Thank you to Ben Fordham of 2GB for inviting me to discuss this inquiry. The inquiry aims to look at potentially illegal medals being awarded to senior defence officers, hear from ADF personnel and explore possible improvements to the Defence Awards and Honours system.
If we want people to serve this country, we have to back them and hold their leadership accountable.
Transcript
Ben Fordham: Well, Australia has a new chief of defence, Admiral David Johnston is in and General Angus Campbell is out. He’s officially stepped down from the role after a rocky six year term. And during that time, General Angus Campbell quickly became one of the most divisive figures in the military. He didn’t do himself any favors when he tried to strip war medals from all troops who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.
The then defense minister, Peter Dutton, was forced to intervene and he reversed that controversial decision. But now a medal on General Campbell’s chest is being put under the microscope at a new Senate inquiry. He was recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross back in 2011. That’s Australia’s third highest military decoration. The DSC is awarded for distinguished command and leadership in action as commander of forces in Afghanistan.
At the time, the criteria for someone to receive the award required them to be in action, meaning to be under direct fire of an adversary. But out of nowhere, three months after General Campbell was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed. The criteria of being in action was changed to in warlike operations. Senator Malcolm Roberts, who will lead the inquiry, says senior officers have abused the defence honours and awards system. Meanwhile, enlisted personnel have to fight for recognition and higher ups downgrade their medals. Malcolm Roberts The senator from Queensland, with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is on the line right now. Senator, good morning to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Good morning, Ben. What a fabulous summary spot on mate, accurate.
Ben Fordham: So what are you suggesting is going on here?
Senator ROBERTS: What I’m suggesting is that these senior officers -the top brass of our Australian Defence Force are looking at medals as a way of rewarding each other, they just seem to think it’s an entitlement that comes with their salary package. But what we’re really looking for is some integrity with regard to the way that the rank and file the serving enlisted soldiers are treated because they’re not getting their medals. And by the way, Ben, I want to thank all ADF people for their service. And I also want to appreciate especially the serving members and veterans who have been working with us to restore accountability over many months in this Australian Defence Force. The pride and respect …
Ben Fordham: I’ll just jump in for a moment and ask you just about General Angus Campbell, because that’s going to be the key thing that people will focus on in this inquiry. As I said, when he was recommended, it was for, well, at the time they said the person who was receiving the award was required to be in action.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct, “two way rifle range”. thinking.
Ben Fordham: Well, hang on a moment. Was he in action? Well, yes, he was over there. He was obviously playing a critical role. But the criteria also said you had to be “under direct fire of an adversary”. And that raised a few flags, didn’t it, that people in the military thinking, well, does General Campbell fall into that category?
Senator ROBERTS: Well, no, he doesn’t. He was away from the action. He was in an air conditioned office several hundred kilometers away and quite safe. What’s really galling people is that the same man refuses to remove his own medal after he tried to strip 3000 people who served in Special operations task force of their Meritorious Unit citation because of the Brereton inquiry. So if he was in action and he was commanding them, then he should have stripped his own medal. But he kept his medal and tried to strip it from the from the soldiers who are actually in direct action.
Ben Fordham: Okay. I just want to stick with this criteria for a moment and can you just confirm this? So originally it said that you had to be under direct fire.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct
Ben Fordham: And that’s when red flags were raised and people were thinking, does he really fall into that category? You say he does not. Then three months after he was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed and the criteria changed from inaction to in warlike operations. Is that right?
Senator ROBERTS: That is correct Ben. You’ve said it so well, as I said before, you’ve said it so well today. It’s perfect.
Ben Fordham: Okay. So was he in warlike operations?
Senator ROBERTS: Well, he was in the Middle East. He was in near Afghanistan, near the theater of war. But he wasn’t actually actively involved in the war.
Ben Fordham: Why did they change the criteria?
Senator ROBERTS: Probably to justify his medal because he was awarded the medal incorrectly, is my belief.
Ben Fordham: Okay. I want you to elaborate on that. You believe that the criteria changed to suit General Angus Campbell?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what it looks like Ben. And that’s what a lot of troops are saying. And they’re saying that the top brass are getting medals, not justified, and they’re missing out themselves down the lower ranks.
Ben Fordham: And there had been requests, people had asked questions when the criteria was in action, people actually requested some details to say, okay, can General Angus Campbell give us some answers on when he was in action and there were no answers forthcoming, right?
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. He was mute. There was nothing coming.
Ben Fordham: All right. So will he appear before this inquiry?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s up to the Senate inquiry to justify. I won’t be leading the inquiry. I will be a participating member on it. But it’s a standing inquiry. Standing committee that’s already got six members appointed, but I’ll be participating in it as an additional participatory member. But that’s up to the inquiry and the Senate inquiry if they want to call General Campbell, they can force him to come. They can subpoena him if necessary. So the powers are there.
Ben Fordham: So how do you sum up his time leading the defence force?
Senator ROBERTS: A shambles, mess. The rank and file – the morale in the Australian Defence Forces is atrocious. Where we’ve seen some pride and respect for the Australian Defence Force. We need that to be restored and the troops who are talking to us and there are many saying we’re absolutely correct and that the morale is low, the turnover is high, the recruitment is falling. We have more people leaving than coming to the Australian Defence Force at the moment. We’re going backwards in numbers and so this is a security matter. It’s an essential security matter, a national security matter, Ben.
Ben Fordham: He really lost the dressing room, didn’t he, Malcolm Roberts, when he decided to strip war medals from everyone who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly. And the Yamamoto principle from second World War says that if a crime is committed in the theater of war by a soldier, then everyone up the line is accountable and responsible. What he did was he stripped medals from – he tried to strip medals from the 3000 and yet hung onto his own. Yet he was commanding the troops he was stripping medals from.
Ben Fordham: And if it wasn’t for Peter Dutton, who was the minister at the time, they would have lost those medals. Thankfully, he stepped in and I’m going to be really keen to see what comes out of this inquiry. So thank you so much for joining us.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome. Ben. Thank you.
Ben Fordham: Malcolm Roberts, the Senator for Queensland with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
There is no specific evidence that Angus Campbell was “in action” which is the criteria required for his medal at the time of his nomination.
The honours and awards system has been abused, with senior officers and generals giving medals to each other, while frontline soldiers who faced direct enemy fire must fight yet again, this time for the recognition they rightfully deserve.
This issue goes far deeper than General Campbell. It’s time to clean out all the rot at the highest levels of the Defence Force.
Australians are sleeping on the street and the Government doesn’t care.
Hundreds of thousands of arrivals are flowing into the country while we don’t have houses for the Australians that are here.
Rent prices are up 40% and house prices are 10x the average income, completely out of reach for most of Australians. We need to cut immigration, ban foreign ownership, give Australians more savings, introduce some competition to the banking cartel and open up construction as well.
Australians deserve their own home, One Nation will make sure they get one.
Transcript
The housing and rent crisis is a national tragedy. In Australia, one of the richest countries in the world for resources, we have working families homeless, sleeping in their cars or under bridges. In August 2020, the national average rent was $437 a week. It’s now $627, an increase of 40 per cent in just a few years. The national rental vacancy rate is just one per cent—actually slightly under that—far below the three per cent rate that’s considered a healthy market. House prices are out of control. In 1987, the average house cost 2.8 times the average income.
Today, a house costs 9.7 times the average income. This is why there are hardworking Australians sleeping on the street—families on the street. People under 30 have given up hope of ever owning a home, yet we oldies are meant to hand our young people a better life than we had.
One Nation promises to fix this housing crisis for all Australians. We will make the tough decisions that the Liberal and Labor uniparty won’t. Two point eight million temporary visa holders are in the country today, up from 2.3 million pre COVID. That’s an additional 200,000 homes needed for these new arrivals. While Australians can’t afford roofs over their heads, we need some of these people on visas to leave. An Australian can’t buy a house in China, yet foreign investors can buy both new and existing houses here.
One Nation would ban all foreign ownership of residential housing. Australians must come first. We would allow people to use some superannuation to invest in their homes. After all, it’s your money. We will ditch Labor’s facade, its pathetic, bureaucratic Housing Australia programs. Instead, we’ll use the same funds to create cheap 30-year mortgages fixed at five per cent interest to get Australians into homes.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/P3x0fzcDcxM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-13 13:05:572024-08-13 13:06:02Australians Deserve Their Own Home
The argument about nuclear is overshadowing an inconvenient truth.
Coal remains the cheapest form of baseload reliable power and nuclear is a better alternative compared to wind and solar.
I support nuclear power and believe it should be part of our energy mix, but there’s no need to eliminate coal to make it happen.
Transcript
Labor, the Greens, the paid-off media and climate activists are all fighting tooth and nail against nuclear. You can hear them screaming so loudly because reliable baseload power is a massive threat to the billionaire solar and wind cartel. Both sides of politics have, for more than two decades, mismanaged energy so grossly that we’ve caused an energy crisis that Australia is now facing down. One Nation congratulates the coalition on agreeing with One Nation’s longstanding policy to remove the ban on nuclear energy and have a debate about where it sits in our energy needs. We can only hope that One Nation’s full policy is adopted one day: remove all the subsidies and let the cheapest form of power win so we can put more money back in Australians’ pockets.
There’s no reason that we need to forcibly shut down coal to put nuclear in the mix. The coalition plan is to forcibly acquire coal-fired power stations, shut them down and replace them with nuclear. Let’s do nuclear, and let’s do coal too. One of those coal-fired power stations the coalition wants to shut down is at Tarong. I visited there on Friday. It sits right on top of a coal mine. Coal is dug out of the ground and put on a conveyor belt straight into the power station with minimal transport costs. What more could you ask for? We’ve got 40 years of real-world costs on the Tarong stations, and it’s as cheap as chips. It uses high-energy-density fuel. Why tear down Tarong and replace it with nuclear based on projections—or worse, solar and wind based on unicorn farts? Instead, just build another coal-fired power station right there at Tarong beside it and use the same power.
The coalition can’t do that, because it’s fully committed to the United Nations net zero madness, a catastrophic nightmare in the making, and we haven’t seen anything yet. We’ve got these people in the government putting on benefits to energy policy because of the rising cost due to their policy. Only One Nation will say, ‘up yours!’ to foreign unelected organisations telling us what to do and instead use Australia’s coal and uranium resources for the cheapest power possible.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/_Na0Tmylo70/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-13 12:58:002024-08-13 12:58:04Coal Still the Cheapest Reliable Power Source
Converting Coal fired power to Nuclear is a United Nations Net-Zero scam.
I support Nuclear. It’s one step cheaper than the Bowen/Albanese wind and solar pipe dream, we should absolutely remove the ban. But Peter Dutton only wants nuclear because it complies with the United Nations Net-Zero targets, which his party is fully committed to. Now he’s saying he will forcibly acquire Coal Stations, shut them down, and convert it to Nuclear.
Tarong Power Station in South Queensland that I’m in front of here is one of those. It sits right on top of a coal mine and we have 40 years of figures proving exactly what it costs, and it’s cheap.
Let nuclear on our grid, but let the cheapest generators we have, coal, stay. That’s the only way anyone will get cheaper power.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/kFE-LNgR8EE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-13 12:22:512024-08-13 12:22:55Shut THIS down for Nuclear? It doesn’t make sense!
During this Senate Estimate session, I inquired about the amount the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) spent on the unsuccessful Voice Referendum. The figure was not available. I questioned whether that expenditure might have been more effectively used if directed straight to the communities and expressed concern about the efficacy of the spending.
I highlighted the substantial amounts spent on procurement, noting that Barbara Constructions received $613 million over an eight-year period, while Evolve FM was allocated nearly $497 million. Additionally, Price Waterhouse Coopers, disgraced consultants, received around $50 million.I asked for the total amount spent by the NIAA during that period, which was, of course, taken on notice. I also questioned why, despite billions being spent on NIAA programs, the gap was not being closed. It was reported that $9.5 billion had been spent on procurement.
I asked whether there was any consideration being given to providing funds directly to communities, bypassing agencies that are not delivering effective results, and offering communities greater autonomy. I did not receive a direct answer to this query.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. How much money did the NIAA spend on the doomed voice referendum?
Dr Gordon: Good afternoon, Senator Roberts, I don’t have that exact figure with me, but we’ll be able to get that quickly this afternoon to you.
Senator ROBERTS: If not, I’ll put it on notice. What difference would that money have made if provided directly to local Aboriginal communities to spend on their decisions and actually make a difference?
Ms Guivarra: Senator, although we don’t have the figures with us, you may be aware from previous testimony at other hearings that the majority of the expenditure on the referendum was actually with the Australian Electoral Commission. NIAA received a very small proportion of funding for issues associated with the referendum working group meetings and a civics and awareness campaign. Really, as I said, it was a very small proportion of the overall expenditure on the referendum.
Senator ROBERTS: My concerns are not only with the amount of money spent but with the effectiveness of it. That’s why I asked the question about whether it would be better spent with the communities. Let’s continue. Looking at NIAA figures obtained through freedom of information—seeking moneys that NIAA spent—why are such large amounts provided to particular contractors? Barpa Construction Services has received almost $613 million.
Ms Guivarra: Senator, are you referring to overall expenditure under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, not related to the referendum?
Senator ROBERTS: No, overall money that NIAA has spent. I think the previous man said something like 1,200 grants or 2,000 grants.
Mr Dexter: Senator, I think you might be referring to some information that was released under FOI to do with the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the last several months. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a whole-of-Commonwealth policy that provides preferential procurement practices for registered Indigenous businesses. Barpa Construction did ring a bell with me as one of the businesses that were released as receiving a certain amount of money.
Senator ROBERTS: $613 million, I’m told.
Mr Dexter: I believe that was an amount that Barpa has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is not necessarily—in fact it’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy money. It’s a collection. The Indigenous Procurement Policy and the reporting under it is a collection of all of the contracts that organisation has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what they were paid for? If it’s outside your accountability, that’s fine.
Mr Dexter: No, Senator, I wouldn’t know. That that would need to be directed to the agency that engaged them.
Senator ROBERTS: What about Evolve FM Proprietary Limited, which received almost $497 million?
Mr Dexter: That would be in the same category, Senator. There were a number of FOI requests that were made recently which were asking for the aggregate amounts that Indigenous businesses had received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the life of the policy. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a policy that’s been in place since 2015. It’s resulted in about $9.5 billion going to Indigenous businesses over that period of time. I think one of the questions that we got under the FOI was: ‘What are the top 100 businesses that have received money through that policy?’ Evolve and Barpa were both on that list.
Senator ROBERTS: What about PricewaterhouseCoopers, disgraced consultants, who’ve received almost $50 million?
Mr Dexter: I’d need to check, Senator, but I would hazard a guess that it was not PricewaterhouseCoopers itself but rather PwC’s Indigenous Consulting, which is a separate entity.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you check on both those items, please.
Mr Dexter: I’d be happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount of NIAA money spent over the eight-year period to companies providing contract services?
Ms Guivarra: We’ll have to get some other colleagues up for that, Senator.
Ms Broun: Senator, could you repeat that question?
Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount that NIAA spent over that eight-year period to companies providing contract services? That’s the eight years to January 2024. Ms Jackson: I don’t know if we’ve got the eight-year amounts with us. We’d have the last couple of years, which we can go into if you like, but otherwise we can take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Take it on notice, thank you. Presumably it’s several millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. With that kind of money and other moneys being injected into Aboriginal wellbeing, why is the gap not being closed?
Ms Broun: Senator, clearly the evidence is that there are gaps in outcomes for First Nations people. Closing the Gap is designed and has been designed with our partners, particularly the Coalition of Peaks but all states and territories, to address those gaps. I’m a bit confused by your question in terms of ‘there’s some spending here, so that would have changed the outcomes over there’, because obviously there are different outcomes depending on different areas of government as well. I’d like to be a bit more specific about your question.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned that there’s a huge amount of money being spent, and it’s going through agencies, but it’s not closing the gap. Why isn’t it closing the gap?
Ms Guivarra: Senator, the majority of your questions are related to what we’ve done under the Indigenous Procurement Policy. The original intention of the Indigenous Procurement Policy obviously was to support Indigenous businesses, because we know that in fact Indigenous businesses also have a higher employment rate for Indigenous people as well, First Nations people. As Mr Dexter has said, we’ve had a lot of success with that— over 65,000 contracts with a total value of $9.5 billion worth of business going to First Nations businesses as a result of that Indigenous Procurement Policy.
Ms Broun: You may be aware that in fact the assistant minister launched a review of the Indigenous Procurement Policy back in December. We opened up a consultation process for that review. It closed, I think, around March of this year. We’re going to take the learnings from all of that and see what further improvements we can make to continue what, I think, has been a success story just in relation to the generation of Indigenous business and creation of Indigenous employment.
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re telling me there’s been a review of money given to Indigenous businesses. What I would like to know is: is there a review being conducted, or any idea of a review to be conducted, on spending of all kinds? Could that money instead be going directly to the communities to develop accountability and autonomy? Communities are screaming out for autonomy.
Ms Guivarra: Senator, as I indicated, in fact this review and consultation was really to see how we can further strengthen the Indigenous Procurement Policy because, as I mentioned, it has been very successful in awarding business to First Nations businesses and creating employment opportunities for First Nations people.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I acknowledged that and said: can you extend it to a review of all spending? And specifically can you send the money directly to the communities and bypass the agencies?
Ms Guivarra: The money associated with the Indigenous Procurement Policy is basically services contracted across all of government. Then it’s for each agency to decide whether they’re seeking to procure services from businesses, including First Nations businesses. The Indigenous Procurement Policy has a mandatory set-aside for First Nations businesses as part of that policy, which applies across government agencies. There has been interest in the community more broadly about what can be done to further to enhance that particular policy, and that’s the purpose of the review.
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I acknowledged that twice. But what I’d like to know is: is there any consideration being given to reviewing expenditure across NIAA, not just on procurement?
Ms Broun: Senator, obviously spending on Indigenous outcomes—and this is why we have cross-portfolio here—cuts across all of government to deliver outcomes in specific portfolio areas and specific policy areas. In NIAA we have the IAS, a large part of which has been employment services. Another part is ranger services. To your point, that goes particularly to communities on the ground, so it is focused on those sorts of things. Then there are a whole range of other programs that are supplementary to mainstream funding. But these are services that citizens are entitled to. It depends how you quantify the spending, but the different programs are there to deliver different outcomes for Indigenous people. We could go into the programs that are specifically designed with community and go directly to community, because there are a lot of those sorts of programs as well. They’re not all being delivered through departments, but on the ground as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’ll continue this in the future.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/G0VU2FgrNog/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-13 12:09:502024-08-13 12:18:57Ineffective Use of Funds and Procurement Practices by the NIAA
Reserve Bank Governor Michelle Bullock was appointed to the position after a 20-year career in the Reserve Bank, including being the recipient of subsidised housing loans despite her substantial salary. Her early comments were reflective of her being “a long time in the public service bubble” and were out of touch with the hardships faced by everyday Australians due to past Reserve Bank policies causing high inflation and interest rates.
Her recent comments, however, appear to be much more in tune with understanding everyday Australians’ concerns.
At Senate Estimates, my questions were aimed firstly at getting updates on less reported projects and secondly, I wanted to know whether the Governor realised her role is about people not spreadsheets.
I found her responses encouraging and look forward to more people-oriented management from the Governor going forward.
Transcript
CHAIR: Thanks. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I missed you last time because I couldn’t get on the schedule. I want to get a quick update on as many things as possible. Part of the Reserve Bank’s process is to review inflation data and unemployment data. Do you use data from the ABS and, if so, do you use that data exclusively, or do you have other sources for unemployment and inflation data?
Ms Bullock: We use ABS data obviously for inflation and unemployment. We use a variety of other sources of information, though, because we don’t just focus on the unemployment rate itself; we focus on a variety of measures that the ABS put out. We also focus on things like vacancies and advertisements. There’s information we get from our business liaison program, where we talk to businesses about what they’re doing with their labour forces: are they demanding more labour or not? So we use the ABS data, but we have a wealth of other information that we look at as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Business-to-business payment defaults and business bankruptcies, to the third quarter of 2024, are at a record. I’m sure you know that. Are you watching these metrics? And would these record figures act to reduce the appetite in the Reserve Bank for another interest rate rise?
Ms Bullock: We do watch the business insolvencies data. My understanding is that they haven’t actually returned to the trend that they were prior to the pandemic. In the pandemic, with low interest rates and government assistance, insolvencies were actually at a record low. They have popped up, but they haven’t popped up to where the trend was going prior to the pandemic. So I think that’s important perspective to put it in. We do look at it and we look at it from a couple of perspectives. We look at it from the perspective of how monetary policy is impacting businesses, but we also look at it from the perspective of financial stability and the potential impact on banks, banks’ arrears and banks’ balance sheets.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Suicide Prevention Australia’s community tracker, also to the third quarter of 2024, shows a huge rise in the number of calls to help services, in suicidal behaviour and in clinical presentations. This is an independent and accurate barometer of how everyday Australians are doing. Are you aware of that tracker?
Ms Bullock: Yes, I am. In fact I have regular meetings with various organisations—for example, Beyond Blue. They talk to us a lot about this sort of data. We also talk to ACOSS regularly, we talk to other charities in our business liaison program and we hear a lot about the fact that charities are seeing people come in who they haven’t seen before. So this is obviously an indication that they’re stressed. So, yes, we do keep in touch with that stuff.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on the state of the central bank digital currency, please? The last word we had was I think when Mr Debelle was deputy governor. I understand you’re developing a standard, not an actual currency itself? Is that correct?
Ms Bullock: We’ve done a couple of things. We ran a pilot program with a real claim on the central bank last year.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that what’s known as a ‘sandbox’?
Ms Bullock: It was sort of like a sandbox, if you like. We had a number of different use cases. Various businesses came in with their use cases to use the central bank digital currency. From that information, what we took away was that probably the most fruitful piece of research we could continue with was the use of a central bank digital currency in a wholesale sense. By that I mean there’s a lot of discussion about putting assets on the ledger—for example, having a distributed ledger of financial assets—and then you could have a central bank digital currency which is used to make settlements of those financial instruments, or they might be physical instruments, physical assets. That’s the most fruitful work and that’s where we’re going at the moment. We’re in the process of standing up a project that looks at how a central bank currency could be used in the atomic settlement of assets. That’s where we’re going at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not developing a standard?
Ms Bullock: No. Basically, we’re looking at what the business case might look for. We’re not so interested in the technology and we’re not so interested in standards. What we’re interested in is: is there a business for this?
Senator ROBERTS: Would that allow other parties, including each of the banks, to develop their own cryptocurrency?
Ms Bullock: The banks themselves can develop what some people call ‘stable coins’, and some banks have developed stable coins. Central bank digital currency, if it were to be developed, would be something that everyone could potentially use—not literally every Australian, because, if we’re focusing on business, then it might be that some businesses can use it. Individual banks can, in theory, at the moment—and some of them have experimented with it—develop stable coins, which are effectively cryptocurrency. CHAIR: It’s your last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: This would not exclude existing cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin?
Ms Bullock: No. The central bank digital currencies would not have a relationship with bitcoin, no.
Senator ROBERTS: But it wouldn’t exclude bitcoin?
Ms Bullock: What do you mean by ‘exclude bitcoin’?
Senator ROBERTS: To sideline them or remove them.
Ms Bullock: No, bitcoin would continue to exist, but central bank digital currencies offer a different business proposition than bitcoin. Bitcoin has particular uses; central bank digital currencies would not be encroaching on that space, I suspect.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ts4piJ8XZoQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-13 11:35:192024-08-13 11:35:25Reserve Bank Governor Shifts Focus to People Rather than Spreadsheets
At the May/June Senate Estimates, I queried ASIC about their investigation into allegations raised by several whistleblowers regarding a major bullion company charging for sales and storage of bullion it did not hold.
While ASIC did investigate, they allowed the company months to get their affairs in order and provided advanced notice of the audit date, enabling potential moving of bullion to defeat the audit, possibly resulting in multiple counting of the same bullion. Furthermore, there are allegations that bullion not belonging to the audited investment scheme but belonging to another entity, was included in the audit.
Despite several sessions with ASIC on this matter, none of their responses have addressed the fundamental issues surrounding their flawed investigation. The case has now been referred to another agency and I await the outcome.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: It’s now been found that the bullion inspected was the property of three companies operating two investment schemes. Were you aware that your auditor was inspecting bullion belonging to two companies not under investigation?
Ms Court: I’m unable to comment further on this issue of the bullion company. I haven’t got further information beyond that which—
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not saying that you won’t answer; you’re saying that you haven’t got it with you.
Ms Court: I’m saying I—
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll put it on notice.
Ms Court: Perhaps—if you put questions in relation to this issue. I’m assuming that your questions relate to a continuing investigation that Mr Savundra referred to. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate to put those on notice to make sure that we can answer them comprehensively.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about the audit. I’ll continue with questions on the audit. What steps did your auditor take to ascertain ownership of the bullion being offered as theirs? What steps did the auditor take?
Ms Court: I think it would be preferable to take those questions on notice. You’re asking for details of an investigation. We have given evidence previously that the matters raised in relation to the bullion company have been extensively investigated.
Senator ROBERTS: So it should be easy to get answers. Was the theoretical stocking figure provided for the amount of bullion just for one scheme as compared to gold for two? My information is that it was.
Ms Court: I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The facility that held the bulk of the bullion did not have council approval for secure storage and, in fact, was not a secure storage. Why wasn’t the company prosecuted for charging customers for secure storage that didn’t exist?
Ms Court: I’ll take that on notice also.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you answer that now? It’s Senate estimates. The guideline is that you will answer if you can answer it now.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, another ASIC inquiry is underway. In relation to operational matters, from time to time, ASIC provides information to senators in another forum where we can be very assured that appropriate structures are put around the information provided, so, when Ms Court says that she’s taking it on notice, that is appropriate in relation to this investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: This one? Okay. Will you now please set aside your pride, open up the investigation and work out what was done wrong and what action should be taken for misleading ASIC.
Ms Court: I’ve already said that I’d prefer not to answer further questions. Part of the challenge with answering the questions in the way that you’re putting them is that it assumes the correctness of the proposition in your question, which, of course, ASIC takes issue with. We reject that there has been any misconduct by ASIC in relation to this investigation. It has been conducted extensively over quite some time. As the chair has indicated, to the extent that you could wish us to address you on these issues in camera, then, of course, we would be willing to do that, if the committee seeks that briefing.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can we do that? I’ll finish with the last question on this issue. I have put in more detailed questions on notice and ASIC has received the information I mentioned today directly, so I look forward to further communication on this matter and will take you up on the offer for the in camera briefing.
I enquired about the number of requests for assistance that had been sent to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) and was informed that none had been received during that week, attributing this to potential delays in processing. They mentioned that their preferred method for addressing issues is via phone calls and stated they wouldn’t be establishing any new methods for submitting materials that exceed the current 1000 character limit.
Furthermore, the FWO made it clear that they wouldn’t be accepting responsibility for the validity of any enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again.
Ms Booth: Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints has your office received about stolen wages from coalminers working for labour hire companies?
Ms Booth: We may or may not be able to give you that information right now, but I cannot. My staff may be able to assist. Ms Volzke, do you have those numbers?
Ms Volzke: I don’t have the exact number. The requests for assistance are low, but you know that we have had a number of formal investigations in relation to black coal mining employees.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Volzke, three requests for the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate worker underpayment under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award were sent to your office recently.
Ms Booth: We could ask Mr Scully if he has that information, as he’s the responsible person.
Mr Scully: As for your first question, the information I have before me is that, with respect to disputes received from employees or participants in the coalmining industry, in the 2022-23 financial year there were nine; in this current financial year to the end of March there were six.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include the recent ones I have learned about?
Mr Scully: Of the recent ones you are referring to, one was in October 2021, another was in April 2022 and another in June 2023. I understand that they would be included in those numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: I have learned of three others that were submitted. The Independent Workers’ Union of Australia submitted, I am told, via email address, three requests for the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate worker underpayment under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award, each of the three on behalf of an underpaid coalminer. That was in the last week.
Ms Booth: We wouldn’t that have data available yet because it wouldn’t have reached the status of an investigation; they would have to be triaged first. So that will be for another Senate estimates.
Ms Volzke: Senator, in relation to those most recent complaints, would I be able to ask about the date and time of the underpayments? Are we talking about historical, older underpayments?
Senator ROBERTS: It varies. Some are over extended years. I can give you some information. The miners whose assessments have been completed have given approval for their data to be shared, with individual names withheld. I can give you their Fair Work Ombudsman reference numbers. One is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3389142, years assessed 2013-18, and amount underpaid $121,000. That is for one man or maybe a woman; I know that there are women involved. Another is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3380088, years assessed 2013-21, and underpayment assessed at $104,000. A further one is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3380122; five years are listed, but he or she is still doing assessments for another three years, and the total there, so far, is $54,000, but it’s expected to top out at $85,000. These are not small amounts of money. My understanding is that many more miners are now applying for the Independent Workers Union of Australia to lodge complaints or, I think you call them, requests for investigation.
Ms Booth: Requests for assistance.
Ms Volzke: Senator, in relation to those matters, again, they traverse a period of time when we had the SAJER legislation passed, which was under the previous coalition government, and the Rossato decision; they sit over the top. Now we have the most recent legislation, and I think Minister Watt referred to one of those ‘same job same pay’ orders already having been made. All those matters that you raise still raise those core issues that we spoke about previously, when you and I met, I think, towards the beginning of last year, about the consequences of the black coal mining award not providing for casual employment. The statutory definition changes to casual employment that had retrospective effect—
Senator ROBERTS: Have you seen their request for investigation?
Ms Volzke: No. That’s just by the dates that you’ve given me; that’s all. Absolutely, we’ll look at those, but I’m saying that they traverse that same time period.
Mr Scully: Senator, we call it a request for assistance and, as you’ve indicated, if they’ve come in recently, they will not have got to me or Mr Ronson, who is also with us today. We will find where they are in our system and the circumstances regarding the requests for assistance.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are complainants limited to only 1,000 characters in their request for assistance or request for investigation—that’s about 130 words—in making a complaint about unfair work practices, including wage theft in the coalmining industry; why are they limited?
Ms Booth: I would imagine that is in order to have both a website that’s capable of being properly hosted and information capable of being absorbed. The full extent of information that’s provided to the Fair Work Ombudsman is not contained in those characters. That’s a commencement process and, thereafter, individuals who have made those communications with us would be spoken to.
Senator ROBERTS: Why does the Fair Work Ombudsman refuse to accept complaints that are more detailed than those that can fit within a 1,000-character limit?
Ms Booth: The area of technology is in Mr Campbell‘s purview. This will be entirely a technological matter, I’m thinking. Mr Campbell, are you able to say anything about the number of characters in our communications form?
Mr Campbell: I’m going to have to guess a little bit in my answer and I don’t like to do that in this forum. It depends on the channel through which the people you speak of have sought to engage with us. In certain channels we do have limited fields for the collection of information from customers. Normally, that goes to complaints through our anonymous inquiry facility. But through ‘my account’, where we would normally access most of our requests for assistance, there would be the ability to capture more information, and that’s normally because the person has given us all their information that we’ve sought and they’re seeking to provide us with further information to assist us in making an assessment of their RFA, or request for assistance. I’m not quite sure that they’re limited from writing more than the characters that you’ve said.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that they tried to make an application but couldn’t get beyond the bureaucratic brick wall of that 1,000-character limit, which is roughly 130 words. Why was there no email address on your website, other than one that the submitters are told relates to freedom of information requests? When they couldn’t get their material under the 130-word limit, they then looked for an email, and the only one they could find they used, and were told that it relates to freedom of information requests.
Ms Booth: Most of our requests for assistance come through a telephone contact. Of course, our 13-13-94 number gives no limit to the amount of information that can be conveyed, so that option perhaps in this case was not one that was undertaken by those people.
Senator ROBERTS: These are pretty intelligent people. I’m surprised that they did not see it.
Mr Campbell: I don’t know. I don’t want to speak to that, because I’d be making a judgement about their intelligence, and I can’t do that from here. But our request for assistance online lodgement capability seeks to authenticate the person who’s contacting us, so we know who they are and who we’re dealing with, and information about their circumstances, and that would include seeking them to detail their concerns to us. It’s not my recollection that’s limited. I’m happy to go and have a look because it would seem at odds with how we’re trying to collect information in the authenticated space. As I offered at the start, there is a facility for people to provide us with anonymous information about a workplace or circumstance, and that might have a limited character overlay on top of it, which might be where they’ve started, as compared to seeking to raise with us a request for assistance using online lodgement.
Senator ROBERTS: With, say, a document with 20, 30 or 40 pages of evidence—these people have a lot of evidence—even just taking a small slice of it, they were wondering initially how they would get that past that bureaucratic brick wall.
Mr Campbell: I don’t think there is a bureaucratic brick wall.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what they tell me.
Mr Campbell: Perhaps I could take it on notice and confirm it for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Ms Booth: As Fair Work Ombudsman, could I reassure the committee that there is no bureaucratic brick wall. If anything, the channels of communication into the Fair Work Ombudsman that I’ve observed, since I have been Fair Work Ombudsman, are many and varied, and there is no constraint on the amount of information that can be provided.
Senator ROBERTS: So you would refute any suggestion that the Fair Work Ombudsman is trying to make it impossible for workers to provide evidence?
Ms Booth: Absolutely, I would refute that.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a list, on notice, from Mr Campbell?
Mr Campbell: I’ll take that on notice and come back—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, a list of all the optional ways of getting through and maybe some assessment of whether it’s easy to identify those options; that is, whether it would be easy to find, for someone who lands on your website?
Mr Campbell: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: How should workers submit a complaint? How do workers communicate with you, and how do workers get through that 1,000-character limit? What are the options?
Ms Booth: Make a phone call. Ring 131394 and speak for as long as you like to a Fair Work adviser.
Senator ROBERTS: From there, you would say, ‘Send us the evidence’?
Mr Campbell: It would be allocated to an officer for assessment and determination about what further assistance we might be able to add or offer. If the circumstance, as depicted to us, warrants an intervention by an inspector, for example, it might be allocated to an inspector, who would then consider it, and they might seek further particulars from the customer or the complainant, depending on the circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: Would the Fair Work Ombudsman consider creating an email account where complainants, regarding wage theft, can lodge their complaints in full, with all documentation required to prove their complaint?
Mr Campbell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Mr Campbell: Because it’s an inefficient way to deal with disputes from customers.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is it inefficient?
Mr Campbell: Because they are unauthenticated contacts from a customer. Anyone can create an email address. We seek to create a picture of the customer so that we can determine how we can best assess them: understand award coverage, understand which sections of the Fair Work Act might be triggered by their circumstances, make a determination on their level or ability to self-resolve their workplace dispute and find out whether they’re still employed, the business that they work for and the customer details. We have a portal which is used daily and regularly, and very successfully, by thousands of individuals every year. It is consistent with every other regulator in the Commonwealth and probably at the state level, in terms of how they deal with volume complaints from their ‘regulator’ community.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman aware that the Senate has directed Minister Burke to investigate the multimillion-dollar wage theft—we estimate it to be over $1 billion in total—conducted against labour hire coalminers, where their 25 per cent casual loading was not paid and an average of more than $30,000 person per year was not paid?
Ms Booth: I am aware that a resolution of that nature was passed in the Senate, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that some miners have been underpaid $40,000 a year, person, for up to a decade?
Ms Booth: I have no comment on that.
Senator ROBERTS: The number of miners, we believe, is around 5,000 or more?
Ms Booth: No comment on that.
Senator ROBERTS: More than $1 billion in wages stolen, it’s estimated?
Ms Booth: Again, no comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Including an Australian subsidiary of the world’s largest labour hire company, Japan’s Recruit Holdings?
Ms Booth: These are matters that you’re asserting; I have no ability to verify them here, so I will not comment on them.
Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of some of the world’s largest multinational global mining companies?
Ms Booth: As indicated.
Senator ROBERTS: In collusion with the CFMEU, which enabled theft by illegal enterprise agreements, which the Fair Work Commission approved?
Ms Booth: Again, no comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman aware that the CFMEU Mining and Energy Union has recently admitted publicly, in circulars, that wage theft has occurred?
Ms Booth: I’m not aware of those alleged admissions in circulars, no.
Senator ROBERTS: They denied it for many years, when I was raising these issues. Now they’re admitting it publicly, in email newsletter form. They’re basically admitting it, and vindicating me in what I’ve been saying for five years, including the amounts owed. Why has the CFMEU Mining and Energy Union not applied for backpay?
Ms Booth: I can’t read the mind of the CFMEU.
Senator ROBERTS: Has it applied to the Fair Work Ombudsman for a ruling?
Ms Booth: A ruling?
Senator ROBERTS: An investigation. Has it made a complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman about underpayment?
Ms Booth: Not that I’m aware of. Mr Scully, as you previously heard, is responsible for that area.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems not; I would conclude not. That means they certainly haven’t applied for backpay. Perhaps mine workers are now joining the Independent Workers Union of Australia in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley because they’re finding that they can make applications for backpay.
Ms Booth: Again, I have no knowledge of that.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman, along with the Fair Work Commission, accept some responsibility for the massive stolen wage bill, an issue that I’ve been raising for almost five years?
Ms Volzke: We’re aware that the motion has been made and we understand that, in the evidence that was given yesterday, the department is considering their advice to the minister on that, and we will await that as well.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been dismayed—I won’t raise the names—that, on a number of occasions, the Fair Work Ombudsman has relied in Senate estimates hearings on documents that I have argued and documented as being fraudulent, as has Simon Turner, and I showed those documents to be fraudulent. Are you aware of that, Ms Booth?
Ms Booth: I’m aware of your assertions,
Senator ROBERTS. My observation is that the Fair Work Ombudsman assesses a request for assistance comparing workers’ actual payments received with their lawful entitlements under their work instruments. That is our obligation and that is what we do.
Ms Volzke: We provided a formal letter in relation to one of those complainants, under a letterhead dated 23 July 2023, about those allegations of fraudulent evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding of that letter is that it ignores documented evidence and decisions from other federal government agencies saying that the document that the Fair Work Ombudsman officers relied upon was not correct and was fraudulent; is that the same letter?
Ms Volzke: It is. It is, I think, about a six-page response, so I would consider it to be very thorough. The outcome of our investigation into that is included in that letter.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t agree that something is thorough or accurate just because it’s lengthy.
Ms Volzke: I would say that, in relation to the investigations that we have undertaken into a couple of individuals, which I’m sure you’re well aware of, I feel very confident that the Fair Work Ombudsman has undertaken an extremely comprehensive investigation in relation to all of those matters. I feel very confident in the outcomes. In terms of what the law is and what the legal outcome is, I feel very confident in those outcomes.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a copy of that letter dated 23 July 2023, please? That doesn’t have to be right here and now, but could we have that on notice.
Ms Volzke: Yes, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman continue to deny that the miners have been the victims of a massive fraud that labour hire companies have perpetrated?
Ms Volzke: Again, as the regulator, it’s our role to apply the law as it currently stands, including when an agreement has been approved as passing the BOOT by the Fair Work Commission. We apply that agreement. That’s exactly what we’ve done in relation to those investigations where there has been an agreement that has applied.
Senator ROBERTS: What about if the enterprise agreement is illegal?
Ms Volzke: I don’t think we should speculate around hypotheticals. We know of various cases, and I think in previous estimates we’ve spoken about them: the Warren case, One Key and another more recent one. The reality is that the legal effect of the Black Coal Mining Industry Award not providing for casual employment in operational roles has not been comprehensively argued or subject to submissions by any party, so there has not been an authoritative determination on that issue.
Ms Booth: I think it really is very important to understand the distinction between the role of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the role of the Fair Work Commission. Whatever we would like it to be is not in our purview; we look at what is, in terms of the law. We look at the law as it stands and not at how the law came into being or what it ought to be in the future.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We’re seeing what seems to me to be—and I’ve been advised that this is correct—criminal involvement of some CFMEU or Mining and Energy Union bosses who facilitate, enable and approve the wage theft through illegal enterprise agreements. I’ve asked Mr Campbell for the process that people can follow for various ways of applying. Could you also advise me of any ways that the Fair Work Ombudsman could consider to make the process easier. Maybe think about the perspective of someone making a complaint or a request, including what they would confront when they log on to your website and how that process could be made easier.
Mr Campbell: I’ve taken the questions on notice and I’ve undertaken to get you the information. I don’t want to open up the dialogue again; I’ve said yes, so I will do it.
I asked officials from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) if they were aware of the second reading amendment, which requires the government to investigate wage theft in the Hunter Valley. This issue could potentially involve up to $1 billion, impacting around 5,000 miners with losses estimated at $40,000 per person per year.
The officials confirmed their awareness but were unable to specify when the minister had been informed or if any plans or discussions had been initiated to advance the investigation.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My first set of questions relates to a recent Senate second reading motion to a Fair Work Act bill. The motion requires the government to conduct an investigation into massive wage theft occurring in the coalmining industry. I will read the motion. The part that is relevant states:
but the Senate:
(b) requires the Government to investigate claims that casual miners working under enterprise agreements in the black coal mining industry are, and have been, underpaid; and
(c) if underpayments are found to have occurred, facilitate the reimbursement of the underpayments;
Ms Yanchenko: Thanks. We’re certainly aware of that motion.
Senator ROBERTS: This is Australia’s largest wage theft case, totalling possibly over $1 billion and involving thefts of up to $40,000 per year per miner, stealing from 5,000 or more coalminers. When was the Senate’s second reading amendment to your government’s latest Fair Work Act amendment bill conveyed to the minister?
Mr Manning: I am not sure, in the sense that we wouldn’t necessarily have conveyed it to the minister.
Ms Yanchenko: We were watching along in real time.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you convey that to the minister?
Ms Yanchenko: I didn’t personally, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible to find out when the minister—
Mr Manning: When he first became aware of it?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Manning: We will have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That is fine. I don’t expect you to know everything; most things, but not everything. I take it then that no discussions have been held between the minister and the department?
Mr Manning: We are still thinking through our advice to the minister; so, no, not yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the department received or made any instructions?
Mr Manning: We haven’t yet given advice or a submission to the minister about the motion. We are still working through it.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t made any instructions to him or given him any advice?
Mr Manning: Not as yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Has Minister Burke discussed with you the nature of the investigation the Senate required him to make into wage theft involving Central Queensland and Hunter Valley miners?
Mr Manning: No, not yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Have any of your staff raised it with you?
Ms Wettinger: At this stage we haven’t discussed the matter with any of the minister’s staff, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Who do you expect will have a role in the investigation?
Mr Manning: It is too early to say. There is a long history to the matter—
Senator ROBERTS: A very long history.
Mr Manning: So that’s what we are considering in terms of getting ready for those discussions and that advice to the minister.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what would you expect of a fair and independent investigation?
Senator Watt: That it be fair and independent.
Senator ROBERTS: What would characterise a fair and independent investigation?
Senator Watt: I think everyone understands what those concepts mean. I know you have an interest in the conditions of coalminers. Have you caught up on the good news about the first decision or agreement resulting from our ‘Closing Loopholes’ laws?
Senator ROBERTS: I am aware that there is an agreement in application.
Senator Watt: I think there might even be a couple, actually.
Senator ROBERTS: I am aware of two.
Senator Watt: It is good news that we are seeing coalminers receive what they are entitled to as a result of our legislation. I don’t think you voted for that legislation, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll hear more about that. I have already told you why publicly, Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: It is delivering more money to coalminers.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll have more to ask you about that tomorrow, with glee.
