In a recent senate estimate session, I highlighted the alarming ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates. Australians from the Middle East died at three times the average death rate, those from Southern Europe twice as high, while sub-Saharan Africans had lower mortality rates.
What’s driving these disparities? The health experts suggest that low vaccine coverage and socioeconomic factors played roles in these differences. As vaccination efforts improved, mortality rates began to align more closely with the general population.
These are just theories, not explanations, and it comes across as a lazy response. There’s no justification for not making an effort to understand the reasons behind such a serious medical issue.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Kelly, you previously brought someone forward to talk about the differences in incidence and severity with a low-socioeconomic profile.
Prof. Kelly: Mr Gould, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Australian residents from the Middle East died at three times the population mean, those from Southern Europe were twice as likely to die and those from North Africa were almost three times as likely to die; however, sub-Saharan Africans were less likely to die. Why are we seeing ethnic differences in COVID mortality in Australia? I understand that ‘ethnic’ is to do with culture.
Dr Gould: Yes. Just talking around the numbers involved, as you say, the ABS has reported, during various stages of the pandemic, mortality rates for people born in different countries and, as you’ve said, there are higher mortality rates for people born in places such as the Middle East. There are a number of potential reasons for that. One of the areas that I discussed in my previous answer, which I think is relevant, is that, for a lot of those communities, initially, vaccine coverage rates were low. So significant work was done during the course of the pandemic to work with those communities to increase the coverage rate, and we really saw quite a dramatic shift during the course of the pandemic in the variation in mortality rates between these communities in the general Australian population; to a large degree, they came into line with the general population experience, so that was a positive outcome. Certainly, there’s an indication that the vaccine rates would have had a role to play. We did talk as well about socioeconomic status. We do know that, for some language groups or groups born in different countries, those rates may correlate with different socioeconomic status as well, so there may be some relationships there.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s an overlap, potentially, in some areas?
Dr Gould: Potentially, yes. It’s not broadly always the case. We find that a lot of recent, skilled migrants live in high socioeconomic areas, so it’s difficult to make a broad generalisation there.
[17/07/24] I joined Alexandra Marshall on ADH TV to chat about the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump and how PM Albanese has exploited this situation to promote his Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, which is completely inappropriate.
A true leader would use this opportunity to bring people together, denounce the violence, and call for calm and unity. I’m relieved though that Donald Trump emerged with only a minor injury.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/IyKxdc-qnyg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-01 17:37:402024-08-01 17:46:12Trump Assassination Attempt Used to Exploit Misinformation and Disinformation Bill
The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 aims to end live sheep exports from Australia by May 2028. This bill, despite offering $107 million in compensation for rural and regional communities, fails to adequately address the economic impact on the sheep export industry and local communities.
The bill is seen as a pretext for further restrictions, potentially extending to live cattle exports, under the guise of animal welfare. This will harm Aboriginal communities reliant on cattle farming and exacerbate economic hardships in rural areas.
The bill’s flawed consultation process and ideologically driven policies overlook the real impacts on people and communities. It will cause significant losses for farmers, disrupt food supply chains, and benefit city-based animal welfare activists while ignoring the human cost.
Transcript
Keep the sheep! Keep humans! We need to stop this live export ban. There are no grounds for it. We’ve seen a truncated, sham inquiry. The Labor Party has not gone out and listened. They’re just pushing the Greens ideology to get the Greens voters’ preferences in inner-city electorates. What about the effect on the human environment: the devastation to local communities and to people overseas who need food and good animal protein?
The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 amends the Export Control Act 2020 to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea from Australia on 1 May 2028. The bill also includes money to paper over the cracks—the devastation that this measure will cause to rural and regional communities—for a limited period. That money is going to be made available only under severe limits. One would have thought that providing that money anyway, to assist in an orderly transition in a suitable timeframe, would have made more sense. Then, again, sense has no place in the feelings driven policy development from the Albanese Labor government—political, not economic—regardless of the impact on humans.
As it stands, the $107 million fund is little compensation for an industry that generates $120 million a year directly and hundreds of millions more in flow-on effects to rural communities. Of the money, $60 million will be used to lay the groundwork for the next round of the government’s plan, which is to eliminate live cattle exports. Specifically, the mechanism is the specious animal welfare argument, including welfare of animals in transport. Sheep and cattle welfare during transport will be used as an excuse to limit the movement of animals.
Who benefits substantially from that trade? It’s not the Aboriginal communities in remote areas of Australia who currently support themselves raising cattle and then need to transport their cattle a long distance to get them to market. This transport welfare measure will remove the opportunity for Aboriginal communities to support themselves, in turn making those communities reliant—dependent—on government handouts. Aboriginal communities are heavily represented in red meat production. In areas of Western Australia, they will be devastated by the loss of this trade. The industry is attracting homeless from the cities, coming bush in search of work and accommodation.
What a high price everyday Australians in rural areas are paying for the dirty deal from the Labor government for preferences from animal welfare groups and the Greens. Labor can’t, and doesn’t, deny this dirty deal. The announcement of Labor’s policy on live animal exports came not from Labor but from one of the animal welfare groups. This bill lets city activists pat themselves on the back while ignoring the animal and human suffering caused by this ill-informed and poorly consulted bill resulting from a sham, partial inquiry that didn’t consult everyone.
While the government talks about the bill being a product of consultation, the process was one of working backward from the desired outcome: how can we be seen to get this outcome? The correct process, according to the Office of Impact Analysis, is to conduct ‘meaningful consultation that considers the views of affected stakeholders’. That’s not what happened. As I said, it was a sham inquiry in the lower house. The National Farmers Federation submitted to the committee that they had to fight each step of the way for producers to have a fair hearing with the independent panel. The National Farmers Federation saw the industry’s advice to the panel go unheeded in the final report. What was the point?
Then we saw the minister go even further, rejecting key elements of the panel’s advice and adopting even more radical ideas than the panel itself had recommended. Welcome to government under the Labor Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese MP! Ideology and dodgy preference deals with ill-informed fanatics is how the Labor Party rolls. To hell with the human devastation! Look good; don’t do good. The entire consultation and parliamentary process is a mockery of due process. It’s an indictment of those in this chamber who go along with this sham for reasons that escape me. The Greens of course want to cause more hardship among the red meat industry with their amendment from Senator Faruqi—if successful, bringing this bill forward to 2026. I’ll bet that’s the deal done between the Greens and the Labor Party: to bring it forward to 2026 and set immediate limits to export.
Sheep have a five-month gestation and need to grow for seven months before export. This means that sheep that are under gestation now will not be able to be exported under the Greens amendment unless markets can be found at the last minute. The parent animals were bred specifically for the export trade, and these will be bound for the abattoir. Meat contracts are let out years ahead because of the breeding cycle. So, selling these animals is not likely. In fact, the cull has already started, with prices as low as 50c a kilogram, through the saleyards in Western Australia, and many lots are unsold, causing farmers to leave unsold animals at the saleyards for euthanasia. Perhaps city senators like Senator Faruqi and Senator Tyrrell, who is in support, can come over to Western Australia and help with the cull, look these farmers in the eye, look these sheep in the eye.
The idea that this bill and the Greens amendment is predicated on humane treatment of animals is Orwellian doublespeak. It will have the reverse effect. Rural communities are being hollowed out as a result of the policies of the Labor-Greens government. The endgame is to move protein consumption to lab-grown meat owned by Prime Minister Albanese’s friends Bill Gates and BlackRock’s Larry Fink, whom the Prime Minister has met with during this parliamentary term. Farmers have no place in the Labor-Greens vision of a dystopian world of fake meats and fake food. This bill denies the truth that live sheep exports suffer a loss of life at exactly the same levels as animals in the field, if not better. The object of this bill is not the welfare of animals; it’s an ideological objection to a diet that includes red meat—ideology over humanity. And what of the land currently under grazing? Well, I’m sure the climate carpetbaggers are already out in the bush measuring up for solar panels. Beautiful countryside will be covered in silicon cancer, and somehow this is environmentally friendly? The Labor-Greens government is not fit to govern.
I want to pass on some personal thoughts from Senator Pauline Hanson, who was in Western Australia recently to listen, and the farmers spontaneously invited her to speak off the back of a truck. As Pauline does and as I do, she did so. The farmers mentioned the independent study that was done—no deaths on ships. Of course, other senators have mentioned the MV Awassi Express, on which was perpetrated the cash-for-cruelty scam: hundreds of thousands of dollars apparently paid to a foreign stockman from a developing nation to treat animals cruelly, to kill an industry—and that’s what Labor did, fell for it, killing an industry, the damage to farmers, communities and nation already done: 100,000 sheep especially bred for the live export overseas market, not suitable for the local market, as I’ve said. The market for live sheep is already down because overseas buyers are looking elsewhere. They know what’s coming from this government. They’ve seen the socialists operating, and they’re seeking other suppliers. It hurts farmers across the whole of Australia, because, for example, Tasmanian sheep farmers are sending sheep to WA to make up shipments.
Remember the Gillard Labor government’s cattle export ban? It belted the whole of Australia’s beef grazing industry—the whole country. It had effects everywhere, because of the flow-on. Farmers told Senator Hanson in Western Australia recently, ‘We’ll have to shoot the animals we especially bred.’ She told me about the look in their eyes—shattered for the waste of the animals they cared for. Communities over there are worried about farmers’ mental health. If the government has any humanity, it won’t force the farmers to shoot their own animals; the government can kill the sheep.
Here’s a question for government. The European Union is the world’s biggest exporter of sheep, not Australia. What free trade agreements has Australia signed with the European Union? Has this Albanese Labor government done an agreement with the European Union? We’ve all seen so-called free trade. It’s not fair trade at all. It hurts our country. We’ve seen that from both sides of the uniparty, Labor and the Liberal-Nationals. As I’ve said, the real reason for shutting down this export industry is to get Greens’ votes and preferences in inner-city eastern electorates.
I want to talk briefly about why I’m very pro human, and I’ve spoken about it many times. I need to counter 80 years of anti-human propaganda, especially that of the last 60 years since the Club of Rome got into bed together with the United Nations and then the World Economic Forum, all to control people, to control property and to transfer wealth. There are three or four main assumptions that this anti-human campaign propagates. Firstly, they say humans don’t care. We’ll talk about that in a minute. They say we’re greedy, rapacious, uncaring and irresponsible—we just don’t care.
Secondly, they say humans are destroying our planet when, in fact, the reverse is true. They say civilisation is the environment’s enemy. They say civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive. I’ll address that in a minute. They say civilisation and the environment are incompatible, so we need to cease development—because that’s what they want: they want to stop human development. Senior leaders of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, including the late Maurice Strong, have said that. They want to deindustrialise Western civilisation. They say our duty is to protect our planet. They say nothing about humans. They imply that humans need to be sacrificed for that.
Here’s the reality to counter 80 years of bull. These are observations. Everyone in this chamber right now and everyone watching on TV is here because someone cared. When a foal is born to a mare, it pops out of the mare, struggles for about 20 minutes and then starts cantering and put its head down and starts grazing with the herd. When every one of us, as humans, was born, we were completely helpless. The fact that anyone is in this room or watching means they are alive and that they were cared for. We are completely helpless for a number of years. Whether our parents were good or bad or whatever, the fact that you exist means that humans care. Humans care, and they’re based on care. The most caring humans got to propagate.
Here’s the second thing. Visit any country in the world and you’ll see that developed continents have a lower impact on the environment than the undeveloped continents. For example, a person in a remote, undeveloped area of Africa will defecate in the creek because he or she is too busy scrounging for their child’s next meal. Yet what we do is mine black rock called coal and red rock called iron ire, and we make steel, build dams, build water pipelines and get sanitation and water to our communities. Developed nations have less impact on the natural environment. That means human civilisation and the natural environment are mutually dependent. We all know that our civilisation won’t have a future if we don’t protect the environment. It’s also clear that the environment has no future if we don’t develop and civilise. That is clear, yet we’re told the opposite.
Our duty is to enable humans to flourish. Right throughout history, every generation has taken care of the younger generation and tried to make a better world for its younger generation. When we develop our country and civilise, we actually protect the environment. Our goal is not to protect the environment. Our goal is to protect humans and to civilise—for humans to flourish and civilise. That’s why I’m very proud about speaking about our species.
I also want to say that we need to have an aim to restore our country and our planet for humans to abound, thrive and flourish. The goal is for humans to thrive. Farming is essential for civilisation. Farming needs to be protected. Thomas Jefferson said, ‘For cities to exist, we need farms; for farms to exist, we don’t need cities.’ As I mentioned briefly, the objective here is cultured lab meat. That’s one of the globalist aims of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Humans need real meat, animal fat. Who knew that the Greens were helping to sell cancerous cultured meat grown in slop in a bioreactor? People just want to be left alone to get on with their lives and to get the government the hell out of our lives. Humans deserve food here and overseas— (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/-Mt3bGw8QB8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-01 17:28:432024-08-01 17:28:47Ending Live Sheep Exports Will Have Far-Reaching Consequences! 🐑
The government’s lies about how many foreigners are buying houses during a housing crisis are coming back to haunt them.
Firstly, the government claims ‘foreign buyers are barely making a dent in the market’. The truth? 11% of new houses in Australia were bought by foreigners (Q4 2023). Secondly, ‘foreign buyers only go for luxury homes’. Reality: the average price of a home bought by foreigners is almost the exact same as the average house price across capital cities. That means foreign buyers are directly outbidding average Australians for an average house. Thirdly, despite saying the don’t make an impact on the housing crisis, the government is now implementing small fines for vacant homes.
Why does the government go through all of this deflection and lying when they could just take One Nation’s policy: BAN Foreign Ownership completely.
That’s just the problems with foreign ownership of housing! Never mind the next topic I asked about: letting a foreign company takeover Australia’s military warship builder…
Does this government understand anything about putting Australians first?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table the transcript of a broadcast by Ben Fordham. Reporting from radio station 2GB indicates that foreign buyers bought 11 per cent of all new housing stock in this country. How are you letting this many foreign buyers snap up houses out of the hands of Australian homebuyers?
Ms Kelley: As we’ve talked about previously, our latest statistics show that foreign investors purchased around 5,360 houses in the 2022-23 financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s been claimed by some that foreign buyers don’t make a material impact on the average Aussie because they’re only buying trophy homes—$30 million mansions down at Point Piper and so on. Looking at the $5.3 billion for 4,700 properties purchased by foreigners, according to these figures, that’s an average price of $1.1 million. The combined capital cities average median house price is $1 million. Those foreign buyers are actually directly competing in the middle of the market, aren’t they?
Ms Kelley: I should note again that the level of foreign investment in residential real estate is under one per cent of the total purchases that occur in Australia. In terms of residential properties with values under $1 million, that accounted for about 78 per cent of the purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, your government is increasing the fines and fees for foreign buyers of Australian houses. You’re acknowledging that it needs to be controlled. Why don’t you just stop fiddling around and ban foreign ownership of Australian houses altogether, like we’ve advocated, like the Canadians are now doing and like the Kiwis are now doing?
Senator Gallagher: We welcome foreign investment in our country. It plays an important role across our economy. But those changes we have announced to foreign investment, both for the application fees and double vacancy fees, are about ensuring foreign investment aligns with our agenda to lift housing supply. It’s aligning it with the other work we’ve been talking about this morning in Homes for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Working families who are returning home at night to sleep in their car won’t be encouraged by that. But let’s move on. How does the Foreign Investment Review Board treat defence-related companies in its approvals? If a company is producing a defence-related product, how is it treated?
Ms Kelley: The foreign investment review framework takes a case-by-case risk based approach. On 1 May the Treasurer announced a range of reforms to the framework. Under that framework we were very clear about the areas we would scrutinise more strongly. The government has made some decisions around those areas, and we are now actively implementing them.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound like being a part of the defence industry enlivens a specific criterion in your approval process.
Mr Tinning: Yes. If it’s a national security business, which includes defence industries, then it’s subject to a zero-dollar threshold under our framework. So all foreign investment approvals—
Senator ROBERTS: So shipbuilding would be part of that, if they’re building defence vessels?
Mr Tinning: Correct. That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Do the current rules ever allow you to approve the sale of a sovereign defence industry asset to a foreign buyer?
Ms Kelley: That would depend.
Mr Tinning: As Ms Kelley said, it’s on a case-by-case basis, so we would need to see a specific application.
Senator ROBERTS: Why would we ever allow that?
Ms Kelley: As the minister has said, foreign investment is essential to our domestic economy and has been for decades. What the framework does is—we assess every foreign investment application in terms of our national interest and in terms of national security.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the potential sale of Austal to a South Korean bidder, Hanwha, had pretty much fallen off the radar. Then Minister Marles reignited it by saying, ‘I don’t see why there’d be any concerns.’ Does the defence minister’s view factor into your assessment at all—that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem?
Ms Kelley: We take into account a range of factors when foreign investments are assessed, and the national security aspects are very important. We liaise across government for views on the issues associated with a foreign investment application and then the advice is then put forward to the Treasurer for a final decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why would the defence minister say that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem? He’s the defence minister and he’s looking at selling a maker of some of our warships.
Senator Gallagher: I haven’t seen those comments, but the defence minister would be very well briefed on all matters relating to that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to the Treasury after the opposition asks questions.
Pressure is increasing on the Federal Communications Minister to intervene and delay the 3G Mobile Network shutdown as it’s revealed 1 million devices will be affected. The next CrowdStrike style disaster is around the corner with the looming shutdown of the 3G network.
Telstra, Optus and TPG confirmed that a total of 1 million devices will be affected next month when the network is taken offline. This disaster is still looming despite the telco companies claiming they’ve completed a huge education and public awareness campaign. The Communications Minister must intervene and defer the planned shutdown of the 3G network.
Affected devices also include more than 50,000 4G mobiles and an unknown number of pacemakers still reliant on the 3G network to call 000. The shutdown is still a matter of life and death.
While telcos claim to have done all they can to make mobile owners aware, the Senate Inquiry heard witness after witness testify that very few people realise how many other critical devices rely on 3G and will be useless in just over a month. These affected devices include water and power meters, medical refrigeration units, agriculture equipment, pacemakers, medical alarms, airport lifts and many others.
Witnesses across the two days of public hearings at the One Nation initiated Senate Inquiry included the Royal Flying Doctor Service sounding the alarm on behalf of regional communities, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry as the country’s largest business network, government complaints authorities, technical experts and many others.
Are the telcos only pursuing the 3G shutdown for their own profits and to sell new mobile phones? The Minister will be responsible for CrowdStrike 2.0 in just over a month unless she immediately makes it clear she will intervene and put the public interest before telco profits.
On 29 June, protestors vandalised War Memorials in Canberra. These disgusting acts must be condemned.
Freedom of speech and protest are fundamental parts of our democracy. Spray painting memorials of dead soldiers is neither of these.
I joined with Senators Lambie and Hanson in strongly condemning the defacement of war memorials by pro-palestinian protestors, which insults both current and former Australian Defence Force personnel and disrespects the memorials’ significance as national symbols of pride and remembrance.
This divisive campaign by the Greens undermines Australia’s respect for our defence forces and reflects an anti-Australian agenda. Vandalism of these memorials is an affront to our country’s values and those who serve to protect them.
We stand in solidarity with service men and women, their families, and all Australians who honour their sacrifice.
Transcript
One Nation supports this motion, and I’ll read it again:
That the Senate condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protestors which is deeply insulting for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and remembrance.
It undermines the very core and heart of our beautiful country, and the Australian people. It undermines the respect we have, as a nation and as individuals, for the service of so many caring Australians in our defence forces, past and present, and it reveals the pro-Palestinian protesters’ true, anti-Australian agenda. I join with Senator Lambie and Senator Hanson in condemning the Greens for this divisive campaign that they are pushing based on ideology and harvesting votes. It is essentially treason—defacing and desecrating our country and what we stand for. Australians, whatever their views of the wars we’ve engaged in, take pride in and honour our service men and women.
I recall a friend of mine; when we were in our 20s, he made the off-the-cuff comment that he despised the War Memorial because it was a memorial to the glory of war. I said: ‘No, no. It’s not. It’s a memorial to the service that men and women have given in supporting and defending this country and what we stand for.’ He has gone on to be a proud grandfather, with two boys now serving in the Army and a daughter serving in the police force of Queensland. He has children and grandchildren who have served and are serving our country.
Free speech, as Senator Cash pointed out, is not vandalism and desecration, which is the violation of property rights and must be punished. To all service men and women and their families and relatives: thank you. We will vote in favour of this motion to condemn the acts of defacing war memorials in your name.
The Government made an election promise to address PFAS contamination around Defence bases. Instead of taking direct action, they opted to call for yet another inquiry, consuming their entire term without providing any assistance to those affected.
Mr. Jim Varghese AM conducted an independent review of land use near key Defence bases impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Throughout the process, the team consulted with me on several occasions and I’m hopeful that their recommendations will reflect the outline I was provided.
I am concerned that the issue has been referred to Cabinet, where Cabinet confidentiality rules prevent any further discussion. There was no reason for this to be treated as a Cabinet document, and I suspect it was done to bury the findings.
I remain committed to getting the report released and seeking justice for residents affected by PFAS contamination.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My initial questions are about PFAS. Do we have those people here?
Ms Perkins: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. The PFAS Investigation and Management Program’s 2024 Snapshot document shows that Defence invested $706 million to remediate PFAS contamination on Defence sites. Defence has also been responsible for two class action settlements at $212.5 million and $132.7 million. Are those included in the $706 million, or are they additional costs?
Ms Perkins: That’s a terrific question, Senator. Defence—in fact, the Commonwealth—has settled five class actions, including the ones you referred to there. It’s my understanding, but I’ll confirm this over dinner, that the first figure you referred to, which is our expenditure on—
Senator ROBERTS: The $706 million.
Ms Perkins: the remediation program is separate to the legal settlements that the Commonwealth has made. But I’ll confirm that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What about Defence’s total legal cost to fight the class actions? Are those included in the $706 million? Probably not.
Ms Perkins: I would have to get my colleagues from Defence Legal Division to confirm that for you. I manage the investigation and remediation program, not the legal settlements.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we have expenditure of over a billion dollars so far? That’s $706 million plus the class action settlements—
Ms Perkins: But, as I said, I’ll take that on notice and confirm the elements of the spend over dinner.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I acknowledge the extensive work and resources that Defence is putting into treating the 27 PFAS contaminated sites within the Defence bases, but the remediation will not solve existing contamination in farmland. These are the residents who have been affected the most: what was previously prime productive land—and I’m thinking, for example, about people who I’ve met at Oakey in Queensland—is now unusable for agriculture. Their properties have been depreciated to the point of being impossible to sell. They can’t get out of there and so that’s where their super is tied up and everything—they’ve lost it. This is why the Independent review of land uses around key Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination was commissioned. I thank the department for including my office in the consultation process—from memory, with Mr Varghese. I understand that the report is complete; when will that report be made available?
Ms Perkins: The report was completed and delivered to the government in early April. We’re working now across the parts of government that contribute to the work on PFAS, and the government will consider that review and its recommendations in the coming months.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include whether or not it will release the document?
Ms Perkins: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The report suggests grading land—not grading as in bulldozer grading—and categorising land based on contamination and rezoning so that residents can sell agricultural land as, say, industrial land, which is how many residents along Cabbage Tree Road in Williamtown have been able to get out and start over again. Newcastle Airport is now extending over contaminated land—another sensible use. This isn’t a big-ticket item, and it doesn’t need a large pot of money. There’s no reason to send it to cabinet unless the intention is to let it die under cabinet confidentiality. Is there any reason to send it to cabinet?
Ms Perkins: As I mentioned, the report has been delivered and makes a series of recommendations. I think some of the points you’ve just referred to were the issues that Mr Varghese canvassed in consultation in affected communities and with other stakeholders like you. One of the challenges we’ve always had with the management of PFAS remediation is that accountabilities exist at all three tiers of government and across the community, and we’re very mindful, as we move forward, in both the Defence remediation program and the broader Commonwealth approach, that we consider how we activate across state and local governments and industry integrated responses. That will be the work we take to the Commonwealth government to consider.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s what you’re considering now before you take it to government?
Ms Perkins: As is normal in an independent review, Mr Varghese has done a really valuable body of work— great consultation—and made recommendations. We’re working with colleagues in other parts of government, as you can appreciate from your question—the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the department of agriculture, the department of health and so on—so that we can continue to advise government on an integrated Commonwealth response in affected communities.
Senator McAllister: I think, Senator Roberts, in fairness to the officials, because the report is before the government there are some limits on what they can tell you about the advice that’s been provided. I think Ms Perkins has indicated that there is a process underway but she won’t be able to give you any further information about the particulars of the advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. I’ve worked that out from what Ms Perkins has said quite clearly. I want to commend the way Mr Varghese approached us. We have checked with residents, and he approached them with a very open mind and took good notes, apparently. These are not characteristics of the past ways that Defence has tried to address this, so we can see a change going on. It seems genuine, so we’re looking forward to the report. Minister, was there any additional funding in the budget for measures recommended in this report as opposed to the ongoing remediation report?
Senator McAllister: The answer I’ll provide is probably similar to the one I’ve just given, which is that the report is before the government, and that response is being developed.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, has any consideration been given to suing the manufacturers of PFAS for the damages they’ve done to the community and the environment and added costs to the Australian defence forces? We’re talking billions of dollars here, and these people—DuPont, 3M and others—seem to be just getting off the hook.
Senator McAllister: I’m not trying to be difficult, but I am very reluctant to speculate about how the government might respond to the report that’s before us. So I really can’t provide answers to questions that go to the specifics.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have two final questions on a different matter. There has been reporting that the partner of Lieutenant Nugent, who died in the Whitsunday helicopter crash, was told in the weeks after the crash, by a senior officer from Defence, that she would be able to find someone new. Have you made any efforts in the Army to locate which officer made these absolutely horrific comments to the partner of a soldier who had just died, telling her she would find a new partner? And have you done anything to reprimand or punish them for such heartless comments?
Lt Gen. Stuart: The short answer to your question is yes. We have followed up on that matter, and we remain closely involved with all of the families who lost their loved ones on 28 July last year.
Senator ROBERTS: So that has been rectified with the widow?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes, we remain in close contact. It is a very, very difficult time for everybody involved, and we want to make sure that they’re properly supported throughout this process.
Senator ROBERTS: And the officer has been either reprimanded or punished; what he said has been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: As you know, I can’t go into individual matters, but—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t want the names.
Lt Gen. Stuart: we’re taking it seriously, and we’re making sure that we are addressing all of those kinds of issues. I can certainly assure the committee that all of our efforts since the evening of 28 July last year have been focused on making sure that the families, loved ones and teammates of those that were impacted by the loss of those four soldiers have been and continue to be supported for the long term.
Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you say the officer ‘will be’ addressed or ‘has’ been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Has.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question. General Campbell, you posted on social media congratulating the 2024 Napier Waller Art prize winner, Kat Rae, for her piece Deathmin. It is a 157-centimetrehigh stack of post-death paperwork that Kat Rae revealed after her husband committed suicide after dealing with the PTSD he had from his time in the Defence Force. General Campbell, you have been the commander of the entire Defence Force for six years. You’ve been in the highest positions of the organisation for at least 15 years. You’ve congratulated a widow who is talking about the complexity of the defence and veterans’ bureaucracy. You’ve been in charge of that bureaucracy. What have you done, specifically, to fix her problems?
Gen. Campbell: There has, I think, been a great deal of work done, both within Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and I acknowledge the work of the interim national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide and the work of the royal commission, which is ongoing but which has provided both some harrowing testimonies and also extremely useful insights into how to continue that work to improve our organisation. I am, as are the senior leaders of the ADF and more broadly Defence, committed to ensuring that continues to be the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please give me some specifics of what you’ve implemented to fix these problems?
Gen. Campbell: We are seeking to see a much more trauma informed approach to the way in which we deal with people. We are now much more conscious of and are seeking to embed an awareness of psychosocial risk in the way we work with our people and our people experience service in the military. We’ve greatly strengthened the experience of transition for everybody in the force, and we’ve very substantially enhanced the integration between Defence and DVA. We’ve introduced personnel policies that seek to wrap those policies around the lived experience of an individual from before joining all the way through to beyond transition. They are some examples of our efforts. They are very wide-ranging, and I think that they are fundamental to developing our people, supporting our people and seeing the capability that they create emerge.
Senator ROBERTS: What about transitioning people who are leaving the defence forces out of the workforce? I have enormous respect, as a result of conversations I had with veterans 40 years ago, for the way the Australian recruits, the intake, are actually introduced to the Army and they’re—I mean this in a very positive way—stripped of their past associations and they join into the culture of the defence forces. It’s extremely important, because that is the key to the success of the Australian defence forces. But, as someone said to me, we send them, we bend them but we don’t mend them. We just turn them loose when they’re finished, and apparently that’s causing a lot of strife.
Gen. Campbell: That was my point with regard to the work of the Joint Transition Authority and the fundamental reconceptualisation of how we see transition from military service to beyond military service, and see it as a period rather than a moment. Could I note that, at a graduation for soldiers into the Australian Army a few weeks ago, I was really pleased to see how enthusiastically they spoke of their training and were looking forward to their service, not just saying that to me but saying that to the junior officers and the NCOs who were with me and variously moving around the audience. It was a very positive expression of an introduction to service and it’s exactly the same outcome that we want for transition from service. We are seeing work done that sees that period being about a two-year transition, with the idea that, while you serve today and you serve for a period of time, the transition is seeded at your induction into service in your recruit training. I think it’s a very healthy way to look at service and to then encourage people to start having conversations about transition before they move into that period of transition, with Defence reaching out in support of those who would wish it following two years from transition, typically seeing a glide down of Defence’s engagement and a glide up of DVA’s engagement where the individual would seek it.
Coronavirus was the product of 54 years of research aimed at developing a biological weapon. Whether it escaped from the Wuhan Lab accidentally, or was deliberately released, doesn’t matter.
The fact remains COVID-19 is a man-made disaster and those responsible must be held accountable.
It was a pleasure to have a long chat with two fantastic veterans, Dylan Conway from the charity Brothers and Books and Michael Lorrigan of Two 14 Coffee Company, to talk all things Defence and Veterans
You won’t want to miss the incredible story of what these gentlemen are doing for the Australian community.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JRzTv3Htlik/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-12 14:17:522024-07-12 14:17:57Supporting Our Heroes: A Long Chat with Dylan Conway and Michael Lorrigan
One Nation advocates for a thorough review of the entire native title system and proposes a sunset clause on native title claims. The current situation is out of hand and sidelines the most crucial stakeholders—the Australian people—from any meaningful consultation in these processes.
Currently, over half of Australia is subject to native title claims, yet less than three percent of Australians have had a voice in this matter. The vast majority of us are excluded from participating in the process.
While state governments, councils, and the Federal Court are involved, they rarely reflect community views because they do not seek our input. This pattern mirrors the lead-up to the Voice referendum, where extensive consultation, funded by taxpayers, occurred solely with Indigenous groups, neglecting the broader Australian population. It was this approach that contributed significantly to the Voice’s failure, costing taxpayers a staggering $450 million. Native title claims are similarly determined within a closed circle, deliberately excluding the majority of Australians, including those whom the native title system purportedly aims to benefit.
During my visits to remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, a consistent grievance I’ve heard from Aboriginal Australians across these regions is their inability to obtain land title, while unaccountable land councils operate like robber barons, establishing their own fiefdoms. This sentiment was reiterated by Aboriginal elders who sought me out during recent visits to Maryborough and Gympie.
There’s a hidden agenda at play here. The preamble of the Native Title Act is filled with references to United Nations policies and declarations. This raises questions about whether the Act is serving the UN agenda of undermining private land ownership and restricting land use. Unfortunately, local Aboriginals are denied the opportunity to own land outright under native title and hinders their ability to live on, invest in, develop, farm, or leverage it for business loans.
Native title prevents Aboriginals from enjoying the same land use rights as other Australians, prolonging inequality rather than closing the gap. Land ownership on mainland Australia did not exist when the British colonists arrived, nor was there recognition of individual land rights or inheritance. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to mainland Australia — incorrectly. This framework introduces race-based rights, perpetuating racial discrimination in Australia, which contradicts the principles of equality.
The lack of action by Labor, Liberals and Nationals to review and rectify these issues underscores a failure of democratic governance, which should prioritise serving and representing the people, not controlling them.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race
I rise to speak about the racial divisions that continue to be perpetrated by the Liberal-Labor uniparty and their toxic native title system. One Nation ‘s candidate for the Queensland seat of Keppel, James Ashby, is doing a wonderful job holding the Miles Labor government accountable for its failure to meet $30 million worth of commitments to Great Keppel Island. Further, James Ashby deserves credit for exposing the latest native title claim on the island on the weekend. This claim, if successful, would mean that 84 per cent of Great Keppel Island would be excluded from non-indigenous Australians. One of the jewels of Central Queensland and an Australian tourism icon could effectively be closed off for all time from the Australian people, from local businesses and from international visitors.
This isn’t the first time an Indigenous group has tried to close off Great Keppel Island from the rest of us by using a divisive native title claim. In 2021 the Federal Court denied a native title claim over the Great Keppel Island leases held by Tower Holdings because of pre-existing infrastructure of commercial value. One Nation calls on this latest claim to be thrown out, too, and for the Miles Labor government to honour its $30 million promise to clean up and restore Great Keppel Island. Yet we must go much further than that. We’re calling for a comprehensive review of the entire native title system and a sunset clause on native title claims, because it’s getting out of hand and it’s excluding from any consultation on these processes the most important stakeholders of all: the Australian people.
More than 50 per cent of Australia is now under native title claim, yet fewer than three per cent of Australians have had any say in it. The rest of us are excluded from the process. While state governments, councils and the Federal Court get a say, they almost never represent community views, because they don’t ask us for our views. We’re not asked, because they don’t want to hear our views. This is what happened in the lead-up to the Voice referendum. There was a lot of consultation, costing a lot of taxpayer money, but only with Indigenous groups. There was none for the rest of Australia. It’s one of the main reasons it was such a spectacular $450 million failure, a flop. Consultation was undertaken in an echo chamber where dissent was absent, where dissent was chastised, where dissent was suppressed. Native title claims are resolved in this sort of bubble as well—a bubble from which most Australians are always excluded, deliberately. Even those people who are specifically intended to benefit from native title are excluded from those benefits.
I often visit remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, and the No. 1 complaint from Aboriginal Australians right across Cape York and the communities I visited in the Northern Territory is the inability of Aboriginals to get land title while unaccountable land councils act as robber barons building fiefdoms. This was expressed to me again by Aboriginal elders who’d heard I was visiting Maryborough and Gympie last week and came to see me and attended a forum I hosted. There’s another agenda going on in the background. The Native Title Act’s preamble is littered with references to the United Nations policy and declarations. Why is this so? It fits with the UN agenda of attacking private land ownership and locking the land away from use. Unfortunately for local Aboriginals, they’re denied the opportunity of actually owning their piece of Australia by buying it to live on, to invest, to build, to develop, to farm or to use as collateral for a business loan to set up a business.
Native title holds Aboriginals back from doing what all other Australians can do with land. It works to maintain the gap, not close it. When British colonists arrived there was no form of landownership on the mainland. There was no recognition of individual landownership, security or passing the land onto heirs. Land title existed only in limited form, in some Torres Strait Islands. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to the mainland of Australia—incorrectly. Native title perpetuates racial discrimination in Australia by creating rights based on race. This is wrong and must be reversed. The whole concept is consistent with Labor’s policy of waste and arrogance and disdain for Aboriginals and all Australians as part of a global agenda.
Labor is one part of the uniparty. The Liberals and Nationals have done nothing to review this act to fix things for all Australians. Democratic government is supposed to work for the people and serve the people. Instead, in recent decades the uniparty governments have worked to control the people. They push a global agenda to control people and steal property and transfer wealth to the party’s corporate globalist masters. We need a comprehensive review of native title urgently so that we can get back to helping Aboriginals get some land.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/00nyp1Gv3Rs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-11 16:38:322024-07-11 17:06:07A Thorough Review of the Native Title System is Critical
