BOOK NOW – Come and join us for cocktails and conversation of all things politics at this one-off event at one of Brisbane’s most picturesque and historical venues.

With an auction, a raffle and a lucky door prize on offer, it will be a fun night and a rare opportunity to put the world right with a couple of experts.

RSVP Essential: https://www.onenation.org.au/bridging-conversations

Friday, 16 June 2023 | 6pm to 9pm

Story Bridge Hotel
200 Main St
Kangaroo Point, QLD 4169
Australia
Google map and directions

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/bridging-conversations

Queensland is experiencing an escalation in violent youth crime, causing tensions to rise among concerned households.

Join me this Saturday, 17 June 2023, as we discuss the issues of Queensland’s current lawlessness epidemic, the role of law enforcement and the criminal justice system in Queensland.

RSVP here: https://www.onenation.org.au/senatorroberts_crimeforum_bribie_jun17

Saturday, 17 June 2023 | 2pm to 3:30pm

Bribie Island RSL
99 Toorbul Street, Bongaree QLD 4507
Google map and directions

Contact: Senator Malcolm Robert’s Office | senator.roberts@aph.gov.au | 07 3221 9099

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/senatorroberts_crimeforum_bribie_jun17

Monday, 12 June 2023: If you can’t make it to the Highway Hotel and want to catch up before I head off to Bundaberg on Monday morning, I will be at the Grind and Grow Coffee House from 8:30am until around 10am.

40 Mulgrave Street, GIN GIN.

I will be in Gin Gin this Sunday, listening to locals about their concerns.

Come along to the Highway Hotel around 5pm and join me for a chat. See you there!

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/dinner-with-senator-roberts-gingin

When: Sunday, 11 June 2023 | 5pm to 7pm

Where:

The Highway Hotel
73 Mulgrave Street
Gin Gin QLD 4671

Google map and directions

Contact: Senator Malcolm Robert’s Office | senator.roberts@aph.gov.au | (07) 3221 9099

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/dinner-with-senator-roberts-gingin

I will be in Monto this Sunday, listening to locals about their concerns.

If you want to chat, please feel free to join me.

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/lunch-with-senator-roberts-monto

When: Sunday, 11 June 2023 | 12pm to 2pm

Where:

Albert Hotel
58 Newton St
Monto, QLD 4630
Australia
Google map and directions

Contact: Senator Malcolm Robert’s Office | senator.roberts@aph.gov.au | (07) 3221 9099

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/lunch-with-senator-roberts-monto

I highlighted the dilemma facing Aussies who are getting squeezed out of the property market by cashed up foreign buyers.

I was told that purchasers of new properties by foreign investors are monitored through the Australian Tax Office but they were not prevented from purchasing the property.

I told the ATO that this was not good enough and asked when the government would stop selling off the farm to the detriment of Aussies at a time when there is a grave housing shortage in Australia.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 1

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here this morning. The Foreign Investment Review Board makes recommendations to the government about approving certain large investments in projects in Australia. One concern of Australians is the seemingly large number of Australian residential homes and residential land that is being purchased by foreign investors, to the exclusion of Australian homebuyers—are you aware of that?

Mr Writer: We are certainly aware that there are publicly reported concerns about the acquisition of property by foreign investors, yes.

Senator Roberts: Anecdotal evidence is of land banking, where properties are purchased by foreign interests and then held vacant, in the middle of a housing crisis where thousands of Australians are left homeless.

From 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, one year, there were 5,310 residential real estate purchase transactions by foreign buyers, with a total value of $4.2 billion. Eighty-six per cent of those were for new dwellings and vacant land. Minister, why does there appear to be no governance or restriction on overseas ownership of residential property in Australia?

Senator Gallagher: There is, and I’m sure officials can take you through it.

Mr Writer: There are restrictions. Generally speaking, foreign investors, in relation to residential real estate, cannot purchase existing properties. There is only one real exception, which is for temporary residents who need somewhere to live. Generally, they will only receive approval for the acquisition of newly built properties, not existing properties. That’s designed to encourage the construction of new residential properties in Australia.

Senator Roberts: So foreigners can’t buy existing property, but they can build new property?

Mr Writer: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: Who gives the approval?

Mr Writer: In general, the residential real estate proposals are considered by the ATO under delegation from the Treasurer.

Senator Roberts: The Australian Taxation Office as designated by the treasurer?

Mr Writer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Given that many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential properties, why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with little or no restriction?

Senator Gallagher: We’ve just gone through that there are restrictions. The other thing I would point to is the changes that we’ve put in place to double the penalties applicable to breaches of the foreign investment rules applicable to residential properties, which we implemented on 1 January. We’ve doubled the foreign investment application fees from 29 July 2022. Fees now start at $13,200 for acquisitions of residential property valued at $1 million or less and $26,400 for acquisitions of $2 million or less. The settings under the approval process are designed to increase supply, which is essentially the big challenge we’ve got in the housing market at the moment—we need more supply of housing, and that’s why the settings are targeted to increase that.

Senator Canavan:  Can I ask a quick follow-up, Senator Roberts? I believe our foreign investors can buy established dwellings with approval from the FIRB. Is that correct?

Mr Writer: With approval from the ATO, yes.

Senator Canavan:  How many approvals have you provided over the past year?

Mr Writer: I’d need to go to the ATO about that question, but what I can say is that in 2020-21 the total number of purchases of residential dwellings in Australia was 588,176. Of those, 4,355 concerned foreign investors.

Senator Canavan:  Sorry, 355 in total?

Dr Kennedy: Yes, 4,355.

Senator Canavan:  Sorry, 4,355.

Mr Writer: Yes. It’s still less than one per cent of the total.

Senator Canavan:  Yes. It’s still quite a lot. That’s of established dwellings?

Mr Writer: No, that’s of all residential dwelling purchases.

Senator Canavan:  Okay, so it includes, potentially, new ones. So you can’t tell me how many approvals.  How many times did you reject somebody who wanted to buy an established dwelling?

Mr Writer: I’d have to take that on notice. The ATO will be here later this afternoon and may be able to answer that.

Senator Canavan:  I thought it was FIRB that does that rejection.

Mr Writer: In relation to residential property, no. The ATO manages that.

Senator Canavan:  Finally, the new penalties the minister mentioned—how many times has a foreigner been penalised for illegally purchasing an established residential dwelling over the past year?

Mr Writer: I couldn’t answer that. The ATO would need to respond to that.

Senator Canavan:  Does it happen? Was there one?

Mr Writer: The ATO certainly took action, I think, last year, and were successful in obtaining a penalty against a foreign investor, yes.

Senator Canavan:  The issue seems to be—notwithstanding your figures—anecdotally, that the foreigners are always turning up at auctions and buying established dwellings. It doesn’t seem to me that hard to get around our rules, to just get someone else to buy it in their name. Does that happen? How do we know? What sort of efforts do you put into making sure people aren’t trying to avoid these restrictions?

Ms Kelley: Again, the ATO is responsible for the compliance in that regard. I would also note that Australian citizens and temporary residents are able to purchase as well, regardless of their background.

Senator Canavan:   Of course, but they could also do so on behalf of others. Is that illegal? Would it be illegal to do so on behalf of someone—

Mr Writer: That would be a scheme to avoid the application of the act. Yes, it would be.

Senator Canavan:   I’m just asking. I know you’re saying the ATO is enforcing it, but presumably you’re the policy area.

Mr Writer: We are.

Senator Canavan:  So how confident are you? You don’t seem to understand the details of the prosecutions that go on. How confident are you that this restriction is actually being implemented?

Mr Writer: We rely on the ATO to do this. It administers and enforces the law in accordance with the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and the relevant policies that the successive governments have put in place around this area of activity.

Senator Gallagher: And I think the numbers that were read out before give you an indication that that—

Senator Canavan:  That doesn’t go to my question, because it doesn’t capture people doing it illegally.

Senator Gallagher: No, but you were saying anecdotally, basically, that foreigners are out buying up all the houses, and I think—

Senator Canavan:  You can’t even tell me how many people you prosecuted.

Senator Gallagher: It’s not about prosecution.

Senator Canavan:  If you were taking this issue seriously, you’d know that, Minister.

Senator Gallagher: That doesn’t relate to prosecution, and we can deal with that through the ATO.

Senator Canavan:  My question did.

Senator Gallagher: That deals to the scale.

Senator Canavan:  Clearly people are not obeying the law.

Senator Gallagher: And that question has been answered, and obviously your anecdotal information is incorrect.

Senator Canavan:  No, it’s not, because you don’t even have any evidence about how many prosecutions you’ve made.

Chair: Order!

Senator Canavan:  You’re obviously not taking it seriously.

Chair: Order! I’d like to return to Senator Roberts, who I believe has the call. Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: I thank Senator Canavan for his questions. Minister, doesn’t it mean, though, with the current housing crisis, that the ability for foreigners to buy or to construct a new house crowds Australians out of the market or certainly raises the prices?

Senator Gallagher: Again, no, I wouldn’t accept that. Again, it goes to the numbers that Mr Writer has outlined. But the fact is that the settings are targeted, essentially without exemptions, to new housing supply. It’s focused on generating that new housing supply to be available for people to live in, and part of what we have to deal with in the housing market at the moment is a shortage of supply.

Senator Roberts: According to Mr Writer’s figures, 4,355 were bought by foreigners, out of 5,186. That’s almost 80 per cent.

Senator Gallagher: No. You’ve got that wrong.

Mr Writer: It’s 588,000.

Senator Roberts: I’m sorry. That’s my mistake.

Ms Kelley: It’s 0.74 per cent, to be precise.

Senator Roberts: Quite often, though, foreigners will lock up their houses rather than rent them out. So they’re vacant. They’re not available to Australians.

Mr Writer: I don’t think we can confirm that kind of statement.

Senator Roberts: That’s widely known. You won’t confirm it, because you haven’t got the exact numbers.  I understand that and I appreciate that.

Mr Writer: I don’t think we have any actual evidence of that fact.

Ms Kelley: Part of the ATO’s responsibility is also around the amount of time a property is vacant and ensuring that it’s not left vacant as well. That is part of the compliance regime.

Senator Roberts: That’s the ATO’s responsibility, is it?

Ms Kelley: Yes.

Senator Roberts: So you’re just responsible for the policy?

Ms Kelley: In terms of residential real estate, Treasury has a policy responsibility. The ATO implements the policy.

Senator Roberts: Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of the FIRB to include residential purchases go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?

Senator Gallagher: If FIRB were assessing them?

Senator Roberts: If FIRB were extending their authority over all residential property.

Senator Gallagher: It would slow it down—is that what you’re saying?

Senator Roberts: Yes.

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure how those two things go together. Essentially, we’ve got Treasury with the policy side of the work and the ATO then enforces those arrangements, so I’m not sure how FIRB extending reach into residential property would slow down the sale. As you’ve heard, it’s 0.75 per cent of residential sales.

Senator Roberts: So FIRB would have authority as to whether or not to approve or recommend—they don’t approve anything. They make recommendations.

Senator Gallagher: The ATO currently does. We have an approving entity that does that work—

Senator Roberts: Which basically has no teeth.

Senator Gallagher: I don’t accept that, but, by all means, put those questions to the ATO.

Senator Roberts: Isn’t it time, though, for the government to start buying back the farm and limiting sales of Australian land to Australian purchasers only, like China and several other countries do?

Senator Gallagher: No. That’s not the policy of the government. We have in place an arrangement that allows, under specific circumstances, foreign investors to purchase residential properties in this country. We’ve got those settings—they’re here; we can answer questions about them—but they are the arrangements that are in place.

Senator Roberts: I understand they’re here, but I’m saying why not change them so that only Australians can buy Australian land, not just Australian residential real estate but Australian land?

Senator Gallagher: That’s not the government’s policy. We are an open-facing economy. We are a country that has relied on foreign investment. We believe there need to be suitable controls in place to manage that, and those settings are the ones that we’ve been talking about this morning. That remains the government’s policy.

Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: This is not a radical thought, Minister, as many other countries protect their sovereignty by not selling their land to foreign interests. Why is it that Australians can’t buy land in those countries but foreigners from those countries can buy land in our country?

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure of the countries that you are referring to.

Senator Roberts: China’s one of them. There are a number of countries.

Senator Gallagher: We’re here, and we do have arrangements in place, through FIRB and through the arrangements with the ATO, to put restrictions and limits on the sale of housing or, in FIRB’s case, on foreign investment matters. They are looked at and assessed against the national interest.

Senator Roberts: It’s a one-way street for foreigners. Australians can’t buy property in their countries, but they can buy it in our country.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 2

Acting Chair: Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here tonight. My questions are in two streams: registration information for the Australian Taxation Office and foreign investment in real estate. I’ll get on with the first one.

Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, FIRB are no longer here.

Senator Roberts: No, it’s to the ATO. You referred me to the ATO this morning.

Senator Gallagher: That’s right; I did. That was a long time ago.

Senator Roberts: A very long time ago. I understand the registration information for the ATO was displaying incorrectly on the business and company registers. It displays a record named ‘ultimate holding for all company’. This was updated in early March. Can you please explain when this error was brought to your attention and what part you had in correcting that?

Mr Jordan: Is this on the Australian Business Register for the ABN?

Senator Roberts: I think that’s where it was, yes.

Mr Allen: I’m not aware of that issue, but I can take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Could you also answer these questions then please? How did that information come to be displayed on the registers in this way?

Mr Allen: Again, I’ll take that on notice.

Senator Roberts: Yes. And also take on notice what information the ATO supplied to the business registry service or ASIC that caused the registration to be displayed in this way. Can you take that on notice?

Mr Allen: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Was it an error from ASIC or the business registry service or the ATO that caused the information to be displayed in this way?

Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.

Senator Roberts: How did BlackRock come to be displayed as the owner of ‘ultimate holding for all company’?

Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Can you please take on notice to provide a full chronology of this incident, including data and correspondence—who it was sent to, who it was received from and what was addressed in it?

I’m raising it because it suggests that there may be other errors for entries that are not as high profile that are still there. What routine audit of this database do you have in place to detect such errors? After this embarrassment, have you gone looking for more?

Mr Allen: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. That’s all on that thread. Now I’ll get on to housing. Minister, why does there appear to be little governance or restriction on overseas ownership of existing residential property and newly constructed residential property?

Senator Gallagher: I think we answered this earlier today. Weren’t the issues that were to be referred to the ATO over essentially the approval for foreign investors to buy—

Senator Roberts: I want to put it in context that the ATO understands. Many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential property. Why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with minimal restriction?

Senator Gallagher: Is that to the ATO?

Senator Roberts: It’s to you, Minister.

Senator Gallagher: As I think I went through this morning, there are restrictions in place. It is something the government—

Senator Roberts: On older properties, but not on newly constructed or first residencies; isn’t that correct?

Senator Gallagher: No. For foreign investors it is targeted at new properties, unless you get an exemption. That’s my understanding. We don’t have that group of officials here—they’ve gone—

Mr Jordan: We have a deputy commissioner of international here.

Senator Gallagher: but that was the evidence this morning.

Mr Jordan: He’s responsible for the registers that we maintain. He will try to answer any questions.

Senator Roberts: So you’re purely a registry?

Mr Thompson: No. As was touched on this morning, in the residential property space the foreign investment regime essentially seeks to promote the growth and development of housing stock. The way it does that is by restricting foreign investment to new builds, development of existing builds or vacant land. There’s only one circumstance in which approval for an established dwelling would be granted under that regime, and that’s for temporary residence. Those properties will need to be divested when that person ceases to be a temporary resident.

Senator Roberts: Established properties cannot be purchased by foreigners?

Mr Thompson: The scenario where an established property would gain approval to be purchased by a foreigner is where they’re a temporary resident.

Senator Gallagher: It’s also when it’s their primary residence, isn’t it?

Mr Thompson: They will be required to live in that—

Senator Roberts: But, other than that, they can’t purchase existing residential properties?

Mr Thompson: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: Can they build a new property?

Mr Thompson: Broadly speaking, there are three classes of properties that a foreign resident might get approval to purchase. One would be vacant land. One would be redevelopment of an existing property—so you could perhaps subdivide and convert a single dwelling into two dwellings. One would be a new build, yes.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Doesn’t it still mean that the system is fairly unregulated, since people can come in and develop?

Mr Thompson: There’ll be conditions around our approval, so there’ll be a time period. If you were to seek approval to develop an existing property, there would be time periods around that approval being granted, if it’s not an open-ended approval.

Senator Roberts: Do you know how many properties are being developed or redeveloped every year with foreign ownership?

Mr Thompson: I don’t have that level of detail. We have a register of foreign ownership of residential land that we publish every year. That actually breaks down transactions between vacant land, established dwellings and new dwellings. That would probably be the most disaggregated split I can provide.

Senator Roberts: I’m being asked to wind up. Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of ATO to include all residential purchases by foreign purchasers go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?

Senator Gallagher: They do.

Mr Jordan: I think we do. Some are not allowed—

Senator Roberts: Do you register all?

Mr Jordan: and some are allowed, depending on their circumstances. All purchases asked by foreigners to be made are looked at and regulated.

Mr Thompson: I know there was conversation this morning. It is a requirement to seek approval to purchase properties if you’re a foreign resident. We do undertake compliance activity. We do, in some cases, force a divestment of properties. There was a reference made to a civil matter in 2022 where the court imposed penalties of $250,000 on an individual for purchasing four properties without approval.

Senator Roberts: How many existing residential properties have been bought by foreign purchasers in each year over the last five years?

Senator Gallagher: We’d probably take that on notice.

Mr Thompson: Yes. We can take that on notice.

Senator Gallagher: We certainly had some figures that we gave you for the 2020-21 year. But if you want us to go back five years, we’ll take that on notice.

Senator Roberts: What monitoring is in place to keep track of foreign purchases of existing residential properties?

Acting Chair: Can I ask you to see if you can put questions on notice? We need to wind up.

Mr Thompson: I have four years.

Senator Roberts: That’d be good. I can put most questions on notice. How many residential properties, new or existing, are sitting vacant after purchase by foreign purchasers? Do you track things like that?

Mr Thompson: There is a regime that is known as the ‘vacancy theme’. Under that regime, foreign owners are required to notify us if the property is vacant. If they fail to notify us in a given period we deem the property to be vacant and there is a vacancy fee charged for that.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. I will put the rest of my questions on notice.

Everyone’s power bills are going up, which made me wonder why the Australia Council was happy to make their power bill 7% more expensive for no reason at all.

Despite the same power coming through the plug (probably from a coal fired power station) the council elects to make their bills 7% more expensive so they can buy “green power”. What a scam and a waste of money.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I want to follow up on something we discussed last time. You may recall that last estimates we had a conversation about your power bills.

Mr Collette: Yes.

Senator Roberts: A lot of people are talking about power bills these days.

Mr Collette: They are.

Senator Roberts: This is estimates, and one of the purposes of estimates is to assess how you are spending taxpayers’ money. That is what I want to revisit. Firstly, thank you for your detailed response, when you took my question on notice. That was SQ 23-003317. I hope all of the Public Service takes notes from you about how questions on notice should be answered. We appreciate it.

Mr Collette: Thank you.

Senator Roberts: In that answer, you said that you elect to add the green power product to your power bills. That is totally optional. You opt in, and you take extra money from the taxpayer to pay that expense. That is making your power bill 6.8 per cent—say seven per cent—more expensive than otherwise. Whether you opt in to pay the extra for green power or not, the same power comes through the same plug, probably from a coal-fired power station. But you are choosing to waste taxpayers’ money on this optional expense that makes no difference to what is turning the lights on. How much did you pay for green power over the last year?

Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice, unless my colleague has the answer.

Mr Blackwell: I don’t have it.

Mr Collette: We will try to come back to you with an equally exemplary response.

Senator Roberts: Good, thank you. I don’t expect this of you, but do you have any guess as to what your power bill is?

Mr Collette: I would not like to guess, no.

Senator Roberts: Can you also tell me how much you expect to pay this coming year?

Mr Collette: I can’t tell you that, but I will certainly get that information for you.

Senator Roberts: You were established under legislation; correct?

Mr Collette: We are.

Senator Roberts: So I assume you have been established with the objective of funding the arts.

Mr Collette: Yes, we have, investment and advocacy.

Senator Roberts: Investing in arts and advocacy on behalf of the arts. Thank you, that is clarifying. What part of your objectives enables you to waste an extra seven per cent a year on a core component, power, when it is literally the same power coming through the plug whether you pay the extra expense or not?

Mr Collette: What part of our objectives? I think the Australia Council—Creative Australia to be—does have sustainability goals, and we try to exemplify those, which are important to the sector that we serve as well. Given that we invest in the sector, and we advocate for the sector, I think this is generally respected by the arts and creative industry.

Senator Roberts: I think you are wasting taxpayer money and that should be cancelled. Would not that money be better spent on the art that you are supposed to be funding?

Mr Collette: There is always a cost to investing in servicing the art that we are funding, and I think you will find that this is significantly respected by the sector.

Senator Roberts: The point is that you are spending an extra seven per cent on a key component—

Mr Collette: I understand that.

Senator Roberts: Same plug, same power.

Mr Collette: I understand that. But there are different kinds of value as well.

Senator Roberts: I am not arguing with you on that point.

Mr Collette: So this would be a small contribution to social and environmental value that is respected by the sector, and I am sure if you ask their general view on whether we should save whatever the sum is—seven per cent of our power bill, and I confess I don’t know our power bill as I sit here—you would find very broad support for what we do.

Senator Roberts: I think there is a lot of ignorance—and I am not singling you out; I think it goes right through the community—about this green power, because the same power comes from the same place through the plug, regardless of whether you pay that seven per cent or not. So I would like to know what benefit you get from that seven per cent.

Mr Collette: I will take that on notice and come back to you, once I understand the argument that I think you are making—that there is actually no difference in this power. I need to satisfy myself on that argument and then we can come back to you with a response.

Senator Roberts: I am pleased to hear that. Thank you.

I asked the ACLEI if the new National Anti-Corruption Commission would have oversight of the workings of the Voice if it is established. The response was that the Voice would be purely advisory and not provide services or programmes.

The Commission did not provide a clear answer to the question and this runs parallel with the government position of providing as little as possible detail about the voice prior to the referendum.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here again tonight. My questions are to do with the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The National Anti-Corruption Commission will commence operations on 1 July 2023.  Can the commission investigate alleged corruption that occurred some time prior to the commencement of the commission? There was some controversy about retrospectivity.  I’d like some detail.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll hand that over to the department.

Mr Newnham: Could you just repeat your question for me, please?

Senator Roberts: The National Anti-Corruption Commission will commence operations from 1 July. Can the commission investigate alleged corruption that occurred sometime prior to the commencement of the commission?

Mr Newnham: Yes, it can.

Senator Roberts: That was very clear.  Are there limits as to how far back the alleged corrupt activity may be investigated?

Mr Newnham: There are no formal limits. There has been reference, obviously, to the fact that the commission would have to have regard to the length of time that has elapsed, the nature of the conduct that is being suggested and the extent to which materials are still available. So, it would take into account a range of circumstances on a case-by-case basis, but there are no formal limits that I’m aware of.

Senator Roberts: Another clear one. Are there plans to include the judiciary as an entity that may be investigated for alleged corrupt conduct?

Ms Jones: I may be able to assist with that. No, it is not intended that the judiciary would fall within the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. But the Attorney-General has directed the department to prepare work on a national judicial commission. That will be established as a separate entity, to have jurisdiction over federal judiciary.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for that. Minister, I must say that I compliment the government for doing that, because I mentioned it to the Attorney-General’s staff some time ago and they said that they would definitely consider it.  It looks like they are.  So, thank you for that.  I think it’s extremely important.

Under the existing legislation, the National Anti-Corruption Commission is designed to cover federal agencies, politicians and public officials, under a broad definition.  Would those working under the Voice, should it become a reality, be included in the commission’s current, or imminent, jurisdiction?

Ms Jones: In answering that, obviously at the moment the issue of the Voice is subject to the referendum process and the outcome of the referendum. Then there will be consideration of the development of the model.

The current design principles that have been set out in relation to the Voice envisage a range of governance and accountability mechanisms that would be developed. But the final form of that will be subject to the Voice legislation being developed and passed by the parliament, following the outcome of the referendum.

Senator Roberts: This is not a criticism of you, but that’s yet another area where we don’t have the detail.  Okay, I understand that. It depends on the referendum and also on the subsequent legislation.

Ms Jones: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Former New South Wales Court of Appeal judge Mr Anthony Whealy has publicly raised his concerns about this issue, if you’d note that.  We’re concerned about the Voice because its predecessor, ATSIC, had a terrible reputation for—

Chair: Senator Roberts, is this a question that relates to ACLEI?  That’s the agency we’re referring to today.  We did deal with some similar questions yesterday in Attorney-General’s.

Senator Roberts:  I’ve just got two quick questions left, Chair. Ms Jones, I know you just said there’s uncertainty; it would depend on the legislation. The chances of corrupt conduct occurring will become statistically higher because the Voice will have hundreds if not thousands of people across Australia. Would the commission be able to scope out corruption in this area?

Ms Jones: I would make the point that the Voice is intended as a mechanism for advising the parliament. It will not have responsibility for programs and it will not have decision-making over funding. It is a mechanism for providing representation and information to the parliament, and it is not intended that it would itself manage any programs or make any funding decisions.

Senator Roberts: So, it would be difficult to say then, until the Voice is defined—if it passes—and the participants are defined, how the NACC will operate in regard to it.

Ms Jones: I think that is accurate. But I would draw a very strong distinction between bodies in the past, such as ATSIC, and what the design principles for the Voice are currently proposing, which is an advisory body, not a body that itself would manage programs or funding.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Fisheries Queensland has been under immense pressure from fishers who have had their livelihoods destroyed. Despite declaring the stocks of Spanish Mackerel “sustainable” as recently as 2018, a change in assumptions and modelling hugely cut the quotas that fishers were allowed to take.

These changes to the model have been labelled unscientific by industry groups and scientific reviews. I thought the Australian Fisheries Management Authority had at least reviewed the changes to see if they were scientifically sound, but unfortunately this wasn’t the case.

One Nation will continue to fight for fishers to ensure that fair quotas are issued based on proper science.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here today. Can you please discuss some of the background on the Spanish mackerel fisheries management, especially in Queensland? I understand that in recent times there have been significant changes in the management and the quotas are being reduced. Do you have more information on exactly what has happened?

Mr Norris: I’m afraid I don’t. The Queensland Spanish mackerel fishery is managed by the Queensland government. The only things I know about it are what I read in the media and from talking with colleagues. I don’t have a lot of insight to offer, I’m afraid.

Senator Roberts: Maybe I can share a couple of points and you can chime in. I understand that in 2018 the stocks of Spanish mackerel were considered sustainable, but a change in modelling has turned that on its head.  There is a lot of scientific disagreement about whether the new modelling is sound. Have you seen that?

Mr Norris: I have seen that play out in the media, yes.

Senator Roberts: On the new changes and a previous mackerel stock assessment, one reviewer named Klaer in 2021 said, and I quote: I am unable to support the conclusions regarding future harvest levels for the east coast Spanish mackerel stock until reservations regarding the most appropriate central value for steepness for the base-case are resolved.  Does AFMA have a view on whether robust science has been applied by Queensland fisheries setting the Spanish mackerel quotas?

Mr Norris: Perhaps I can make some very general comments. All fishery stock assessments are very sensitive to the assumptions built into the model. This concept of steepness is a particularly heavy driver. Certainly we have encountered disagreements about what steepness values should be in some of our assessments of Commonwealth fisheries. In terms of whether or not I am confident with the science done by Queensland, as I say, I haven’t reviewed the science because it is not a fishery we are involved in or manage. I would say as a general observation that I have a very high respect for the fishery scientists who work for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Queensland. As I say, I haven’t been through the technicalities of this.

Senator Roberts: Could you tell us about steepness?

Mr Norris: Steepness is a value that comes from part of a stock assessment model called the stock recruitment relationship. What the stock recruitment relationship tries to explain is how many adults you need in the water to produce a certain number of babies for future cohorts. Traditionally, you might think it is probably linear; the more adults you have, the more babies you get. While that is true, it is very rarely a nice straight line. It’s a curve, and it is very difficult to estimate. Steepness is the gradient of that line.

Senator Roberts: I must say that you hit the nail on the head. A lot of people are disagreeing with the model used. The models have cut the quotas as a result of the modelling and the underlying assumptions; that is my understanding. We also had a really disastrous, I would say almost fraudulent, basis for the reef regulations that are decimating the east coast in Queensland. We questioned the scientists themselves at an inquiry that the Senate held in Brisbane. We showed just how false the science is; there is no basis for them. That is why a lot of fishermen are also now upset about the modelling and assumptions for their fishery quotas. So, what you are saying makes perfect sense. Thank you very much. Thank you for your clarity.

Canberra Health Autocrats have decided there is no place for religion in health care and are trying to take over the Calvary Hospital. It seems nobody is going to get in the way of the Health Autocrats’ agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly.

Transcript

There is trouble in Pan-em from Hunger Games. Or ‘Canberra’ as some still call it.

Australian Capital Territory Health Autocrats have decided there’s no place for religion in health care and are trying to take over the Calvary Hospital.

Legislation to seize the hospital from the Catholic Church has been presented to the ACT Parliament.

Legislation developed over a long period of time. In fact, this is the second attempt ACT Health Autocrats have made to steal the Calvary Hospital.

Nothing irks autocrats more than an organisation that refuses to buckle to their heathen agenda.

The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules, which has inflamed the ACT autocrats.

Nobody’s going to get in the way of the Health Autocrats’ agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly.

There are 14 Calvary Hospitals in Australia delivering health services in a faith-based environment, healing millions of Australians since their start in 1885.

Churches around Australia provide hundreds of aged care homes.

Each of these must be looking over their shoulder at what the Canberra Health Autocrats are trying to do at Calvary.

I urge all members of the ACT Parliament to reconsider this evil act.

If not this will go to the Federal Parliament which has precedence over ACT law.

If ever there was a time to use our power of veto it’s now.

The Federal Parliament must send a message to these autocrats and their heathen agenda.

And the message is this:

God decides who lives and dies, not you.