the difference between paying a public servant to do that work and paying a consultant, partly balanced out by the increased costs of office expenses, travel and so on. Minister, how much has this program saved in 2023-24, and how much will it save over forward estimates? I note that, as I understand, the budget papers have another 2,502 conversions projected.
Senator GALLAGHER: Thank you for asking me a question about Budget Paper No. 4. That is the budget paper that Finance has responsibility for. We have worked hard to make conversions, as you say, and to reinvest and put increased capability into the Public Service. What we did find out from the audit on employment was that the real size of the APS when we came to government was much larger than had been publicly reported, so we are taking steps to rebalance it and to put public servants into jobs that labour hire had done.
In the last budget, I think the savings were in the order of $800 million in terms of the conversions that were being made. In this budget we’re finding a further billion dollars in reductions to agencies’ departmental expenses because of the investments we’re making in the Public Service. Obviously, we are making additional investments in the Public Service for additional responsibilities that they have, but what we’re doing is painting a very honest picture of the price of delivering improved services.
Those opposite, I know, are going to do what they always do and say they want a smaller Public Service, but they should then explain why 41,000 veterans who didn’t have their claims allocated now have their claims allocated and now are getting access to pensions. It’s a direct result of our investment in the Australian federal Public Service. We weren’t seeing those results, whether it was in Immigration, DFAT, Services Australia or Veterans’ Affairs. We see that on the payments side now because veterans are getting access because they are being dealt with. Because they’ve got public servants dealing with their claims, they are getting access to the money that they deserve.
So it’s a piece of ongoing work, Senator Roberts. If there’s further information I can provide to you, I will. But we are finding savings from the program at the same time that we’re making additional investments.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The table shows many departments costing less to run in 2027-28 than they do today, despite ongoing inflation, and rents, electricity and expenses far exceeding the savings from operations. The department of infrastructure is down from $554 million in this budget to $452 million in 2027-28; Health and Aged Care, $1.6 billion down to $1.1 billion; and Services Australia, $5.7 billion down to $4.5 billion. Minister, please explain from where these huge claimed projected savings will come.
Senator GALLAGHER: In terms of the savings that we’ve applied through this budget, it’s an extra billion dollars onto the $3 billion that we had built into the budget, so that gives you a total of $4 billion. There are additional savings that come through the conversions of expensive labour hire into permanent Public Service work, and so that is part of it. I think it’s probably a question we can go through at estimates, as well, because I don’t have that page in front of me. But there are savings, and we take that money from departments; they don’t get that funding. So that is a saving that is realised at the time that that budget decision is taken.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The $155 billion provided in the budget as departmental expenses in 2024-25 is projected to grow to $169 billion in 2027-28 almost entirely from increases in defence and the NDIS. How could your forward projections show flat or reduced costs for, in effect, the entire government except the NDIS and defence, when the budget puts inflation over that period at 13 per cent? Does your budget dramatically understate projected deficits?
Senator GALLAGHER: No. The budget papers, as they’re released—Budget Paper No.1, which goes to providing the UCB, is based on all of the information that runs through all of the budget books, and that would include departmental expenses. There is extra investment going into defence and into the NDIS. As you would expect, they are two of the five fastest growing areas of the budget. The NDIS is the second and I think defence would be the third or fourth, and so they would be seeing increases. But the budget UCB takes into account all of those decisions. It may be reported slightly differently in different tables, based on different accounting standards, but the UCB is an honest reflection of the state of the Commonwealth’s finances.
The purpose of this Bill is to abolish the current Administrative Appeals Tribunal and establish a new tribunal with improved criteria for member appointments, ensuring a transparent process.
Under the new system, positions would be advertised and candidates selected based on their qualifications and experience, with an appropriate interview process.
This approach seeks to alleviate concerns regarding past politicisation of tribunal membership.
Transcript
The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and the associated bills, which relate to the replacement of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with a new administrative review tribunal, are long overdue.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has developed a reputation for inefficient and delayed decision-making, holding up the highly emotive process of considering mostly visa reviews and applications. The appointment process of tribunal members has been less than transparent, with many appointments being clearly politically based and with many appointees being barely qualified for their positions. That has raised a number of questions and a lot of talk. The new tribunal will offer transparent appointments based on merit and will ensure that decision-making will be less questionably based on perceived biases or lack of understanding of the issues. That’s a clear issue in the profession. Positions will be advertised and appointments made based on record and performance at an interview. Applicants must have relevant knowledge, skills and experience, and their qualifications need to be stated.
A significant problem in considering the bills, though, has been the time involved in assessing the voluminous amount of material, which something that previous speakers Senator Shoebridge and Senator Scarr both mentioned. That is particularly so in terms of accessing the voluminous amount of material in the context of the huge number of consequential amendments that need to be made to more than 138 acts and the consideration of the impact of these changes. That’s no light task; it’s not a five-minute task.
It’s been suggested that the new bill does not adequately offer persons with immigration challenges enough access to legal support when presenting their case for review. The bills reintroduce the Administrative Review Tribunal. This is generally considered a good move as it can assist in avoiding long and expensive court actions. It’s hoped that the Administrative Review Tribunal will be sufficiently resourced to avoid the enormous backlogs that have prevented timely and final resolution of primarily .migration and refugee matters. It’s been said that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal merits review system was failed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which did not function effectively, efficiently or transparently. In 2022-23, more than 19,000 migration and refugee matters came into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This represented 46 per cent of all applications that came into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There were over 54,000 matters still outstanding at the end of the financial year. It’s hoped that this backlog will be more effectively dealt with by the new Administrative Review Tribunal.
I need to point out that the mass of material within these bills that we’ve had to go through has been difficult to take in at short notice. Sadly, this is becoming a standard practice of this Albanese Labor government, making it difficult for crossbenchers to efficiently and, sometimes, effectively perform their functions. We heard about the hoops that Senator Scarr had to jump through. That’s not acceptable. Senator Shoebridge also mentioned the same problem. The process of developing this bill and getting it through scrutiny has been catastrophic, as one of them said. We have also seen a number of bills guillotined under the Labor-Greens-Teals-Senator Pocock coalition. That coalition has been pushing things through this parliament, suppressing orders for the production of documents and guillotining debate. We’ve had bills with enormous consequences for this country—some of the most far-reaching ever—rammed through this parliament with not one word of debate. I’m talking now particularly about the digital identity bill, which went through recently. That bill was amended quite substantially, and there was not one word of debate about the bill, nor about any of those amendments. So the process of coming to where we are with the Administrative Review Tribunal was flawed. Senators Scarr and Shoebridge echoed that. But the changes are needed. As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, my team and I have weighed the pros and cons. Based on all of this, I somewhat reluctantly decided to support the bill. Having listened, though, to Senators Scarr and Shoebridge, who are lawyers and who I respect, I will be reflecting and may change my mind. But, at the moment, we are highly critical of the government’s process in developing this bill and putting it through what amounts to less-than-perfect, inadequate scrutiny. I do say the changes are needed at the moment. I reluctantly support the bill.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/qNn49wl12hU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-05-29 12:18:452024-05-29 12:18:49Let’s Have More Transparency
Labor has been caught red-handed with a cheat sheet to circumvent democracy. The media has received a leaked copy of a manual from the office of the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. This clearly shows more damning evidence that Labor is seeking ways to side-step the responsibility and accountability of government.
Instead of respecting the role and powers of the Senate, the Prime Minister’s Office sends out a secret manual on side-stepping senate estimates’ questions.
This is nothing less than contempt of the senate from the PM’s office and reveals premeditated attempts at concealing the truth from the Australian people. This is a government that talks up transparency while writing the ‘How-To’ guide on hiding the facts. We will review this in more detail and will provide a detailed response on the manual.
Transcript
I speak to this motion to take note. I have yet to read the document in full and in detail, yet its existence is very disturbing, as other speakers have already said. At Senate estimates, Anthony Albanese’s office is putting words in the mouths of department heads. How can we trust their answers? We cannot trust this government. Repeatedly we’re getting the suppression of democracy—repeatedly—and we’re seeing arrogance. Let’s have a look at some data, and then I’ll come back to talking more about this document.
As of the end of December 2023—7 December, specifically—after 94 Senate sitting days in the 47th Parliament, Anthony Albanese’s parliament, 14 guillotine motions have been agreed to. Under the previous Morrison government, in the 46th Parliament, 14 guillotine motions were agreed to. Now we start to see the difference. A total of 87 bills have been subject to the guillotine in the 47th Parliament under the Labor-Greens-teals-Pocock coalition led by Anthony Albanese. In the 46th Parliament, under the Morrison Liberals, there were 59. So we have seen almost 50 per cent more under this government, under the coalition that Labor formed with the teals, Senator Pocock and the Greens, quite often with Senator Jacqui Lambie’s support.
They promised transparency and accountability. Instead we get the suppression of democracy, repeatedly. Arrogance—that’s what we say it is. Arrogance. We see that the suppression of democracy is a form of control.Always beneath control there is fear. Of what is the Albanese Labor-Greens-teals-Pocock coalition afraid? It’s afraid of truth and afraid, fundamentally, of an informed citizenry. They don’t want people to know.
The media has seen copies of the document. ‘The PMO’s secret manual on sidestepping Senate estimates questions’—that’s the headline in Capital Brief. The article says:
Capital Brief has seen a document sent by Anthony Albanese’s office advising departments on how to handle questions on notice from Senate estimates. Current and former senators say the edict represents contempt of the Senate.
Contempt of the Senate is a very serious matter. Another article in Capital Brief says:
Current and former senators, lawyers and a former top judge have said the drafting of the document could result in contempt of the Senate. … …
Anthony Albanese’s office has stood by a document it issued to senior bureaucrats which advised them how to sidestep Senate estimates questions on the basis that inquiries have “skyrocketed” since Labor came to government.
Well, that’s your job! I don’t care if they have skyrocketed. We’ll keep asking questions. I’ll get to the Prime Minister’s office’s manual—what we’ve seen of it so far; I haven’t dissected it.
When the interests of several departments are involved, the Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses before Parliamentary Committees and Related Matters call for departments to consult with other departments as part of the drafting process. This includes instances where the same or similar Senate estimates questions on notice are asked of all or multiple departments and agencies. Why are you worried about different answers from different departments? Look at some of the topics covered—well, we’ll go through that another time.
I know this is not a motion by leave to seek a variation of standing orders, but One Nation normally opposes them because the Senate should be focused, firstly, on Senate responsibilities and, secondly, on government business. We want the government to govern. Senate estimates, though, are a vital part of holding governments and bureaucrats accountable for taxpayer funds. Why do you hide from that? Anthony Albanese’s department wants to hide the truth from the people.
We have seen the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman stumbling through an answer to my questions attempting to get to the bottom of their complicity with the CFMEU and major multinational labour hire firms in stealing $30,000 to $40,000 per miner each year from thousands of casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. They hide the facts wilfully. The Fair Work Ombudsman office relies on fraud, repeatedly.
The Labor minister for workplace relations ignores and diverts. It’s embarrassing for departments. We look forward to reviewing the formerly secret document in detail, because democracy is at stake.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ki6XPZvIIyo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-05-24 11:55:032024-05-24 11:55:06Labor’s Guide on How to Avoid Answering Questions in Senate Estimates
Since assuming office in 2022, the Albanese government and their Green and Teal coalition partners have completely ignored the principles of transparency and accountability. On important issues, Labor deliberately uses the deceptive tactics of hiding facts and the truth from public view.
Promises have not been kept, falsehoods have been told, and there is rampant abuse of Senate processes. Debate is being avoided or cut short — guillotined — on major issues. Government bills are being rammed through parliament without proper scrutiny, which would expose these pieces of legislation for what they are — power grabs at the expense your civil rights and liberties.
The Labor-Greens government is not working for the Australian people. The question then is this: Who is the Australian government working for?
Transcript
Thank you to Senator Lambie for pointing out in this motion the need for this Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock government to start adhering to the principles of transparency and accountability for good government as Labor promised before the election. Since assuming office in 2022, the Albanese government and their Greens and teal coalition partners have completely ignored these principles. It’s clear that on big issues Labor uses the deliberate tactics of hiding facts and lying or telling half-truths to deceive Australian voters. The list of examples is long, and I’ll touch on some of them. The Prime Minister promised to hold a royal commission into the government’s response to COVID-19. Where is it? Dragged kicking and screaming, the government agreed to set up a whitewash committee of inquiry lacking the powers to inquire, with insiders and cheerleaders of state and federal governments heading the whitewash and with terms of reference excluding the states’ actions. What are they trying to hide? Admittedly the government did not oppose my successful motion to refer the drafting of terms of reference for a possible future royal commission. However it was forced to do so after the announcement of its whitewash inquiry was ridiculed and panned in this chamber and across Australia.
What about the abuse of Senate processes? Labor have mastered the art of guillotining debate on major issues in this Senate. This is to avoid public scrutiny of government bills when the government have the numbers to pass a bill yet do not want debate that may reveal the deficiencies and inequities of proposed legislation that would embarrass the government or expose Labor power grabs in conjunction with their Senate coalition partners the Greens, teal Senator Pocock and, sadly all too often, the Jacqui Lambie Network. In the same vein, orders for the production of government held documents are routinely delayed and the documents withheld. Replies to requests may say they hold them yet decline to provide them, without giving reasons. Right to information requests become the norm, even though senators should be able to access the documents routinely.
Today, the government is introducing industrial relations legislation that the private sector, from small businesses to major employers, almost universally canned as overly complicated, deceitful and damaging to the Australian economy. Workers and employers see government industrial relations bills as giving union bosses enormous power as the reward for steering members’ union fees into Labor campaign funding. One Nation is introducing an amendment to clarify the rights of so-called casual black-coal miners who have been underpaid, on average, around $33,000 a year. The culprits are labour-hire firms, including the world’s largest labour-hire firm, with the agreement of the CFMMEU union bosses who chose to shaft their members in return for favours from employers. The government’s own Fair Work Commission signed off on sham enterprise agreements without proper scrutiny. One Nation will hold this dishonest government accountable.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/fTpkx1mE0jU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-13 11:26:462024-02-13 11:26:50The Albanese Government Is Not Serving the Australian People
This cannot be said often enough. People do not trust Prime Minister Albanese. Why?
Labor conjures up a $16.70 increase in tax cuts to grab headlines before the Dunkley by-election where it’s worried about losing a government MP.
Labor knows that bracket creep, a stealth tax, will increase taxes much more than the headline grabbing cut.
Labor’s fuel excise increase will inflate prices at the pump. Inflation will offset the tax cut. Worse still, the excise increase will filter through the food chain to push up grocery prices across Australia.
Lib-Lab energy policies are driving skyrocketing electricity prices that will soon bury the cuts and drive up food and cost-of-living.
PM Albanese is deceptively grabbing news headlines. People cannot trust Prime Minister Albanese.
Transcript
Labor conjures up a $16.70 increase in tax cuts to grab headlines before the Dunkley by-election, where it’s worried about losing a government MP. Yet Labor knows bracket creep will soon increase taxes much more than the headline-grabbing cut. Understandably, to many people getting $16.70 back from the government that’s a lot of money. Yet the same people will lose it, and much more very quickly, to bracket creep, a stealth tax. The Prime Minister deceptively grabs headlines. People cannot trust Prime Minister Albanese.
Labor conjures a $16.70 increase in tax cuts to grab headlines before the Dunkley by-election, where it’s worried about losing a government MP. Yet Labor’s petrol and diesel excise increase will soon increase fuel prices and inflation, offsetting the tax cuts. The Prime Minister deceptively grabs headlines. People cannot trust Prime Minister Albanese.
Labor conjures a $16.70 increase in tax cuts to grab headlines before the Dunkley by-election, where it’s worried about losing a government MP. The petrol and diesel excise will filter through the food chain to raise grocery prices in every food store in the country, offsetting the tax cuts. The Prime Minister deceptively grabs headlines. People cannot trust Prime Minister Albanese.
Labor conjures a $16.70 increase in tax cuts to grab headlines before the Dunkley by-election, where it’s worried about losing a government MP, yet Labor and Liberal energy policies are driving skyrocketing electricity prices that will soon bury the cuts. The Prime Minister deceptively grabs headlines. People cannot trust Prime Minister Albanese.
Labor conjures a $16.70 increase in tax cuts to grab headlines before the Dunkley by-election, where it’s worried about losing a government MP, yet higher electricity costs are raising grocery prices that will soon bury the cuts. The Prime Minister deceptively grabs headlines. People cannot trust Prime Minister Albanese.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I thank Senator Hume for her matter of public importance and support it.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5yOF-WxCQuQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-07 15:39:552024-02-07 15:39:59People Do Not Trust Prime Minister Albanese
I’m putting it on the record that this government’s legislative processes are compromised. There are numerous examples of shoddy and rushed Bills being bulldozed through into legislation.
I ask here for a simple review, a chance to hasten slowly and ensure that one such piece of rushed, yet vital legislation, has the opportunity to be done correctly.
Minister Watt could not even grasp the concept of ‘independent’ review. Labor is the party of control.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, constituents lack confidence in Labor when it comes to security, especially after the last few weeks. So I’m wondering whether or not you will be supporting my amendment to do a simple review of the legislation, especially the amendments. If not, what is the problem?
I remind the Senate that last week’s highly significant Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 saw 31 amendments from the government to its own legislation in the House of Reps plus 20 amendments in the Senate. There was a total of 51 government amendments to its own bill, and those from the crossbenches and the Liberals brought them to 69. Minister Burke has been falsely creating the dishonest label ‘closing loopholes’ to hide the Hunter mining and energy union’s complicity in aiding some labour hire firms in Australia’s largest-ever wage theft worth billions of dollars. We’re told that the Greens oppose the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. They said so themselves just last week. Yet the Greens now support it because Labor has apparently agreed to allow the Greens to move amendments to the EPBC Act. The Greens support Labor’s disastrous Nature Repair Bill apparently in return for Labor’s support for disastrous Greens amendments to an existing law not before the Senate.
The CHAIR: Senator McKim, a point of order?
Senator McKim: It’s a point of order on relevance, Chair. The bill that Senator Roberts is referring to is actually not the bill that is currently before the Senate.
The CHAIR: We do allow some latitude, although I do take the point. I think Senator Roberts is trying to underpin his arguments for a review. Senator Roberts, please keep it to the point.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased you could see that, Chair. That’s exactly what I was doing. The government has a very shoddy reputation and is lacking credibility for its legislation that’s been rushed and bullied and bulldozed into this place from the start of its term. So, Minister, I ask whether or not you’ll be supporting our amendment for a simple review of the legislation.
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thanks Senator Roberts. No, we won’t be supporting the amendment putting forward a review. As I made it clear earlier in this debate, we are modelling this regime on the existing high-risk terrorist offenders regime. So we have some confidence in its ability to work, given it’s been based on a regime that already exists. In addition—I don’t know if you were here, Senator Roberts, when I mentioned this before—one of the amendments that we’ve tabled, clause 395.49, requires the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to deliver an annual report about the operation of this regime. That is intended to give a level of transparency going forward to how this regime is operating, and we think it is an adequate measure to ensure that there is transparency in the system.
Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge that the legislation will have a ministerial report, but we are suggesting an independent review, not a government report.
Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I can’t really elaborate on my previous answer.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/nD_SeEKKWgk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-12-20 07:59:362023-12-20 07:59:40The Senate is Supposed to be the House of Review
