Unbelievable! The Albanese Labor government is celebrating a measly 0.8% wage increase for the quarter, while inflation has gone up by 1%. Do the math, and it’s clear—we’re all going backwards by 0.2%! 😡 Yet, the Treasurer and Prime Minister have the audacity to tell us to celebrate. Meanwhile, everyday Aussies are suffering through the worst cost-of-living crisis in modern history. Our GDP is barely avoiding a recession, propped up only by a massive influx of one million new migrants in just two years. Let’s be real: we’re in the middle of the worst per capita recession since the Great Depression!
The Liberal-Labor Uniparty is shipping off our natural resources, obeying unelected foreign bodies like the WEF, and allowing predatory investment funds to own our critical industries. Additionally, they’ve also let our housing crisis spiral out of control by bringing in more people than we can house.
Only One Nation will put a stop to this madness and fight for the Australian people. It’s time to end these anti-Australian decisions that are dragging us backwards.
Transcript
Well, I couldn’t believe my ears last week. The Albanese Labor government burst out of the gates to tell Australians to celebrate and rejoice: wages had gone up 0.8 per cent for the quarter. The Treasurer and Prime Minister tell us: ‘Pop the champagne bottles! Just ignore the fact that inflation has gone up one per cent for the same quarter.’ That means everyone has gone backwards an average of 0.2 per cent. Can you believe the Treasurer and Prime Minister can bring themselves to front up to the cameras to address this parliament and put such a ridiculous spin on the latest round of bad news? How do they do it? How does the Labor Party keep telling Australians we’ve never had it better, while Australians struggle through the worst cost-of-living crisis in modern history? The GDP is treading water; it’s barely staying out of technical recession. How is it staying out? Thanks to one million fresh migrant arrivals in just two years, boosting official gross domestic product, GDP, to just barely over the recession threshold.
Meanwhile, let’s look at how everyday Australians are faring. We’re in the middle of the worst per capita recession since the Great Depression. Australians have not gone backwards on average this badly since the 1930s—almost a century. What is the Liberal-Labor uniparty’s answer to this? The uniparty will continue to send our natural resources overseas for China to use in building solar panels that China sells back to us. The uniparty will continue to obey what unelected foreign organisations like the World Economic Forum say. The uniparty will keep letting foreign predatory investment funds like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, and banks like JP Morgan, own our critical industries and get away with economic murder. The uniparty will continue to let too many new arrivals into our country before we have the necessary housing and services, prolonging the housing crisis that the uniparty created over recent decades. The housing crisis did not occur overnight; it’s been cultivated. Only One Nation will stop this madness and put an end to anti-Australia decisions that are sending our people backwards. (Time expired)
The political world is full of baseless slurs uttered by historically and politically illiterate shock-jocks. The current favourite is ‘far-right’. Pretty much any crime against Woke will see you saddled with this slur. From querying Labor’s ‘Big Australia’ dream, to partaking in capitalism, to defending free speech… You’re ‘far-right’. You’re dangerous. Dangerous to left-wing politics, maybe.
When it comes to the definition of ‘far-right’, the pillars of Western Civilisation serve as scaffolding while common sense and merit pad-out the walls.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Spectator.jpg?fit=867%2C1051&ssl=11051867Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-29 08:04:322024-08-29 08:07:43Spectator Article: Far-Right or Just Right About Everything
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared Monkeypox a global public health emergency, triggering emergency powers to drive vaccine sales that benefit big pharmaceutical companies with ties to the organisation. This decision serves corporate interests rather than public health. Regulatory agencies that are meant to protect the public fall under undue influence from the industries they regulate. The WHO is a corrupt organisation that is designed to funnel taxpayer money to its billionaire donors. Australian taxpayers gave $30 million to the WHO last year, likely as a show of loyalty.
Transparency is lacking. Major donors include Gavi, a vaccine alliance funded by corporations tied to predatory giants like BlackRock and Vanguard, who also own large shares in pharmaceutical companies. The WHO’s Monkeypox emergency, declared solely by its director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, highlights the unchecked power of the position. This decision created a market for four already-approved vaccines linked to companies backed by BlackRock and Vanguard, ensuring massive profits for their shareholders. A new Monkeypox vaccine is expected soon, likely fast-tracked by compromised regulators like Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
The WHO previously tried to raise alarm over Monkeypox but found little public concern, so they rebranded it as “Mpox” to push vaccine sales. This benefits the predatory billionaires who control vaccine companies, funnel money to Gavi and the WHO, and fund political parties, including Australia’s Liberal and Labor parties. Recent revelations show Anthony Fauci concealed plans to engineer a more deadly and highly transmissible Mpox virus. This “gain-of-function” research has pandemic potential and should be stopped immediately. It’s troubling that Australia’s CSIRO was involved in gain-of-function research for COVID-19, yet faces no consequences.
The WHO and the TGA have failed in their regulatory duties, serving political agendas rather than public interest. During COVID, the TGA prioritised government control over public health, and there are concerns the same will happen again with Mpox. Every Monkeypox case should be verified through public lab tests, especially as redacted data was used to justify COVID measures that harmed public health.
The time of blind trust in the WHO’s narrative is over; it’s now the age of ‘prove it’.
Transcript
The UN’s World Health Organization, the WHO, has declared monkeypox a public health emergency of international concern. This triggers WHO emergency powers to drive vaccine sales to financially benefit big pharmaceutical companies that donate to the WHO through their other commercial and ownership interests. The first thing a house of review like our Senate should do is ask, ‘Is this a legitimate decision?’ The answer is: it is not, no. The UN WHO has succumbed to regulatory capture—a troubling development in governance. That may plunge Western society into serfdom under large corporations.
Regulatory capture occurs where a regulatory agency mandated to oversee and enforce rules to protect the public interest ends up under undue influence from companies with vested interests such as the entities it’s meant to regulate or special interest groups. This can result in the agency making decisions that prioritise the interests of these parties over the broader public interest. The New South Wales government lists six areas for regulatory capture: adherence to public interest principles; organisational culture; structure; processes; transparency; and staff experience. The WHO fails all six.
I’ve often spoken about the corruption, cronyism and illegal behaviour of the World Health Organization; some of my WHO speeches are on my website. The WHO fails to hold staff accountable for misbehaviour, including rape and sexual assault. Its own investigators conclude the WHO is ‘rotten with rapists’—their words. It is a failure of organisational culture and of staffing quality. The WHO is a corrupt organisation whose decisions benefit its billionaire sponsors with substantial health interests. The scam is simple: take a disease that’s around for generations—firstly the flu, and more recently bird flu and now monkeypox; plant scary stories in a media desperate for clickbait articles; use the media driven fear to declare a pandemic; and then—payday!—mandate vaccines financially benefiting the billionaires that funded the media scare. This betrays the public interest.
The WHO is a con, a fraud and a criminal enterprise designed to transfer wealth from taxpayers into the pockets of their billionaire donors and owners. It is an organisation to which Australian taxpayers gave $30 million last year despite them having $8 billion in financial assets; that donation was likely more about fealty than financing. Identifying the WHO’s donors is difficult since its annual accounts show 32 per cent of donations as ‘other’—another failure of transparency. One of the WHO’s major donors is Gavi, the globalist vaccine alliance of international academics, bureaucrats and pharmaceutical companies funded through corporate donations from companies whose share registers feature investment funds like BlackRock and Vanguard. They feature on big pharma share registries; they own big pharma. If Australia had racketeering laws this arrangement would be illegal. This is a failure in structure.
The monkeypox declaration came from the WHO director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, acting alone. The process for making such an important decision is not meaningfully regulated and gives Ghebreyesus too much power to direct a worldwide health response. This is a failure of process, and it’s deliberate. The proclamation is designed to create an international market for new monkeypox vaccines. The WHO already have four approved vaccines for monkeypox: cidofovir, distributed through Pfizer; brincidofovir, manufactured and distributed through Chimerix, whose controlling shareholders include Vanguard and predatory wealth fund cronies; TPOXX, from Siga Pharmaceuticals, with shareholders BlackRock and Vanguard; and ACAM2000 from Emergent Biosolutions, whose largest shareholders are—wait for it—BlackRock and Vanguard. With these drugs the world’s predatory billionaires have decided it’s time for another fundraiser. All four drugs are off-label use—so, any day now, expect a killer new vaccine for monkeypox to be given the hosanna palm frond parade through our disgraced regulators like Canberra’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA.
The WHO tested this scam a few years ago with a minor media fear campaign that discovered the public didn’t take something called monkeypox seriously. So they rebranded it as mpox. Amusingly, they claimed the name monkeypox was insulting to monkeys; monkeys have feelings too, you know! So mpox is monkeypox rebranded to sell more vaccines from vaccine companies who funnel the profits to the world’s predatory billionaires—those same billionaires who own the corporations that donate to Gavi and the WHO as well as fill the coffers of political parties around the world, including massive donations to both cheeks of the Liberal-Labor uniparty in this country.
Last Tuesday, American congressional investigators revealed that, for nearly nine years, Anthony Fauci concealed plans to engineer a pandemic-capable mpox virus with high transmissibility and a case fatality rate of up to 15 per cent. That’s homicide. The gain-of-function project proposed through NIAID in America from virologist Bernard Moss was to splice genes conferring high pathogenicity from the clade I virus into the more transmissible clade II virus. The new chimeric virus or combined virus could have retained up to a 15 per cent fatality rate and a 2.4 reproductive rate—a measure of transmissibility—meaning, on average, every sick person could infect up to 2.4 other people, giving it pandemic potential. It’s marvellous, what it’s designed to do!
We know gain-of-function research produced the COVID-19 virus. Is this monkeypox outbreak also man-made?
Gain-of-function research serves no useful purpose and should be terminated immediately. It’s deeply troubling that Australia’s CSIRO admitted and bragged about its involvement in gain-of-function research that produced COVID-19. And now an online meme simply says: ‘They’re doing it again because you didn’t punish them last time.’ That’s truth indeed.
The WHO fails all six elements of regulatory capture and so does Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. The TGA is not acting in public interest, which former New South Wales deputy ombudsman Chris Wheeler considers fundamental to representative democratic government. The TGA may claim that, during COVID, it was caught between the parliament, its direct employer, and the wider public. It chose to serve the government’s need for air cover for controls decided on political, not medical, grounds. The TGA should have read the findings of the 1990 WA Inc royal commission, which found:
The institutions of government and the officials and agencies of government exist for the public, to serve the interests of the public.
That’s clear. Yet, during COVID, the TGA chose a different path: to support their own agency, to the detriment of the public. What will the TGA do this time, with monkeypox?
Monkeypox is transmitted through direct contact from sexual activity or intravenous drug use. A Philpot scientific study found 98.7 per cent of infections resulted from gay male sexual transmission. Transmission can occur through direct personal contact of the infected site. Infected animals can spread the disease. Asymptomatic spread, though, is, like COVID, an assertion with no evidence. The clade Ia variant of monkeypox can affect children. The clades currently circulating, though, clade Ib and II, have not been proven to infect children.
Australia has two monkeypox vaccines approved for over-18s. Both are off-label repurposed drugs approved for smallpox. JYNNEOS from Bavarian Nordic uses cidofovir, which I mentioned earlier, as the active ingredient. Bavarian Nordic have an application in to America’s Food and Drug Administration to give this vaccine to children aged 12 to 18 and are in early testing to support their application to extend use to children aged two and above—two and above! Why does a child need a vaccine against a disease that’s predominately only transmitted through sexual contact or intravenous drug use? The case for a monkeypox vaccination program must be a very high bar for any person who does not engage in risky sexual activity.
TGA’s website data from the 2022 monkeypox round of vaccinations in Australia shows 3,163 adverse events per 100,000 vaccinations—a staggeringly high three per cent. I note a study published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine, with authors from the University of New South Wales, entitled ‘Autoimmune blistering skin diseases triggered by COVID-19 vaccinations: an Australian case series’. This report found that COVID-19 vaccination either caused the recipient to develop autoimmune blistering disease or made the recipient’s existing condition worse. The cases are extremely rare, and, for once, I can agree with the TGA. I alert Australia to the chance that these outbreaks of a related disease could be mistaken for monkeypox. I note that autoimmune diseases and shingles—that is, herpes zoster—can intersect, and both are side effects of the COVID vaccines. If the Senate is going to be called on to support a monkeypox response, then it’s essential every case is verified through publicly disclosed laboratory testing.
Page after page of redacted data was used to support COVID measures and the damage to public health is undeniable. It’s homicide. ‘Safe and effective’ was not one lie; it was two. People are not believing the UN World Health Organization mpox narrative. The time for blind trust is over. We’re now in the age of ‘prove it’.
The CFMEU has stolen over a billion dollars in Australia’s largest wage theft case, exploiting the very workers it was meant to protect. CFMEU union bosses colluded in this theft, as confirmed by an independent report I commissioned called Coalminers’ Wage Theft. An analysis of five enterprise agreements in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley shows wage theft ranging from $21,000 to $41,000 per person, per year.
The Independent Workers Union of Australia has lodged multiple complaints with the Fair Work Ombudsman, including one for $211,000 owed to a single worker. Despite the Mining and Energy Union splitting from the CFMEU, it has recently applied to negotiate a new enterprise agreement, but won’t seek back pay for miners, as they know this would expose them. The Independent Workers Union now represents miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, charging union dues less than half of the Mining and Energy Union because they don’t donate millions to the Labor Party. The same is true for other sectors, like teaching and nursing, where new unions have much lower dues. We must end monopoly unions and introduce competition, which will allow members to hold unions accountable.
Labor Ministers, departments and agencies are colluding to enable wage theft, especially in the Hunter Valley electorate, where Labor MPs are complicit. Despite a Senate investigation being ordered months ago, nothing has happened — Labor is turning a blind eye, likely because they rely on millions in donations from the CFMEU. Minister Watt’s push for “no disallowance” is about maintaining control, with the party entangled in a power struggle with the CFMEU.
The CFMEU, tied to criminal bikie gangs, shows no concern for its members’ health, wages, or retirement. Union bosses, sitting on agency boards meant to protect workers, are either stealing from members or allowing it to happen. The conflicts of interest, particularly with CFMEU members holding positions on superannuation boards, are enormous. Labor won’t fix this, and their collusion with the CFMEU puts them above the law.
Transcript
The CFMEU stole more than a billion dollars from members it was supposedly protecting in Australia’s largest ever case of wage theft. The key to this theft was CFMEU union bosses appointed as directors to oversight agencies supposedly protecting workers. They colluded and enabled that theft from their own members. This is verified. The figures are verified in an independent report that I commissioned called Coalminers’ Wage Theft, printed earlier in the year.
We have seen an analysis of five enterprise agreements in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley with the wage theft varying from $41,000 per person, per year to $21,000 per person, per year. The Independent Workers Union of Australia, now getting members in the mining sector in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland, has just lodged a number of complaints with the Fair Work Ombudsman. One of the complaints is for $211,000 in money owed due to wage theft for one person.
The CFMEU drove that theft of wages, so what we can see is the former protector of miners has been their exploiter, with collusion of the regulator, the Fair Work Commission. It’s been verified independently because the Mining and Energy Union, which split off from the CFMEU—it couldn’t handle the CFMEU—and which looks after miners recently applied to the Fair Work Commission to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. The uptick in wages has been around $50,000. It’s been verified they’ve been underpaid. What has not happened is that same union, the Mining and Energy Union, which used to be part of the CFMEU, will not go back and seek back pay, because they know that will expose them. There is no back pay. They will let these miners lose $211,000. They will let these miners lose $41,000 per person, per year.
So now we have the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia making inroads in the mining industry in the coalmines of Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. Their union dues are less than half of the Mining and Energy Union. Why? That’s because they don’t pay millions of dollars in donations to the Labor Party. It is the same with the Queensland Teachers’ Union. The new Red Union’s dues are less than half of the Queensland Teachers Union. It is the same with the nursing union, where the dues of the new Red Union and the Nurses’ Professional Association of Queensland are less than half of the Queensland Nursing Union. What we need to do in the union side of things is end monopoly unions and make sure unions have competition. That will fix it. Members can scrutinise when there is competition.
Let’s move to what I said earlier in my opening statement. The directors in the coalmining agencies that oversaw this theft from coalminers, the directors of Coal Mines Insurance, ignored the plight of miners. We even know of miners who failed to get their Coal Mines Insurance that they were entitled to, scrimping and saving and sleeping on their parents’ garage floor in the Hunter Valley. That’s what the CFMEU directors have done. They turned a blind eye to their duty to look after miners.
Coal Mines Insurance is a statutory agency with the CFMEU providing half the directors. AUSCOAL Superannuation, another one supposed to look after super, has provided admin services to coal long service leave, another government entity. So AUSCOAL Superannuation, which has directors from the CFMEU, provided the administrative services for coal long service leave and that enabled the hiding of the wage theft, because the CFMEU directors were 50 per cent of Coal Mines Insurance, AUSCOAL Superannuation and Coal Services, which looks after basic things like health checks, medical checks. AUSCOAL, by the way, has been renamed Mine Wealth + Wellbeing—that’s a cute little phrase!—and now Mine Super. These directors have prevented many of the benefits that they should have been overseeing going to miners. They stole the rights and entitlements of their own members.
By the way, the Labor Party under Julia Gillard changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011 to enable the use of casuals, because casuals are not allowed in the black coalmining industry award. They wouldn’t have been able to get their super. So the Labor Party, to enable this scam, changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011. The next thing: we can’t rely upon the normal back stop, which is the Labor ministers, departments and agencies. I’ve just explained how the agencies are colluding, the departments are colluding and the Labor ministers are colluding. This wage theft would not have occurred without the deliberate collusion of Labor Party MPs in the Hunter electorate, who just hid this atrocious theft. The Senate ordered an investigation a couple of months ago into this. Two ministers since then, Minister Burke and Minister Watt—they’ve done nothing. They had not even reported back to the Senate—they’ve done nothing. That’s the Labor Party. So much for looking after the workers!
I wonder if it’s because the Labor Party relies on millions of dollars of donations from the CFMEU? Would that be the answer? Would it?
Senator Hanson:Yes.
The Labor Party is wedded to donations from the CFMEU, the crooked CFMEU. Minister Watt, in section 323B(2) of his legislation, to which we have an amendment, wants an absence of a disallowable regulation. He wants no disallowance, so that he can control the whole show. Then we see the Labor Party also being tainted by John Setka. In a report in the Australian Financial Review, on 12 April this year, David Marin-Guzman, a journalist with the Australian Financial Review, said that ‘the core issue here is that John Setka stood up and said he will take over the Labor Party and move members of the CFMEU into branches and then preselect various candidates, and also the Premier’. That’s what we see going on here—the Labor Party in a massive cover-up and massive wrestle with the CFMEU. By the way—I think Senator Hanson mentioned it—the size of the funds in question is just short, $1 billion short, of $100 billion in funds. That is twice the Australian defence budget. That’s more money than Belgium makes in a year. And we want to take it away from parliamentary scrutiny? Like hell. That’s why we need this reference to the committee.
Then we see more tainting, with the CFMEU being connected with bikie gangs, criminal bikie gangs. Then we see Senator Hanson’s terms of reference. I must commend Senator Hanson for introducing this motion. The first term of reference that I want to highlight—I’ll read it for the reference committee:
… the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds …
That’s basic. These people have shown that they don’t care about their members—their members’ lives, their members’ health, their members’ workers compensation, their workers’ livelihoods, their workers’ wages or their workers’ retirement. They don’t care. They bypassed the retirement provisions. The next one I want to read out is term of reference (a):
… the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise …
The potential conflicts of interest are enormous. We can’t rely on the Labor Party to clean it up, nor on departments and agencies from the Labor government. We see them tightly knit together. The second of Senator Hanson’s six terms of reference is:
the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in relation to trustees’ compliance with their duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries of the funds;
This is absolutely essential. The CFMEU union bosses who are directors of agencies—statutory bodies charged with the responsibility to protect members—are stealing from the members or enabling their agencies to steal from members. This lot are above the law. Senator Hanson read out the note from the person from Cross River Rail who is not a member of the CFMEU. They are ‘intimidated’, ‘frightened’ and ‘scared to work’—in our country, they are scared to work. We have now a proven record of the CFMEU stealing from members and workers. Wouldn’t it be going on in the $100 billion of super funds they manage? I support the referral of this matter to committee, to protect members so that they can retire with security and dignity.
The government says less than 1% of houses are bought by foreigners. I don’t believe them. State governments say it’s at least double that, real estate agents say it’s 10%!
I have been asking for detailed data on how they get to that number for 9 months now without answers.
The government is hiding the true extent of foreign ownership from Australians while we’re in the middle of a housing crisis.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Overwhelmingly, Australians don’t believe foreigners should be allowed to own residential property in our country. I first asked at Senate estimates in November last year how many potential foreign buyers the ATO is detecting through its data-matching program? The government failed to answer. In February, Senator Bragg asked and was given no answer. In June estimates, I asked again and did not get an answer. Answers to my questions on notice for how many potential foreign buyers are detected are now overdue, again. Minister, why is your government hiding from the Australian people the data on potential foreign buyers of residential property? And when will you actually answer the question I’ve been asking for nine months?
Senator GALLAGHER:I recall you asking these questions, Senator Roberts, and I understood they were answered at the time by officials when I was sitting at the desk. If there have been follow-up questions you have asked notice that have not been answered, I can certainly follow that up. I think the evidence we gave during Senate estimates was that foreign investment plays an important role in bolstering Australia’s housing stock and creating additional jobs in the construction industry. But it is monitored very closely for good reason. It is tightly regulated, with foreign persons generally requiring foreign investment approval before acquiring an interest in residential land, regardless of its value, with a few exceptions. Foreign investors make up a very small proportion of the total Australian residential property market, accounting for approximately 0.93 per cent of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in 2022-23. Out of 479,257 transactions, based on ATO data from 2022-23 only 4,463 transactions were by foreign investors. It is a very small component—less than one per cent—of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in the 2022-23 financial year. I think senators have raised this through estimates as something they are interested in—raising concerns about foreign investors squeezing out local residents from being able to purchase housing. But the evidence would show that it’s a very small component of the residential property market in the transactions that are being monitored, as was explained in estimates by the ATO. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The New South Wales state government reported more than twice the number of overseas purchases of property that the Foreign Investment Review Board recorded in 2021. The board claims foreigners buy less than one per cent of residential property—and you just confirmed that. Yet in the first quarter NAB property survey, real estate agents say they’re selling 10 per cent of Australian housing to foreigners. Minister, if you have confidence in the Foreign Investment Review Board, why won’t you hand over the data?
Senator GALLAGHER: Again, I’m not sure which part of the data hasn’t been answered. I was sitting at estimates when you were given figures, Senator Roberts, so I’m not sure which data is the data you’re seeking. The ATO data I just read out—and I can provide this in writing to you—shows that it is 0.93 per cent for the 2022-23 financial year, and that it has come down, as I understand it, from a peak in 2015-16. The ATO do residential real estate compliance investigations—so they follow this up and check that people are compliant with the requirements of foreign ownership of residential property. They identified 428 properties for compliance, they did 410 investigations and found 145 properties in breach, and 55 of those resulted in— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you want foreign investment, yet foreign ownership is against Australians’ interests. Minister, this country is in a housing crisis. When will you ban foreign ownership of residential real estate and put Australians in Australian houses first?
Senator GALLAGHER: We’re not going to do that, Senator Roberts. The numbers show we need good strong rules around it, and there are strong rules around it. We need compliance with those rules, and there are good compliance processes. It’s less than one per cent, and this country has benefited from foreign investment. We benefit in terms of our economy and in terms of jobs—
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, order! Please continue, Minister.
Senator GALLAGHER: So it isn’t something we are seeking to ban. It would help if some of our housing programs, which are currently stalled in the Senate, were given approval by the Senate because then we could build more supply, which is the actual issue. I know there wants to be a lot of distractions about who’s to blame, and it’s easy to blame foreign ownership. The statistics don’t support that. I say to the Senate that there are a couple of bills that are stuck in this chamber that would help people into home-ownership and help increase the supply of housing in this country, and I say: let’s get on with that job
Questions on notice from 17 June 2024. Still unanswered and overdue as of 21 August 2024
I strongly support the Senate Urgency Motion in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive after a failed abortion. For the past six years, I have spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin that depicts the tiny feet of a 10-week-old infant, a symbol of the innocent lives at stake. In Queensland, 328 babies were born alive and left to die over the last 10 years. Under the Queensland Criminal Code, this is clearly a crime.
While there are legal protections for medical practitioners who induce stillbirths, those protections end when a child is born alive. Yesterday, during a hearing in the Queensland Parliament, brave maternity nurse Louise Adsett gave heartbreaking details of the tragic fate awaiting many beautiful newborn Australians in Queensland maternity wards. These babies are left to cry until they die.
Louise shared the story of nurses who, with compassion, held these babies as they took their last breaths, surrounding them with love in their final moments rather than leaving them alone in a cold and hard stainless steel environment. There is no legal grey area here—allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder. I thank Senator Babet for introducing this Motion.
To the Queensland Police, my message is simple: “Do your bloody job!”
These babies deserve better; they deserve the same fundamental right to life that all human beings have.
Transcript
I strongly support this motion from Senator Babet in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive. For 6 years I’ve spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin which depicts an infant’s feet at 10 weeks of age.
My opposition to abortion comes from my humanity and my role as a father and grandfather.
Sadly Queensland’s Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 allows for unrestricted access to abortion up to 22 weeks. After that point two doctors must be convinced the abortion is in the mother’s best interests. Doctors who make their living signing off on abortions.
As Rhodes Scholar and leading researcher Professor Joanna Howe has found, between 2010 and 2020, 4,929 babies were killed after 20 weeks, and until birth. In Queensland, of these babies, 328 were born alive and left to die.
Last week I was pleased to attend a protest on the Federation Lawn that was a memorial to the 5,000 babies born alive when aborted around Australia. The memorial was 5000 pairs of baby’s booties in the shape of a cross. Babies who were thrown aside and left on a cold stainless steel slab to die. Alone. Nearly 50% of these were perfectly healthy. Nothing wrong with them. Why were they induced and delivered stillborn instead of alive and placed for adoption?
Under the QLD Criminal Code the current law is clear. This is a crime. Section 292 provides that a child becomes a human being after being born and proceeds in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has had independent circulation or not.
Section 302 defines murder as by someone who: intends to cause death, which is the case with these 328 babies; or causes death by an act, omission or reckless indifference to human life;
Currently the penalty for murder in Queensland is life. How ironic. There are protections for medical practitioners who induce the still birth of a child. That protection stops when the child is born alive.
Queensland MP Bobbie Katter has introduced a bill to ensure the rights of babies born alive. Under the bill, the duty of a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of a termination would be “no different” from their duty to anybody else. This means babies would be given care allowing them to survive where possible, while babies unable to survive would instead be given palliative care.
In yesterday’s hearing into this bill courageous maternity nurse Louise Adsett described in heartbreaking detail the fate that has awaited so many beautiful young Australians in QLD maternity wards. Babies left to cry themselves to death. Alone. Louise described nurses holding babies that have been marked for death until they drew their last breath, a breath surrounded with love, not cold, hard stainless steel.
There’s no legal grey area here, allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder.
To the QLD Police I have this simple message: DO YOUR BLOODY JOB.
Failure to prosecute the first murder has led to 327 more human beings losing their lives and that’s on you.
The preamble of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) explicitly recognizes the unborn’s right to life. This is a matter that can be legislated federally and if the States will not police their own laws then the Federal Government must intervene.
I have yet to hear an abortionist successfully explain at what point in the development of a child it ceases to be a collection of cells and becomes a baby. Until you can show a physiological point before which the child is just a bunch of cells, and after which the child is a living being, I will continue to defend every life and oppose abortion. Except abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. If these practitioners were proud of their actions, they would not be changing the name of their trade from abortion to reproductive care. There’s no reproduction and there’s no care for the child. As least be honest with yourselves, this is notcare. This is designed to dehumanise mothers and fathers, dehumanise society and harden the hearts of our community. Neither can this be described as women’s health, the health of the mother is the same no matter if the baby is put up for adoption or murdered. Woman’s health does not apparently include the health of one-half of these aborted babies who themselves will grow into women.
My office has received over 1000 emails and calls today from Queenslanders who are horrified at this practice. So much so I feel the need to remind everyone that while God loves everyone, God punishes killing.
These human babies deserve better. Babies deserve to have the same rights as have all human beings. And foremost amongst these is the right to life.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5Rj4sxF3uFo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-22 14:25:002024-09-06 11:21:44Babies Born Alive Left to Die!
Labor wants to punish diesel and petrol car makers so that you’ll be forced to buy an electric vehicle despite the diesel powered Ford Ranger, a dual cab Ute, still being Australia’s most bought car last year. They continue to claim their new tax won’t impact the car you drive, but that’s nonsense. The DCCEEW has a report sitting in a filing cabinet – a cost-benefit analysis that would likely expose their lies and do not want made public.
So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese Labor Government. Ditch the ridiculous United Nations/World Economic Forum net-zero targets and let Australians buy and drive whatever car they want.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll tie up some things. Going back to the new car regime, could you please produce the document Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen on notice?
Ms Rowley: You might recall from discussion in this committee at the last round of estimates that, in the committee relating to transport and infrastructure, a public interest immunity claim was made with respect to that modelling. Both with respect to the fact that it speaks to cabinet-in-confidence deliberations and because it includes modelling of market impacts and market outcomes—commercial-in-confidence arrangements—that public interest immunity claim stands, so we are not in a position to table that document.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to give evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes.
Mr Fredericks: A public interest immunity claim has already been raised—
Senator ROBERTS: Has it been accepted by the Senate?
Mr Fredericks: by the transport minister. As I understand it, it hasn’t been resolved, and we as public servants are bound by that minister’s current claim of public interest immunity.
Senator ROBERTS: So it hasn’t been resolved yet?
Ms Rowley: Senator, apologies. It might be that I misunderstood which document you were requesting because you opened this with reference to the new vehicle efficiency standard. Is it the modelling related to that, or is it about liquid fuels?
Senator ROBERTS: It’s the document entitled Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen.
Ms Rowley: Apologies. I was referring to a different document. I misunderstood because of your reference to fuel efficiency standards.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We all make mistakes.
Mrs Svarcas: Senator, Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis is publicly available and presents the modelling without the commercial information.
Senator ROBERTS: Where is it?
Mrs Svarcas: It is available online. We can give you the link for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you can.
Senator McKENZIE: Have you put the ACIL modelling up?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s what we’re talking about.
Mrs Svarcas: The cost-benefit analysis is up, without the commercial information.
Senator ROBERTS: This may have been the document you were talking about, Mr Fredericks. I’d also like you to produce the document Modelling and analysis of a regulated fuel efficiency standard: stage 1 report by ACIL Allen.
Mr Fredericks: Yes, that’s the one I was referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s still in the hands of the minister, who’s claiming immunity.
Mr Fredericks: My understanding is that the minister for transport has made a public interest immunity claim against the publication of that report. I think it is still unattended to by the Senate, so we’re bound by that for the time being.
Senator ROBERTS: The Senate hasn’t attended to it yet?
Mr Fredericks: That’s my understanding. It’s in another department.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. If you make the claim that your car carbon dioxide tax won’t make cars more expensive, Minister, or take away choice, why won’t you produce the reports you have about the costs and benefits? Why the secrecy and the lack of debate? Why the secrecy about the data you have in your possession right now about the effect on Australian cars, four-wheel drives and utes? These are vehicles fundamental to our economy and to many people’s livelihoods.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, what question are you actually asking?
Senator ROBERTS: Why won’t you produce the documents? Senator McAllister: I think, as the secretary has already explained, Minister King has indicated that she claims public interest immunity over the documents. It’s not my claim—
Senator McKENZIE: You don’t get to say, ‘PII—we win.’
Senator McAllister: Senator—
Senator McKENZIE: You’ve got to actually have a reason.
CHAIR: Senator McKenzie—
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you afraid of people knowing?
CHAIR: We’re talking about a PII claim in a different committee, doing something different. That’s their business. We can prosecute it after the event if it has some relevance to this committee; otherwise, I think we’re just going to go round in circles here.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, let’s move on.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts has the call for another five.
Senator ROBERTS: The Coomera Connector 2 in Brisbane—can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2 in Queensland, the extension of a freeway?
Mr Fredericks: I’m looking at a lot of blank faces behind me. We might need to take that one on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Let’s come to water. I’ve been told in two different sessions in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that this is the spot for my water questions, so here we go. Is your department working with the Queensland government on the $20 billion Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project, and, if not, have they asked for federal assistance in planning or financing?
Mr Fredericks: I can tell you that that question belongs in water day, which is—
CHAIR: Friday week.
Mr Fredericks: Friday week. I lose track.
CHAIR: On 2 June. Come on down! Mr Fredericks: I suspect there will be a number of questions along those same lines. That’s on water day, Friday week.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, is the Coomera Connector a road transport project from Loganholme to Coomera?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Mr Fredericks: I think that’s why we got a lot of blank faces.
Senator McAllister: What was your question in relation to that?
Senator ROBERTS: Can you please provide an update on any progress, because there are serious environmental factors involved there. That’s what I want to know—if you’re involved or not.
Senator McAllister: I see. So your question is: is the department involved in any regulatory process associated with this project?
Senator ROBERTS: My question is: can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?
Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’re onto it. Do you mean under the EPBC Act?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I just want to know any environmental aspect at all. Mr Fredericks: All good—that is on tomorrow, in outcome 2, and my officials from that part of the department will be ready to respond to your question. Then the water question belongs in the cross-portfolio water day, which will be held on Friday week.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s come back to an earlier answer that one of your staff gave me.
CHAIR: Two minutes—Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: As to freedom of information request LEX 76280, in relation to the Powering Australia tracker, you redacted a single measure on page 6 of that document. I want to know what the measure is. I was told—I think, by this lady—that that’s cabinet in confidence.
Ms Geiger: That’s right, and I understand we have replied to your request with an explanation about why that information can’t be revealed.
Senator ROBERTS: How can one of six topics—just a title—be cabinet in confidence? Was it supplied because it needs to be in confidence, or was it supplied as part of the package to the cabinet?
Ms Geiger: The individual measure was considered by cabinet, and therefore it’s covered by the cabinet requirements.
Senator ROBERTS: So anything that goes to cabinet is cabinet in confidence?
Senator McKENZIE: [inaudible] supporting any decision that they may or may not discuss.
Senator ROBERTS: You are required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise a public interest immunity claim or a cabinetin-confidence claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister.
Mr Fredericks: That’s fair. So we will take that on notice because at the moment that issue of disclosure is being considered in the FOI context. That can be different to—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m requesting it as part a Senate committee now.
Mr Fredericks: I’m helping you here. That can be a different answer when it’s asked in a Senate estimates context, so we will need to take on notice our capacity to provide you that material, under your request from the Senate committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That wasn’t any different from what I asked before. But thank you.
Submissions to the inquiry looking at Defence Medals, including diggers getting screwed over and Angus Campbell’s DSC, are closing soon [30 August 2024].
Greedy telco companies are still pushing ahead with their plans to shutdown the 3G network. This is despite a million devices due to be affected include hundreds of thousands of 4G mobiles.
Pacemakers, medical alarms, EFTPOS machines and emergency phones in elevators are just the tip of the iceberg.
The Government must set minimum criteria and guarantees before allowing the shutdown to go ahead. Anything else prioritises telco profits above the lives of Australians.
Transcript
I move: That the Senate take note of the interim report.
The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s inquiry into the 3G mobile network shutdown can claim a small victory, yet there will be no champagne corks popped. Telstra and Optus announced they will delay their 3G shutdown for two months. I called for a delay in March. I called for the 3G shutdown to be delayed until Australia was ready for the transition.
The committee has been running an inquiry into the Telstra and Optus proposal that was established on my motion here in the Senate. That inquiry has revealed Australia is nowhere near ready to flick the switch on 3G, and there’s no hope that it can be fixed in just two months. It’s ridiculous. This short delay is nowhere near good enough. Before we can even consider going ahead with the 3G shutdown, the Minister for Communications, Minister Rowland, must intervene and set guarantees of minimum service thresholds on the telcos. It’s time to put Australian people above the telcos short-term company profits.
The inquiry is ongoing, and given the shutdown deadline was rapidly approaching, the committee commendably issued this interim report. This inquiry discovered a tidal wave of disaster coming for business and Australians. The shutdown won’t just affect 3G mobiles, of which there are still hundreds of thousands in operation; it will affect 4G mobiles, even though many of those owners think they’re safe.
As the committee notes:
Furthermore, there are close to half a million non-mobile devices that will not function once the 3G network is shutdown. As an example, these include water and electricity meters, farming monitoring and diagnostic equipment, medical devices, emergency phones in elevators, in addition to safety and asset tracking devices.
It goes on to say there are:
… serious, and in some cases life threatening, impacts on people and organisations if these devices do not work after the shutdown.
Telstra and Optus were at pains to point out how much money and time they had put into making customers aware. Despite these apparently huge efforts—highly ineffective efforts—the total number of mobile and non-mobile devices that the shutdown will affect is close to one million. The telco companies say they’re working on getting all of the 4G coverage up to the same level as 3G. They will not guarantee it will be done as guaranteeing the coverage might cost them money. Once the 3G network is shutdown though, it will be too late. If the communications minister doesn’t intervene, she’ll be giving the telco companies free rein to screw over Australians for short-term profits.
It’s been clear since the inquiry’s public hearings in July that this shutdown must be postponed indefinitely. The telco companies have made it clear they don’t care about the consequences. Telstra and Optus have confirmed they’ll charge ahead with the shutdown. The telcos are more interested in their short-term profits than the safety and lives of Australians.
Let me be clear: this shutdown will put the lives of Australians at risk, and Telstra and Optus are going to do it anyway. The Minister for Communications must intervene, yet so far all we have heard is crickets. We still have no statement from the minister that she will impose even one condition on Telstra and Optus—not one. We haven’t even seen a response from the minister to this interim report, despite the fact it was delivered nearly two weeks ago and the shutdown was due to happen just two weeks from now.
I wish to thank the rural and regional affairs and transport committee for their fantastic work, especially the secretariat, in collating the numerous submissions and organising days of important public hearings, and Senator Canavan, the chair. The Senate successfully supported my motion yesterday ordering the government to respond to this inquiry, with Monday as the deadline. If the minister fails to respond or fails to provide a plan to intervene, we will be pushing this further.
I take this opportunity to express appreciation for Mr James Parker’s comprehensive and insightful submission to the 3G inquiry and his powerful and clear witness testimony. In particular, I note that he revealed arguably the inquiry’s most significant discovery: the complete lack of compatibility of and standardisation across telco and phone manufacturers. It’s time to put the Australian people above the short-term profits of Telstra and Optus. The communications minister must intervene and set minimum service thresholds and other guarantees for the telcos to fulfil before we can even consider shutting down the network. I want to point out that France has delayed their shutdown until at least 2028 because they found out about the problems with the lack of standardisation and the lack of compatibility amongst phones. Britain is still on 2G and 3G and has now delayed their shutdown until late this decade. The minister must address the compatibility and standardisation issues that are costing 4G users needless expense and denying market competition. The people who are suffering are Australian consumers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
The Government has exhausted its ideas for implementing the Murray Darling Basin Plan. The Albanese Labor Government has been in office for over two years now and implementing the MDB Plan was one of their key election promises. This implies that they should have had a clear strategy in place even before coming into government. Fast forward two years, Parliament provides the legislative framework to complete the plan—legislation that should have reflected their intended program.
Yet that’s not what happened. When I inquired about the lack of specifics in the government’s “Restoring our Rivers” draft framework, the response made it clear that no real thought had gone into the plan or the legislation they introduced. After reading the “framework” and hearing the Department’s explanations, my belief is reinforced that the government has no real plan, other than to buy back large amounts of water from farmers. It seems they are deliberately delaying any announcement of buybacks until after the election.
Towards the end of this session, I inquired about the socio-economic test that had previously been applied to all water projects to ensure they did not adversely affect rural communities. This test was abolished under the Plibersek legislation and replaced with a meaningless statement. Their response made it clear that the test would no longer prevent bad projects. Instead, it was substituted with lip service and a small allocation of funds for minor community projects, which falls far short of addressing the real socio-economic damage caused by water purchases.
Transcript | Part 1
Senator ROBERTS: How much has been spent on the Restoring Our Rivers draft framework so far? After two years in office, I expected a more detailed and transparent document than this.
Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers framework followed the amendments to the basin plan and Water Act at the very end of last calendar year. That’s a framework released on 29 January, earlier this year, to go through and explain how we’re proposing to deliver the 450 gigalitres. It was released with a range of principles and programs around the delivery of the 450, and released for consultation. With the new legislation there’s an expanded time frame to the end of 2027 to deliver the 450. This is an important consultation document that was released early to seek views and public consultations on how we’re going to go about delivering that 450 gigalitres. We had over 100 submissions. We had lots of consultations with representative groups. At the same time as releasing that framework for consultation we did open one of the programs. That program is our water recovery infrastructure program, which is state led. It was launched on 29 January, and that’s an opportunity for basin states to bring forward water-saving infrastructure projects. So, that’s actual projects to be delivered. Those projects would include off-farm projects, on the property and non-farm projects. That’s a program that opened on 29 January.
Senator ROBERTS: This document came out in January this year; that’s what you’re saying?
Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers draft framework document?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s it.
Ms O’Connell: It followed the changes to the legislation. That’s the important thing. The legislation changed at the end of November. The legislation passed parliament at the end of November and commenced on 7 December.
Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought there would have been a lot of work put into that legislation. I’m assuming there was, but I’m amazed at the lack of any real data in this plan or draft framework. It suggests to me that the department is flat out of ideas. It’s like nobody cares anymore. Just buy what we need in water buybacks and destroy the bush and call the job done. Minister, are you stalling for an election rather than upsetting people now with buybacks?
Ms O’Connell: When that framework was released, we also opened a program—not something for consultation, an actual program—for state-led infrastructure projects to come forward to be proposed. The framework is, as it says, a framing document. It articulates three proposed programs. The first program that Ms O’Connell refers to, the Resilient Rivers Water Infrastructure Program, is supported by a range of extensive guideline documents, which are available on our website. There are discussions going on with states about getting access to what I think is almost half a billion dollars worth of funding. We have been consulting extensively in relation to another proposed program under the framework, which is a sustainable communities program. Once the results of consultation have been taken on board and that program commences, additional information and guidance around that program will also be published on the website. The third proposed program is in relation to a proposed voluntary water purchase, and the same thing will occur there. It’s a framing document to articulate a range of proposed programs across a variety of recovery tools.
Senator ROBERTS: It just seems that it’s lacking in data and detail. It just seems light on. But thank you for your answers. Minister, the draft plan actually proposes on page 16 to count the water overpurchases towards the 450 gigalitres. Minister, will you give an undertaking to do exactly that?
Senator McAllister: I think it is dependent on understanding what any overrecovery might have involved and officials can give you an update on how the system works to produce an evaluation of the state of play, for want of a better term.
Ms Connell: Currently, there are approximately 78 gigalitres of overcovered water across the northern and southern basins. In terms of being able to count that amount of water towards the 450 gigalitre target, some of those catchments are in New South Wales and they’re in catchments for which water resource plans are yet to be accredited. To be able to determine what the final overrecovery amount is requires the water resource plan to be accredited and for the MDBA to have assessed and verified the modelling so we can have the assurance of exactly where the overrecovered amount falls. We expect to be in a situation across all of the relevant catchments—and I think there are about seven or eight where there are overrecoveries—where work is completed by the MDBA by about June next year.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re waiting on some of the New South Wales valleys, I understand?
Ms Connell: That’s correct. In earlier evidence today, there are six remaining water resource plans to be accredited out of the 20 for New South Wales. There is a dependence there, as my colleague outlined.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand you’re not making a commitment without those plans, but assuming the plans are in place then overrecovery will be counted as part of the 450?
Ms Connell: The draft framework contemplates that exact situation, and we’re in the process of assessing. We got over 100 submissions and they’re of a really high detailed quality. We recently released a report which digests all of that consultation feedback. That’s been now put on the public record. The next step is to publish the final framework. The final framework will set out the government’s proposed approach in relation to overrecoveries.
Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on a new approach to water recovery while also meeting the legislated requirements to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities?
Ms Connell: As you refer to, the Productivity Commission released its, I think, second implementation inquiry into the basin plan, which was published this year. It had a range of recommendations and many of those recommendations have actually been implemented or acted upon in terms of securing the Our Rivers legislation. Then there are a range of other initiatives that the government is undertaking to implement those recommendations. There’s quite a number of them. If there’s a specific recommendation you’re interested in, I’m happy to give you an answer about that one.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an overview of how the government is implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations?
Ms Connell: The first key critical step to deal with the range of issues the Productivity Commission raised was actually the passage of the Restoring Our Rivers legislation. The Productivity Commission released its interim report while the legislation was in parliament and progressing through parliament. A lot of the amendments moved in the House of Representatives and in the Senate went to addressing issues in the Productivity Commission report. Time Frame extensions were a key issue the Productivity Commission raised. They called out, as many reports have over the last couple of years in terms of basin plan progress, that more time was required. That was a key component of the legislation. They called out the fact that the 450 gigalitre target would require water purchase. Voluntary water purchase is one of the pathways for recovery. They noted that was more cost-effective relative to infrastructure projects. One of the key elements of the Restoring Our Rivers Act was to make water purchase a feasible pathway.
Senator ROBERTS: What about in relation to meeting the legislated requirement to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities?
Ms Connell: The legislation included several reforms in relation to that proposal. Firstly, there’s a requirement for a third independent review of the WESA. Unlike the first two reviews, the third review has to actually look at socioeconomic impacts on basin communities. The minister is now also required to consider the social and economic impacts on basin communities of a proposed water purchase program before she launches a water purchase program. There is quite a range of initiatives in relation to socioeconomic impacts.
Significantly, more broadly, there are three principles that guide overall water recovery. The first of those is enhanced environmental outcomes. The second is minimising socioeconomic impacts, and the third is achieving value for money. So, there’s an overall set of principles.
I will just note one of the key recommendations of the commission—I think it’s recommendation 2.4—was that in terms of water recovery the government should take a staged and gradual approach and it should provide adjustment assistance to communities to deal with proposed water purchase. As Ms O’Connell said, that’s at the core of the draft framework. One of the three pillars, if you like, is looking at socioeconomic impacts, and one of the responses to that is the establishment of a sustainable communities program. The purpose of that program will be to provide adjustment assistance to communities.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that later. Why has the government not released the Water Recovery Strategy foreshadowed by the Productivity Commission? Six months after the passage of the restoring our rivers bill, why do we only have a draft framework lacking in detail?
Ms Connell: As I said earlier, the draft framework foreshadows three programs. One of those programs is a water purchase program. When the government moves to commence water purchase, it will release the document that the Productivity Commission refers to. The legislation passed at the end of November. The framework was released at the end of January, so not long after. It’s important that we go out and consult on these matters. There’s a huge amount of interest. That’s what we were doing, consulting.
Senator ROBERTS: When will the feedback on the government’s draft framework on recovering the additional 450 gigs be made available?
Ms O’Connell: That I think was actually published on our website yesterday. I’m happy to table a copy—
Senator ROBERTS: Yesterday? That’s a funny thing. Pardon me for being a bit—what’s the word?
Senator Payman: Cynical.
Senator ROBERTS: No, not quite ‘cynical’. Sceptical maybe. A number of things were published right before the day of standard estimates scheduled hearings. Anyway, that’s good. Thank you.
Senator McAllister: I suppose the counterfactual is that if it’s not published then you don’t have the opportunity to examine it. You’re very welcome to ask questions about the material that’s in the public domain.
Ms O’Connell: If it’s useful, we can table the link so that you can go to it, but it is on our website.
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts, before we rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the department met with industry groups collectively regarding feedback on this draft framework for the additional 450 gigalitres, and where will it come from?
Ms O’Connell: Yes, there’s been extensive consultation as part of the framework being out there—as I said, over 100 submissions. But we can also go through and talk to you about the discussions with groups that we’ve had, the consultations that we’ve done and webinars that we’ve had. The nature of the consultation and the groups we consulted with are set out in the document we’ve published. We’ve held many workshops over the last six months with industry groups and peak stakeholder groups, and we’ve met quite a few times with the basin community committee. We’ve had discussions with particular sectors within industry—the rice sector and the dairy sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Are those workshops online?
Ms Connell: Predominantly, but we’ve also had face-to-face meetings and meetings out in the basin. So, through a range of different consultation mechanisms and including public webinars.
Senator ROBERTS: How many online and how many—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re now going to have to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: If I could just follow up on that. How many face-to-face workshops and how many online?
Ms Connell: I’d have to take that on notice—
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.
Ms Connell: to give you that answer.
Transcript | Part 2
Senator ROBERTS: Ms O’Connell or Ms Connell—
Ms O’Connell: I know—they’re very similar names.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, for the one with the ‘O’ or the one without the ‘O’, you said the plan water numbers were online. My office is pretty good at surfing the internet, but they clicked right through the website and couldn’t find it. Could you send that link, please, that you offered?
Ms O’Connell: Yes. Just to be clear, that’s the link on the report on the 450 gigalitre framework consultation?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the water quantities.
Ms Connell: The overrecoveries?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Ms Connell: We can provide you with that information.
Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendation on transparency and accountability for basin plan decisions? We’ve got a few here about the ACT. What information has the government released about the Australian Capital Territory Bridging the Gap project announced on 3 April?
Ms O’Connell: There was a press release on the ACT Bridging the Gap. The date of that release was 3 April 2024. There was a joint media release on ACT fulfilling its water recovery commitments under the MurrayDarling Basin Plan Bridging the Gap.
Senator ROBERTS: Has there been any more information?
Ms O’Connell: We’re happy to provide you with more information.
Mr Southwell: The FFA, the Federation Funding Agreement, that relates to that matter has been published on the Department of Treasury’s website.
Senator ROBERTS: The Department of Treasury?
Mr Southwell: It’s a website for federal financial relations and FFA is there.
Senator ROBERTS: There are so many bureaucracies and so many departments. That’s fine.
Mr Southwell: That’s where all of the FFAs have to be published. That relates to the minister’s press release. The FFA itself was executed on 14 March when the ACT signed it, and that provided the $58 million for the 6.36 gigalitres of water that the arrangement related to.
Senator ROBERTS: So, 6.3 gigalitres, did you say?
Mr Southwell: 6.36 gigalitres.
Senator ROBERTS: That was to be my next question. Now my next question instead is: how much per megalitre was paid to the ACT, including previous payments?
Mr Southwell: This FFA is $58.83 million for the 6.36 gigalitres, and that works out at $9,250 a megalitre.
Senator ROBERTS: What part of the ACT is the water being recovered from?
Mr Southwell: The FFA itself doesn’t require specific components from the ACT. The ACT has said that they will use the money received to implement long-term water management changes, including water sensitive urban design activities, incentivising community change to reduce water use and water quality improvement activities.
Senator ROBERTS: So, no specific water was released?
Mr Southwell: I think it’s called the Halls Gap site—the Lower Molonglo.
Senator DAVEY: Only state—
Mr Southwell: No. The transfer of entitlements has occurred. It is with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The Commonwealth received a licence of 6.36 gigalitres. That comprised 4.9 towards Bridging the Gap, and an additional 1.46 gigalitres of water towards broader basin plan outcomes. That water has since been specified by Minister Plibersek as being held environmental water to contribute towards the 450 gigalitre target.
Senator ROBERTS: The water is no longer going to the ACT?
Mr Southwell: That water is now held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, that entitlement.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it water that’s actually being held or is it water that will be held due to savings in the future? I didn’t quite understand.
Mr Southwell: The entitlement has been transferred now.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Mr Southwell: It’s with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Dr Banks: I can confirm that water entitlement was registered on 18 April to the Commonwealth’s environmental water holdings.
Senator ROBERTS: So, part of that was part of the efficiency measures towards the additional 450 gig?
Mr Southwell: 1.46 gigalitres. ACT identified that they could deliver 6.36. Their gap that was remaining for Bridging the Gap—4.9. That’s been met in full. So, the ACT no longer has a gap. With the additional 1.46, that has now been determined as contributing towards the 450 gigalitres, which means 1.46 gigalitres less that has to be recovered elsewhere.
Senator ROBERTS: When or how did officials agree to this socioeconomic criteria for the funding?
Mr Southwell: The department evaluated the offer that was made from the ACT. We provided advice to the minister, a comprehensive assessment around the water and the value that it represented and its contribution towards the basin plan, and provided advice to the minister accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your answers being so direct and clear. Is that publicly available, that information?
Mr Southwell: The evaluation?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Southwell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we get a copy of it on notice.
Mr Southwell: On notice.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re six months out from the passage of the restoring our rivers bill. Have any new SDLAM projects been started? Mr Ward: No new projects have been started. But as I mentioned earlier in the day, we’re working very closely with our basin state colleagues on identifying ideas and progressing them forward. There were seven that were shortlisted by the basin officials committee earlier this year for the states to undertake further development of those, and the information on that is published on our department website. Have any decisions been made on new SDLAM projects?
Ms O’Connell: Not by basin officials committees yet. There are prospective projects being worked on. We anticipate—and I gave this evidence earlier today—that New South Wales will be bringing forward a new project soon. They have advised us they intend bringing forward a new project soon and then basin officials will have a look at that.
Senator ROBERTS: What timeline is likely for new SDLAM projects?
Ms O’Connell: It really depends on the project in terms of how long it takes to deliver the project. The delivery timeframe for all SDLAM projects, which applies to new ones, is— Mr Ward: There are three key dates. New projects have to be notified by basin officials by 30 June 2025. States then have until 30 June 2026 to either amend or withdraw projects, and then all projects must be in operation on 31 December 2026.
Senator ROBERTS: I take it it’s too early to determine what the likely volumetric outcome is, much too early?
Ms O’Connell: Correct. It is a tight timeframe, as my colleague outlined.
Mr McConville: If I may add, the reconciliation process will occur, in terms of your question around volumes, after December 2026. The MDBA will be required to do a reconciliation after that.
Senator ROBERTS: Socioeconomic considerations—how is the government intending to meet the requirements to consider socioeconomic impacts of buybacks when it has such an unrealistic target, in my opinion, of recovery of 100 gigalitres per annum?
Ms Connell: As the draft framework makes clear, considering socioeconomic impacts needs to be a key consideration in each water recovery pathway. It really depends on the option being pursued, whether it’s infrastructure, rules based or voluntary water purchase. But I can talk in more detail about the work that we’re doing and the investigations we’re undertaking in relation to potential water purchase. We’re undertaking a range of work. There was a quite significant investigation into socioeconomic impacts of the basin plan quite a few years ago chaired by Robbie Sefton. She chaired a panel. The advice of the Sefton report was, given that there are really quite complex drivers of socioeconomic impacts in the basin—climate, drought, technology, labour inputs, energy inputs—it’s important to look at multiple lines of inquiry to develop the evidence base. So we’re doing a couple of things. We’re looking back. We’ve got the benefit of a range of reports that have been undertaken looking at socioeconomic impacts of water recovery options over the last couple of years. AITHER has done some work for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which has been a key reference point for us. Marsden Jacobs Associates, another firm, did quite detailed investigations for the Sefton review, and New South Wales has recently published a report which we’ve had reference to as well. I guess the other key significant thing that we’re doing is most of those reports find that it’s quite hard to actually pull apart what impacts water recovery has on regional communities, and it’s important to have a discussion with communities to involve them in those issues. One of the key elements of the consultation we did around the draft framework was to seek very specific feedback about past experience of water recovery programs, past experience of community adjustment programs, and we’re pulling that all together. We’ll also be drawing on advice from ABARES.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it used to be the requirement that we must have a socioeconomic benefit. Now it comes down to, at the top of page 18 of your draft framework report, the ‘Sustainable Communities program will seek to mitigate unavoidable socioeconomic impacts’.
Ms Connell: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s change the target.
Ms Connell: Our first order approach is to prioritise a non-water purchase option. We’ve talked quite a bit today about the fact that the infrastructure program opened in January and then the other kind of core program under the framework is the Sustainable Communities program. We’ve been working really quite intensively with stakeholders to get feedback on a draft of principles to guide how funding for community adjustment should be directed. So, we’ve received really quite extensive and clear feedback. There are seven principles that will form the foundation of the community adjustment program. The feedback largely supported each of those principles. Many of them were very strongly supported. There was a strong emphasis from local councils in particular. They’ve been closely engaged in the design of any community adjustment principles. So, that is something we will be definitely taking on board. We’re currently working with basin states to look at getting funding arrangements in place so that funding can flow in the new financial year.
Transcript | Part 3
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: The draft framework for delivering the additional 450 gigalitres per year outlined in the restoring our rivers bill provided more funding towards finalising the basin plan, but the budget indicated this funding was not for publication. How much funding is required?
Ms O’Connell: As you mentioned, the budget papers say that it is not for publication, and the reason for that is there will be potential for competitive tendering. You wouldn’t normally publish the figures prior to going to a tender.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept that.
Ms O’Connell: So it’s not for publication.
Senator ROBERTS: What provision will be made to support the river communities that will be impacted by water recovery?
Ms Connell: We spoke about that a bit earlier this afternoon. The framework describes a Sustainable Communities program that’s for community adjustment. The funding will go through states under federal financial agreements. The proposal is for a specific standalone program focused on supporting communities that need support to adjust, and for that funding to be provided through states who are best placed to work with local communities to build on their existing regional stakeholder engagement networks, and also to build on existing funding that’s going into those particular communities that need to be the focus.
Senator ROBERTS: So federal funding through the states?
Ms Connell: Funding under FFAs, federal funding agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this seems to be a continuation of the undeclared war on farmers. I’ve been to Dirranbandi in Southern Queensland, the border community there, and the same applies to Northern New South Wales. Senator Davey, I’m sure, will be concerned as well. Who gets the land after you drive farmers off? A lot of farmers have been driven off in Dirranbandi and other places. Who is going to use this land once you get rid of the farmers? For what purpose will they use it?
Senator McAllister: I don’t accept the scenarios that you set out in your question. Nor do I accept your characterisation of our posture towards Australian agricultural communities. Our view is that a sustainable basin, a healthy working river, is essential to underwrite the future of food and fibre production in this country, to underwrite the future of regional towns that depend, as has been discussed earlier today, on adequate supplies of clean drinking water, and also to protect our environmental assets in the basin. We think those three things are compatible with one another and, in fact, interdependent. The approach we’re taking is working through a difficult and challenging reform. It now looks like it will be a multidecade reform. It’s one that’s been going on for many years. It requires cooperation between the states and the territories and the Commonwealth. It has been bipartisan. Regrettably, not very much progress was made in the decade that the coalition was in office. But in the two years we’ve been in government we have set about looking at the progress that’s been made so far, what more needs to be done and putting in place the legislative arrangements, the financial arrangements and the implementation arrangements, to implement the basin plan in full.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of the rewilding plan that’s part of the United Nations Agenda 2030 as it is now? It was exposed in the United States. There are similar concepts here.
Senator McAllister: You’ll have to table the United Nations documentation. I haven’t seen that documentation.
Senator ROBERTS: What about hollowing out the bush? I’ve been to Moulamein in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. What about compensation to supermarkets, small businesses in the areas who will all lose business with the water that’s going to be taken, and with that lose the critical mass necessary to keep these towns going? Football teams are dying; sporting clubs are dying. What about the compensation for the people who are not on the land but who depend upon the people on the land?
Senator McAllister: Over the course of today we’ve had a few discussions about socioeconomic impacts, some of them in response to questions from yourself. I think you heard Ms Connor speak earlier about some of the research that’s occurred already about the multiple drivers of change in Australian rural communities. You’ve also heard Ms O’Connell and Ms Connor speak about the approach to socioeconomic assessment in terms of any decisions that might be taken. You have, thirdly, heard just now a description of the approach that’s proposed in terms of working with the states and territories to provide support for communities. I’m not sure how further to respond to your questions, but I do think a lot of information has been provided over the course of the day about the way we’re thinking about these challenges in implementing the plan in full—something I believe continues to have bipartisan support, as confirmed by Senators Davey and Ruston earlier.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the total cost estimate to complete the basin plan?
Mr Dadswell: Current public commitments to the basin plan are around $13 billion. That’s over the life of the plan, over the last 12 years. There’s about—
Senator ROBERTS: So that includes past—
Mr Dadswell: Yes, past programs and existing, and including the ones from the 2024-25 budget. There’s around $3 billion in publicly stated funding that remains against that $13 billion to be spent.
