The Digital Restack is a simple concept. When digital television was introduced in Australia, each station was given six channels but opted to use only five. In fact, they often struggle to provide entertaining content on even those five. The bandwidth from the sixth channel has been sitting unused between stations all this time.
A digital restack would simply move the channels closer together, freeing up a block of bandwidth that could be auctioned off for between $1 billion and $2 billion—funds that taxpayers could benefit from now. More importantly, this revenue could help grow the economy and create jobs.
One Nation believes a small portion of this bandwidth should be dedicated to two Community Television channels, providing community access to broadcasting, defeating the media monopoly on TV programming. Melbourne’s C31 is an excellent example of the quality and audience reach that community television can achieve.
I asked the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) what happened to the restack that was due this year. The answer was extraordinary. According to the Minister, they are conducting “a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs, in looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed.”
In other words, they have no plans to proceed—just a stream of bureaucratic word salad instead.
This government is failing us.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. And we’ve seen how that goes. This is my final question. It is about the digital restack. I looked through your annual work program report and found this comment regarding the digital television channel restack. I quote:
Exploring possible parameters and solutions for channel planning relevant to possible new shared multiplex arrangements. This work will provide evidence to inform any future restack—
The restack was to be a closing up of digital TV channels. This sounds like you have something else in mind for the sixth channel, the gap between each station. What is the plan for the restack now?
Ms O’Loughlin: The Minister for Communications gave a speech a couple of weeks ago at our RadComms conference. They were talking about a program of work that needed to be done around the future of television. Her emphasis in that was that free-to-air television is incredibly important in Australia because it reaches 99 per cent of the population. It is free to air. How is that going to evolve over the next 10 years? Will it be terrestrially driven or will some of it go online? The minister was talking about a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including the broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs. It is looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed. A small part of that is what happens to the spectrum that may be freed up over that process. Part of our job is what that might be and when that might occur. The annual report says that requires channel planning. A whole lot of spectrum planning would have to be done to facilitate any movement of the broadcasters and the freeing up of that spectrum over time.
Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean in English, so that people can understand? What is the reality? You have said managed and staged, which indicates to me that it is more than just a premonition of an idea that something might happen. Something is happening.
Ms O’Loughlin: The minister’s announcement was about some things that have happened recently. For example, in Mildura, the Channel 10 services were turned off because the local providers who provided that service didn’t think it was financially feasible to continue it. It has an impact on consumers. WIN has made some changes to its arrangements in other parts of the country, where it is sharing its own infrastructure. That has an implication. That has actually not affected those audiences very well. I think what the minister is saying is that if there is going to be an end state where broadcasting wants to go, we need to think about all the steps that have to take place for that to get there effectively. That is what is alluded to. There is what is called a future broadcasting working group, which the minister has asked to be reinvigorated, to start thinking about these issues for the next 10 or 15 years, not the next two or three.
The eSafety Commissioner has the power to issue takedown notices on various types of material, with exploitation material being the most common. One Nation supports these powers being used for this purpose. A small portion of their work involves removing material that is deemed “violent or distressing.” This was the power used in the case of the Bishop Mari Mari Emmanuel video. One Nation is concerned that these powers could be misused, as they are subject to political interpretation regarding what is and is not “violent or distressing.”
I asked the eSafety Commissioner if her department had a transparency portal where Senators and the public could see the material being taken down. The Commissioner responded by including exploitation material in her count, to show why such a portal was not feasible, yet I did not ask about exploitation material; my question specifically concerned material categorised as “violent or distressing.”
It is my belief that social media platforms primarily use AI to remove most of this material and that the department has only had to issue a small number of notices. I want to know what those notices were issued for and I will continue this inquiry during the next estimates session.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. My first question is about your newsroom statement from 4 October about the social media platform X and a transparency notice on the measures it’s taking to combat child sexual exploitation material. Is this the only transparency notice that has not been complied with?
Ms Inman Grant: Thus far, yes. Where we issued an infringement notice, we issued something called a service provider notification to Google for the same set of child sexual abuse material.
Senator ROBERTS: The only other platform is Google, and that hasn’t been issued with a transparency notice. Are there any others like Telegram or Facebook? Telegram does a lot of work in that area.
Ms Inman Grant: We are in the midst of a process around a series of very complex transparency notices in relation to terrorist and violent extremist material. Telegram is amongst them, and we’re engaging with them.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This thread asks about a subset of your work—material that is violent or distressing. Do you have a transparency portal where your instructions to social media platforms to take down such material are registered in as close to real time as possible so we can see what you’re censoring?
Ms Inman Grant: We weren’t set up as a censor, Senator. We have frameworks provided through complaint schemes. Members of the public report content to us, particularly when the social media platform or messaging platform hasn’t responded. With respect to illegal and harmful online content, we also have very well legally defined requirements. We have both notice powers under the Criminal Code and then removal notices under the Online Safety Act and formal removal notices, which we exercised against both X and Meta during the Wakeley terrorist incident.
Mr Dagg: Can I just explain how we achieve the objective of transparency in terms of our actions. You may know that the Online Safety Act requires us to publish, under section 183, actions that we’ve taken in relation to a variety of harms. Our annual report has been published. You can find all of the information—
Senator ROBERTS: Your report has been published?
Mr Dagg: The annual report has been published, and we are required to report all of that information in the annual report. You can find that from page 223 in the appendices that relate to the eSafety Commissioner. That will show you all of the actions that we took for the financial year 2023-24.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give us a bit of background on each one?
Mr Dagg: No—these are aggregated figures, so there’s no specific breakdown of each individual matter.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no breakdown and no opportunity for people to see how you’re doing it?
Mr Dagg: It would not be operationally feasible for us to report in real time the actions that we’re taking. Parliament expected us to report on an aggregated basis about the actions that we’ve taken, including requests, but we haven’t broken them down—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s just the aggregate numbers—
Mr Dagg: The aggregate numbers for a range of operational purposes, including security and operational feasibility.
Senator ROBERTS: So the platforms have to be transparent, and you don’t?
Mr Dagg: Well, the platforms report on things in an aggregated way, too, Senator. They’re not reporting on each individual specific matter that they deal with. They deal with millions of matters on a yearly basis. So, again, that just wouldn’t be feasible for them to do.
Senator ROBERTS: But the platforms have to be transparent to you.
Mr Dagg: Through the exercise of our compulsory transparency powers under the basic online safety expectations. But it’s important to note, Senator, that those transparency powers are around how the platforms are meeting the expectations. We’re not extracting from them specific information about how they’re dealing with this matter or that matter that might be reported to them. We’re interested in understanding how they take user reports, for example—if they’ve got reporting schemes in place, how their terms, services and policies are developed to meet the objects of the basic online safety expectations. The most recent determination includes some measures in relation to generative AI and how the companies are ensuring that these technologies aren’t being used, for example, to produce child sexual abuse material on a synthetic basis. That’s the kind of information that we’re drawing from the companies. We’re not drawing information about how they’re dealing with individual complaints.
Senator ROBERTS: The police force has long had transparency to the public through the court system. Whether you agree that the court system is perfect or not, that’s not the point. Who do you go through to provide transparency? How can we assess what you’re doing, rather than just in the aggregate?
Mr Dagg: When it comes to the principles of open justice, as a former police officer myself, the matters that make their way to court represent a tiny fraction of all matters that are reported to police. The matters that are reported to police are not reported on an individual basis. There are strict privacy concerns, for example, that ensure the protection of complainants’ identities and the specific matters that are reported to police forces. The Wakeley matter—the section 109 notice that we issued to Twitter X—is a good example of how that principle of transparency plays out in the Federal Court. The online file, for example, includes all of the evidence that the eSafety Commissioner relied on to make the case that the interlocutory measures ought to be accepted by the court.
Senator ROBERTS: The Senate is the house of review. What facility exists for the Senate to review your take-down notices of material? Where’s the supervision of your activity? Who oversees you?
Ms Inman Grant: There are a few different ways. One is through FOI, which you’ve exercised yourself, Senator. We’ve had a 2,288 per cent increase in FOIs over the past year. We are held accountable. We have reporting requirements that include any informal actions we take. Of course, we can be challenged in the Federal Court. We can be challenged at the AAT, or now the ART. We can be challenged by the Ombudsman, and a complainant can ask for an internal review to be done. So there are a number of different ways that we can provide transparency when it is asked for or required. But, as Mr Dagg said, with 41,000 reports this year—and I think Mr Downey, who is now running the investigations branch, is expecting at least 60,000 reports next year—it would operationally be infeasible, and it would violate the privacy of the complainants. As I said before, that confidentiality is important. Even young people understand that one of the reasons children don’t report cyberbullying is they don’t want to be the dobber or the snitch, and they fear retribution. If we were to not treat some of these complaints as personal information—and the Information Commissioner agrees with us—I think it would undermine trust in us as an organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that. Did you say that there was a 2,000 per cent increase in FOIs?
Ms Inman Grant: Yes, 2,288 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a huge increase. It tells me that people are hungry to learn more.
Ms Inman Grant: Yes, and there have been some campaigns that have also encouraged people to put in FOIs, which we respond to.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve used the defence of having so many infringements to take care of. That’s a big workload. What I’m interested in is not so much that but how you’re being held accountable. How can we see transparently what you’re doing?
Senator McAllister: Here we all are, Senator. What is the question that you seek to ask?
CHAIR: We call it estimates.
Senator McAllister: We are at estimates. The commissioner is here to answer your questions. If there are particular things that you’re interested in, you really should ask her.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the public? They need to know.
Senator McAllister: You are their representative, as you so often remind us.
CHAIR: You can send them the video of this.
Senator McAllister: You are a humble servant of the people of Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to freedom of information 24118, which asked for any guidelines you have with regard to the implied right to political communication to make sure you aren’t infringing on it as you issue take-down notices. I note that your freedom of information decision says: ‘There are no dedicated guides or policies with respect to the interaction of the implied right of political communication in use by the eSafety Commissioner or personnel who implement the various schemes under the OSA.’ There are no dedicated guides or policies?
Mr Dagg: We would need to assess each and every action we take through the lens of whether or not the implied constitutional right to political communication is infringed. That’s just operationally infeasible.
Senator ROBERTS: So are you saying, ‘To hell with the Constitution’?
Mr Dagg: No, not at all. The concern that a particular person’s interests may have been infringed in such a way as to raise a claim that the operation of the Online Safety Act is invalid is absolutely a matter that can be pursued through merits review or judicial review. But, to the commissioner’s point, we are going to be dealing with 60,000 complained URLs this year, which produces a significant percentage of actions we take. I’m sure you can understand that rigorously assessing whether or not they raise any specific issues in relation to the implied constitutional right makes it very difficult for us to make rapid decisions in line with the threshold set by the act. I think it’s important to note that the act contains very clear thresholds and very clear parameters for us to apply in terms of operational decision-making. The act itself, as you would have seen, is supported by a bill which was subject to exhaustive human rights review in its construction. We believe that, by properly administering the act on behalf of the commissioner, we’re taking actions which are in line with parliament’s expectations. If a person believes that their constitutional right—the implied right—has been infringed, there are avenues for review of that decision.
Senator ROBERTS: I can’t see how bypassing the Constitution or not including it as a consideration is in any way okay. The eSafety Commissioner and the delegates ordinarily—this is the quote: ‘The eSafety Commissioner and the delegates ordinarily proceed on the basis that the powers given to them under the OSA by the Australian Parliament are reasonably appropriate and adapted’. So you don’t turn your mind to whether you’re acting constitutionally at all; you just assume you are. How can this Senate be convinced that you are able to act within the Constitution when you don’t even have a document outlining the fundamental right of Australians to communicate in political matters? If you infringe on someone’s constitutional rights, then they complain? That’s it?
Senator McAllister: As you know, the constitutionality of any piece of legislation that comes before the parliament—
Senator ROBERTS: Not the legislation—
Senator McAllister: is quite frequently a matter of some discussion. Unless you seek to challenge it, we can assume that the legislative framework within which the commissioner and her staff operates is constitutional.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a misrepresentation of what I said, Minister. I’m not saying that the act is unconstitutional; I’m saying that the consideration to take someone down needs to maintain constitutional rights—particularly political.
Senator McAllister: I think the two things are interconnected, Senator, because the powers that are exercised by the commissioner and the staff that work with her are enabled by the parliament and by the legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that.
Senator McAllister: As I have indicated to you already, that is quite often subject to a discussion among senators about constitutional arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question—the right to political communication.
Earlier this year, I asked the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services numerous questions about his oversight of workers that help out at Parliament House. Despite earning $480,000 a year and only needing to attend Estimates three times a year, there was no explanation for the type of leave Stefanic was on that prevented him from fronting up to answer questions.
There are serious questions he needs to answer, and I’ll continue to ask these questions on behalf of former employees of Parliament House.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. What is the nature of your boss’s leave?
Ms Hinchcliffe: In my opening statement I indicated we don’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not? I heard your opening statement.
Ms Hinchcliffe: They go to personal matters for individuals, so we wouldn’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Surely this is affecting the morale, which you want to turn around, of the DPS staff. As Senator Hume pointed out, the taxpayer is paying for it.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure that it’s affecting morale of staff. I walk around the building and talk to our staff, and my sense of staff is that they are very committed to this building and are very committed to the work they do.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree, but many of come up to me and they’re not happy. They’re very dissatisfied with the way the department has been run. What is the nature of his leave?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that we won’t be discussing—
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard that he’s being paid while he’s on leave. How long will he be on paid leave, noting that on Wednesday it will have been four weeks since he informed DPS staff he had gone on leave?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I indicated to an earlier question that I don’t have an end date for his leave.
Senator ROBERTS: Was Mr Stefanic’s decision to take leave on 9 October 2024 related to the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s raid on DPS in Parliament House on 3 October?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve indicated that I’m not speaking any further in relation to the execution of the warrants by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware it was specifically requested that Mr Stefanic be here to answer questions that he has personal knowledge of.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I wrote to the committee chair to indicate that he would not be available and to request that he be excused from this.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re aware that he was specifically requested. I specifically requested him.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m aware now that you specifically requested. As I said, I went through the process, wrote to the chair and asked that he be excused.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has to appear at estimates only three times a year. He knew these hearings were coming up. He was formally requested and has failed to show up. How is this not contempt of the Senate?
Ms Hinchcliffe: As I already indicated in my evidence, I wrote to the chair and asked for him to be excused.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you feel like you’ve been thrown under the bus?
Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I do not.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has repeatedly said that complaints about DPS are purely due to former employees with an axe to grind. Do you share that view?
Ms Hinchcliffe: You may remember my evidence at the last hearing, where I said that I think that feedback is gold. We talked particularly about things like the staff survey and the importance of staff having the availability to provide to management their feedback on how they consider things are going but also where they’d like to see the department go into the future.
Senator ROBERTS: The employees of DPS that I hear from, especially security, are not at all happy. Do you know whether Mr Stefanic was in a relationship with Cate Saunders before or after he appointed her to the deputy secretary position?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge about Mr Stefanic’s relationships, and I’m not willing to answer anything further on that. That’s not a matter for me.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to the case of ACD 13—it almost sounds like a rock group—in the Federal Court involving DPS. There’s a suppression order over that case except for hearings of parliament. I remind you that estimates is a hearing of parliament. I understand that the complainant, ACD 13, has consented to lifting that suppression order but DPS will not consent to lifting the suppression order. Is DPS resisting lifting that order?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have a lot of details on that matter, but as I understand it there’s currently a consultation underway. I can understand that our lawyers have been approached and that we’re going through consultation processes at the moment, so that’s an ongoing matter which I won’t comment on any further.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you find out that the status is and give us an update on notice, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What does DPS have to hide that you want to keep under suppression? What is it?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I have nothing to add in relation to that matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand Mr Robert Brigden instructed solicitors in ACD 13 that Rob Stefanic had ‘no involvement’ in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee. Is that what was instructed?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware of this matter in any detail. It occurred before I came to DPS. I don’t have anything I can add to that, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the statement that Rob Stefanic had no involvement in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee true?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge of this matter to provide you with any further information.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the records of the first interview that took place with Barbara Deegan of Ashurst Lawyers?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware, no. I have no awareness of this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is, in those records of the interview, contrary to the statement that he wasn’t involved, the facts show the contents of the envelope were taken and shown to Mr Stefanic and they were then kept in Mr Stefanic’s safe. Is that true?
Ms Hinchcliffe: As I just said, I don’t have any awareness of this matter. It occurred before I became to DPS.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice to find that out, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I can take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Please take on notice to produce the transcripts of record of first interviews by Barbara Deegan from Ashurst with Andrew Brigden, Rob Stefanic and Cate Saunders. Note that the suppression order from the Federal Court has a specific exemption for this hearing, so it does not apply to this request. Can you take that on notice, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Did Cate Saunders make any intervention to ensure that the statement that Rob Stefanic was not involved in the envelope interception was included?
Ms Hinchcliffe: As I said, I have no knowledge of this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and find out, please?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take it on notice, but whether I can find anything out is a different matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could check with the people involved that I’ve just named. Can you please confirm exactly when Cate Saunders began her employment?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I can. She was engaged with DPS on 17 December 2017.
Senator ROBERTS: How many branch or division managers have left their position over the last three years?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I would need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That is understandable. Broadly, in relation to the NACC raid on raid on DPS of 3 October 24, have any DPS executives been stood down pending the NACC investigation and, if so, how many?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that I won’t be speaking any further in relation to the NACC matters, but I can say that no senior executives have been stood down.
Senator ROBERTS: How many DPS executives are on paid leave while the investigation is underway?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Again, I’ve said that I’m not going to answer any other questions in relation to the—
Senator ROBERTS: This is in relation to your department, not the NACC.
Ms Hinchcliffe: No, you’re asking questions about people who might be on leave that go to whether or not they’re being investigated. At that point I need to consider whether or not that actually starts to go to a public interest question, so I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and, if you want to claim public indemnity, then it needs to go through the minister.
CHAIR: Public interest immunity.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—I get tangled up. Ms Hinchcliffe, when did you become aware that the NACC was investigating DPS?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I haven’t indicated what the NACC is investigating; I’ve indicated that the NACC has executed search warrants on DPS, and I’ve also indicated that I won’t answer any further questions.
Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of that investigation?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I have indicated that I won’t answer any further questions in relation to the investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of the warrants?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I became aware that the NACC were going to issue warrants on DPS on 2 October.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that your first indication?
Ms Hinchcliffe: That the NACC was going to execute a warrant on 3 October? Yes, it was.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ms Hinchcliffe, during your time working at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, were you part of the team that dealt with the complaint about the handling of a Public Interest Disclosure Act disclosure at DPS?
Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I was not.
Senator ROBERTS: When did you first work with Rob Stefanic?
Ms Hinchcliffe: When he started as secretary at DPS, and I think that was in the second half of 2015. It might have been in December.
Senator ROBERTS: So you were already there, and he came in as your boss?
Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s exactly right.
Senator ROBERTS: What year and date?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I think Mr Stefanic started in 2015. It was towards the end of the year; I started in April 2015.
Senator ROBERTS: So you preceded him by about six or seven months?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I think so.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you consider Rob Stefanic to be a personal friend?
Ms Hinchcliffe: I consider Mr Stefanic to be a colleague. He’s been somebody that I’ve worked with previously, and I’ve come and worked for him as the deputy secretary. I don’t have any outside engagement with him, and I work with him as a colleague.
Senator ROBERTS: So you were there when he arrived? He arrived after you?
Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you work with him before that?
Ms Hinchcliffe: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you please take on notice to provide the total number of sexual harassment claims that DPS has settled over the previous five years and include the average settlement amount, the standard deviation and how many of them have been under non-disclosure agreements?
Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I’ll take that notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The upper management of DPS obviously has a lot of work to do to earn back the trust of DPS employees. We know that from just walking around the building. People come up to me frequently. I would say to you that that work to restore trust starts with accountability and transparency. Surely, you could start the transparency with how you answer these questions and allow the suppression order to be lifted.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that as a comment, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, will you lift the suppression order? I’d like that on notice.
Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already taken on notice of where that is up to, and I think that forms part of that question. If it’s not, if it’s a separate question, then I’ll take that on notice too.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. President, Minister—
The President: President.
Senator ROBERTS: President, thank you. Could I have your answer to that question as well please?
The President: What question?
Senator ROBERTS: I would say that trust starts with accountability. Could the suppression order be lifted?
The President: That’s got nothing to do with me, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Nothing at all?
The President: No. It’s a departmental matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, President. Thank you, Chair.
Inland Rail is a crucial project for Australia’s future and for the viability of the national highway network. As our population grows, the road network will become increasingly congested with large trucks. Creating an inland rail link between Melbourne and Brisbane will remove hundreds of thousands of truck movements off the road, while providing safer and faster freight transit.
Inland Rail has been problematic from the start due to the LNP Government’s decision to use a route (an alignment) that favoured certain landholders, airport owners, and port owners – in other words party donors. To please these interest groups, Inland Rail was designed to cross the Condamine River floodplain east of Millmerran before going across to Toowoomba, then down the range into Brisbane, with the The Port of Brisbane being the primary export port.
This route is patently stupid for several reasons. Crossing the Condamine floodplain is not technically feasible. The embankment necessary is located on about 30 m depth of clay, which becomes waterlogged and soft with a rain event known to occur, on average, every two years. Running a 40,000 tonne train across soft ground is unsafe. Even a few days of rain will require speeds to be slowed to 40 km/h, causing shipment delays, higher cost and destroying agriculture in the region through frequent flooding as flood water builds up behind the embankment.
Have we learnt nothing form the MITEZ rail link, which was also built across a floodplain and has been a drain on taxpayers ever since.
The second reason is because the Brisbane rail network is close to capacity and the corridor is constrained, meaning extra lines can’t be added. By the time trains are running along Inland Rail, there will be no slots left to bring the freight to the port. This is why there is now an insane suggestion to build a 60 km TUNNEL under Brisbane to bring the freight through.
You think cross-river rail is a disaster? This project is ten times the length, and should be ten times the cost = $60 billion – just for the tunnel. And remember, this is all taxpayer’s money that will never be repaid from rail revenue.
One Nation supports directing Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, where a modern container facility is currently under construction. This would require the alignment to turn north before Millmerran and head up to Dalby, with Wellcamp Airport and Brisbane freight coming back to the existing line, something that will be no slower because of the higher speeds available on this alignment.
Port of Gladstone is best located, cheaper and more efficient than Brisbane, with room to grow. The best news of all – the Millmerran to Port of Gladstone route has a strong advocate with IPG and is already holding offers of finance from infrastructure investment funds.
One Nation’s solution means no public money and a smarter route. ALP/LNP means $60 billion of taxpayers money for a slower, unreliable and more costly option.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Where is the Inland Rail missing link at—Narromine to Narrabri? Where is that?
Mr Miller: I can update you on that. The Narromine to Narrabri section has completed all its planning approvals, so the primary planning approvals both at a state level and at a federal level have been granted. We are in a process of voluntary land acquisition. To date, on the section, we’ve completed around 23 per cent of the land acquisition through the alignment. We’re in the process of leading to some preliminary design contracts to inform us around scope, schedule and engineering design. And we’ve commenced the Pilliga revocation process through the Pilliga forest, with the New South Wales government. So it’s tracking well.
Senator ROBERTS: Have any of the Queensland sections of Inland Rail started construction?
Mr Miller: They haven’t started construction, Senator. We’re still in the planning processes in Queensland. Importantly, for the very significant section from the New South Wales-Queensland border to Gowrie, the final i’s have been dotted and t’s are being crossed in relation to the EIS submission. We expect to lodge that with the office of the Coordinator-General during November, and it will be up to the Coordinator-General as to the public exhibition, which we would hope would be underway this side of Christmas.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the ARTC been contacted by the PortConnex consortium, who are wanting to build their 60-kilometre tunnel under Brisbane?
Mr Miller: I have met with Martin Albrecht and his team. Importantly, we’ve got a very clear scope within Inland Rail, so it was really to inform that connection group as to where Inland Rail was at for their planning processes, and they informed us as to their program of a 60-kilometre tunnel with the electric train model. But, essentially, our scope of work does not include that, and we continue with the primary planning approvals from Gowrie to Kagaru.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you seen a business case, an environmental study and engineering details? We feel the cost for Inland Rail is undercooked and the economic benefits overstated.
Mr Miller: Could I clarify—are you referring to the alternate route 60-kilometre tunnel for $7 billion?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Miller: I’ve not seen their business case, no.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the whole Inland Rail? Has the business case been developed?
Mr Miller: The business case was developed some years ago, prior to my time.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked it?
Mr Miller: As the department outlined today, one of the recommendations under the Kerry Schott review was to have a verification process. The department has just recently appointed an entity to assist with that verification process, and they’re commencing works this month to verify both the cost and schedule that Inland Rail has developed internally.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the Inland Rail alignment still go across the Condamine flood plain? Have those engineering issues been resolved?
Mr Miller: We believe so. There has been extensive work around erosion velocities associated with those black soils. We’re about to commence embankment trials in that area to understand the shrink-swell characteristics and the erosive characteristics of those soils. We’ve had an international flood panel. The Queensland government and the Commonwealth did an independent review of the flood solutions. So we do believe that we have a solution for the Condamine.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you had contact with the I-PG, Inter-Port Global, led consortium offering to assist the Commonwealth government to build a forestry route alignment to Ducklo, then along the existing alignment to Dalby, with the Wellcamp and Brisbane freight route heading south-east and export freight heading north via Wandoan, Banana and on to the port of Gladstone?
Mr Miller: I’m aware of that proposal to Gladstone. I have not had engagement with that consortia. The reason, again, is it’s outside the scope of Inland Rail and the approved project works that the Commonwealth has outlined for our project.
Senator ROBERTS: There seem to be many benefits to that route. The cost of that route, which is mostly along either existing alignment or state government land, would not require tunnelling, would be faster and technically feasible, would not cross the Condamine flood plain and will attract private investment. Minister, why is the Albanese government not seriously looking at the I-PG consortium proposal?
Senator Chisholm: I’d have to take it on notice, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Miller, with regard to the current project parameters that you’ve used, if there’s something attractive outside that, what would you do? What options do have?
Mr Miller: Essentially, we’ve got real clarity in terms of our current scope, but, in any engineering solution, we look at options. We look at the consideration of engineering optionality and impacts on communities. We have locked the alignment, essentially, and we’re going through an EIS process. We think that’s where it becomes critically important. The EIS environmental approval process is effectively working with the community and the stakeholders to come up with a solution with the least impacts for that area. Now, we understand that building a 1,650-kilometre rail alignment up the inland of Australia is going to have impacts. Our duty is to minimise those impacts and consult with stakeholders and communities, and through the EIS approval process is how we’re regulated, effectively, on the impacts.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, there are many cost benefits to terminating the Inland Rail at Gladstone instead of Brisbane. There are many overall benefits to the nation in terms of the cost of freight coming into the country and in terms of port access. There is a huge amount of land available at Gladstone. There are many, many factors in favour of Gladstone, and there are many hairs on Brisbane.
Mr Johnson: We have met with the consortium from GreenLink, who are proposing and considering—
Senator ROBERTS: Who’s GreenLink?
Mr Johnson: GreenLink is the organisation you’re referring to, that you’re talking about—
Senator ROBERTS: I-PG?
Mr Johnson: Toowoomba to Gladstone. We have met with them, and, as they go through their relevant approvals and development of their own business case, we’ve committed to them to be able to provide them any input to the types of operational information that help them on their way, as we do for many adjoining infrastructure owners. Just to clarify, though, what is really clear, from both our position and what’s being proposed, is the discussion about how they leverage the backbone of what Inland Rail is and its connection at Toowoomba. It is not a replacement. That’s my understanding. Senator ROBERTS: What was the name of that company, again?
Mr Johnson: GreenLink.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any connection with I-PG, Inter-Port Global?
Mr Johnson: Not that I’m aware of. I don’t know, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t had connection with I-PG?
The ABC published a video that had additional gunshots inserted into it to try and accuse Special Forces Soldiers of War Crimes. Veteran Heston Russell has been asking for a (deserved) apology for years and if he’d been given one, the ABC could have avoided a multi-million dollar court case.
Now they tout the results of an “independent” review. The person who conducted the review held senior positions at the ABC for decades and is likely still close friends with people who work there.
The ABC is failing to live up to the standards Australians expect of a $1 billion taxpayer organisation.
The Terms of Reference for the review are so narrow that they likely restricted the review.
The reviewer is an award-winning journalist with a positive reputation. However, when appointing a supposedly “independent” reviewer, it’s important that the reviewer is appropriate in terms of background and experience and that the reviewer has no perceived connection with the organisation they are reviewing.
This reviewer spent decades with ABC-SBS, beginning as a cadet at the ABC in 1979.
The interim report’s recommendations raise integrity as an issue with ABC News, which leads me to conclude that, at best, ABC News is sloppy.
The ABC has blown millions in taxpayer dollars defending its defamatory treatment of Heston Russell and leaves itself open to further scrutiny, yet despite losing the defamation case, the ABC refuses to apologise.
The arrogance here is astounding. Just apologise.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. Mr Stevens, the ABC has continually and arrogantly defied calls to apologise to veteran Special Forces commando Heston Russell. The ABC lost a defamation case to him. You wasted millions in taxpayer money. After that, the ABC has been caught publishing manipulated video with inserted gunshots, claiming it’s Heston Russell. For how long are you going to oppose doing the right thing? Just apologise to Heston Russell; that’s all he’s asked for, from the start.
Mr Stevens: Senator Roberts, thanks for the question. You raised a series of things implying each of those matters was connected. There are a number of issues you raised that we can separate out and talk in detail about. With the defamation trial that you referenced, they were not the publications that we are talking about today, in the context of the Sunderland review. They are separate publications.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you say that again, please?
Mr Stevens: The publications on which Mr Russell sued the ABC, in the defamation trial that you referenced, were not the publications that were subject to Alan Sunderland’s independent review. They’re separate matters. It’s important to distinguish the difference.
Senator ROBERTS Did you lose that case?
Mr Stevens: We did, and we respect the judgement of Justice Lee.
Senator HENDERSON:Can I ask a clarifying question? That’s not the case, Mr Stevens, because on 30 November ABC lawyers actually produced the helicopter video in the Federal Court. In its defence, the ABC pleaded truth, and said that Heston Russell was the shooter. The helicopter video was absolutely front and centre of these Federal Court proceedings.
Mr Stevens: Would you like me to respond to that, Senator?
Senator HENDERSON:Yes.
Mr Stevens: With respect, the vision you’re referring to was not a publication. It was vision from helmet-cam that was used and utilised in these publications, but they were not a publication in their own right. They came up during legal proceedings in the context of one of the ABC’s earlier defences.
Senator HENDERSON: That’s not the case, Mr Stevens, because that was published. That helicopter video, those fake gunshots, were published by the ABC on a number of different occasions. I’m sorry to cut in, Senator Roberts, but I can’t accept the way that you’re trying to mischaracterise these proceedings.
Senator ROBERTS: Did the ABC lose the defamation case to Heston Russell?
Mr Stevens: Could I clarify, Chair, who I’m responding to?
CHAIR: This is really not very helpful because you’re both talking at cross-purposes. Let’s let the witness clarify these separate issues, so that we’re really clear about what we’re talking about. Senator Roberts has the call.
Senator HENDERSON: Yes, I appreciate that.
CHAIR: We’ll keep with that line of questioning, to minimise this level of confusion. Mr Stevens, would you like to step that out?
Mr Stevens: Yes, the ABC did not win that defamation trial, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: They lost it?
Mr Stevens: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you going to apologise to Heston Russell?
Mr Stevens: The managing director, Mr Anderson, has previously been asked in Senate estimates that very question, immediately after the trial, and was very clear as to the ABC’s position on that. In relation to—
Senator ROBERTS: What is that position?
Mr Stevens: I don’t have the transcript with me, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s Mr Anderson’s position?
Mr Stevens: He’s the Managing Director of the ABC.
Senator ROBERTS: No; what is his position that you’re referring to now, in terms of—
Ms Kleyn: Senator, could we please provide that on notice? Mr Anderson absolutely provided information on the record. We don’t have that in front of us. We would like to be able to access that information, so that we give a true account of what Mr Anderson said.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you afraid of apologising to Heston Russell? You’ve done him a disservice. Why are you afraid of that?
Mr Stevens: There’s no means of being afraid or not, Senator Roberts. We’re happy to talk at length about any of the matters in relation to either the defamation trial that you’ve referenced or the very separate publications which were subject to the independent review. I’m not sure whether you’ve had an opportunity to read that yet. The review has been tabled for this committee. The review makes it very clear, and we accept the findings of that independent review. In relation to the specific mistakes, in relation to that review, we have absolutely issued an apology for the video editing errors that occurred. We’re not hiding from that. That apology extends to members of the 2nd Commando Regiment.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Heston Russell has done distinguished service for this country and you’ve defamed him. Your organisation has defamed him. All he wanted in the first place was an apology, as I understand it; yet we have spent millions of dollars avoiding an apology. What’s so difficult?
Mr Stevens: Senator Roberts, in relation to the matters that have been tabled today, in regard to the independent review into our three related stories in Line of Fire, we’re not hiding from the fact that we have apologised for the video errors that have occurred in that. That apology extends to members of the 2nd Commando Regiment. Mr Russell was not named in those publications. The nature of defamation, at risk of stating the obvious, is that we accept the judgement. The judgement came with quite a sizeable amount of costs to Mr Russell. The court does not dictate or call on the other party to apologise. Mr Anderson was very clear in his answer previously in relation to the defamation trial, and the ABC’s position on that. As I said, I’m happy to take you through in detail the ABC’s response to Mr Sunderland’s review.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll have that on notice, please. Who signed off on the video of the extra gunshots that were manipulated into it?
Mr Stevens: Senator Roberts—
Senator ROBERTS: I know this has been asked before, but I want to know who signed off on it.
Mr Stevens: As the Sunderland review makes clear, the two publications for 7.30 were subject to robust editorial discussion. As director of news, those publications were referred up to me, and I take full responsibility for signing off on those publications.
Senator ROBERTS: You signed off on the doctored video?
Mr Stevens: With respect, Senator Roberts, I’d ask you to withdraw the allegation that it was doctored. The independent review showed that there was no evidence of doctoring.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it manipulated to have multiple shots when only one shot was on the original video? Surely, that’s manipulation, doctoring—fabricating?
Mr Stevens: Senator Roberts, as you’ll observe, when you get an opportunity to read the independent review, Mr Sunderland has, in detail, explained how it didn’t occur. I would emphasise that his independent review found, without a shadow of a doubt, that there was no evidence that the material was doctored. The editing mistakes were inadvertent. We don’t hide from the fact that they were—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; editing mistakes were inadvertent?
Mr Stevens: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So there were mistakes made in the editing. What sort of mistakes?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have a copy of that report?
Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t.
CHAIR: Maybe we can furnish you with a copy of that report, which may assist you, which was undertaken by Mr Sunderland to investigate these issues. His findings are stepped out in there.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that it was accidental?
Mr Stevens: It would probably be beneficial to quote Mr Sunderland, who said in his report:
I find no evidence that anybody, at any stage, made a conscious or deliberate decision to introduce additional gunshots.
He went on to say:
I have found no evidence to support the conclusion that any of this was done at the direction of the journalists involved or on the initiative of the video editor in order to doctor or deliberately distort the depiction of the events that occurred.
He said:
On the contrary, what evidence there is suggests it was not a deliberate editorial decision to include additional gunshot audio in order to mislead or deceive.
Senator ROBERTS: You said a minute ago—unless I’m wrong—that it was a mistake; it was an error.
Mr Stevens: It was an editing mistake, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: An editing mistake. In other words, it wasn’t deliberate, but it still happened?
Mr Stevens: Absolutely.
CHAIR: We’ll need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts. You have one last question.
Senator ROBERTS: The Federal Court found that Mark Willacy was combative and overly defensive, and that likely led to millions of dollars being wasted by the ABC on this court case. Now there’s outright proof that the ABC ‘errored’ in its gunshots on the video to make Heston Russell look worse. All the while Mr Willacy was trying to sell his own book about the issues that have caused the ABC all these problems. Why won’t you step him down? What disciplinary action have you taken against Mr Willacy?
Mr Stevens: Can I clarify? Was that a direct quote from the judgement?
Senator ROBERTS: Which aspect of it?
Mr Stevens: You said ‘the judgement’ and then you went on to say something.
CHAIR: That is an editorialisation, I think.
Mr Stevens: Was that a direct quote from the judgement?
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know if it is a direct quote; that is my understanding. The Federal Court found that Mr Willacy was ‘combative and overly defensive’. That likely led to millions of dollars being wasted; that’s my addition, ‘millions of dollars’.
Mr Stevens: The court found that Mr Willacy genuinely believed that the publications are in the public interest. The court also generally accepted Mr Willacy’s evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the court found that Mr Willacy was ‘combative and overly defensive’.
Mr Stevens: There are various descriptions in the judgement about the nature of the intense criticism the ABC was under and the ABC’s response to that over a period of time. Mark Willacy is a highly esteemed journalist. We back his work a hundred per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are not going to step him down?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I have skimmed the recommendations and the conclusions of the independent review by Mr Alan Sunderland, who apparently had 40 years at ABC and SBS. Recommendation 1 is:
Editorial policies and guidance should be reviewed to ensure the importance of maintaining the integrity of crucial source material is maintained, particularly in investigative stories.
The key word being ‘integrity.’ It raises questions as to whether there was a lack of that. Recommendation 2 is:
Training should be reviewed, in particular for non-editorial staff working in investigative areas, to ensure everyone is aware of key editorial principles including the need to maintain the integrity of source material.
It seems that people are not adequately aware. Recommendation 3 is:
Editing practices should be reviewed to ensure there is regular, timely and detailed face-to-face contact between editors, reporters and researchers during the editing process.
Are they inadequate? Are they substandard? Recommendation 4 is:
When multi-platform stories are being prepared, consistent and equal scrutiny should be applied to all elements of the story across all platforms.
Was there inadequate scrutiny? Finally, recommendation 5 is:
News should review the guidance note on interviews and discuss.
I’ll go into that. The ABC’s current guidance note on interviewing has one short section dealing with the need to take care to ensure that, as far as possible, you are properly reflecting the gist of the person’s position on the key issues being discussed. Mr Stevens, it seems to me that integrity is being questioned here, and, at best, this is an incredibly sloppy outfit. You are at the top of it, aren’t you?
Mr Stevens: You are correct to reference the term ‘integrity’. I would clarify, however, that Mr Sunderland is referencing the integrity of crucial source material. They are eminently sensible recommendations, and our editorial director can speak to our adoption of all recommendations.
Mr Fang: The interim report has provided a series of recommendations, which we will obviously go through incredibly carefully. You have read out some of those, which I think is really important. I am happy to go through them again. In relation to source material, what Mr Sunderland is reflecting from his review is that, in the process of doing editing, where there may be a situation, as he has raised in his review, around looking for clean audio, we need to look at our processes around doing that, to ensure that we don’t make this type of inadvertent mistake again. We will review the advice around that very clearly. He also spoke about the training we should be doing at the ABC, including for non-editorial staff. We will have a look at that. Training is a really important part of what we do. We are consistently working with ABC staff about editorial policies and providing guidance, and making sure they are equipped to meet our very high standards. But we will take on board the recommendations of the interim report.
Mr Sunderland also spoke about, as you have mentioned, editing and the regularity of face-to-face checks. Editing at this time, in this era, is complicated. Our teams are regularly producing a variety of different pieces of material for television, for online and for different video sources. Ensuring that process works in the best possible way will be something that we will look at.
As you have pointed out, he’s asked us to look at an extension of that, which is really the oversight of multiplatform stories. As you would be aware, we have teams that make stories for multiple programs and multiple outputs. We need to make sure that there continues to be real clarity, and that we look at how we’re ensuring that communication is best handled across those different platforms.
Senator ROBERTS: The panel from the ABC, the four of you, keep calling this an independent report. Alan Sunderland previously worked as the head of policy and staff development with ABC News, and he was a journalist for 32 years. He began as an ABC cadet in 1979, before spending more than 20 years as an on-the-road reporter with the ABC and SBS. His experience includes five years as political editor with SBS in Canberra. He returned to the ABC and to news management in 2005. When did Alan Sunderland leave the ABC? Could you not find someone who was even vaguely independent of the ABC? Is this an independent report or an insider report?
Ms Kleyn: I would answer very clearly that it is an independent report. I would have to take on notice the exact date of Mr Sunderland’s departure from the ABC. From memory, it was around six or seven years ago; I am not sure. We can absolutely take that on notice. Mr Sunderland is an independent member of the Press Council. We are comfortable in asserting quite clearly that Mr Sunderland is independent, and he operated independently throughout this review.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2017, Alan Sunderland wrote, ‘Well, let me try to tell you exactly what’s wrong with it.’ That was in response to calls for ABC reporting to be fair and balanced. Is this really someone who can be trusted to write an independent review of this subject? Who appointed him, and what were the criteria for his selection?
Ms Kleyn: Mr Anderson appointed Mr Sunderland. Mr Stevens, is there something that you want to add?
Mr Stevens: A couple of things. Firstly, before questioning the integrity of Mr Sunderland, I’d encourage the senator to read the report in full before forming any judgements about it. Secondly, the fact that Mr Sunderland has made findings against the ABC would undermine any sense that it’s a report free of criticism.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Kleyn, what did you learn from this whole episode and the millions of dollars in taxpayer money that have been wasted? That’s why we are here; it’s an estimates session.
Ms Kleyn: Understood.
Senator ROBERTS: Money has been flowing out.
Ms Kleyn: We’ve all learnt a lot from the report.
Senator ROBERTS: What did you learn?
Ms Kleyn: I have learnt that we have some processes on which we need to make process improvements. We have five recommendations detailed here. I take those recommendations very seriously. My colleague has just explained how the recommendations have been laid out, and our intention to adopt the recommendations and do what we need to do to make sure these sorts of errors don’t happen again.
Senator ROBERTS: Bearing in mind witness guide 4.15, what actions will you take as a result of this experience? Without names, because we want to make sure privacy is respected, was anyone’s employment terminated as a result of this?
Ms Kleyn: I can confirm that no-one’s employment has been terminated. What actions will we take? We will adopt these recommendations.
Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone leave the ABC as a result of this?
Ms Kleyn: To my awareness, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stevens, did anyone leave the ABC as a result of this?
Mr Stevens: I have not left the ABC.
Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone leave the ABC?
Mr Stevens: No, not that we’re aware of. We can take it on notice. There would only be the need for someone to leave if there was evidence of misconduct on the part of staff. As you’ll learn, in the report there’s no evidence of misconduct.
Senator CADELL: Going back, you can say that the editor didn’t leave because of this. In answer to the earlier question about the editor, you specifically said you didn’t want to comment regarding the privacy of an employee. By that comment, saying no-one left because of it, you’re saying he or she didn’t leave because of this?
Mr Stevens: I did say I would take it on notice.
Senator CADELL: You just said then that no-one left.
Mr Stevens: To my knowledge.
CHAIR: To their knowledge. To clarify, every point has been to their knowledge. They said they will take it on notice and investigate further. What I am hearing is that they don’t know of anyone at this point. As I’ve said, Senator Roberts, we need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Amorelli, are you aware of anyone who left as a result of this, or was pushed out or left voluntarily?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/uhsQWPDRDRQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-12 15:37:082025-07-02 16:31:15ABC Never Apologise When Called Out
I was surprised and overjoyed to hear that the Australian Federal Police will be dropping their vaccine mandate, which has been in place for more than three years. The facts about COVID vaccines are becoming increasingly clear and hard to ignore.
I only wish they had recognised these facts earlier, sparing their dedicated employees, who want nothing more than to do their jobs properly and with care, the unnecessary hell they faced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: This is just a comment in your support that’s not requiring an answer. You have police stationed overseas as well, so it’s a far-ranging jurisdiction. Is it fair to say that a lot of your officers might be working harder to cover more work than they used to?
Ms Van Gurp: Certainly, the complexity and volume of our work is up; that’s correct. We put a lot of effort into our operational prioritisation through our A-TACC and how we prioritise our workforce resources across those changing priorities day-to-day to make sure that we’re delivering outcomes for the Australian community.
Senator ROBERTS: You mandated compulsory COVID vaccinations through the commissioner’s order 10 in 2021, and you reiterated it in 2022. In 2024, you’re still mandating it, despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s not needed or necessary. Why are you still forcing good people who want to do good police work to sit on the sidelines over what they choose to put in their body?
Ms Gale: I might start the response and then hand over to the acting chief operating officer again. What I would say in relation to that particular policy, which is currently a commissioner order, is that we are in the process of revoking that particular order. The COO can talk to the governance arrangements that we’ll be undertaking while we go about the process of revocation, but I can assure you that we are in the process of revoking that particular order.
Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like a decision has been made.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/YvT5xYEZgJM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 15:38:002024-12-20 12:10:33Huge Win! Federal Police to Drop Vaccine Mandate
During this session, basic answers were provided, but little interest was shown in understanding the potential environmental catastrophe at hand. I was simply referred to the department’s submission to the fire ant inquiry. When I posed questions, Officials showed minimal interest in providing answers. They frequently redirected questions to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and appeared unaware of the gravity of the issues raised. Some of the questions were taken on notice, but I was offered little substantive information.
It was clear that they were not fully informed on their responsibilities and showed little genuine concern for environmental protection.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to ask questions about fire ant treatment in Queensland. Are you aware of the many complaints that have been made about the administration of the National Fire Ant Eradication Program in Queensland, which has already resulted in massive environmental damage in the Samford Valley near Brisbane, but it also concerns residents in Currumbin, Boonah, Gatton and other places in South-East Queensland?
Dr Fraser : The Australian government lead for the National Fire Ant Eradication Program is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. So, while I’m aware of some of those complaints and, broadly, on stakeholder interest in this really important issue, for some of those more detailed questions you may get some more comprehensive responses from that department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been in touch with RRAT, and I’m going to be asking questions of them tomorrow for the reasons you just mentioned, but I’d like to continue because this is an environmental matter. It’s a catastrophe in the making. Is the aerial dumping of toxic insecticide by helicopter into a creek system a breach of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999? This is exactly what has happened recently into Dawson Creek and Samford Valley, which I visited and sighted, and there’s no life in the creek.
Dr Fraser : I’m not aware of whether that’s an issue under the EPBC Act or of the specifics of that. What I would say is that the treatments that are used in the fire ant eradication program are specifically targeted to those ants, and they’re approved by the APVMA, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, who conduct a very rigorous scientific assessment prior to those approvals.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve seen what they’ve done in Dawson Creek and Samford Valley. It’s wiped it out. There’s nothing moving in the creek, nothing at all—no life. We’ve had similar complaints in other areas. Are you aware that independent water testing of the creek showed massive toxic pollution of the local waterways, not due to previous pollutants or other pollutants?
Dr Fraser : Again, I’m not familiar with the details of these issues. They’ll be best handled by the agriculture department.
Senator ROBERTS: Will this government halt the funding of the dangerous spraying of chemicals into our waterways until at least an independent environmental risk assessment is completed? I guess that’s a question for the minister.
Senator McCarthy: I’ll certainly take on notice your concerns in regard to Dawson Creek. What I can say is our government would never want to pollute any particular area with any ill will. I think—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no doubt of that at all.
Senator McCarthy: So I just want to go back to the assertion in your question.
Senator ROBERTS: There is no assertion whatsoever.
Senator McCarthy: Okay, thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: All I want to know is will you stop the funding that’s polluting Dawson Creek and other areas until an independent environmental risk assessment is completed?
Senator McCarthy: I can take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: According to residents, there are serious conflicts of interest with the previous Queensland government. Dr Fraser, why was the program allowed to distribute huge quantities of poison into pristine environment with no environmental risk assessment completed beforehand, and why is it funded?
Dr Fraser : To take your last question first, the program has been funded because red imported fire ants are one of the world’s worst invasive ant species. If this species remains unchecked in the South-East Queensland area and beyond, it could cover up to 97 per cent of Australia. It would wipe out huge numbers of birds, mammals and other species and cause enormous destruction to agricultural industry throughout Australia, human health and infrastructure. It is possibly one of the worst invasive species Australia has experienced, and the overseas experience is those catastrophic impacts I just spoke about. Hence, the commitment of the Australian government and the increased funding commitment by the Australian government to deal with this pest.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice and provide us with the evidence backing up what you just said, please? We’ve got very concerned residents in my home state, and they have talked to people overseas, including people in Texas—fire ants are now quite common across the United States—and there’s very little damage at all. So if you could just take it on notice to provide me with the evidence to back up your claim.
Dr Fraser : I don’t need to take that on notice. We have provided information on that, including scientific references in our department’s submission to the red imported fire ant inquiry, and we also appeared as witnesses at that inquiry as well. So that information is on the public record as part of our submission, but it is much more broadly on the public record and documented in the scientific literature, including for the United States.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware of the damage to the environment that’s already occurred through the mismanagement of this program in Queensland?
Dr Fraser : No, I’m not.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that 21 years ago there was one fire ant nest at the port of Brisbane and now they are in Northern New South Wales and all over South-East Queensland?
Dr Fraser : I’m not familiar with that.
Senator ROBERTS: The program is failing.
Dr Fraser : The program has been hugely successful in limiting the spread of red imported fire ants from the South-East Queensland region. The rate of spread in Australia is miniscule compared to the rate of spread in countries like China and the US, where this species is wreaking havoc.
Senator ROBERTS: How does spraying toxic chemicals in valleys with no fire ant nests helping to stop the spread of fire ants?
Dr Fraser : I’m not aware of those detailed accusations.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the dead wildlife—including native ants and whole hives of bees—illness to pets and the massive loss of the marine life yabbies in the creek that have already occurred since baiting commenced?
Dr Fraser : No, I’m not.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the threats to human health posed by these chemicals used to treat land?
Dr Fraser : No, I’m not, but I am aware of the threats posed to human health posed by red imported fire ants.
Senator ROBERTS: People have water tanks—they’re not on the reticulated water system—that use their roof. They’ve got toxins on their roof. Spraying over houses with humans in them. This is what’s going on.
Dr Fraser : Again, I’m not familiar with these issues, and I would also not claim that toxic chemicals do not have impacts beyond the target species; however, it’s a risk management approach that is taken in dealing with these invasive species.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the risk management include sloppy and indiscriminate helicopter usage?
Dr Fraser : You’re aware that I won’t know the answer to that question.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that S-methoprene is not approved for use in the UK, because of high-risk environmental concerns?
Dr Fraser : I’m not, but, as I’ve stated, I’m not an expert in these matters.
Senator ROBERTS: What compensation will be made for the damage already caused by this ill-considered program.
Dr Fraser : I don’t know.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are properties in Queensland and many valleys still being poisoned when it has been established that there are no fire ants present?
Mr Knudson : A number of your questions go to the implementation of this program, which, as Dr Fraser has laid out, is a program of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We’re just not positioned to give you informed answers on those questions.
Senator ROBERTS: This has become an environmental issue, with all due respect, Mr Knudson. That’s why I’m asking questions here as well as Agriculture.
Mr Knudson : What Dr Fraser has laid out is, ‘Here’s the environmental risk et cetera,’ but the specifics on the implementation of the program are a matter for the department of agriculture. I’m just trying to say I think your energy and effort would be best focused on the department of agriculture.
Senator ROBERTS: I have plenty of energy—tonnes of energy!
Mr Knudson : I have seen that many times.
Senator ROBERTS: What we’ll be doing is going into Agriculture and holding them accountable as well, but this is an environmental catastrophe—a human catastrophe.
Mr Knudson : That’s what Dr Fraser has laid out that. We’re not saying that there are no impacts from the program; what we are saying is that it’s a really significant environmental issue that we’re trying to contain. What Dr Fraser has laid out is that there is significant evidence that the program has been effective in containing the growth and spread of red fire ants.
Senator ROBERTS: Residents in Queensland would disagree. Let me ask my last two questions. Given that the eradication of fire ants has failed over the last 30 years in Australia and we have spent almost a billion dollars, is it time to stop this program and try to find another, environmentally safe and responsible management solution?
Dr Fraser : The program hasn’t failed. The program has been successful in curtailing the spread of red imported fire ants by any measure, including against overseas measures.
Senator ROBERTS: Which department appropriates the money to Queensland, and what monitoring and audit measures are there?
Dr Fraser : There are extensive monitoring and auditing measures. As for which department appropriates the money to Queensland, that would be a question for the department of agriculture.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/YrjEBRrZRsQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 15:36:002025-07-02 15:47:53Officials Shrug Off Fire Ant Concerns: Little Interest, Few Answers!
The government is trying to rush through the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill at all costs. It seems they’ve seen this week what happens to their side of politics when voters are presented with the facts and are allowed to make their own decisions.
Despite the government’s claims, it’s not out of the ordinary to talk about Bills at Senate Estimates. I’ll be at the hearing on Monday with my questions.
(And Heston Russell hasn’t received an apology from the ABC for their misinformation).
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: ACMA is appearing in the committee hearing on Monday?
Ms O’Loughlin: With my colleagues on Monday, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll do it then. That’s fine. I want to look at a particular case study. It is the case of special forces veteran Heston Russell. The ABC said it was inadvertent and that it wasn’t a calculated, deliberate manipulation. They deny manipulating a video to make it look like multiple gunshots were fired at a person. Heston Russell was a victim of disinformation from the ABC. Under the proposed misinformation and disinformation laws, the ABC would be exempt from punishment by spreading disinformation. Correct?
Ms O’Loughlin: I don’t think I can form a view on that, Senator.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I think this goes to the point Senator Grogan was making. You are really asking how the bill will operate in practice. This is a question that has been referred to this committee. You have scheduled hearings to deal with it on Monday.
Senator ROBERTS: I think that is drawing a long bow, Minister, but I’m happy to leave it until Monday.
Senator McAllister: It is an unusual Senate rule, but it is a very longstanding one, Senator. It has been like this the whole time we’ve been here together.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. As I’ve said, I will comply with it for the other questions. I didn’t think that one was about—
Ms O’Loughlin: The only thing I would add to that is that obviously the ABC needs to comply with its own code of practice around things like factual accuracy.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. And we’ve seen how that goes. This is my final question. It is about the digital restack. I looked through your annual work program report and found this comment regarding the digital television channel restack. I quote:
Exploring possible parameters and solutions for channel planning relevant to possible new shared multiplex arrangements. This work will provide evidence to inform any future restack—
The restack was to be a closing up of digital TV channels. This sounds like you have something else in mind for the sixth channel, the gap between each station. What is the plan for the restack now?
Ms O’Loughlin: The Minister for Communications gave a speech a couple of weeks ago at our RadComms conference. They were talking about a program of work that needed to be done around the future of television. Her emphasis in that was that free-to-air television is incredibly important in Australia because it reaches 99 per cent of the population. It is free to air. How is that going to evolve over the next 10 years? Will it be terrestrially driven or will some of it go online? The minister was talking about a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including the broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs. It is looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed. A small part of that is what happens to the spectrum that may be freed up over that process. Part of our job is what that might be and when that might occur. The annual report says that requires channel planning. A whole lot of spectrum planning would have to be done to facilitate any movement of the broadcasters and the freeing up of that spectrum over time.
Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean in English, so that people can understand? What is the reality? You have said managed and staged, which indicates to me that it is more than just a premonition of an idea that something might happen. Something is happening.
Ms O’Loughlin: The minister’s announcement was about some things that have happened recently. For example, in Mildura, the Channel 10 services were turned off because the local providers who provided that service didn’t think it was financially feasible to continue it. It has an impact on consumers. WIN has made some changes to its arrangements in other parts of the country, where it is sharing its own infrastructure. That has an implication. That has actually not affected those audiences very well. I think what the minister is saying is that if there is going to be an end state where broadcasting wants to go, we need to think about all the steps that have to take place for that to get there effectively. That is what is alluded to. There is what is called a future broadcasting working group, which the minister has asked to be reinvigorated, to start thinking about these issues for the next 10 or 15 years, not the next two or three.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/LJdwtiCtx98/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 15:35:002024-12-20 11:45:39Government Ducks for Cover on Misinformation and Disinformation Bill
Coal LSL has been underperforming since I commenced in the Senate in 2019. It appears Coal LSL has been receiving levies from as many as 33 companies that were not required to pay them. These funds were then paid to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and reimbursed to Coal LSL, contrary to Section 83 of the Constitution.
DEWR identified the error and notified Coal LSL in April 2023, during the 2022/23 financial year, however Coal LSL had not disclosed this in the 2022/23 Annual Report. The amount collected unnecessarily from these companies is estimated to be around $460,000.
Ms. Perks indicated that investigations are ongoing to reconcile the error and arrange for the repayment of these overpayments.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. Here we go again. My questions are very short. They involve Coal LSL or your interaction with Coal LSL. Is it true that the Coal LSL annual report for 2022-23 states that no compliance issues were reported to the minister?
Senator Watt: I know Coal LSL will be appearing later tonight. I’ll just check whether we’re in a position to answer those questions now, or whether we might need to deal with them later.
Mr Manning: We’re just waiting for one of our colleagues to come from the waiting room downstairs. I don’t know the answer in relation to the annual report and any qualifications completely, but as I understand it there were none in relation to section 83 of the Constitution.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to take you to page 101 of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report 2022-23, which says:
Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ for the purposes of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992. If so, payment of amounts equivalent to the levy by the department to Coal LSL in relation to those entities would likely have been made in contravention of s 83 of the Constitution.
Mr Manning: Yes, and that was the point I was getting to. Because of the way the money is collected under that scheme, a levy that’s collected is done by Coal LSL acting as an agent of the Commonwealth—because only the Commonwealth can levy taxation—and then goes into consolidated revenue. Then the same amounts go back out to allow Coal LSL, no longer acting as agent of the Commonwealth, to pay money for the purposes for which it exists. In the circumstances of section 83, it would technically be the Commonwealth, as represented by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, who, if there is a breach, has committed that breach. That’s why it’s in our annual report.
Senator ROBERTS: I guess I’m concerned because—what you’ve said in your report is accurate, I presume:
Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ …
So they shouldn’t have taken that money.
Mr Manning: My understanding is there is a small number of employers who are not national system employers from whom the levy shouldn’t have been collected.
Senator ROBERTS: The report says:
Coal LSL has assured the department that it is conducting further investigations to confirm how many entities may have incorrectly paid levy and quantify any corresponding amounts that have been paid by the Commonwealth without a valid appropriation.
It looks like the money has been collected from individual entities by Coal LSL, sent to you and then it has gone back as a lump sum. Is it true that you have confirmed that the information relating to Coal LSL in your annual report is correct?
Mr Manning: That’s our understanding. I might just ask my colleagues, who have now been able to join us, if they have anything to add to that. As I understand it, the issues are still being worked through between the department and Coal LSL.
Mr Kerr: What my colleague Mr Manning has said is correct. Our understanding is that Coal LSL may have mistakenly received levy payments from employers who do not meet the definition of ’employer’ under the scheme. Mr Manning has correctly described the money flows—essentially, the amounts collected by Coal LSL flow in and out of the consolidated revenue fund in the department. That’s the standard approach for taxation revenues that all go in to CRF. As a result, that’s led to a section 83 breach that we have disclosed in our annual report. So all of that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I find Mr Manning is usually pretty correct.
Mr Kerr: Indeed.
Mr Manning: Thank you; I’m always appreciative of the confirmation that I’ve got it right.
Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t even nervous while he was saying it. You weren’t waiting on the edge of your seat. How did the department become aware of these serious issues when it was not identified in Coal LSL’s annual report?
Mr Kerr: I believe we became aware of it in the context of considering some legislative amendments to the scheme.
Senator ROBERTS:When was the breach first detected?
Mr Kerr: I believe it was in April 2023.
Senator ROBERTS: Who identified the likely breach of section 83 of the Constitution? Was it Coal LSL or DEWR?
Mr Kerr: No, it was the department.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the outcome so far of the investigation into this matter?
Mr Kerr: The department has been working with Coal LSL to seek to clarify the scope of the problem. I understand that Coal LSL has undertaken some assurance activities to review the current active registered employers to identify affected entities, which is not an entirely straightforward endeavour.
Senator ROBERTS:Nothing much is straightforward in Coal LSL.
Mr Kerr: Indeed. As part of that review, Coal LSL has updated its records and introduced some new procedures to mitigate the risk of new ineligible employers being onboarded, and probably Coal LSL is best placed to speak to that later.
Senator ROBERTS: We will be tonight.
Mr Kerr: From the department’s point of view, we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other relevant Commonwealth agencies to try and clarify the scope of the issue and settle a way forward to resolve it.
Senator ROBERTS:So you’re still clarifying the scope.
Mr Kerr: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS:How was it detected? You said it was while doing some legislative enhancements.
Mr Kerr: Yes. The department was considering some potential legislative amendments to the scheme.
Senator ROBERTS: To the Coal LSL legislation?
Mr Kerr: Yes, correct.
Senator ROBERTS: In what year?
Mr Kerr: In 2023. In the course of that, we were considering the operation of the scheme and uncovered this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your diligence. What checks and balances does the department have in place to confirm that the payroll levy taxes collected are true and correct?
Mr Kerr: The department has obtained legal advice in relation to this matter, but to a large degree we rely on the information provided by Coal LSL with respect to the amounts of levy collected. As we are required to do under section 36 of the Coal Administration Act, the Commonwealth role here is really to withdraw amounts equivalent to the levy collected by Coal LSL out of CRF and pay it back to them, with the effect being that the amount collected ultimately ends up in the Coal LSL fund. So, from the department’s point of view, we rely quite heavily on the information provided by Coal LSL about those amounts.
Senator ROBERTS: What is DEWR doing to remedy this breach? I know you said that you rely a lot on Coal LSL; I understand that.
Mr Kerr: The consequences of a section 83 breach are dealt with in some guidance put out by the Department of Finance. Essentially, what an entity is required to do if concerned that an appropriation may have been spent in breach of section 83 is to conduct an appropriate risk assessment which may include legal advice, which we have done, and also to undertake a section 83 breach disclosure, which we’ve also done in the annual report that you just referred to.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s not much you can do in regard to prevent it happening again.
Mr Kerr: I think I’d say that we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other Commonwealth agencies, including the Department of Finance, to confirm which employers and employees have been affected and the options for addressing these.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’m asking for an opinion now. Was this disaster another example of Coal LSL’s incompetent best or an indication of the loose way that Coal LSL uses other people’s entitlements, and that has not started since Labor came into office; that’s preceding Labor coming into office. I’m heartened by what Mr Manning and Mr Kerr said.
Senator Watt: Technically, we can’t give opinions but—
Senator ROBERTS: Ministers can. That’s why I asked the minister.
Senator Watt: Me, have opinions? Look, we support the work of the Coal LSL agency. Obviously, the department is taking you through a range of issues that are being considered and we’re supportive of that work as well.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems DEWR has done its due diligence and done the job. I’m very concerned because—Coal LSL, at its core—the key issue we exposed in 2019. It took a long time for the government to say, ‘Okay, we finally agree with you.’ It took a lot of things to come out and I’m not sure it’s been fixed yet. Thank you, Chair.
In this Senate Estimate session, I asked questions regarding helicopter pilot safety procedures and was informed about the minimum heights required for flying over residential areas, along with general safety protocols.
I also learned about the process for filing complaints and the types of evidence that would be helpful to confirm any reported breaches. The CASA representatives were quite helpful and informative.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s do some safety related questions. Thank you for the copies of the permits with regard to helicopter flying and dispersion of chemicals. How low may a helicopter fly to distribute insecticide over a property?
Ms Spence: I might refer that to my colleague.
Mr Campbell: It can vary, but generally, for dispensing operations, it can be as low as 300 feet, or lower if it’s crop spraying.
Senator ROBERTS: What about in a hilly valley?
Mr Campbell: The pilots would have to take that into account. When they do dropping operations, they always do a risk assessment, and that will all come into it.
Senator ROBERTS: What about around houses, especially houses that have water tanks for catching drinking water off the roof?
Mr Campbell: Anything near a populous area will require not only the risk assessment but consultation with that property to go through those kinds of matters.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t have environmental responsibility?
Mr Campbell: No, we don’t.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. How close can they fly to a house? Could they fly close enough to disperse toxins on a house?
Mr Campbell: The drop site will be planned out previously, and it won’t involve a house. It’s up to the pilot and the operator to ensure that anything that’s dropped remains within the planned drop site.
Ms Spence: Senator, it’s a bit like the other question. As we briefed your adviser, if someone has evidence of a helicopter dropping bait in a way that’s not consistent with the way that Mr Campbell has described, again, they should report it to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority or through the ATSB’s REPCON process.
Senator ROBERTS: Must a helicopter avoid flying low over houses and dumping payload onto residential buildings? It sounds like they must.
Ms Spence: That’s exactly right; they must. And if they don’t, then it should be reported to us. We do not have any examples of it having been reported to us. So, again, as we briefed your office, we would appreciate examples of that happening. And it can’t just be an anecdotal one; we would need to have as much information as possible—preferably photos that would allow us to see what has actually happened.
Senator ROBERTS: Must a helicopter avoid dumping payloads of what it’s dispersing, to use your words, Mr Campbell, in creeks and waterways? Or is that beyond your authority?
Mr Campbell: That is beyond our remit. We deal with safety—as long as they are not dropping anything that’s going to injure humans or animals or damage property.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if a helicopter pilot dispenses something that hurts humans or animals—
Mr Campbell: Injures or damages.
Senator ROBERTS: Injures or damages. What’s ‘injures’, literally? Is it ingestion of chemicals that cause someone to be sick or an animal to die?
Mr Campbell: No, I don’t think it extends to illnesses that are created from whatever the dispensing agent is. It is about when it hits the ground or near a person.
Ms Spence: Physically.
Senator ROBERTS: If it becomes a projectile.
Ms Spence: It’s an issue where, again, as we’ve discussed, there are multiple regulators in this space. Issues about the impact of the chemicals that are used to bait the fire ants are not something that we have any role in approving or anything like that, so I expect that concerns about the impact on the environment as a result of how those baits are used are probably better taken up with someone in the environment portfolio.
Senator ROBERTS: We are, and we’ll be taking it up here again with a third committee. What can be done to stop a helicopter pilot from doing any of the things like dropping payloads on crops, animals, creeks, waterways or houses?
Ms Spence: If it’s reported to us, we can then investigate. The more information we have, the more likely we can actually take enforcement actions against an operator who does something illegally.
Senator ROBERTS: Your permits, as I understand it, don’t come with conditions. Do you leave it up to the pilot?
Mr Campbell: The operator, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’d be pretty hard to say that the pilot has done something wrong.
Ms Spence : No. If they’re flying below the height that’s approved—again, as we passed on to your office, a lot of those details are set out in the actual manual of standards and the regulations. So, if they’re operating in a way that’s not consistent with the manual of standards or the regulations, that can get reported to us and we can then take enforcement action.
Senator ROBERTS: What would you say into the camera now, to constituents in Queensland who are infested with these helicopters disturbing them?
Ms Spence: I would say that they should be reporting. If they are concerned that a helicopter is operating outside the parameters that Mr Campbell outlined to you, they should be reporting that.
Senator ROBERTS: Where would they find those parameters?
Ms Spence: There’s the material that we did send through to your office, but it is around the 300 feet and the area in which they can operate.
Mr Campbell: Yes. If there are residents out there who feel that helicopters are dropping—
Ms Spence: Flying too low—
Mr Campbell: flying too low around their home, they can take video footage or take photos, as Ms Spence said, and report them, and we’ll do our best to assess whether they’ve operated outside of their approval.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you regulate these behaviours? How do you regulate their behaviours?
Ms Spence: The same ways—we provide the approval that they can operate in accordance with the requirements that we set, and then, if someone has evidence to say that someone is operating outside of those parameters, we investigate and we can either take enforcement action or refer it to the DPP.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question, Chair. What’s the process for making complaints about breaches of safety protocols or regulations?
Ms Spence: On our website, there is actually a mechanism to report a safety concern, and I think the ATSB has also got a similar ability to report on their website.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and, after months or years of trying to extract things from CASA, it is a pleasure to have you in my office giving us information freely.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/n9gszSA6hPM/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 08:48:532025-02-11 13:26:29Helicopter Safety and CASA Complaint Process
