I draw your attention to an article published in the Australian today[1], which states that “CSIRO and several Australian universities have engaged in at least 10 joint projects with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past decade, a laboratory that US intelligence has linked to the Chinese military and which is suspected of being at the centre of the Covid-19 outbreak.”
The same article states “a spokesperson for Mr Hunt said he had ordered a review of “gain-of-function” research in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council.”
Concerningly, this article points out the roles of CSIRO and Australian universities in research and development at, and/or with, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, roles which CSIRO at first denied in Senate Estimates.
What is worse is that the CSIRO trained Chinese infectious diseases expert Shi Zhengli’s protege, Peng Zhou, who is now head of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunity Project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Further, there are links into many universities, one being the University of Queensland, including Dr Hume Field[2] who is one of many academics from Australia engaged with the EcoHealth Alliance as a Science and Policy Advisor for both China and southeast Asia regions. Dr Hume has been working on emerging diseases, environmental science and infectious disease epidemiology. On 12 May 2020, the Washington Post reported that EcoHealth is a “longtime partner” of the Wuhan Institute of Virology[3].
Minister, so called “Gain-of-Function” (GoF) is a euphemism for biological research aimed at increasing the virulence and lethality of pathogens and viruses. GoF research:
is government funded and supported by CSIRO and Australian universities and academics.
academics may not understand the underlying political or military agendas of such research.
its focus is on enhancing the pathogens’ ability to infect different species and to increase their deadly impact as airborne pathogens and viruses.
ostensibly, GoF research is conducted for biodefense purposes in many countries.
GoF experiments are extremely dangerous and there is evidence of outbreaks[4].
these deadly science-enhanced pathogens can and do escape into the community where they infect and kill people – it is biological warfare.
Government officials and the recipients of government grants and contracts for GoF research argue that these experiments are critical for understanding the subtle changes that can make a virus a pandemic threat. GoF experiments have neither prevented a pandemic, nor provided useful information about safe and effective pandemic countermeasures.
We believe these high-risk experiments deviate from morally justifiable research, and these experimentally altered viruses and pathogens have put the entire human race at risk. Especially given the potential for a country such as China to ‘weaponise’ the products of Australian supported and funded research.
If you, and/or your government support these programs then it is time to stop.
The risks posed by influenza/virus GoF experiments include frequent documented escapes of deadly pathogens into the community, which have a potential for triggering a pandemic. These risks far outweigh any speculative benefits. What’s more, as Dr. Marc Lipsitch of Harvard and Dr. Alison Galvani of Yale argue:
“the creation and manipulation of potential pandemic pathogens are too risky to justify…there are safer more effective experimental approaches that are both more scientifically informative and more straightforward to translate into improved public health.” [PLoS Medicine, 2014][5]
The risk of laboratory enhanced transmissibility of influenza viruses is obvious. Dr. Andrew Pavia, Chief, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah stated:
“A readily transmitted H5N1 virus could be extraordinarily lethal; therefore, the risk for accidental release is significant, and deliberate misuse of the data to create a biological weapon is possible.”[6]
Many everyday Australians are asking why your government is not being proactive and protecting us from viruses by having both an end-to-end plan for managing the COVID-19 outbreak, and by cancelling support for research and collaboration with nations that may weaponise a virus and harm everyday Australians. Australians deserve to be safe.
Minister: can you advise what you and your government know about this GoF research and of the participation of CSIRO and Australian academic institutions?
Additionally, I have submitted a question on notice (QON): I have requested a copy of the terms of reference of your proposed review as well as detail on the composition of the review group, meeting times, how submissions may be made, attendance at meetings and importantly an undertaking from you that this will be a public inquiry with published results. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further and await your advice.
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/08/06/12/shutterstock-editorial-4240298r.jpg?width=990&auto=webp&quality=75743990Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-25 16:05:392021-06-25 16:09:42Letter to Minister Greg Hunt: Stop Gain of Function Research
The Government continues to make changes to the Senate that impact especially crossbenchers being able to speak out on issues. I’m sure the government would love us to be gone, but this is a democracy.
Transcript
I’ll just make a few remarks. I heard Senator Birmingham use the word ‘reform’. I’ve come to realise, over many years of listening to governments in this country, that that word is used to misrepresent what is going to happen. It implies it is good for us all. It is not. It is misrepresenting. The second point I make is: how can we assess the feelings of our constituents and then not express them here any more? The government does not want to assess, and neither do the Labor party, the feelings of our constituents. The third point I want to make is that we’ve had no notice on this, and there is control. That’s what this is about: control. And, always, beneath control there is fear.
We don’t like what happened with formal motions. Our response was not to run away, not to shut down, but to stand up and speak out. Even though it was only one minute, that’s what we’ve done. We spoke. We held people accountable. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the Greens and we disagreed or agreed with them; we had the guts to speak up. The core issue that’s driving this is decades of weak governance and no accountability, and this change continues that. We will continue to tell the truth and calmly speak up and rely on data, and round you lot up.
The Government has told ACARA, the Curriculum Authority in Australia, to re-write the draft curriculum. We thank Minister Tudge for listening to the criticism, including from myself, on what was an obviously deficient draft curriculum
Education Minister Alan Tudge says the board of the country’s schooling authority must substantially rewrite its draft national curriculum, warning he will not endorse the proposed document amid concern student outcomes would be harmed.
Writing to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s acting chairman Norm Hart, Mr Tudge criticised the proposal for supporting “ideology over evidence” and presenting an “overly negative view” of the nation in the study of history and civics.
In the letter, seen by The Australian, Mr Tudge urged the board to seriously consider recent feedback from education experts, who have flagged concerns that the proposed changes amounted to a weakening of learning standards.
“Some of these groups, such as Australia’s peak mathematics association, believe that the current draft will take Australian kids backwards,” he wrote. “If the current draft is simply tweaked, it will not be supported. It needs fundamental changes.”
The warning comes as the ACARA board meets on Thursday and Friday to discuss feedback to the highly anticipated update of the Australian Curriculum – an important document laying out what students are expected to learn across the mandated subject areas of English, maths, science, the arts, humanities, health and physical education and languages.
The curriculum also seeks to cover general capabilities, or skills, such as critical and creative thinking, as well as ensure young people develop an understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. Its release in April, however, sparked a torrent of criticism, including from high-profile historians, academics and reading specialists.
Among the most scathing criticism was from the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute, whose membership spans leading universities, government agencies and industry, which called for any ongoing review of the maths curriculum to be halted pending further consultation.
The institute was particularly critical of a proposed push towards having students learn maths by engaging in open-ended problem-solving activities, noting that “mastery of mathematical approaches is needed before student problem-solving can be effective”.
Under way for more than a year, ACARA’s curriculum review was launched in the wake of Australia’s declining performance on the OECD’s PISA, which has shown that Australian students have gone backwards in reading, maths and science over the past 20 years.
According to Mr Tudge, the curriculum should seek to be ambitious on students’ learning outcomes and should prioritise evidence-based practices, particularly in reading and maths.
“However, to my great frustration, evidence-based practices have not been consistently embedded in your current draft,” he said. “There is still too much emphasis on whole-language learning of reading and insufficient emphasis on phonics.
“Thirty years ago, determining the best way to teach reading may have been a legitimate debate, but it is not now. The evidence is crystal clear … that the teaching of phonics is vital.”
The minister also urged the ACARA board to re-examine the draft history and civics curriculum to ensure that it provided a balanced teaching of Australia’s liberal democracy that has made the nation attractive to millions of migrants.
“Your draft, however, diminishes Australia’s western, liberal, and democratic values,” Mr Tudge said. “The overarching impression from the curriculum is that the main feature of western civilisation is slavery, imperialism and colonisation.
“Important historical events are removed or reframed, such as the emphasis on invasion theory over Australia Day. Even Anzac Day is presented as a contested idea, rather than the most sacred of all days where we honour the millions of men and women who have served in war, and the 100,000 who gave their lives for our freedom.”
Referencing the coronavirus pandemic, Mr Tudge said the education system had “been shaken in the last 18 months … in ways we had never imagined”.
“I believe that the best way to serve the interests of our young people now is to seize every opportunity to lift educational standards,” he said.
“The draft of the Australian Curriculum is such an opportunity.”
Remember what critical race theory is? It says that the whole of our society is infected with racism and it only helps whites, that you can only succeed if you’re white and if you’re anything else you can’t succeed which is a shocking message.
Transcript
[Paul Murray] Let’s talk to one of the Senators who was in the chamber for that nonsense in and around coal but I want to talk more so about his success in being able to get the Senate to agree to keep critical race theory, the crazy stuff all about teaching white people to hate themselves including the video we showed you a bit earlier in it day. Malcolm Roberts is the One Nation Senator from here in beautiful Queensland. Lovely to be here and I’m sure you would prefer to be in Gladstone rather than Canberra now mate but alas that’s the gig you have. Tell us how important was this vote and what message does it send about critical race theory in the national school curriculum?
[Malcolm Roberts] Let’s help everyone to understand what critical race theory is. It says that – it claims that everything, every aspect, the whole of our society is infected with racism and it only helps whites so what it does is it says that you can only succeed if you’re white and if you’re anything else you can’t succeed which is a shocking message but what it also does is infects all whites – kids in particular – with guilt and shame. What they’re doing, Paul — with guilt and shame, and what they’re doing is using critical race theory to indoctrinate our kids, telling them what to think not how to think and that is what’s so damaging about it. Our kids are our productive capacity in the future and they’re killing off our productive capacity.
[Paul Murray] It is extraordinary to me that a country that has been able to achieve so much including in a multiracial fashion has been able to be the story of immigration from all over the world has been one of the great successes of Australia yet for some reason reason all of the people who want to sit in the modernity is only possible because of the great rise of the West who want to use their position in the power structure of the West to somehow say there is something fundamentally wrong with the system that pay their wages or think something like critical race theory is worth implementing via their jobs.
[Malcolm Roberts] You just nailed it. At the core of this it is about control and reveals an extremely arrogant approach. These people who are pushing this nonsense, they don’t want to get into parliament and go through the work of being elected, putting their policies and their ideas under scrutiny. They just want to get in through the back door and then they want to use their power over innocent kids. I mean, there’s nothing more shameful than that. They don’t want to have any scrutiny. They just want to work through the back door ideology. What they use, Paul, as you know, is they use shaming language to silence any dissent because if you go against it, mate, you’re a racist and there’s nothing worse than calling someone a racist and that’s what they do. It is all about control and getting control of the future of our kids. Don’t go through parliament, fight to change and enact laws, just bypass it all and indoctrinate the kids. It’s frightening stuff.
[Paul Murray] Thank goodness you are there to fight it and congrats on getting the Senate to see sense on this stuff. Well done and it is one of the many reasons I’m glad you and Pauline are in the parliament.
I spoke on a motion criticising the government for failing to table information that the Senate has requested. Unfortunately, it is a situation that keeps happening. The government refuses to provide information that all Australians should have access to.
I moved a motion in the Senate this afternoon condemning the use of untested and permanent hormonal treatment in children with reported Gender Dysphoria. Genuine transgender people do exist, but the evidence on allowing children to alter their gender permanently and irreversibly does not. This was a motion to protect children.
Children going through puberty have many feelings and experiences, but 70-90% of gender dysphoria resolves itself by puberty. Allowing doctors to permanently change children’s gender before then must be condemned.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/210512-Transgender-Motion.jpg?fit=1820%2C2561&ssl=125611820Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-15 17:08:082022-07-12 10:22:36GOVERNMENT MEMBERS VOTE WITH LABOR TO SHOOT DOWN MY GENDER HORMONE TREATMENT MOTION
The Greens moved a motion in the Senate today about domestic violence. While we know from statistics that women suffer greatly from DV, it is not the whole story and trying to pitch this issue as one gender versus the other will not fix it.
Thank you, Madame acting Deputy President. One nation opposes this motion. The national crisis is the very existence of violence in our homes and communities. That is violence against men, violence against women, violence against children, the elderly and those living with disabilities. It is fact that males are less likely to be victims of assault from an intimate partner compared to women. But that’s not the whole story. When it comes to violence and assaults from other family members, these statistics show that men and women are almost equally likely to suffer. Australia loses six men per day to suicide. And more men died from suicide in 2019, than the entire Australian road toll of 2019, 2020 combined. Men are 75% more likely to commit suicide than women. These figures are a national tragedy. This motion separates out a portion of the problem without regard for the whole. To solve a problem, first requires understanding the problem and its causes, and understanding what drives the perpetrator and the victim. To separate out only a part of the problem will perpetuate the violence.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/3M9qVMBXUMw/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-15 16:31:412021-06-16 10:08:00Gendering Violence does not fix the core issue
The Aged Care sector has been receiving a lot of attention lately. We know that while there are many aged carers that do fantastic jobs, the sector has been riddled by bad funding models, problems and blame-gaming between governments for a long time.
I asked the Department of Health, who takes care of this at a federal level, about fixing it at Senate Estimates.
Transcript
[Chair] Thank you. Senator Roberts.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair, thank you for being here today. My questions are going to be fairly broad because I’m interested, it’s early days yet since the implementation, since the findings of the Royal Commission. I’m interested in principles that are guiding you and wherever you can, provide specifics, that’d be appreciated. I’m particularly interested in the impact on people in aged care facility who are receiving aged care and also on the budget. Our first question is what is being done to improve the Aged Care Funding Model and to close gaps so that our respected ageing Australians can live well and have certainty that they will not be disadvantaged?
So, Senator part of the, one of the recommendations from the Royal Commission and one that we’ve accepted and incorporated into the budget is the implementation of a new funding model for the Aged Care sector that’s called the AN-ACC System that will replace the current ACFI Funding System that is broadly regarded as no longer fit for purpose. And that new funding model will commence on the 1st of October next year.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the basic principle behind the new funding model or driving it?
So, the basic principles of that is that it is a model that assesses need for the residents. Mrs. Strapp might be able to give you some more detail and specifics of that, but it was designed through the University of Wollongong through a contract that we put out there, and it is based on the assessed needs of residents. Mrs. Strapp might be able to give you some more specific details.
That’s right, and I’ll invite Mr. Murray to add anything that I’ve missed, but the AN-ACC was developed by the University of Wollongong over a number of years. And the government has put funding towards to it prior to this government to test the model and to develop the system around it, the infrastructure around it. And we’ve started, we’ve commenced shadow assessments. So, if the model replaces the current Aged Care Funding Instrument, that’s in place at the moment which is an instrument which aged care providers assess themselves against categories. Instead of that, we’re sending independent assessors out to look at what are the actual care costs associated with an individual. And the individual is assessed against a number of categories and the cost are then modelled by the University of Wollongong or they’ve tested what are the actual costs associated with care for someone in a residential aged care facility. And it’s supposed to, I guess, reflect what the actual costs are. I don’t know if Mr. Murray, if you want to add anything?
[Malcolm Roberts] So, then the Minister was accurate in saying that, and I wasn’t implying that he was being inaccurate, but implying that it’s based on needs of individual people receiving care rather than broad categories of aged care facilities?
Yeah, yes.
So, to a couple of changes. So, the current ACFI System is assessed by providers themselves so it’s a self assessment process. The new model will have independent assessors that conduct that work on behalf of the government of the residents in residential aged care against, I think it’s 13 categories, is that correct? That’s correct. And the costing of the delivery of those services will be assessed through a process that we’ve spoken to the Committee earlier in the day about. So, we will be establishing an independent hospitals and aged care pricing authority, so, we’re modifying the existing independent hospitals and pricing authority to include aged care skills and capacity to undertake an independent process of actually costing the delivery of service. And then those costs will be recommended back to government to be applied into the new funding model. So, it will be based on an assessment of cost of delivery of services with, of course, some indexes applied to those things to consider, for example, remoteness or special circumstances where we might be delivering services to the homeless, for example, who are recognised as having a higher cost of care or indigenous people in those remote indigenous communities. So, there’ll be a loading that’s applied to those base amounts in a very similar way that we do with the broader health system recommended by the new agency to apply to the AN-ACC funding system.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, that implies you’re seeking better care. Will that cost more? And I’m assuming it will, so if any additional costs, will that be met by efficiencies in this service, it will be better, or at higher costs? So, what’s the impact on the budgets?
So, the whole reform is designed about providing better care, respect, and dignity and high quality care is the whole purpose of the entire reform process that we’ve designed coming out of the Royal Commission. Another part of the AN-ACC model is a staffing matrix which applies staffing levels to the various forms of care within a facility, and we’re mandating as a part of the reform process a minimum number of care minutes per resident as a part of the overall reform process, again, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission. So, the whole system is designed to improve the delivery of care across the sector.
S[Malcolm Roberts] o, rather than standards imposed based on numbers of staff per facility or numbers of staff per resident it would be based on, standards will be based upon needs of residents.
So, one of the things about staffing is that every facility is different because it is made up of individuals with different needs and individual care requirements. And so, the staffing matrix contemplates that. It was also designed by the University of Wollongong. So, it fits within the system, designed by the same people. And so, it also contemplates that because that’s, rather than having a fixed ratio, so to speak, you have care that’s actually tailored based on the assessment of the person by the independent assessment process and then delivered to them in accordance with their care plan that’s developed as a part of their assessment process.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, looking at the NDIS, it’s highly complex, there’s limited accountability, highly variable service given to different people that doesn’t seem equitable at the moment. What’s being done to ensure that this aged care funding is not being wasted and that it’s being spent equitably and with accountability? We know the NDIS started off in a very vague, messy way. How will this start?
So, regular reporting of expenditure is also a feature of the new system, and expenditure against certain benchmarks. We’re also developing a star rating system that will assess against new quality standards which will also be reviewed and developed. So, your issue around quality standards is a part of what we’re working on as well. So, all of these elements including reporting of expenditure, which we’ve already said is a part of even the additional funding that we’re putting into the sector from the 1st of July, though the providers will be required to report against their expenditure of those funds to ensure that they’re going to the areas that we’ve indicated that they should. And that will be reported alongside the star rating system which will incorporate those spending measures as a part of the design of the new star rating system. So, quality standards, quality indicators, also. So, at this point in time we have three quality indicators that are publicly reported that will extend to five as of the 1st of July, and a part of the design of the new system will be determining how many additional quality indicators that are publicly reported and what they will be.
[Malcolm Roberts] What’s being done to ensure that aged care services are delivered to where they’re needed?
Well, at this moment, at this point in time, Senator, we allocate services based on an assessment of the particular areas, particular needs of an area. So, we continue to monitor an assessment of process. One of the things that we have said that we’ll do is that we won’t be allocating aged care beds specifically to providers post 2004. We’ll be changing that system. And we are also looking to see additional or further innovation in the way that services are delivered. The Commission report, for example, contemplates models of smaller scale providers being able to provide more bespoke type care to residents. And we see that there’s a genuine opportunity with the redesign of the system for that innovation to be particularly useful in regional Australia where there may not be the scale capacity or scale needs for residential aged care in the way that we currently know it. It may be, for example, and I canvased this previously with the [indecipherble], might be that a group of people may want to get together in a regional community, a small regional community and pool their capacity in the context of home care packages so that they can live in a small community, remain in their community, living in a service that provides quite bespoke care for their particular needs, but being maintained at a high quality. So, there will be the capacity for providers to become a registered provider under the new reforms and establish aged care capacity in some areas where it might not be existing now or increase capacity where there’s additional demand for it. And of course, all of the visibility elements that we’re building into the system will give consumers and the public more generally much better information on the quality of care that’s being delivered because that information will be demonstrated through the star rating system and the quality indicators.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, what powers do you see the government needing to ensure our ageing Australians get quality care and that issues are identified and addressed promptly? How do you ensure accountability?
Well, so there’s additional resources that will be made available to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and new powers, based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission under a new Aged Care Act. And I’ve already indicated to you that we’ll be reviewing the aged care quality standards to incorporate into those things, recommendations that have come out of the Royal Commission report. So, we’re talking about a completely new Aged Care Act to support the sector, a review and reform of the aged care quality standards, and also additional powers for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and some additional oversights. So, a Council of Elders, which will provide support and advice to the government and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, a new Aged Care Quality Advisory Council, that will take place of some of the existing forums that exist, and a commissioner that will provide oversight as well for the aged care sector.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, how do you, how will you ensure that we don’t end up with the complex mess that is delivering very variable services in the NDIS at the moment? I know the NDIS basically started as a way to grab a headline for an election, but this, hopefully, will have a better foundation. How do you make sure that we don’t end up with another NDIS, which is variable care and lack of accountability and huge costs?
Well, Senator, making sure that the regulatory burden is not too high is an important fundamental, but it needs to be at an appropriate level to ensure the quality that you’ve talked about. So, the quality systems that apply to the sector are going to be extremely important in that sense as well. So, we’re having some discussions with the sector about the quality systems that apply
[Malcolm Roberts] So, you’ve involved the providers?
We will be talking to the providers. We will be talking to consumers of aged care, their representative organisations and other parties who have an interest in this. This is a very significant redesign job. We would like to have available for senior Australians, a continuum of aged care from the very simplest of services right to the highest levels of clinical need within residential aged care in a system that is as simple for people to navigate as possible. That’s not necessarily an easy thing to design because there are some things that are currently baked into the way that the system operates that are going to be a challenge to change. But as they’re the tasks that we’ve set ourselves as part of the reform process.
[Malcolm Roberts] Has the government done an analysis or review of the NDIS to understand what’s gone wrong there?
I would say that has being somewhat separate to this process, but we have, of course, just undergone a two-year Royal Commission which has had a pretty forensic look at the aged care sector. They provided us with 148 recommendations. And of course, we’ve responded to those formally, but also with the package that we’ve released in the budget.
[Malcolm Roberts] Now, I understand, I haven’t gone into this, but I understand that you’re deregulating bed licences.
That’s correct. So, that was the process whereby we wouldn’t be any further, post 2004.
[Lady] 2024.
Oh, sorry, 2024. 2024, allocating bed licences. So, it will be a matter for an approved provider to establish services as an approved provider. So, that will be a different process.
[Malcolm Roberts] How is more control and choice created by deregulating bed licences?
Well, we think the opportunity for providers to create aged care in different forms will do that. We see that this creates an opportunity for quite a deal of innovation in the way that services are delivered. We still will have in place the quality standards, the quality indicators, the oversight regulatory bodies, and of course the Act to govern that, but as the sector has clearly changed over the last 30 years we see it changing considerably into the future and giving it the flexibility and the opportunity to do that without some of the restrictions that apply at the moment we think are a good thing. So, there’s an ACAR around that’s currently being considered by the department at the moment for the allocation of 2000 beds along with about $150 million in capital support. The likelihood is that that will be the last ACAR round before the system changes in 2024, noting that the occupancy rate at the sector is somewhere about 90% at the moment. So, there is capacity in the system for growth. And one of the things in our broader package as a part of the budget announcement is $400 million to assist with capital development of new facilities particularly in regional areas where they might not be viable in a sense that you would see in that facility in metropolitan areas.
[Malcolm Roberts] Same that apply to low socioeconomic areas?
Yup.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. What are the risks of handing location and development of aged care facilities to developers? That’s what you’re doing essentially, isn’t it?
Not necessarily, Senator. To provide services they will still have to be an approved provider.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.
I mean, there is, there is already in the market I think, an element of property development. My view is that the issues that relate to the quality of care go back to the quality indicators, the quality standards, the star rating system, and the financial reporting, all of which provide visibility into the sector, the money, the funds that have been put in, how they’re spent, ensuring that they’re appropriately spent. And those are the elements that I think go towards, and of course, the role of the Quality and Safety Commission, I think they are the things that provide the tools to ensure that people receive high quality care.
[Malcolm Roberts] You mentioned regional centres will get attention, or not be left out. Having been up in North Queensland recently, Richmond and Julia Creek, the Richmond Mayor, John Wharton, has got a wonderful scheme for developing the area agriculturally. Irrigation, he is not getting support from the state government and in terms of allocating their water licences that they need to do that, making their water allocations, but he can see that Richmond could go from being 1,000 people right now to 8,000 people if the scheme is replicated. And it looks very very positive. Julia Creek just down the road has got, just basically had a new hospital built and it’s all but shut down because they can’t get the staff and the funding for the staff. So, that means their aged care facility is also shut down. People moving to other towns for doing that. And after being in Julia Creek all their lives. So, really what I’m saying is that the regions have been neglected and we need to make sure that the regions are given everything they can to continue development. Because we’ve got people in the regions who want to develop, when they have that development, be it agriculture, farming, industry, then they can have more services come there. They have more teachers, they have more doctors, they have more nurses, they have a dentist. So, instead of seeing a collapse of the regions we can see revitalization of the region, but they need that support from federal and state governments and other policies outside aged care because the regions have been neglected.
Senator, as someone who lives in regional Australia I’m very alert to those issues. And some communities have seen a decline and the loss of service because of the requirement for scale. I think the opportunity to generate some innovation in the way the system operates does provide a pathway for some of those small communities particularly. But you’re right in the context of workforce. And one of the things that we’ve looked at in our reform process is how we work with states and territories in relation to provision of services on a shared basis. We have a lot of multi-purpose services around the country at the moment, whether or not there’s the capacity for us to generate more of those in communities where a work force would be better utilised, doing more than just trying to provide a small base hospital and a few aged care beds, if you bring those two things together you create some critical mass. A reason for people to stay in some of those critical workforces. So, we are very open to those conversations as well, so that those services that are required, will be required, can then be established or even built in some of those communities as they may develop such as Julia Creek that you’ve mentioned.
[Malcolm Roberts] Last question, Chair, what I’m getting at, Minister, is that we’ve seen Australia go from being the lowest cost electricity supplier to the highest cost, one of the highest costs. We’ve seen a reluctance of state and federal governments to provide water infrastructure. And we’ve seen state and federal governments colluding to steal farmer’s property rights. These are hindering our country and they’re hindering the regions. When the state and federal governments finally work out that we just need secure property rights, cheap electricity, instead of artificial inflation of the prices due to regulation not needed and also water infrastructure, then we’ll see booms in agriculture and manufacturing at the end.
Senator, I’m not sure that’s necessarily a question, but so much a statement, but–
[Malcolm Roberts] When is your government going to do something about them?
But, well can I say in the context of energy prices, I think that’s something that this government is quite focused on because we do recognise that it’s an important cost, an input cost to business, and it’s a–
[Malcolm Roberts] Minister Taylor has already expressed fears recently about the future, even higher electricity prices, future unreliability and future instability of electricity supply. These are the things that are affecting regional growth.
Look, I understand Senator Taylor expressing those fears and I think he’s quite focused on those in the context of water. I’m a great supporter of water development and my home state of Tasmania has seen about 15 irrigation schemes developed over time. And it has a real opportunity for the development of communities. But I think as Senator Watt quite correctly says it’s a bit off topic.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/XfsJV7kqiUM/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-07 17:00:002021-06-07 10:24:45Department of Health – Aged Care Senate Estimates
The ATO has been criticised for garnishing alleged tax debts especially from small businesses even while they are still contested.
When you’re a small business, every dollar of cashflow matters and suddenly finding thousands or tens of thousands of dollars missing from your business account can kill your operation. I questioned the ATO about this and also the enforcement of FATCA, a taxation data sharing agreement with the United States.
Transcript
Senator Roberts
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. On a number of occasions, the ATO has been asked if it can provide a breakup of small-business tax debt into principal, interest, and penalty. The ADA’s consistent reply is that this breakup cannot be supplied. Is that still the case?
I’m Melinda Smith, Chief Service Delivery Officer. We, in the near future, we will be able to provide more detail around the construct of the debts. We, last year, changed our core operating system across to a system called ASFP. And part of the benefit of that was it gives us these flexibilities to be able to report. For our collection activities, that’s not information that is as critical to us as other information. So it hasn’t been a priority to be able to produce this immediately, but we are working on that. And I have Vivek Chaudhary, who is our Head of Debt, who might be able to give us a little bit more detail, he’s just teleconferencing in from lockdown. We might need to just unmute the cameras.
Mr. Chaudhary, can you hear us?
I can hear you very well, can you hear me?
Yes, no. We can hear you now, go ahead.
Thank you, Senator. Vivek Chaudhary, Deputy Commissioner of Debt and Lodgement. I am able to share with you that for month ending April 2021 the primary tax for all small business tax debt was 81.7%. A further 15.6% makes up interest, general interest primarily, but also short fall interest, and a small proportion, nearly 2% plus some decimal points, off penalties.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So that’ll be regularly available in future?
Our plan is yes to provide that information in future.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Commissioner, are you familiar with the ATO’s failed leave to appeal to the High Court on the gold refining case known as ACN 154 520 199 Proprietary Limited in Liquidation versus Commissioner of Taxation?
Yes, I am and I’ll ask my colleague, who is Acting Second Commissioner, Law Design and Practise.
[Malcolm Roberts] So my question specifically on that is, some have said that the ATO’s appeal was a request to enable the ATO to rely on, effectively, email gossip to justify the raising of a tax debt; would the Commissioner view this as a correct interpretation or if not, what is your view?
This is Kirsten Fish, Acting Second Commissioner for Law Design and Practise, Australian Taxation Office. No, we wouldn’t agree with that characterisation. The litigation has been ongoing for quite some time. There was an AAT hearing followed by an appeal to the full federal court. On appeal to the full federal court, the Court found that there was procedural unfairness in the way the AAT had taken into account the evidence presented before the AAT, informing its conclusions on the anti-avoidance rules. The Commissioner’s appeal to the High Court was, well, application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, was in relation to that aspect, and whether there was a procedural unfairness in the way the AAT had approached the case. And whether, if there was, whether that impacted the outcome. So, the Commissioner’s application for special leave related to the way that the AAT conducts, takes into account evidence before it, and approaches its consideration of the issues. It was a matter of legal principle that we applied for special leave. Now, of course, having special leave refused, the matter will be returned to the AAT to be reheard. Again, by a freshly constituted tribunal, to determine whether the anti-avoidance rules apply or not. And that reconstituted AAT will, of course, take into account the evidence put before it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. In light of Minister Stuart Robert’s statement on Thursday the 13th of May, two days after the budget was delivered, what actions have you taken as the Commissioner, or within the ATO, to implement this government policy that small business will not be penalised until adjudicated on?
So, I can’t comment on announced but un-enacted measures. So, the announcement that you’re talking about was part of the budget measures to give the AAT powers to effectively grant a stay if the Commissioner is taking debt enforcement action while a matter is before the AAT. I can’t comment on the actual measure itself because it’s not yet law. But of course, in practise, we are very conscious And there are very few instances where we take stronger action in terms of garnishees, where a matter is in dispute. So, taxpayers have a lot of opportunities and we, it’s a part of our legal system, that if you disagree with the Commissioner, you have the opportunity to first object and then have your matter heard before the AAT. Where we have a genuine dispute we, in general, will pause debt collection activity, and we’ll only pursue debt collection activity where we see risk of dissipation of assets, or there’s fraud, or evasion, in the small market.
[Malcolm Roberts] It makes it difficult when the system allows the assessor to be the reviewer. And, as I understand it, that is the case within the ATO. And, also, there is enormous power within the ATO, and small businesses have been hurt by this, as I understand it.
Well, of course, in Australia we have multiple layers of review, and we’ve got a very strong independent review of our decisions in the form of the AAT. The AAT is constituted by some federal court judges, and other members of the profession. They are appointed by the Governor General, they are statutory appointments to the AAT. The AAT is completely independent of the tax office and provides a review of our decisions, and will determine, stand in the shoes of the Commissioner, and redetermine the matter. In addition to that completely independent review of our decisions, we have multiple layers of review available within the office. There’s a statutory right of review in terms of objection. And we also now have a small business independent review, conducted before assessment, which happens both independent review and pre-assessment, and objection post-assessment, happen in a completely separate part of the office to where the audits are undertaken. So in my area, in Law Design and Practise, we conduct that independent review, whereas under a Second Commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn, that’s where we conduct the audit activity that creates assessments.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, Let’s move to something that’s out of your control, to some extent, and that, well, to the ATO, that’s FATCA; the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. And I understand it’s a difficult issue. And I can see the smile on your face. It’s, you must be tearing your hair out. FATCA, for those who don’t know, is a U.S. law requiring banks around the world to report accounts held by U.S. citizens, who are residents in other countries, including dual citizens. Despite FATCA’s significant and capricious impacts, and they’re truly horrendous on people in this country and around the world, why did Treasury or the ATO decide that individual deposit account holders were not significant stakeholders when preparing the post-implementation review of FATCA?
Senator, Jeremy Hirschhorn Second Commissioner, Client Engagement Group. Senator, in terms of the post implementation review, are you referring? Sorry, I’m afraid I’m not aware of the review.
[Malcolm Roberts] Apparently there is a review of FATCA and you have to make a report on deposit account holders and you have to send that report to significant stakeholders. But, apparently, deposit account holders were not considered significant stakeholders.
[Hirschhorn] I might pass my question…
[Mrakovic] Senator, I think that that issue probably falls with us, but I’ll have to take it on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. And I appreciate the complexity, so. It’s a difficult, and you’re caught in the middle.
Senator, I know that you know, and you’ve just pointed out that FATCA is a unilateral measure. It is a decision by the U.S. to basically expect information. And to some extent, to some extent, we try to basically work with other countries in terms of, obviously, exchange of information. But we are very conscious of the fact that there are certain entities and certain, basically at the end of the day, the regulatory and tax framework in one country is different from another. And a lot of this sometimes involves trying to work with the two. But let me take the specific question on notice, so that we can give you the best answer we can provide.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. It boils down, ultimately, I can’t read your name, Ms Mackenzie, is it?
Mrakovic.
[Malcolm Roberts] Mrakovic, it boils down ultimately to the US blackmailing. So, I’m working within that, that confine. While account holders are notified by their banks that their data will be sent to the ATO, pursuant to the FATCA agreement, neither the bank nor the ATO is required to notify the account holder of the actual data sent to the Internal Revenue Service in America under the FATCA agreement. Would it be possible for the ATO to provide this information automatically through the ATO MyGov portal in the same way that interest and dividend income is reported to recipients?
So, Senator, the information that we provide to the U.S. is a standard set of information that’s around account information. Often there will be an overlap with the information which we already have in our, in people’s pre-fill. So, generally, it will be things like bank interest, which we already pre-fill for people. I would say we have not considered whether there is some sort of separate reporting to individuals of reported data. We’d have to, we’d have to think about that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Would you be willing to listen to some of the people being affected?
So I think we’re, we’re very happy to speak to affected people.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’d be good because they’re very concerned about inaccuracies. They’re not accusing the ATO of any malfeasance, but they’re very concerned, because it impacts them. And I know from context myself, that entails a hell of a lot of money in accounting fees, legal fees, because the IRS is just unaccountable. It’s just the law unto itself. And that puts our citizens in the middle of that firing line.
And Senator, what I would say is if there is an individual who is worried about the quality of the data that has been provided, in the absence of a system based solution, which we would have to really take on notice and think seriously about, individuals should not be afraid to contact the office and we will see what information we can provide them.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you, that’s very good. Because of the almost unique US, it’s almost unique, I think there’s one other country, with practising citizenship-based taxation, FATCA reporting includes reporting on the Australian income of Australian residents which is taxable in Australia, and for which the US must grant a foreign income tax offset, foreign tax credit in American terminology. This is not income that is being hidden from the US tax authorities. Has the ATO expressed to their US counterparts their support of a same country exception to FATCA as recommended by the US taxpayer advocate?
[Mrakovic] We’ll take that on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. FATCA has some exemptions to reporting that are not included in the similar Common Reporting Standard, CRS. Under FATCA, accounts under $50,000, US dollars, and accounts held at local client-based banks, are exempt from being reported to the IRS. How is the ATO ensuring that these exemptions are being honoured and that data is not being over-reported to the IRS? Because, as I said, slightest mistakes cause Australian citizens, dual citizens, Americans resident in Australia, enormous grief with the IRS, and they’re innocent. The IRS is not innocent, the Australians are innocent.
So, Senator, I will take details of that on notice, but our reporting is, we are very aware of those rules, those exemptions from FATCA. I’ll take on notice, but I would hope to be able to provide comfort to you, Senator, that we do not report unnecessary accounts.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.
[Chair] Last couple of questions Senator Roberts.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, I’ve got two more. Thanks Chair. Will a Privacy Impact Assessment be conducted with regard to FATCA reporting?
[Mrakovic] Senator we will take that on notice?
[Reinhardt] No, I can.
[Mrakovic] Oh, you can?
Sam Reinhardt, First Assistant Secretary for Corporate and International Tax. So privacy, as part of the original RIS that was undertaken for the 2000, 2014 legislation, privacy issues were considered as part of that. And, in the regional legislation, the RIS Explains that and outline what was done in that, in that effect. And that was that the privacy concerns were addressed by creating a domestic regulatory environment. Now I understand, Senator, you’ve raised some issues that the ATO and Treasury have undertaken to get back to you on that, in relation to the current application.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, so, they’ve been sent? Because we received a whole flurry of questions, responses to questions on notice, at the end of last week.
So I think the responses to the question on notice, as you say, have been provided. The RIS a publicly available document and that outlines the privacy issues that were addressed as part of the original legislation.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. What work has been done to verify that FATCA reporting is proportionate, and maybe the Minister can comment on this, is proportionate to the benefits of reporting to the respective governments of Australia and to the United States? I’m thinking of sovereignty issues. The fact that shareholders of banks will lose, because as I understand it, if we don’t bend to the US blackmail, then our banks can be taxed at 30%, was it? So that, that’s essentially blackmail. How much has FATCA increased tax revenues and or decreased tax evasion? And how much has the collection of FATCA data increased the risk of data breaches and or identity theft directed at account holders? These are significant issues affecting our citizens.
Senator, there’s some factual questions you asked towards the end of that, which of us officials have info?
[Mrakovic] So Senator, I’m going to take all of those questions on notice, because we’ll see where we can provide you with information. I just note that some of the questions that you are asking go to cost benefit analysis across two countries, kind of thing. And it will be very difficult for us to obviously provide substantive detail on that. But we’re happy to go away and see what information we can provide.
[Chair] Senator Roberts, we are gonna have to leave…
And more generally, Senator, I will take the more generalist question you asked on notice for any observations that the Treasurer may wish to make himself there.
[Malcolm Roberts] There are sovereignty issues. I’m going to have to finish up. There are sovereignty issues, there’s the cost to Australian taxpayers who are now paying pensions to people who’ve been overtaxed in United States. Questions of unfairness. And other countries are now starting to stand up to this and start fighting it.
The government is set to try and ram through destructive changes to responsible lending rules. This axing will mean banks can go back to the bad days of over-lending to people who will never pay their loans back. We cannot go back to the bad days of equity theft where banks lent to people who couldn’t afford it just so the bank could later sell their house for a profit.
ASIC and AUSTRAC have been doing a good job in slapping fines on banks after the Royal Commission, racking up just over $2.2 billion in enforcement. Its proof that we need heavy fines for bank wrongdoing and that ASIC can do a very good job keeping banks in line.
The government’s proposed changes take away power from ASIC to do the job they have been doing very well. This can’t be allowed, and I won’t allow this government to use the cover of the pandemic to ram through cushy rule changes for their banking mates.
Transcript
Senator Roberts
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. And thank you for attending today. Firstly, to ASIC, congratulations on your recent enforcement action against AMP for fees for no service, and charging fees to dead people. I hope that goes well. I know that’s a comment without a question, but I appreciate that. In your most recent ASIC Enforcement Actions Bulletin to December 2020, you list 11 actions still pending from the Hayne Royal Commission. With AMP now underway, is that now reduced to 10, and can we expect further enforcement actions for bad banking behaviour?
I haven’t got the statistics in front of me. Perhaps, Commissioner Armour, the…
I think, yeah Commissioner Hughes might be the best able to answer that.
Yeah, thanks. Thanks Cathie. Senator, good afternoon. We can take that one on notice. I think your assumption is probably correct because we have been netting down. If I can put it that way the number of matters as we’ve gone through. So if I’m going to make this point we had 13 matters referred to us by the Hayne Royal Commission. And we are, as I say, going through all of those matters, as well as 32 case studies that were examined by the Royal Commission, which we took on. But we will give you a specific answer on your question about it. I think you’re correct but I just want to be crystal clear on that.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Do you have a dollar figure for the total cost to Australian ADI’s, that’s banks, for bad banking behaviour in the last five years as a result of asset enforcement action?
We don’t have a total cost of the behaviour Senator, what we would be able to provide to you on notice is the total amount of civil penalties and other regulatory outcomes that we’ve achieved over the period since the Royal commission.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] That, that in fact Mr. Hughes, is what I’m asking for. So thank you. So
So Senator I might just add one other aspect to the cost measurement would be the remediation payments as well which we know collectively now are well above $10 billion.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. To confirm, you currently have 11 enforcement actions before the courts for credit misconduct. Is that correct?
That’s my understanding Senator.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] And that’s for breaches of responsible lending laws?
Oh no. Sorry. I thought you meant, Senator, in relation to the matters arising from the Royal Commission. I didn’t hear you correctly.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] No
Not it’s not physically in relation to credit.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] It just happens to be the same number, 11 in both cases. This is for credit misconduct. I think you have a total of 11, and that’s before the courts?
I’m going to have to check those numbers. I’m sorry, Senator. I don’t have whatever it is whatever it is you’re referring to in front of me.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I have ASIC enforcement update July to December 2020, page seven. There’s a table there.
Can I take that on notice, Senator?
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Sure. Thank you. I appreciate you valuing accuracy. Have you changed your enforcement since the Hayne Royal Commission?
I don’t believe that we would say we have changed our enforcement. What we have done is prioritised matters that give rise to significant consumer detriment or hardship or which relates to egregious misconduct including matters that might undermine confidence in the market. So there has been a refocus or a swinging of our prioritisation of matters, specifically to address those strategic enforcement priorities. We obviously receive a vast number of reports of misconduct, which my colleague Mr. Day could talk to you about, but Senator, we couldn’t possibly resource every single matter. So we, we put them through a process by which we identify those matters which meet our strategic priorities. And it would also prioritise enforcement matters that might relate to other priorities or thematic priorities such as misbehaviour in the OCC derivatives market those matters, or matters that involve predatory lending or misconduct involving indigenous or remote communities. So we have a number of filters, which we apply in deciding which matters to take to enforcement.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] So it sounds like ASIC is doing its job and you’re policing responsible lending provisions, correct?
We’re enforcing the laws as they exist today, Senator. We’re very mindful, of course, as Senator McKim was asking me earlier that there are reforms before this chamber in relation to responsible lending. And we will be interested to see the passage of those reforms, if that is indeed what takes place. But where the law is settled then we will pursue those matters where we identify misconduct and there is an actionable bridge that we can pursue.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] So in a briefing with Treasury, which didn’t involve me but my staff were involved. As were Senator Hanson’s staff, Treasury advised my staff that the reason for the decision to move Responsible Lending Regulation from ASIC to APRA was based in large part, apparently, on the actions of ASIC in tightening lending regulations. Have you tightened the legislation or regulation in respect of Responsible Lending since the Hayne Royal Commission? If so, how? I got the impression,
No
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] No, you haven’t?
No, Senator, ASIC does not have the power, the legislative basis or any legislative basis to change the law or regulations. Prior to the completion of the Royal Commission, ASIC updated its guidance response, its guidance number two zero nine, regulatory guide two zero nine, in December 2019, which provided further examples of the sorts of conduct and considerations that responsible lenders should take into account when making lending decisions. But as I said to Senator McKim, that guidance does not have the force of law, and we have not changed the rules or imposed any new obligations since the Hayne Royal Commission.
Thank you The only thing that has happened since the Hayne Royal commission Senator – sorry to cut you off is that the full federal court handed down its decision in the Westpac matter.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Is it true to say that any tightening in bank lending practises is the decision of the banks, not of ASIC?
Well, we don’t make decisions on individual loan applications, Senator. Those are entirely matters for the banks. They will have regard obviously to Prudential Standards, administered by APRA. They will have regard to their obligations under the Consumer Credit Act administered by ASIC. And they’ll also have regard to the decisions of courts and of APRA. But the decision to advance a line to any particular borrower, consumer or business is entirely that of the bank, not its regulators.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Minister, could you agree that it would be possible for some people to categorise the stripping of Responsible Lending Regulation from ASIC to be a penalty for your enforcement act, for its enforcement action against the banks?
No, I think that’s an unfair characterisation, Senator Roberts.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] I just want to go on record saying I appreciate the directness and the quality of the responses from ASIC. So thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/mhu_gXI58x8/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-04 09:10:572021-06-04 09:11:10ASIC keeping banks in line – Government trying to soften them up
