In the wake of the sudden and unjust takeover by the ACT Labor-Greens government of Calvary Public Hospital, the Senate conducted a public hearing inquiry.
I asked questions of a representative from the hospital. It is unusual that due process was not followed and a long-term contract was removed without consultation.
Calvary had a very strong workplace culture with well-supported values. It was more than a location for people of faith, and staff often described working there like they were part of a family.
People are deeply upset by this compulsory acquisition and the reasons that could be behind such a move at this time.
I asked the ACT’s Minister for Health questions about the specific reasons behind this move. The answers don’t match the sudden nature of the takeover, as you will hear.
What is clear though is the ACT government does not welcome any interference in its ability to exercise its own powers.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ty81qSu4UtU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-13 17:58:282023-09-13 17:58:33Calvary Hospital Taken Over Suddenly
This bill is seeking to provide biosecurity officers with increased powers. With everything we’ve been through over the past few years, I decided to ask for clarification on the bill. I questioned how these new powers could be used and whether there was a risk of discrimination against arrivals into Australia, particularly those who have chosen not to receive medical procedures such as the COVID-19 injections.
I am concerned these amendments would ensure the collection of data from all incoming travellers to support intelligence-gathering and evidence-based predictions of potential biosecurity risks.
Minister Watt offered assurances in the Senate Chamber that there is no intention of using the bill to discriminate against people based on medical status or ethnicity. He also assured me that this bill did not allow for collecting or retaining health information.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I have two questions. The first is of the minister: could this bill be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections related to COVID-19 measures? As part of that, does this bill allow travel documents to include information based on vaccine status?
Senator Watt: I’m just seeking some further advice on that, Senator Roberts, but I’m certainly not aware of any intention to use these powers in that way or even whether the powers could be used that way. I know that there were some concerns raised by a couple of the parliamentary committees about how these powers might be used and the risk of discrimination that might be posed. I think we were certainly able to persuade those committees that there would be no such ability to discriminate. You may have seen, Senator Roberts, that one of the things this bill is doing is providing biosecurity officers with increased powers to seek passports from people, but that’s really about trying to check where they have been and whether they’re repeat offenders when it comes to biosecurity risks rather than checking on people because of their particular racial background, their COVID vaccination background or anything like that. It’s more about, as I said, allowing biosecurity officers to trace when people have been to very high-risk locations or if they’re repeat offenders with biosecurity, in which case I’m sure you’d agree that they’re the people who we really need to focus our biosecurity efforts on.
Senator Roberts: Minister, have you received that advice yet about my specific question?
Senator Watt: The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the data collected in relation to biosecurity interventions with all incoming travellers can be recorded and analysed consistently to support a more intelligence- and evidence-based approach to predicting and managing the biosecurity risk posed by future traveller cohorts. As such, the requirement to provide a passport or other travel document to a biosecurity officer upon request would apply to all persons regardless of their ethnicity, their national or social origin or their vaccination status. The powers that are being granted here cannot be, or are not intended to be, used to go after particular people based on any characteristic about them. They can be applied to all people, regardless of their vaccination status, their ethnicity or anything like that. I think that you can be confident that your concerns would not be carried out as a result of these powers.
Senator Roberts: You said ‘could’ and then hesitated. So that means these powers cannot be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections for COVID-19?
Senator Watt: That’s right. The powers cannot be used to discriminate against anyone for any reason, including their vaccination status.
Senator Roberts: My second question is: should there be time limits on the time which health information about an individual is retained?
Senator Watt: In fact, Senator Roberts, this bill does not provide for the retention of data at all. That being the case, the concern that you have does not even arise. It’s not a matter of—sorry, I’ll just clarify this. There’s nothing in the bill that allows data to be retained for health purposes and so the issue of how long data could be retained for health purposes doesn’t arise, because it can’t be retained for that purpose at all.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JiJwE9TSfqU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-05 08:52:032023-09-14 10:46:37Amending the Biosecurity Act — What Does it Mean?
https://i9.ytimg.com/vi/nmwTHFlLpoA/mq1.jpg?sqp=CNj96bUG-oaymwEmCMACELQB8quKqQMa8AEB-AH-CYAC0AWKAgwIABABGF8gZSg8MA8=&rs=AOn4CLDn_7jjn9pTjcUEVZBCDIE03Ic2ZA180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-09-04 19:35:002024-08-13 07:37:10The Voice: A Conversation with Anthony Dillon
Financial statements show an ABC fact check partnership with RMIT received grants from an organisation that receives funds from George Soros funded foreign organisations, foreign governments and shadowy foundations.
Instead of taking these issues seriously, Minister Watt treats the questions with contempt, rabbiting on with meaningless waffle.
If the ABC has been co-opted into “fact checks” that have been influenced by shady foreign money, then Australians deserve to know.
Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. Why is the ABC receiving funds from potential agents of foreign influence for its fact-checking partnership with RMIT?
Senator Watt: I am not actually aware of the suggestions that Senator Roberts is making. I’m a little wary about taking them at face value, because I know Senator Roberts has a certain view of the ABC that is not a view I share. And I’m not sure Senator Roberts has always accurately represented the situation when it comes to the ABC. I would invite Senator Roberts to present further evidence of that, if he has that evidence available.
What I will say is that this government is a very strong supporter of the ABC. We recognise that it has a very important role as the national broadcaster. It has an important role not just in our big capital cities but also, particularly, in regional parts of Australia. It is often the only way of having local, regional stories told at the national level, and that’s why we are supportive of the ABC. It also plays a very important role during natural disasters as a sort of critical information for people seeking to stay alive during emergencies. They are some of the reasons that we support the ABC, and they are some of the reasons why we were so concerned by the budget cuts that were imposed by the then coalition government on the ABC, because those cuts removed or reduced the ability of the ABC to broadcast those regional stories in some of those areas that Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson like to say they care about. Those cuts reduced the ABC’s ability to provide some of that emergency information that is so vital to rural and regional communities. So we’re very proud of the fact that we’re strong supporters of the ABC. We don’t join in the regular attacks that we see on the ABC from the conservative side of politics, because we think that the institution plays a very important role in our national democracy. We will always remain strong supporters of the ABC.
The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator Roberts: The International Fact-Checking Network’s financial statements show that that foreign organisations gave the RMIT-ABC Fact Check partnership multiple grants. The International Fact-Checking Network receives funds from the US government, a private Norwegian foundation, foreign headquartered tech giant Meta, and a handful of private, shady organisations and foundations. Why didn’t the ABC declare that it was receiving funding from private, foreign organisations and governments for its RMIT fact-checking partnership?
Senator Carol Brown interjecting—
Senator Watt: That’s a fair point, Senator Brown. If there were a fact checker for some of the things that come out of One Nation, they’d be very, very busy. As for Senator Canavan, you wouldn’t even start trying to check facts from Senator Canavan. You’d want to have more than a decade if you wanted to check facts from Senator Canavan.
As I say, I’m very wary of entering into propositions that are being put by Senator Roberts when it comes to foreign interference and foreign influence. He is prone to saying various things about those issues, which don’t always bear fact checking themselves. Again, Senator Roberts, I’d invite you to provide any hard evidence that you have to support the claims that you’re making, but I repeat my position that we are strong supporters of the ABC. In fact, I think the public regard the ABC as the most trustworthy news agency in the country. That is regularly shown in surveys. (Time expired)
The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
The government’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill does not define the terms ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ in specifics. It would likely be left to biased and foreign influenced fact checkers. Facebook has suspended RMIT FactLab services after accusations of bias in fact-checking the Voice referendum and reports of lapsed accreditation. Minister, will the government abandon its Orwellian misinformation and disinformation bill given that the fact checker’s credibility has been destroyed?
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, thank you for the question. I know that you and a number of members of the Liberal and National parties have a strong position, you say, in relation to matters of misinformation—
The President: Senator Watt, I remind you to direct your comments through the chair.
Senator Watt: Okay. I know that there are many senators from the Liberal, National and One Nation parties who say all sorts of things about misinformation. It doesn’t seem to prevent them from presenting all sorts of misinformation about certain referendums that we’re about to have in this country. It doesn’t seem to prevent them joining in on misinformation and disinformation campaigns telling people that we’re going to be facing parking tickets being legislated by the Voice and all sorts of nonsense like that. If you want to have a discussion about misinformation, I’d suggest that you keep your own house in order and come to this parliament in good faith rather than providing the constant misinformation we see from the other side.
Pristine Australian bushland environments are being torn apart for metal monsters.
Short-lived and resource-hungry wind turbines are going up all over Queensland as part of Australia’s Net Zero 2050. These monstrosities are nothing more than a pipe dream for ‘free energy’.
Wind does not and cannot provide baseload power that coal provides cheaply and reliably.
To ensure coal mines restore the environment, coal mines pay a hefty bond for land disturbed. This bond is only returned after restoration is completed after mining.
Wind power companies pay NO environmental bond to make good afterwards.
I guarantee, if the government stopped propping wind and solar up with ‘free money’ the investors would run a mile and that is exactly what is happening overseas.
When will Australia acknowledge what a green-washed white elephant these wind projects are and back out before more birds disappear and more of the environment is destroyed?
I bet Andrew Forrest wouldn’t put one in his own backyard. Would you?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/u7-gZEc7iVU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-02 07:40:042023-09-04 15:04:31Unique Australian Ecosystems Under Threat
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) is thorough and does some fine work. Its audit of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency (NRRA) found performance accountability missing.
At Senate Estimates the ANAO audit of Disaster Recovery Funding uncovered several reporting deficits with NEMA and NRRA that need to be addressed, vindicating my previous call for a Senate Inquiry into the administration of Disaster Relief Funding Arrangements to expose the misuse funds.
I called for an ANAO audit of Coal LSL (Long Service Leave) after Chartered Accountants KPMG’s concerning report of Coal LSL revealed many governance problems and the non-paying of entitlements to Hunter Valley coal miners.
I’ve been raising these issues for the past four years and will keep raising them on behalf of Australians until these identified problems and governance issues are resolved.
ANAO has agreed to examine this so watch this space.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/M3xFslaCp58/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-02 07:09:142023-09-04 16:23:25Pursuing Accountability Among the Agencies
During the May/June Senate Estimates hearings, I asked the Department of Health and Aged Care to clarify their role with the Department of Home Affairs in censoring social media posts.
Home Affairs had indicated that it relied upon the Department of Health to identify social media posts that ‘contravened Facebook/Meta’s guidelines’. This of course is just more dodging of responsibility as the agency trampling the fundamental rights of speech. Although it’s government doing the censoring, they give the social media corporations the button to push.
It turns out that when Home Affairs wanted to censor or provide information to social media platforms where posts breached the platform’s own guidelines during the COVID response, they relied upon the Department of Health to identify whether or not there was a breach. The Department of Health rarely identified posts and merely provided the information that the government decreed to be ‘correct’.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Yes. Professor Murphy, could you please clarify your department’s relationship with the Department of Home Affairs, because Home Affairs seem to think that they relied upon the Department of Health for identifying social media posts that contravened Meta’s guidelines.
Prof. Murphy: Ms Balmanno can go over that again.
Ms Balmanno: As evidence became available in terms of the nature of the virus and the nature of treatments, vaccines and all of those sorts of things and how it was being transmitted, obviously there was a growing evidence base there, and it was our job to collate that and to point to the source information, whether that be the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, whether that be the World Health Organization or whatever it might be. We would collate that information for the Department of Home Affairs. That would be what they were able to the then assess posts against. But ultimately the assessment is against the social media platform’s own policies about what is appropriate and not appropriate to be put onto their platforms. They each have a published policy, so they would use our evidence base to inform that decision and assess against those policies. Where they felt there was a breach and a post or an account was putting forward information that was not consistent with those policies, they would refer that to the social media company to look at.
Senator Roberts: Let me clarify, then, to make sure I’ve got the understanding. Home Affairs wanted to censor or provide information to social media platforms where a post breached a social media platform’s own guidelines, and they relied upon you to identify whether there was a breach.
Ms Balmanno: We were part of informing that, in that—
Senator Roberts: Who else was part?
Ms Balmanno: My point is the elements that we were able to contribute to were whether if, for example, they were making a referral specifically because they thought the information was false and was disinformation being deliberately promulgated to cause harm, they would use the evidence sources that we had collated for them to make that assessment and say, ‘According to all of this published research or according to the views of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and the position in Australia, here is the evidence we are pointing to to suggest that this post is incorrect.’ So we would help provide that evidence. That was our role.
Senator Roberts: So you didn’t identify posts; you just provided evidence when Home Affairs asked for the evidence?
Mr Blackwood: Yes, we were proactive in providing it if there were something not covered—
Senator Roberts: So you sometimes did identify posts?
Ms Balmanno: We were proactive in providing evidence as new evidence came to light and adding to the evidence base. If there were an issue they come across that they thought was incorrect—for example, the idea that 5G was causing COVID was one of the early ones that we did a lot of referrals in relation to—and if we didn’t already have that in the evidence base, they would obviously check that with us in terms of an evidence assessment, and that would be added to it.
Senator Roberts: So it was a hybrid role, then. Sometimes you identifies posts—
Ms Balmanno: We very rarely identified posts.
Senator Roberts: But sometimes you did.
Ms Balmanno: We probably have a handful of examples where we identified posts, and I have agreed to take that on notice.
At the May/June Senate Estimates, I asked the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) about their accountability and responsibilities for financial services and then probed further into depositor guarantees. I wanted to try and establish whether Australians’ savings are secure in the event of a financial crash. Have a listen.
APRA made the point that Financial Claims Scheme (FCS) is really a last resort. Australian banks and financial institutions are required to have practical plans in place to ensure they can get up and running again in the event of a financial crisis. If that were to fail, however, account holders would be covered for the first $250,000 of their deposited funds per institution.
What this answer failed to mention is that the Financial Guarantee Scheme (FGS) only kicks in once the bank fails. At this point, the bank would have been able to use bail-in provisions to use depositor’s funds to save themselves.
The FCS is also unfunded. The government has not put any money aside to fund the scheme — there is a limit of $20 billion per bank, which is only 10% of what would be needed for just one of the Big-4 banks alone. The Treasurer is not required to trigger the FCS if they don’t want to spend the money.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lSPyGtDQmRs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-28 12:28:292023-08-28 12:28:33Australia’s Bank Guarantee Scheme – Are You Covered?
At the May/June Senate Estimates I asked questions of the Coal LSL Board to establish that a person working under an Enterprise Agreement contract cannot receive benefits less than the agreed award for the same category.
Under the Black Coal Award there’s no category for casuals because casuals are not allowed to be employed under the Black Coal award.
The Board confirmed that they do not check which category a coal miner works when calculating long service entitlements, merely accepting what the employer tells Coal LSL.
All this contributes to coal miners being exploited in not getting their entitlements.
