25/07/24 – My latest article in the Spectator Australia.
‘Blame Farage for the Tory wipe-out!’ Or so went the rather limp voices in the UK, grasping for excuses following the massacre of globalist politics led by Rishi Sunak.
The desire for sensible conservative and libertarian-minded policy is on the rise, as is the renewal of cultural affection and nostalgia for decades past which appear to us now as the last flush of sunset chased over the edge of Parliament by the long night of left-wing rule.
So, why didn’t the conservatives win? Why isn’t the UK preparing for an age of economic liberalism and spiritual restoration? Why is Keir Starmer – the most radical socialist in a hundred years – strutting around Westminster preening his flock of Marxists?
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/MinorParties.png?fit=787%2C523&ssl=1523787Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-13 09:51:492024-08-13 10:07:53Spectator Australia: Minor Parties Can Save the West
Senate Estimates: I asked Senator Watt what was being done to reduce net immigration.
The government’s planned reduction is insufficient. Cutting immigration is not enough. Temporary visa holders need to leave now.It’s time to put Australians first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are concise and straightforward, and hopefully the answers will be the same—so that the chair is not disappointed! In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m very, very sorry: you asked me whether we were talking about migration in outcome 2, and we are, but the matters you’re raising with those questions are relevant to outcome 3, and we’ll be dealing with that tomorrow.
Senator ROBERTS: There you go; you got an early night!
CHAIR: Do you have other questions? I thought there were more general questions about migration numbers. I apologise.
Senator ROBERTS: No.
CHAIR: I’ve listened to so many of your Senate speeches, Senator Roberts. I thought I was pre-empting your questions. But we will be here tomorrow to ask questions of Border Force particularly around those issues.
Senator ROBERTS: And also Immigration, I hope—Home Affairs?
CHAIR: There are other questions that might be relevant to outcome 2. If you want to put them, they might have the officials here for you.
Senator ROBERTS: No, these are to do with the legality of immigration.
Ms Foster: If I can help: because the questions relating to the High Court cover both outcome 2 and outcome 3, we typically try to cover them as a group together so we’re not saying, ‘We can answer a little bit of that and not the rest of it.’ But if there are more general questions on the migration program then we should be able to answer them for you tonight.
Senator ROBERTS: These are more to do with the legalities and what is happening about removing people.
CHAIR: They are related to the same cohort of questions—is that right?
Senator ROBERTS: I think they are.
CHAIR: They are related to the same issues.
Ms Foster: If they are related to the same cohort, it is probably sensible to do them tomorrow as a batch.
Senator ROBERTS: The same cohort and a similar cohort.
CHAIR: It sounds like we will be able to deal with them tomorrow.
Senator Watt: I predict there will be many questions around this issue in the morning. So you will be in good company.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps one might be covered off now—the last one I had. For visas requiring accommodation in 2019 it was 1.9 million people; in 2024, at the start of the year, it was 2.3 million plus students at over half a million, plus a higher percentage of non-productive people. Housing demand has been driven through the roof and prices and rents are skyrocketing. We are in a per capita recession and have been for three quarters. Minister, it appears to a lot of Australians that the government does not want to be tagged as the government who took us into recession so it is flooding the country with migrants to avoid a technical recession. Having said correctly that we’ve had three-quarters of a per capita recession, the government, to me, seems to be uncaring about the plight of Australians. In our state’s capital city there are people living under bridges, in cars and in caravans—and I’m talking about working families coming home with their two kids to sleep in a car. I don’t know where they go to the toilet and where they shower. We’ve got it right up the coast—not just in our capital city but right up the coast. The Labor government must remove visa holders. When will Labor resolve the housing crisis and stop the out-of-control and unsustainable growth of Australia’s population? We had 750,000 come in last year.
Senator Watt: I’m not sure that that 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. But the point really is that the government does believe that migration levels have been unsustainably high. We believe that that is a direct result of the failures of Mr Dutton and other coalition ministers to manage the migration program correctly. That is exactly why we have dramatically reduced the grants of international student visas and that is why we are on track to halve what is known as the net overseas migration figure by next financial year. If you look at the numbers, where they were when we came into office and post-COVID, we are on track to halve that figure by next financial year. I do not think the 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. What is known as the net overseas migration—
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t implying that was net; that was incoming.
Senator Watt: You also have to look at the number of people going out.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct; but 750,000 people coming in is a heck of a lot of people.
Senator Watt: Sure; I agree.
Senator ROBERTS: It is way above the previous record.
Senator Watt: Agreed. As I said, our government believes that migration has been too high. That’s why we’ve taken a range of steps to reduce it, and we are on track to achieve that target. On the point about housing—which is obviously a matter for a different committee—as I pointed out to you before, Senator Roberts, it would really help if we could get your vote in the Senate when we try to spend more money on housing. Unfortunately, so far, you haven’t—
Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have you built, Minister? Zero.
Senator Watt: We have committed about $32 billion worth of funding.
Senator ROBERTS: You have committed how much to housing? You have committed $20 billion to a housing future fund.
Senator Watt: Of the $32 billion that we have committed for housing, $10 billion was for the Housing Australia Future Fund, and unfortunately both you and Senator Hanson voted against that with the coalition.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want more bureaucracy; we want tradies to be set loose. That is why we did it.
Senator Watt: But the vote was about creating a housing fund and you voted against it. You voted for less spending on housing.
CHAIR: Senators, I don’t think the question is relevant to—
Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have been built in the last two years?
Senator Watt: You would probably need to go—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, your question—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; let’s come back to my question, as the chair is reminding us.
CHAIR: Minister, could you assist me in not speaking over me while I give Senator Roberts some direction. The question you have ultimately ended up asking is not relevant to this committee. That is probably why you have received a response of the kind Minister Watt has given you. If you have more questions in relation to migration, this is the outcome to put them. Otherwise, we will back tomorrow with outcome 3.
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Chair, this is calling out Senator Watt because he has not answered my question.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you say ‘with all due respect’ and then continue to talk over me when I have given you a direction as the chair to ask a relevant question, or I can give the call to someone else who has relevant questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The question for the minister is the same: when will the Labor government remove visa holders to ease the pressure on housing in this country?
Senator Watt: Sorry; are you saying that we should have zero migration to Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: We should have negative, until we get the housing pressure and the infrastructure to catch up.
Senator Watt: What do you mean by negative migration? Do you mean forcing people to leave?
Senator ROBERTS: More people who leave than come.
Senator Watt: The government’s policy is to halve the net increase in migration or net migration numbers by next financial year, and we are well on track to do that. We agree that we have a housing shortage in Australia. That’s why we’ve devoted so much money towards that project. We also recognise that we have a range of jobs and there are not enough people to fill them. If you speak to any building firm in Queensland, they will tell you they need more people. We are funding a lot of training of locals, but the reality is that we need some level of migration to fill those jobs. If you go to any aged-care facility in Queensland or anywhere in Australia—and I go to one pretty regularly to visit a family member—you will see lots of migrant workers there. Our aged-care system would collapse if we did what you suggested, which is stop migration. So it’s a balancing act to make sure that we don’t have too much migration in this country—as was occurring under the policy settings we inherited from the former government—while still making sure that we can deliver the workforce that we need.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, isn’t it true that, under John Howard’s prime ministership, immigration was dramatically increased and it has stayed high since then under both parties—both Labor and Liberal and National party governments?
Senator Watt: My recollection is that the major change under the Howard government was a big shift towards temporary migration. I don’t know what the overall figures were under the Howard government.
Senator ROBERTS: I think it went from 80,000 to over 130,000. Then it went up under the Rudd-Gillard, and the subsequent LNP governments to over 230,000 net. What are you proposing for next year?
Senator Watt: We are proposing that net overseas migration next financial year would in the order of 260,000.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s still very, very high.
Senator Watt: It’s about half of what it was a year or so ago.
Senator PATERSON: This year?
Ms Foster: In 2022-23.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Watt, I could say that you are much taller than me. That’s not saying much!
Senator Watt: A competition of the shortest men in parliament! Let’s put Senator Farrell in there as well. Senator Ghosh, do you qualify?
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that 250,000 is still a lot.
Senator Watt: But we’re big in heart, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: But 250,000 is a lot. It may be half, but it is still very, very high and it is putting a lot of pressure on housing.
Senator Watt: I agree; which, again, is why we—
Senator ROBERTS: Do we agree?
Senator Watt: I agree that migration has been too high and it is putting pressure on housing, which is why we would have really liked your vote for the Housing Australia Future Fund—which is another committee.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to stay on immigration.
CHAIR: Me too.
Senator Watt: There are two parts of the equation. It is about immigration and—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right: you’re driving up the demand for housing.
Senator Watt: If we had more homes we mightn’t have such an issue with migration numbers. But we don’t have the homes and that’s what we’re trying to fix. But we are halving migration numbers. International student grants in April were down 38 per cent on last year’s levels. We’ve taken a whole range of other actions to crack down on some of the rorts in the migration system that were left behind by Mr Dutton and his colleagues. But, equally, as I say, if you want to have people look after your family members in aged care, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to build the homes, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to work in hospitals, they are not all going to come locally. If we actually said, ‘Close the door entirely to migration,’ you will have a lot of people waiting to get into emergency departments and into aged-care homes et cetera.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the state our country is in right now. Are you going to build 250,000 new homes next year to accommodate the 250,000 new people coming in?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I have given you direction about whether those questions are relevant to this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: How is 250,000 new net migrants a low number simply because it is half of what the previous one was? It’s not; it is a very high number.
Senator Watt: The departmental officials could probably take you through the work that was undertaken to determine that figure. I would be confident that, in developing that figure, they took into account the need to reduce migration and the pressure on the housing system, but also the workforce needs of hospitals, aged-care facilities, construction firms, et cetera. It would be interesting to know what the opposition did to arrive at the various different figures we’ve heard from them. I don’t know if anyone from the opposition here can tell us what their policy actually is.
CHAIR: They’re not here to give evidence, Minister Watt. They are here to ask questions.
Senator Watt: But a lot of work has gone in from the government’s side to come up with the right figure.
CHAIR: Is that the end of your questions, Senator Roberts?
As inflation rages on, the Government is making money out of it through “Bracket Creep” – collecting more taxes.
I moved an amendment to a bill so that tax thresholds are indexed to inflation, meaning you won’t pay more tax because of inflation. Predictably, the major parties voted it down. They rely on squeezing more and more tax out of you and making money out of inflation.
This clip from the Centre for Independent Studies is a great explainer on how “Bracket Creep” works so that the Government benefits from inflation at your expense.
A powerful Senate Inquiry established into the Defence medals system has opened for submissions.
The inquiry initiated by my motion will investigate potentially illegal medals awarded to senior Defence officers, the experiences of ADF personnel and potential improvements to the Defence Awards and Honours system.
Some people ask why the union would screw over workers like they have with casual coal miners. One explanation could be the $48 million in payments flowing from the labour hire company to the union.
During this Senate Estimate session, I raised concerns about the complexity of donation laws and transparency issues, citing that the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) received significant money from Abelshore, a subsidiary of coal company Glencore, where the union also donates to the Labor Party. Despite $48 million being transferred, the original source, Glencore, is not visible in the Labor Party’s declarations.
Mr Rogers admitted he had not reviewed the specific return in question but said that it was the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) role to ensure that current legislation is adhered to. Further, Mr Rogers noted that if there are issues with transparency or adherence to the law, it is the responsibility of Parliament to amend the legislation, not the AEC. He agreed to review the details once they were provided to him.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Maybe you could elaborate on some of the issues faced with getting a clear picture when it comes to donation law, a really complex situation. The returns for the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union for 2022 and 2023 show they donated huge sums to the Labor Party. The CFMMEU has received more than $39 million from a company called Abelshore, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of coal company Glencore. In 2021-22 they donated $9 million, so over two years they donated $48 million donated by Glencoreowned companies to the CFMMEU, to the Labor Party. So you have tens of millions, $48 million as I said, flying from a coal company through a subsidiary, through a union to the Labor Party but the coal company does not show up in the returns to the Labor Party. Can you explain the difficulties in finding out where the money was originally coming from on the returns that are lodged?
Mr Rogers: First of all, I have not seen that particular return, so I would have to take it on notice and have a look but I am not aware that any of that breaches the existing legislation. Our role is to adhere to the legislation, promote the legislation, ensure that agencies are adhering to that. As you know, the whole funding and disclosure issue is the most complex part of the Electoral Act. It is highly technical. As long as those entities are meeting their obligations for transparency under the act, and I have no information that they are not—I would have to look at that specific issue in detail—as long as they are within the legislation, changing that legislation is a matter for parliament rather than the AEC, which I know you are aware of, and it is something we were discussing earlier this evening. I would have to have a look at in detail.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, we will send you a copy. It is on a register from the CFMMEU, I think I said. That is an awful lot of money to be hidden and it is not deliberately hidden. Perhaps it is inadvertently hidden. I think the intent is deliberate because it seems a bit strange that money is going from a coal company to a mining union to the Labor Party.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Rx2EAtaD-Ew/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-12 18:54:482024-08-12 18:54:53Exposed: 48 Million Reasons to Screw Over Workers
Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton replied to an interviewer, calling for the public to dob in loved ones, friends, or workmates who have changed their opinion of the Government for the worse to ASIO. After facing backlash on social media, I expected the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks, but he has yet to do so.
His advocacy for Australians to report their fellow Australians to ASIO for expressing concerns about government COVID measures—which destroyed lives, health and families—is deeply troubling.
We are witnessing police actions in Canada and the UK where merely attending a protest rally, without any violent actions, is grounds for arrest and imprisonment. Is this a glimpse into the future under the Liberal Party?
Transcript
Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton, in a media interview, made a comment we expected he would clarify but he hasn’t. In the interview, the interviewer said:
“We saw the terror threat raised to Probable yesterday. But there are multiple fronts now.
One of those fronts that I found most interesting has come out of Covid. There’s the conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers … what does it say to you about government overreach, and government, essentially, controlling people’s lives and the effects that that can have?”
Peter Dutton’s answer:
“None of that, though, should give rise to the sort of conduct that you’re referring to. I would say to anybody in our community, whether it’s within your friendship group, your family group, the work group, whatever it might be, where you see somebody’s behaviour changing, regardless of their motivation, or if they’ve changed radically their thoughts about society and government … you need to report that information to ASIO, or to the Australian Federal Police as a matter of urgency”.
In 1997, in the legal case Lange v the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the High Court found:
Under a legal system based on the common law, everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law, so that one proceeds upon an assumption of freedom of speech and turns to the law to discover the established exceptions to it.
To protect human life, free speech stops at incitement to violence against others and at incitement to break the law.
Free speech does not stop, as Peter Dutton suggests, merely at criticisms of others. Advocating that Australians be dobbed into ASIO for venting about government COVID measures, destroying their lives, health and families is a tone-deaf disgrace. In Canada and the UK right now, police response to criticism of the government is underway. Mere attendance at a protest rally without any violent words or actions is now enough to be arrested and imprisoned. Is this a glimpse of the future everyday Australians will endure under the supposedly honourable men and women of the Liberal Party, under an opposition leader who has come to bury Menzies, not to praise Menzies. I call on the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks immediately.
Question: Where are One Nation’s preferences going this election? Answer: Wherever YOU out them!
A great thread below from @actualAlexJames (X) explaining how preferences work. In short, mark One Nation 1 and then decide where you want your preferences to go.
Transcript
I must have heard it a hundred times now “Don’t vote for One Nation because they give their preferences to Labor!” or “watch out who you vote for, Katters gave their preferences to such and such!”. This is a myth and is simply untrue. Let me explain why.
As we all know Australian voting is not the typical first past the post voting style that a stereotypical democracy would have, instead, we have a preferential voting system. This means that in Australia, an elected official is not decided simply by getting more votes than the others in a typical sense. Instead, it’s a form of instant runoff voting.
You have to number each candidate based on how much you would prefer them to be in office. Imagining that there are only three choices, If you vote 1 for PHON, then 2 for LNP, then 3 for labor, that would mean that if the LNP and the labor candidate received more votes than the PHON candidate, then your vote will be redistributed to LNP. By the end of the election. Your vote will have been a vote for LNP. Add in more candidates and the process is the same until it is between only two candidates to decide the winner.
Therefore, your vote will end up exactly where you decided for it to go based off of the total votes of your electorate. But in the end, you decided possibilities of where your vote actually goes.
“But One Nation gave their preferences to Labor last election!”
This type of statement is just blatantly untrue, but here’s why people fall for this idea. I read an article sent to me by someone who was trying to convince me of this and it helped me to understand where this myth comes from. Essentially what it boils down to is media misrepresentation. Which by the way, is another reason why the misinformation disinformation bill, which would allow for this misinformation to continue, is so incredibly dangerous.
The media article essentially used wordplay to paint the picture that One Nation gave their preferences to labor. As in your vote. What actually happened, at least sneakily implied by this article, is One Nation put labor above LNP on their “how to vote card”. This is a card that is given to pretty much every voter at the voting booths where the volunteers are. Usually, people chuck this out because they are annoyed that they have to vote.
This card is the representation of what that party giving you the card would prefer you to vote for. It is a recommendation only. One Nation “preferencing” labor in that electorate would have been a form of strategy used because they had high reservations when it came to the LNP candidate. Essentially the LNP candidate would have been seen by One Nation in that area at that time as being worse than the Labor one for their interests.
They did not actually give Labor any votes.
They did not send your vote to Labor.
They would have only recommended that their supporters preference labor higher than usual in that area. Only the voter has control over that, you don’t have to listen to them, you don’t have to follow a “how to vote card”.
All votes are decided by the voter. NOT by any party. Your vote will end up where it does based on your numbering decisions.
Politics is a ruthless game. And politicians, parties, the government, the media, and influencers will strategize according to their own interests in order to get the outcome they want. This is not always as simple as a politician wanting to get elected. It may even mean running a candidate that they don’t want elected in a certain area in order to lessen or strengthen another for example.
Also, the media would love, I’m sure, to continue the myth that parties decide preferences simply so people lose trust in the party that they typically associate with the fake practice.
No one controls your vote. Your decision will not be changed by any party. Only the voter can decide preferences. This idea of parties giving away your preferences is a myth. Bookmark this post and share it so you can show others when you see them spreading this myth.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/MMLzVgbYI58/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-12 11:23:542024-09-23 16:24:03Can a Party Give MY Preferences to Another Party? The Myth Debunked!
We don’t have four banks and two supermarkets in this country. We have one predatory group of foreign investors hiding behind different logos.
BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others own large portions of the banks and supermarkets that are ripping Australians off the most.
Transcript
So, why does that happen? Why are foreign companies getting let off the hook? I’ll tell you why. It’s because many of even our large Australian companies are part-owned and controlled by foreign corporations. The major predators are BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. They own the four banks, sorry they own 10 per cent of the four banks combined and they own the controlling interest. They tell the banks what to do—BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others in that little cohort of multinational predatory organisations. We don’t have four main banks. We have one main bank that is hiding behind four logos. That’s what we have. Same policies, same principles, same strategies, same products, same services.
Coles and Woolies, again, Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard. Go right through our corporations in this country. The corporations we thought were Australian owned, they’re foreign owned and controlled, and where does the money go? The profit goes overseas and what did the Morrison government do, along with the state premiers? Loaded it up so that foreign multinationals owning the large companies in this country made a killing out of COVID at the expense of small companies and small businesses.
News broke earlier this week of Universities being accused of handing out degrees to foreign students who can’t even pass basic English courses. Australian universities generate huge revenue from foreign students and are heavily dependent on this income. Meanwhile, Australian students are required to complete group assignments with these students who can’t even speak basic English.
I don’t want the education of Australian students sacrificed so that universities can make huge amounts of money from international students. It’s time to bring them into line and enforce basic English standards.
In a recent senate estimate session, I raised questions about the massive purchase of 267 million COVID-19 vaccine doses for Australia’s 27 million population. Despite only using a fraction of these doses, concerns remain about transparency and cost efficiency of that purchase.
Bureaucrats state that there was a need for a diverse vaccine portfolio and future supplies, yet exact delivery figures remain undisclosed due to commercial sensitivities. 👂 Listen as they sidestep the questions.
The question remains, was the expenditure justified and how much has actually been delivered.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?
Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money.
Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.
Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?
Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?
Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?
Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?
Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.
Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.
Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?
Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.
Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—
Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.
Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.
Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.
