I was surprised and overjoyed to hear that the Australian Federal Police will be dropping their vaccine mandate, which has been in place for more than three years. The facts about COVID vaccines are becoming increasingly clear and hard to ignore.
I only wish they had recognised these facts earlier, sparing their dedicated employees, who want nothing more than to do their jobs properly and with care, the unnecessary hell they faced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: This is just a comment in your support that’s not requiring an answer. You have police stationed overseas as well, so it’s a far-ranging jurisdiction. Is it fair to say that a lot of your officers might be working harder to cover more work than they used to?
Ms Van Gurp: Certainly, the complexity and volume of our work is up; that’s correct. We put a lot of effort into our operational prioritisation through our A-TACC and how we prioritise our workforce resources across those changing priorities day-to-day to make sure that we’re delivering outcomes for the Australian community.
Senator ROBERTS: You mandated compulsory COVID vaccinations through the commissioner’s order 10 in 2021, and you reiterated it in 2022. In 2024, you’re still mandating it, despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s not needed or necessary. Why are you still forcing good people who want to do good police work to sit on the sidelines over what they choose to put in their body?
Ms Gale: I might start the response and then hand over to the acting chief operating officer again. What I would say in relation to that particular policy, which is currently a commissioner order, is that we are in the process of revoking that particular order. The COO can talk to the governance arrangements that we’ll be undertaking while we go about the process of revocation, but I can assure you that we are in the process of revoking that particular order.
Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like a decision has been made.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/YvT5xYEZgJM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 15:38:002024-12-20 12:10:33Huge Win! Federal Police to Drop Vaccine Mandate
During this session, basic answers were provided, but little interest was shown in understanding the potential environmental catastrophe at hand. I was simply referred to the department’s submission to the fire ant inquiry. When I posed questions, Officials showed minimal interest in providing answers. They frequently redirected questions to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and appeared unaware of the gravity of the issues raised. Some of the questions were taken on notice, but I was offered little substantive information.
It was clear that they were not fully informed on their responsibilities and showed little genuine concern for environmental protection.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to ask questions about fire ant treatment in Queensland. Are you aware of the many complaints that have been made about the administration of the National Fire Ant Eradication Program in Queensland, which has already resulted in massive environmental damage in the Samford Valley near Brisbane, but it also concerns residents in Currumbin, Boonah, Gatton and other places in South-East Queensland?
Dr Fraser : The Australian government lead for the National Fire Ant Eradication Program is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. So, while I’m aware of some of those complaints and, broadly, on stakeholder interest in this really important issue, for some of those more detailed questions you may get some more comprehensive responses from that department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been in touch with RRAT, and I’m going to be asking questions of them tomorrow for the reasons you just mentioned, but I’d like to continue because this is an environmental matter. It’s a catastrophe in the making. Is the aerial dumping of toxic insecticide by helicopter into a creek system a breach of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999? This is exactly what has happened recently into Dawson Creek and Samford Valley, which I visited and sighted, and there’s no life in the creek.
Dr Fraser : I’m not aware of whether that’s an issue under the EPBC Act or of the specifics of that. What I would say is that the treatments that are used in the fire ant eradication program are specifically targeted to those ants, and they’re approved by the APVMA, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, who conduct a very rigorous scientific assessment prior to those approvals.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve seen what they’ve done in Dawson Creek and Samford Valley. It’s wiped it out. There’s nothing moving in the creek, nothing at all—no life. We’ve had similar complaints in other areas. Are you aware that independent water testing of the creek showed massive toxic pollution of the local waterways, not due to previous pollutants or other pollutants?
Dr Fraser : Again, I’m not familiar with the details of these issues. They’ll be best handled by the agriculture department.
Senator ROBERTS: Will this government halt the funding of the dangerous spraying of chemicals into our waterways until at least an independent environmental risk assessment is completed? I guess that’s a question for the minister.
Senator McCarthy: I’ll certainly take on notice your concerns in regard to Dawson Creek. What I can say is our government would never want to pollute any particular area with any ill will. I think—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no doubt of that at all.
Senator McCarthy: So I just want to go back to the assertion in your question.
Senator ROBERTS: There is no assertion whatsoever.
Senator McCarthy: Okay, thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: All I want to know is will you stop the funding that’s polluting Dawson Creek and other areas until an independent environmental risk assessment is completed?
Senator McCarthy: I can take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: According to residents, there are serious conflicts of interest with the previous Queensland government. Dr Fraser, why was the program allowed to distribute huge quantities of poison into pristine environment with no environmental risk assessment completed beforehand, and why is it funded?
Dr Fraser : To take your last question first, the program has been funded because red imported fire ants are one of the world’s worst invasive ant species. If this species remains unchecked in the South-East Queensland area and beyond, it could cover up to 97 per cent of Australia. It would wipe out huge numbers of birds, mammals and other species and cause enormous destruction to agricultural industry throughout Australia, human health and infrastructure. It is possibly one of the worst invasive species Australia has experienced, and the overseas experience is those catastrophic impacts I just spoke about. Hence, the commitment of the Australian government and the increased funding commitment by the Australian government to deal with this pest.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice and provide us with the evidence backing up what you just said, please? We’ve got very concerned residents in my home state, and they have talked to people overseas, including people in Texas—fire ants are now quite common across the United States—and there’s very little damage at all. So if you could just take it on notice to provide me with the evidence to back up your claim.
Dr Fraser : I don’t need to take that on notice. We have provided information on that, including scientific references in our department’s submission to the red imported fire ant inquiry, and we also appeared as witnesses at that inquiry as well. So that information is on the public record as part of our submission, but it is much more broadly on the public record and documented in the scientific literature, including for the United States.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware of the damage to the environment that’s already occurred through the mismanagement of this program in Queensland?
Dr Fraser : No, I’m not.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that 21 years ago there was one fire ant nest at the port of Brisbane and now they are in Northern New South Wales and all over South-East Queensland?
Dr Fraser : I’m not familiar with that.
Senator ROBERTS: The program is failing.
Dr Fraser : The program has been hugely successful in limiting the spread of red imported fire ants from the South-East Queensland region. The rate of spread in Australia is miniscule compared to the rate of spread in countries like China and the US, where this species is wreaking havoc.
Senator ROBERTS: How does spraying toxic chemicals in valleys with no fire ant nests helping to stop the spread of fire ants?
Dr Fraser : I’m not aware of those detailed accusations.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the dead wildlife—including native ants and whole hives of bees—illness to pets and the massive loss of the marine life yabbies in the creek that have already occurred since baiting commenced?
Dr Fraser : No, I’m not.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the threats to human health posed by these chemicals used to treat land?
Dr Fraser : No, I’m not, but I am aware of the threats posed to human health posed by red imported fire ants.
Senator ROBERTS: People have water tanks—they’re not on the reticulated water system—that use their roof. They’ve got toxins on their roof. Spraying over houses with humans in them. This is what’s going on.
Dr Fraser : Again, I’m not familiar with these issues, and I would also not claim that toxic chemicals do not have impacts beyond the target species; however, it’s a risk management approach that is taken in dealing with these invasive species.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the risk management include sloppy and indiscriminate helicopter usage?
Dr Fraser : You’re aware that I won’t know the answer to that question.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that S-methoprene is not approved for use in the UK, because of high-risk environmental concerns?
Dr Fraser : I’m not, but, as I’ve stated, I’m not an expert in these matters.
Senator ROBERTS: What compensation will be made for the damage already caused by this ill-considered program.
Dr Fraser : I don’t know.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are properties in Queensland and many valleys still being poisoned when it has been established that there are no fire ants present?
Mr Knudson : A number of your questions go to the implementation of this program, which, as Dr Fraser has laid out, is a program of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We’re just not positioned to give you informed answers on those questions.
Senator ROBERTS: This has become an environmental issue, with all due respect, Mr Knudson. That’s why I’m asking questions here as well as Agriculture.
Mr Knudson : What Dr Fraser has laid out is, ‘Here’s the environmental risk et cetera,’ but the specifics on the implementation of the program are a matter for the department of agriculture. I’m just trying to say I think your energy and effort would be best focused on the department of agriculture.
Senator ROBERTS: I have plenty of energy—tonnes of energy!
Mr Knudson : I have seen that many times.
Senator ROBERTS: What we’ll be doing is going into Agriculture and holding them accountable as well, but this is an environmental catastrophe—a human catastrophe.
Mr Knudson : That’s what Dr Fraser has laid out that. We’re not saying that there are no impacts from the program; what we are saying is that it’s a really significant environmental issue that we’re trying to contain. What Dr Fraser has laid out is that there is significant evidence that the program has been effective in containing the growth and spread of red fire ants.
Senator ROBERTS: Residents in Queensland would disagree. Let me ask my last two questions. Given that the eradication of fire ants has failed over the last 30 years in Australia and we have spent almost a billion dollars, is it time to stop this program and try to find another, environmentally safe and responsible management solution?
Dr Fraser : The program hasn’t failed. The program has been successful in curtailing the spread of red imported fire ants by any measure, including against overseas measures.
Senator ROBERTS: Which department appropriates the money to Queensland, and what monitoring and audit measures are there?
Dr Fraser : There are extensive monitoring and auditing measures. As for which department appropriates the money to Queensland, that would be a question for the department of agriculture.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/YrjEBRrZRsQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 15:36:002025-07-02 15:47:53Officials Shrug Off Fire Ant Concerns: Little Interest, Few Answers!
The government is trying to rush through the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill at all costs. It seems they’ve seen this week what happens to their side of politics when voters are presented with the facts and are allowed to make their own decisions.
Despite the government’s claims, it’s not out of the ordinary to talk about Bills at Senate Estimates. I’ll be at the hearing on Monday with my questions.
(And Heston Russell hasn’t received an apology from the ABC for their misinformation).
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: ACMA is appearing in the committee hearing on Monday?
Ms O’Loughlin: With my colleagues on Monday, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll do it then. That’s fine. I want to look at a particular case study. It is the case of special forces veteran Heston Russell. The ABC said it was inadvertent and that it wasn’t a calculated, deliberate manipulation. They deny manipulating a video to make it look like multiple gunshots were fired at a person. Heston Russell was a victim of disinformation from the ABC. Under the proposed misinformation and disinformation laws, the ABC would be exempt from punishment by spreading disinformation. Correct?
Ms O’Loughlin: I don’t think I can form a view on that, Senator.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I think this goes to the point Senator Grogan was making. You are really asking how the bill will operate in practice. This is a question that has been referred to this committee. You have scheduled hearings to deal with it on Monday.
Senator ROBERTS: I think that is drawing a long bow, Minister, but I’m happy to leave it until Monday.
Senator McAllister: It is an unusual Senate rule, but it is a very longstanding one, Senator. It has been like this the whole time we’ve been here together.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. As I’ve said, I will comply with it for the other questions. I didn’t think that one was about—
Ms O’Loughlin: The only thing I would add to that is that obviously the ABC needs to comply with its own code of practice around things like factual accuracy.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. And we’ve seen how that goes. This is my final question. It is about the digital restack. I looked through your annual work program report and found this comment regarding the digital television channel restack. I quote:
Exploring possible parameters and solutions for channel planning relevant to possible new shared multiplex arrangements. This work will provide evidence to inform any future restack—
The restack was to be a closing up of digital TV channels. This sounds like you have something else in mind for the sixth channel, the gap between each station. What is the plan for the restack now?
Ms O’Loughlin: The Minister for Communications gave a speech a couple of weeks ago at our RadComms conference. They were talking about a program of work that needed to be done around the future of television. Her emphasis in that was that free-to-air television is incredibly important in Australia because it reaches 99 per cent of the population. It is free to air. How is that going to evolve over the next 10 years? Will it be terrestrially driven or will some of it go online? The minister was talking about a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including the broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs. It is looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed. A small part of that is what happens to the spectrum that may be freed up over that process. Part of our job is what that might be and when that might occur. The annual report says that requires channel planning. A whole lot of spectrum planning would have to be done to facilitate any movement of the broadcasters and the freeing up of that spectrum over time.
Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean in English, so that people can understand? What is the reality? You have said managed and staged, which indicates to me that it is more than just a premonition of an idea that something might happen. Something is happening.
Ms O’Loughlin: The minister’s announcement was about some things that have happened recently. For example, in Mildura, the Channel 10 services were turned off because the local providers who provided that service didn’t think it was financially feasible to continue it. It has an impact on consumers. WIN has made some changes to its arrangements in other parts of the country, where it is sharing its own infrastructure. That has an implication. That has actually not affected those audiences very well. I think what the minister is saying is that if there is going to be an end state where broadcasting wants to go, we need to think about all the steps that have to take place for that to get there effectively. That is what is alluded to. There is what is called a future broadcasting working group, which the minister has asked to be reinvigorated, to start thinking about these issues for the next 10 or 15 years, not the next two or three.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/LJdwtiCtx98/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 15:35:002024-12-20 11:45:39Government Ducks for Cover on Misinformation and Disinformation Bill
Coal LSL has been underperforming since I commenced in the Senate in 2019. It appears Coal LSL has been receiving levies from as many as 33 companies that were not required to pay them. These funds were then paid to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and reimbursed to Coal LSL, contrary to Section 83 of the Constitution.
DEWR identified the error and notified Coal LSL in April 2023, during the 2022/23 financial year, however Coal LSL had not disclosed this in the 2022/23 Annual Report. The amount collected unnecessarily from these companies is estimated to be around $460,000.
Ms. Perks indicated that investigations are ongoing to reconcile the error and arrange for the repayment of these overpayments.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. Here we go again. My questions are very short. They involve Coal LSL or your interaction with Coal LSL. Is it true that the Coal LSL annual report for 2022-23 states that no compliance issues were reported to the minister?
Senator Watt: I know Coal LSL will be appearing later tonight. I’ll just check whether we’re in a position to answer those questions now, or whether we might need to deal with them later.
Mr Manning: We’re just waiting for one of our colleagues to come from the waiting room downstairs. I don’t know the answer in relation to the annual report and any qualifications completely, but as I understand it there were none in relation to section 83 of the Constitution.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to take you to page 101 of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report 2022-23, which says:
Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ for the purposes of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992. If so, payment of amounts equivalent to the levy by the department to Coal LSL in relation to those entities would likely have been made in contravention of s 83 of the Constitution.
Mr Manning: Yes, and that was the point I was getting to. Because of the way the money is collected under that scheme, a levy that’s collected is done by Coal LSL acting as an agent of the Commonwealth—because only the Commonwealth can levy taxation—and then goes into consolidated revenue. Then the same amounts go back out to allow Coal LSL, no longer acting as agent of the Commonwealth, to pay money for the purposes for which it exists. In the circumstances of section 83, it would technically be the Commonwealth, as represented by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, who, if there is a breach, has committed that breach. That’s why it’s in our annual report.
Senator ROBERTS: I guess I’m concerned because—what you’ve said in your report is accurate, I presume:
Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ …
So they shouldn’t have taken that money.
Mr Manning: My understanding is there is a small number of employers who are not national system employers from whom the levy shouldn’t have been collected.
Senator ROBERTS: The report says:
Coal LSL has assured the department that it is conducting further investigations to confirm how many entities may have incorrectly paid levy and quantify any corresponding amounts that have been paid by the Commonwealth without a valid appropriation.
It looks like the money has been collected from individual entities by Coal LSL, sent to you and then it has gone back as a lump sum. Is it true that you have confirmed that the information relating to Coal LSL in your annual report is correct?
Mr Manning: That’s our understanding. I might just ask my colleagues, who have now been able to join us, if they have anything to add to that. As I understand it, the issues are still being worked through between the department and Coal LSL.
Mr Kerr: What my colleague Mr Manning has said is correct. Our understanding is that Coal LSL may have mistakenly received levy payments from employers who do not meet the definition of ’employer’ under the scheme. Mr Manning has correctly described the money flows—essentially, the amounts collected by Coal LSL flow in and out of the consolidated revenue fund in the department. That’s the standard approach for taxation revenues that all go in to CRF. As a result, that’s led to a section 83 breach that we have disclosed in our annual report. So all of that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I find Mr Manning is usually pretty correct.
Mr Kerr: Indeed.
Mr Manning: Thank you; I’m always appreciative of the confirmation that I’ve got it right.
Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t even nervous while he was saying it. You weren’t waiting on the edge of your seat. How did the department become aware of these serious issues when it was not identified in Coal LSL’s annual report?
Mr Kerr: I believe we became aware of it in the context of considering some legislative amendments to the scheme.
Senator ROBERTS:When was the breach first detected?
Mr Kerr: I believe it was in April 2023.
Senator ROBERTS: Who identified the likely breach of section 83 of the Constitution? Was it Coal LSL or DEWR?
Mr Kerr: No, it was the department.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the outcome so far of the investigation into this matter?
Mr Kerr: The department has been working with Coal LSL to seek to clarify the scope of the problem. I understand that Coal LSL has undertaken some assurance activities to review the current active registered employers to identify affected entities, which is not an entirely straightforward endeavour.
Senator ROBERTS:Nothing much is straightforward in Coal LSL.
Mr Kerr: Indeed. As part of that review, Coal LSL has updated its records and introduced some new procedures to mitigate the risk of new ineligible employers being onboarded, and probably Coal LSL is best placed to speak to that later.
Senator ROBERTS: We will be tonight.
Mr Kerr: From the department’s point of view, we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other relevant Commonwealth agencies to try and clarify the scope of the issue and settle a way forward to resolve it.
Senator ROBERTS:So you’re still clarifying the scope.
Mr Kerr: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS:How was it detected? You said it was while doing some legislative enhancements.
Mr Kerr: Yes. The department was considering some potential legislative amendments to the scheme.
Senator ROBERTS: To the Coal LSL legislation?
Mr Kerr: Yes, correct.
Senator ROBERTS: In what year?
Mr Kerr: In 2023. In the course of that, we were considering the operation of the scheme and uncovered this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your diligence. What checks and balances does the department have in place to confirm that the payroll levy taxes collected are true and correct?
Mr Kerr: The department has obtained legal advice in relation to this matter, but to a large degree we rely on the information provided by Coal LSL with respect to the amounts of levy collected. As we are required to do under section 36 of the Coal Administration Act, the Commonwealth role here is really to withdraw amounts equivalent to the levy collected by Coal LSL out of CRF and pay it back to them, with the effect being that the amount collected ultimately ends up in the Coal LSL fund. So, from the department’s point of view, we rely quite heavily on the information provided by Coal LSL about those amounts.
Senator ROBERTS: What is DEWR doing to remedy this breach? I know you said that you rely a lot on Coal LSL; I understand that.
Mr Kerr: The consequences of a section 83 breach are dealt with in some guidance put out by the Department of Finance. Essentially, what an entity is required to do if concerned that an appropriation may have been spent in breach of section 83 is to conduct an appropriate risk assessment which may include legal advice, which we have done, and also to undertake a section 83 breach disclosure, which we’ve also done in the annual report that you just referred to.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s not much you can do in regard to prevent it happening again.
Mr Kerr: I think I’d say that we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other Commonwealth agencies, including the Department of Finance, to confirm which employers and employees have been affected and the options for addressing these.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’m asking for an opinion now. Was this disaster another example of Coal LSL’s incompetent best or an indication of the loose way that Coal LSL uses other people’s entitlements, and that has not started since Labor came into office; that’s preceding Labor coming into office. I’m heartened by what Mr Manning and Mr Kerr said.
Senator Watt: Technically, we can’t give opinions but—
Senator ROBERTS: Ministers can. That’s why I asked the minister.
Senator Watt: Me, have opinions? Look, we support the work of the Coal LSL agency. Obviously, the department is taking you through a range of issues that are being considered and we’re supportive of that work as well.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems DEWR has done its due diligence and done the job. I’m very concerned because—Coal LSL, at its core—the key issue we exposed in 2019. It took a long time for the government to say, ‘Okay, we finally agree with you.’ It took a lot of things to come out and I’m not sure it’s been fixed yet. Thank you, Chair.
In this Senate Estimate session, I asked questions regarding helicopter pilot safety procedures and was informed about the minimum heights required for flying over residential areas, along with general safety protocols.
I also learned about the process for filing complaints and the types of evidence that would be helpful to confirm any reported breaches. The CASA representatives were quite helpful and informative.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s do some safety related questions. Thank you for the copies of the permits with regard to helicopter flying and dispersion of chemicals. How low may a helicopter fly to distribute insecticide over a property?
Ms Spence: I might refer that to my colleague.
Mr Campbell: It can vary, but generally, for dispensing operations, it can be as low as 300 feet, or lower if it’s crop spraying.
Senator ROBERTS: What about in a hilly valley?
Mr Campbell: The pilots would have to take that into account. When they do dropping operations, they always do a risk assessment, and that will all come into it.
Senator ROBERTS: What about around houses, especially houses that have water tanks for catching drinking water off the roof?
Mr Campbell: Anything near a populous area will require not only the risk assessment but consultation with that property to go through those kinds of matters.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t have environmental responsibility?
Mr Campbell: No, we don’t.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. How close can they fly to a house? Could they fly close enough to disperse toxins on a house?
Mr Campbell: The drop site will be planned out previously, and it won’t involve a house. It’s up to the pilot and the operator to ensure that anything that’s dropped remains within the planned drop site.
Ms Spence: Senator, it’s a bit like the other question. As we briefed your adviser, if someone has evidence of a helicopter dropping bait in a way that’s not consistent with the way that Mr Campbell has described, again, they should report it to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority or through the ATSB’s REPCON process.
Senator ROBERTS: Must a helicopter avoid flying low over houses and dumping payload onto residential buildings? It sounds like they must.
Ms Spence: That’s exactly right; they must. And if they don’t, then it should be reported to us. We do not have any examples of it having been reported to us. So, again, as we briefed your office, we would appreciate examples of that happening. And it can’t just be an anecdotal one; we would need to have as much information as possible—preferably photos that would allow us to see what has actually happened.
Senator ROBERTS: Must a helicopter avoid dumping payloads of what it’s dispersing, to use your words, Mr Campbell, in creeks and waterways? Or is that beyond your authority?
Mr Campbell: That is beyond our remit. We deal with safety—as long as they are not dropping anything that’s going to injure humans or animals or damage property.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if a helicopter pilot dispenses something that hurts humans or animals—
Mr Campbell: Injures or damages.
Senator ROBERTS: Injures or damages. What’s ‘injures’, literally? Is it ingestion of chemicals that cause someone to be sick or an animal to die?
Mr Campbell: No, I don’t think it extends to illnesses that are created from whatever the dispensing agent is. It is about when it hits the ground or near a person.
Ms Spence: Physically.
Senator ROBERTS: If it becomes a projectile.
Ms Spence: It’s an issue where, again, as we’ve discussed, there are multiple regulators in this space. Issues about the impact of the chemicals that are used to bait the fire ants are not something that we have any role in approving or anything like that, so I expect that concerns about the impact on the environment as a result of how those baits are used are probably better taken up with someone in the environment portfolio.
Senator ROBERTS: We are, and we’ll be taking it up here again with a third committee. What can be done to stop a helicopter pilot from doing any of the things like dropping payloads on crops, animals, creeks, waterways or houses?
Ms Spence: If it’s reported to us, we can then investigate. The more information we have, the more likely we can actually take enforcement actions against an operator who does something illegally.
Senator ROBERTS: Your permits, as I understand it, don’t come with conditions. Do you leave it up to the pilot?
Mr Campbell: The operator, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’d be pretty hard to say that the pilot has done something wrong.
Ms Spence : No. If they’re flying below the height that’s approved—again, as we passed on to your office, a lot of those details are set out in the actual manual of standards and the regulations. So, if they’re operating in a way that’s not consistent with the manual of standards or the regulations, that can get reported to us and we can then take enforcement action.
Senator ROBERTS: What would you say into the camera now, to constituents in Queensland who are infested with these helicopters disturbing them?
Ms Spence: I would say that they should be reporting. If they are concerned that a helicopter is operating outside the parameters that Mr Campbell outlined to you, they should be reporting that.
Senator ROBERTS: Where would they find those parameters?
Ms Spence: There’s the material that we did send through to your office, but it is around the 300 feet and the area in which they can operate.
Mr Campbell: Yes. If there are residents out there who feel that helicopters are dropping—
Ms Spence: Flying too low—
Mr Campbell: flying too low around their home, they can take video footage or take photos, as Ms Spence said, and report them, and we’ll do our best to assess whether they’ve operated outside of their approval.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you regulate these behaviours? How do you regulate their behaviours?
Ms Spence: The same ways—we provide the approval that they can operate in accordance with the requirements that we set, and then, if someone has evidence to say that someone is operating outside of those parameters, we investigate and we can either take enforcement action or refer it to the DPP.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question, Chair. What’s the process for making complaints about breaches of safety protocols or regulations?
Ms Spence: On our website, there is actually a mechanism to report a safety concern, and I think the ATSB has also got a similar ability to report on their website.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and, after months or years of trying to extract things from CASA, it is a pleasure to have you in my office giving us information freely.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/n9gszSA6hPM/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 08:48:532025-02-11 13:26:29Helicopter Safety and CASA Complaint Process
I joined Efrat Fenigson on her podcast where we discussed the anti-human agenda and how it has manifested in Australia over the last several years. We discuss the climate change fraud, COVID injections, economic changes needed, Digital ID, and lots more.
Efrat’s Introduction
My guest today is Senator Malcolm Roberts, an Australian politician from Queensland and a member of the Australian Senate. With a background in engineering, mining, business and economics, Senator Roberts is a climate realist, challenging mainstream climate science and exposing lies in this field. Unlike most politicians these days, Senator Roberts is a Truth teller and does not shy away from any topic: public health, Covid, immigration, finance, economics, sexual education for children and more.
In this episode we talk about the anti-human globalist agenda and how it manifested in Australia over the past few years. We cover the Senator’s fight against climate fraud, his efforts to help Covid-19 jabs injured, to expose excess deaths and more, while holding politicians accountable, encouraging people to reclaim their power. The Senator criticizes the centralization of government and the media by globalists, introducing new levels of censorship on Australians. The conversation concludes with monetary and economic changes in Australia, including the move to a cashless society, CBDC, digital IDs, 15-minute cities and more.
The senator highlights the importance of simplicity and the power of individual responsibility in creating positive change and waking people up to the truth. He concludes with a message of hope, urging individuals to be proud of their humanity and to share information to help others become informed.
Chapters
00:00:00 Coming Up… 00:01:06 Introduction to Senator Roberts 00:03:19 Politicians in Today’s Reality 00:11:06 Ad Break: Trezor, Bitcoin Nashville, BTC Prague 00:13:03 Why Politics? 00:16:56 About Human Progress 00:23:04 Australian Politics & Activism 00:25:02 Political Structure in Australia 00:28:47 Balancing the Exaggerated Power of the State 00:30:38 Truth Telling, Simplicity & Education 00:35:02 Efrat’s Resistance to Green Pass During Covid 00:38:01 Senator’s Climate Fraud Views 00:44:30 How To Break The Narrative? 00:49:21 Admitting Being Fooled About Covid 00:55:40 Excess Death & Vaxx Injuries in Australia 01:03:08 Australia’s During Covid & Bigger Picture 01:12:46 Compensation Plan For Vaxx Injured 01:14:24 Media, Censorship & Fear in Australia 01:22:04 Role of Regulation, Legislation, Censorship 01:26:53 CBDC & Digital IDs in Australia 01:32:29 Globalists Vision For Useless Eaters 01:33:58 Money Agenda, Cashless Society & How To Fight Back 01:44:05 Protecting Your Wealth & Family 01:48:04 Bitcoin & Nation States 01:50:01 Globalists Control & A Message Of Hope
Allow me to offer my congratulations to the people of Queensland. We have freed ourselves from the inexcusable abuse perpetrated by Labor, first at the hands of ‘Queensland hospitals are only for Queenslanders’ Annastacia Palaszczuk and then from the self-proclaimed audition of Steve ‘Giggles’ Miles who governed under the impression that economic hardship and a rise of youth crime were some sort of laughing matter.
Falling back on the childish ‘free lunches’ campaign, stolen from the socialists of old, surely proved the cheap and insincere nature of our major parties.
How fitting to hear the dying screech of the Greens complaining that Mr Miles had nicked their lunches. Queenslanders have been watching Labor re-cycle the Greens’ bad ideas as criminals might launder dirty money.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Spectator.jpg?fit=852%2C899&ssl=1899852Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-04 16:40:202024-11-04 16:40:27Queensland: Free of Labor, But Not Yet Free
Australians deserve the truth about our economic reality, not sugar-coated statistics. While the official CPI reports 3.8% inflation, the actual cost of living for most working Australians is a staggering 6.2%
We need policies to end the inflation burden created by both major parties. Australia has everything we need right here to be the richest country in the world. It simply requires the guts to make common-sense decisions – and only One Nation has that guts!
Transcript
If you think you’re going backwards, you are, and faster than you think. Last Monday, we had an inquiry, as a result of a motion of mine, to understand the CPI figure from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That’s what we wanted to find out: what the Australian Bureau of Statistics does. My inquiry revealed that, as everyone knows, the CPI is 3.8 per cent, but selected living-cost indices that the Australian Bureau of Statistics produces and publishes show that most employees—80 per cent of Australians—face a cost-of-living increase in their spending of 6.2 per cent.
I’ve got no criticism of the ABS. They do what they’re told. Chart 1 in their submission shows that in 2022, soon after the coalition left, the CPI was eight per cent, and food and beverages went up by nine per cent. That’s the legacy that the coalition left. The CPI price change for dairy and related products over the last four years has been 27 per cent; food products, 23 per cent; bread and cereal products, 23 per cent. This is the reality: both the Labor Party and the Liberal-Nationals are contributing to inflation. The prices of groceries, insurance, housing, rents and energy are all artificial and only One Nation has the policies to be able to solve them because we don’t do what the uniparty does.
Transparency and accountability are essential in a democracy, yet this government continues to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, especially when it comes to the higher brass in the Department of Defence.
The refusal to release the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force isn’t about national security—it’s about avoiding embarrassment. We need a process that allows senators to confidentially review sensitive documents, ensuring accountability while protecting the public interest. We must demand a government that serves the people, not itself.
One Nation will fight for our Defence Force personnel to be treated fairly by senior officers. One standard must apply to all.
Transcript
Well, the minister’s explanation is pitiful. Look at paragraph (a)(iv) of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge’s motion. Senator Wong failed to comply. She did not provide the names. Who has been consulted in relation to the release of the report of the 20-year review of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force? Why is the government continuing to hide? This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. This is the government’s response. The claim isn’t that there was anything classified in the report of the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force that Senator Lambie had been seeking; the claim the minister makes is that this report wasn’t meant to be released because the government didn’t want it to be released, not that national security was under threat, not that there was classified information in it. The government didn’t want it to be released because that would be embarrassing and they would be asked to do something about it. That’s not good enough.
An order to produce documents that passes this Senate is constitutionally superior to acts of law. The government doesn’t get to decide that they can toss those orders in the bin. This is a rare occasion where we get to see the report even though the government refused to hand it over. Credit must go to Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge for pushing this and to their offices for managing to get a copy of the report. Usually, as senators, we’re left in the dark. The government makes a public interest immunity claim and refuses to hand over anything. The government tells us that if this report was released the sky would fall in, that there would be an earthquake that shatters the public interest. Now, as senators, we’re quite reasonable and responsible. We know that truth reinforces truth. While we might desperately want that information we somewhat trust that the government hasn’t lied to our face and that there would be an actual risk to the public interest if the document were published. Yesterday and today show once and for all, yet again, that the government is completely undeserving of that trust.
The minister’s explanation clearly isn’t sufficient, and the current process for ordering documents is failing the Australian people and the senators seeking information on behalf of the people—information that belongs to the Australian people. To that end, I’ll again be proposing a new, additional way for handling orders for documents. When ministers make a public interest immunity claim, the claimed harm results from releasing the document to the public. There’s a way to make sure this is a win-win. I’ll go through it again. It’s making sure sensitive information isn’t released while at the same time ensuring senators get the information needed to make informed decisions. The way to do this is to establish a process for senators to confidentially review ordered documents without releasing them to the public.
This proposal may sound familiar to some. I first raised it in 2022, and this Senate supported a reference to the Procedure Committee for inquiry. With respect to the senators on that committee, the response was lacking. The inquiry was given four months to report on the issue, did not seek any submissions and produced the Procedure Committee’s first report of 2023 of a towering two pages. While the committee declined to endorse the proposal, they did confirm that it’s feasible. The committee committed to further report on the process for the order for the production of documents later in 2023. No report was delivered. Imagine that. Given the increased frequency of orders for the production of documents and the nearly blanket ban the government seems to be applying on transparency, it’s time to deal with this issue again.
This proposal is relatively simple. If the minister makes a public interest immunity claim, they wouldn’t have to release it to the public but they would have to release it to us—the senators—confidentially. A majority of the Senate could then decide whether the minister’s claim is legitimate and the document deserves to be kept secret from the public. It’s true that, just like a normal order for the production of documents, the minister could refuse to hand over the documents to the committee. Since no harm could flow from public disclosure in this process, it would be apparent that the only harm the government would want to avoid would be embarrassment. That gives us a better reason to apply sanctions for noncompliance, which the Senate is rightly cautious to do under the current process. In making a public interest immunity claim the minister would be automatically required to nominate a standing committee to receive the document, and only senators would be allowed to review it.
I will be submitting a notice of motion with some draft amendments to the standing orders for senators to consider over the break. I welcome their input and any suggestions to make these changes better. The Australian public deserves transparency, and as the Senate, the house of review, we must deliver accountability on this government. Recent weeks in this chamber have shown debacle after debacle. The government is in chaos. Australia has a chaotic government, and the people pay for that—enlisted people and veterans pay for it. The Senate’s scrutiny will help the government to govern and reduce the chaos. We are willing to help you, and that’s what our help will do. The people deserve the truth, openness and accountability. (Time expired)
With a Digital ID framework established, our data is more important than ever. Why does it seem like the government is willing to hand Australian data centres over to foreign interests?
The government is more interested in serving their donors, who are connected to multinational corporations, than in looking after Australians. Only One Nation will put Australians’ interests first and protect their data.
Transcript
We have to wonder whether this government is capable of stopping any bit of Australia being sold to foreign multinational corporations, or is it all just part of its digital ID plan? We’re going to find out when the Foreign Investment Review Board makes its decision on the $24 billion buyout of Australian-founded data firm AirTrunk. AirTrunk is the largest data centre platform in the entire Asia-Pacific region. A conglomerate of multinational investment firms and foreign pension funds is about to buy it. It wasn’t that long ago the government somehow let China buy a 99-year lease to control the Port of Darwin, Australia’s most northern and strategically vital port. Less than a year ago, the Albanese government decided to keep letting China own the 99-year port lease. Many are still dumbfounded. How could we ever let this happen?
As data becomes as valuable as gold in an increasingly digital world, we may one day look back at the sale of AirTrunk in the same way. Data is fast becoming an essential utility for the entire world. All the opportunities a digital world presents are clear yet the risks of profit-hungry corporations and increasingly tyrannical governments abusing digital identity outnumber the benefits.
In a digital identity world, where privacy protections are paper-thin, sovereign control of our data centres is a matter of economic and national security, and personal security. Unfortunately, except in the most severe and blatant cases, the Foreign Investment Review Board has a track record of not appreciating the importance of Australians owning Australia. We can anticipate that the Foreign Investment Review Board will rubber-stamp this deal, like so many others. The data centres that Australians’ sensitive data passes through and sits in will become foreign-owned. Let’s put Australians first and ban foreign ownership of sensitive companies.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/xviUWc8vRG0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-04 14:41:162024-11-04 14:41:18Australian’s Data Must be Protected
