Australia Advocates for Joint Custody Reform in Japan

,

Senate Estimates provides an opportunity for us to raise concerns from our constituents. One such issue I brought up was the abduction of Australian children to Japan.

I asked the panel if they were aware of the situation and the Secretary, a former ambassador to Japan, responded by explaining that Australia has been actively working with Japan to update its family law system. He mentioned that joint custody would be introduced in Japan by 2026.  

Senator Penny Wong confirmed this and elaborated on the steps Australia has taken to address this tragic situation where families are being separated.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing today. I have two issues. The first one is that it has been drawn to my attention a growing problem related to the breakdown of the family law system in Australia. Some children of a broken marriage are being taken by a parent or family member out of the country to avoid the implementation of court orders related to custody of a child and to prevent a parent from accessing the child or children of the relationship. I have deep concern about the growing practice of taking children to Japan, where local law does not assist or provide for the return of the child to the country of usual habitation. There are now many Australian children, perhaps in the hundreds, living in Japan prevented from returning to their family, friends and home in Australia. Is the Australian government aware of this practice? 

Ms Adams: Senator, we are aware of the issues in Japan with child custody and child abduction; that is the term we use. 

Senator ROBERTS: That is an accurate description. Is the Australian government aware that the Japanese government has promoted this practice actively through seminars as an option for parents in Australia? 

Ms Adams: I’m not aware of that, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: What can be done by the Australian government, in liaising with the Japanese government, to have these children returned to Australia? 

Ms Adams: We have been very active on this issue in Japan for many years now. I know this personally, having been ambassador to Japan and having been involved in these issues, including direct conversations with ministers responsible for justice and parliamentarians and other advocates for child custody reform. The issue has been raised through different governments, I would say, at ministerial and, indeed, leader level. We have been encouraged by some movement in Japan towards modernising, I would say, custody arrangements. It’s a major reform work that we have been advocating for. I will finish by saying that we welcome the passage of the legislative reforms that will allow for joint custody from mid-2026. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, your efforts are ongoing, I take it? 

Ms Adams: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: There are some signs of hope in Japan? 

Senator Wong: If I may, I will add to the secretary’s answer. I will see if anyone can add specifically on the progress of the domestic reforms. First, this is a very distressing situation for many parents. I have engaged with some. Their heartbreak is completely understandable and clear and patent. We continue to provide consular support for them. 

As foreign minister, I did believe it was important to advocate on their behalf. I can tell you that I raised this issue personally with former foreign minister Hayashi as well as the next former foreign minister Kamikawa, both predecessors and foreign ministers while I have been in this job. We have encouraged them to find a solution to allow children to maintain meaningful relationships with both their parents. We were pleased to see some progress in terms of the domestic legislation. In this case, others may have more information about that. We understand that there’s more to be done. I can say to you as the foreign minister and from the ambassador and system perspective that we continue to put our view about the importance of this and the experience of families in this situation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Ms Adams. 

Senator Wong: I can take you through some of the things. There has been a submission to the Ministry of Justice in Japan. 

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask about that. From the Japanese I’ve dealt with, I know that they are very polite and very conservative people. I didn’t want to put you on the spot because it might jeopardise the negotiations. 

Senator Wong: That’s very kind. I think we can talk about the public things we have done. I think Mr Maclachlan is about to do that. 

Mr Maclachlan: As the minister and the secretary have outlined, Senator, Japan has introduced legislative reforms. It has implemented them. They will come into effect in mid-2026. They will effectively allow for the joint custody of children. We are continuing to work with Japan to encourage, if you like, the implementation of these laws in a way that would actually allow for children to have relationships with both parents. Of course, the actual outcome in individual cases will actually be determined by the circumstances of individual parents and children. They will need to continue their work and to seek Japanese legal advice in relation to that. 

This legislation builds on a long period of advocacy. The minister has outlined her work. I would add to that. The Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, exchanged letters on the issue in October last year with former justice minister Koizumi and former justice minister Saito in March 2023. The embassy also supported a visit to Japan in April this year by the honourable Justice Victoria Bennett of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. It was to share some of our experiences with the implementation of family law and how we deal with some of these matters to, if you like, help Japan’s system see the benefits of reform. Our ambassador in Japan and, I dare say, the secretary, when she was ambassador in Japan, were also engaged with officials in the Japanese system to advocate for these reforms. 

In February this year, as part of a public consultation on the proposed family law reform in Japan, we made a joint submission with AGD to that effect. We continue to do that. We remain available, of course, with the Japanese to help if they have questions about the practical implementation of their law. 

Of course, there’s also the consular side of this. At the end of the day, we’re talking about parents and children and Australians. The embassy is doing what it can to assist Australians who are affected by the present circumstance. We provide parents with regular updates on developments. The most recent time we did that was on 30 September. We’re also supporting a visit by the Japanese Ministry of Justice to Australia this year to, again, get first-hand experience, if you like, of how our family law system operates here. 

/2 Comments/by

Schools Go Woke – Parents Go to Home-Schooling

,

In five years there’s been a 111% increase in parents choosing to home-school their children. Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) says there’s no problem with woke or politically biased content in the curriculum.

Our children are suffering from these authorities who are telling the education system to lose their focus on the basics like literacy and numeracy. It’s a simple problem to fix, but we can’t begin until people acknowledge the problem exists.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Between 2003 and 2015, national averages in mathematics declined 26.7 points. That’s 5.1 per cent. As of today, almost 50 per cent of Australian students in year 10 are failing science literacy tests. Around 30 per cent of students are not making sufficient progress in both literacy and numeracy, falling short of the NAPLAN proficiency benchmark. In the average classroom, eight out of 24 students—that’s one-third—cannot read at the expected grade level, lacking proficiency. Would you agree that improving literacy and numeracy should be the No. 1 priority of the agency?

Mr Gniel: Just to be clear, I think you’re quoting from some PISA reports there, from between 2003 and 2015—just so I know the reference point for that.

Senator ROBERTS: Normally I’m provided with it, but I don’t have it.

Mr Gniel: That’s alright.

Senator ROBERTS: They’re pretty startling figures.

Mr Gniel: Yes, and to 2015, which was a while ago now. There has been some movement. That’s why I’m asking whether those are PISA results. I think we’re all well aware, as I said previously to Senator Henderson, that there continue to be areas of challenge. You’ve mentioned two there. Of course, literacy and numeracy are the foundation for knowledge acquisition across the curriculum, and they are incredibly important, as you say. As to whether they are the only ones, I would say no, particularly in this day and age. They provide the foundational skills. I think it was in the Shergold review that there was an argument that digital literacy was becoming a third foundational component. That is something that we all need to consider—that the foundations are expanding in terms of what we want our children to learn and understand to engage with society at large at the moment. Part of our challenge is how we support those students with the broader range of skills that they will need in the future, whilst ensuring they have the foundational skills that they will need to support all of that for their entire lives. Just to be clear, yes, literacy and numeracy are foundational skills that are of utmost importance.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s pleasing to hear. Are you aware of any political bias in the educational system or the national curriculum?

Mr Gniel: No. Political bias—I think you’d probably need to give me an example.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll give you some examples in the next couple of questions. In 2005 the Australian Education Union president, Pat Byrne, spoke about the union’s success in influencing curriculums in the educational sector. She said: We have succeeded in influencing curriculum development … The conservatives have a lot of work to do to undo the progressive curriculum. Are you denying there has been any influence on curriculum development by political partisans? They seem to be taking credit for it.

Mr Gniel: The ministers across the country approve the Australian curriculum, so I think that probably answers your question. You’d have to talk to them about the factors that go into their mind. ACARA provides advice on the curriculum content through extensive consultation and work with experts about what should be the content.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do research into what could be happening in the curriculum, in the implementation?

Mr Gniel: Yes. That’s part of our remit.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. I’ll quote from an article in the Australian from September 2023, ‘Universities deliver “woke” degrees to trainee teachers who demand more practical training’. It says: … lecturers have critiqued the “social and political content” of the Australian Curriculum, mandated by the nation’s education ministers—presumably states—for teaching children from primary through to year 10. A lecture slide notes, “we aren’t even doing a very good job”, tallying up 19 references to social justice, Aboriginal rights, invasion, colonisation, the Stolen Generation, assimilation, social justice and racism. It doesn’t sound like we’re focusing solely on literacy and numeracy; it sounds like we’re getting a lot of distractions that people can make up for in their own interest.

Mr Gniel: I think the curriculum has eight key learning areas already. Of course, mathematics and English are in there. Literacy and numeracy are part of the general capabilities, which, as you would understand, are across all of those eight key areas. You need literacy and numeracy skills to engage with science.

Senator ROBERTS: And even for digital?

Mr Gniel: Correct. Digital is one of those general capabilities as well. Part of the challenge is the breadth of the curriculum and what we’re asking our children to learn. The foundation is literacy and numeracy, but that is insufficient. It needs to be much broader than that. We talk a lot about knowledge acquisition. You’ve heard Dr Donovan here today talk about the best way to do that—the research that’s being done on cognitive load theory and how we get students to learn and understand the content we expect of them through the Australian curriculum.  You’re right: it isn’t just about English and maths; it’s much broader than that. I don’t think anyone would disagree that we need science and digital, as you’ve been talking about. This committee has also asked me previously about behaviour. We do expect teachers to teach personal and social capabilities as part of the curriculum as well. These are important building blocks to pull all of that together, so when they leave school they can work in and contribute to society, a society that is ever-changing.

Senator ROBERTS: What makes us unique as a species—maybe dolphins have it—is numeracy and certainly language, except maybe dolphins and whales. We have sophisticated language, and it seems like numeracy and literacy are playing second fiddle to many other things that are just being shoved into a woke agenda, as that teacher said. In just five years, between 2018 and 2023, Australia has recorded a 111 per cent increase in homeschool registrations. Do you take any responsibility for setting the curriculum that’s driving that shift? In other words, what I’ve heard, anecdotally, from many people in different states is that children came home during COVID lockdowns and they followed a curriculum. Parents were absolutely shocked and said, ‘You’re not going back to normal school. You’re staying homeschooled.’ I know a lot of people are homeschooling their children because of that. They’re not happy with the curriculum at all.

Mr Gniel: It’s not really something I can comment on. We set the Australian curriculum and then, in terms of the states and territories and the individual school systems, they regulate homeschooling. If there’s evidence out there that you’re talking about—I understand that you’re saying it’s anecdotal evidence.

Senator ROBERTS: The 111 per cent is measured, the increase in homeschooling.

Mr Gniel: Sure, but—

Senator ROBERTS: The driver I’m talking about is anecdotal.

Mr Gniel: That’s right. I’m not aware of any research that’s saying the driver is curriculum. I accept that that’s what you’ve heard.

Senator ROBERTS: It might be the states’ interpretation or implementation of the curriculum. I don’t know.

Mr Gniel: Potentially. Yes, that’s right. I guess that’s why it’s hard for me to comment; I don’t have that information.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any interest from ACARA to go and research that? What do you do research on? Do you research with parents about their satisfaction or otherwise with the curriculum?

Mr Gniel: As part of our work, when we reviewed the curriculum, for instance, there was a public review of that. We took all of that into account when we provided that reviewed curriculum to ministers. So, yes, there’s a forum for the public to contribute to that process.

Senator ROBERTS: A forum but no formal research, apart from a forum that’s one-off when you do a review?

Mr Gniel: They’re an incredibly important stakeholder group, of course.

Senator ROBERTS: Parents? Absolutely.

Mr Gniel: I met with parents associations a couple of weeks ago, and whenever I go to different states and territories I also meet with the local parents associations. That’s across the sectors of government schools, Catholic and independent as well, so I get feedback from them. One of the things I mentioned in my opening statement was the translation of some of that information into other languages. That specifically came from parent groups saying, ‘It’s really important that we have information that’s accessible to all parents, including those where English is a second language.’

ArticleDownload

/by

NAAJA Crisis: Leadership Turmoil and Funding Mismanagement Allegations

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired about the recent turmoil at the Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Authority (NAAJA), which has seen six CEOs appointed over a two-year period. One of the CEOs was found by the Federal Court to have been unfairly dismissed and chronic staff shortages have led to the suspension of legal representation, leaving approximately 75 Aboriginal individuals unrepresented in court. I questioned how someone with a history of domestic violence could be appointed Chairman of the Board and still remain a Director of the agency. The answer – this individual was elected by the other Directors.  

Currently, a grant controller has been appointed to oversee the funds being given to the NAAJA to ensure they are spent appropriately. The grant controller is part of an external firm, adding another layer of bureaucracy to prevent misuse. Refunds of unspent funds are under review and an audit decision is expected by late November.  A new Annual General Meeting (AGM) is scheduled for later this year. I asked why the government opposes full audits. Senator McCarthy denied any misuse of funds, though community members claim that money is not reaching the grassroots level. Performance audits will be provided to me on notice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I have questions on the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. Does someone need to come up for that? 

Ms Broun: Senator, we have got NIAA and Attorney-General’s Department. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know who to address this to. 

Ms Broun: This is Attorney-General’s. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’m told the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory’s largest Aboriginal legal service, has been in turmoil in recent years. Since late 2022 there have been six CEOs appointed to the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. That’s in just two years. Its long-standing CEO, Ms Priscilla Atkins, was controversially sacked in February 2023, and she was found in June 2024 by the federal court to have been unfairly dismissed. The agency has suffered a chronic shortage of lawyers and other staff, leading to a suspension of the provision of legal services and almost 75 Aboriginal clients not being represented in court during the staff shortage. They are the figures I have. Minister, is Mr Hugh Woodbury, former CEO and domestic violence perpetrator, still a director of the board of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency? 

Senator McCarthy: Yes, he is. We were asked these questions earlier today—just to let you know. 

Senator ROBERTS: How is this man able to be appointed the CEO with such a history, given the prevalence of domestic violence as an issue within the Aboriginal community? We’ve seen Senator Cox and Senator Nampijinpa Price both raising this issue. 

Mr Worth: Senator, it is for the membership of NAAJA to appoint board members under their constitution. They are an ASIC organisation registered with the ACNC. The appointment of Mr Woodbury to chair that board was made by the board without the knowledge or permission sought by the NIAA. Subsequent to that, Mr Woodbury has resigned as chairman of the board. He remains as a director of NAAJA as is allowed under the terms of the regulator for that organisation, being the ACNC, under the terms of the Commonwealth’s funding agreement. Given that Mr Woodbury is not directly involved in the management or service delivery in his capacity as a non-executive director, consent from NAAJA is not required from the Commonwealth for him to hold that position. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it seems pretty unusual for us to be asking the taxpayers of Australia to be giving money to such an entity. What is the state of Commonwealth funding to the agency? There’s been talk of refunds, stopping money, audit and misspent money. 

Mr Worth: Since December last year the NIAA has had in place a grant controller managing the funding provided by the NIAA to NAAJA. Under the scope of that arrangement the grant controller reviews the expenditure from NAAJA in relation to those funded programs. When they are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been provided, they release funds to NAAJA. So it’s tightly controlled. All of the standard performance management and performance reporting requirements that exist within our contracts continue. So, again, they need to be meeting both the performance standards and requirements of the contract as well as having the additional scrutiny provided by the grant controller to ensure that there’s clear alignment between the expenditure and the funds that have been provided. 

Senator ROBERTS: I missed the earlier part of your answer; I was looking down here. Where does the grant controller, the grant manager, fit in the scheme of things, in the hierarchy? 

Mr Worth: The grant controller is an external firm that’s been appointed to manage those funds. They act on behalf of the NIAA, but they are an independent body and they effectively sit in between the NIAA and NAAJA, as I said before, to ensure that NAAJA is applying the funds appropriately in line with the contract. 

Senator ROBERTS: So we’ve got the taxpayer giving money to the government, giving money to the NIAA, giving money to the grant controller—the grant manager—who then authorises the money to go to NAAJA. 

Mr Worth: To be released—effectively the grant controller acts as a trustee of sorts in terms of just holding and releasing the funds once the evidence has been provided. 

Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of people in the chain. Is the Commonwealth funding of $80 million over five years ending in 2025 still the plan, or is this sum being reviewed? 

Ms Harvey: The Attorney-General’s Department is responsible for legal assistance funding. Through the National Legal Assistance Partnership, which is in place from July 2020 until the end of June 2025, we provide funding through to the Northern Territory government that then provides funding through to NAAJA as well as its legal aid commission and other bodies. So that funding is in place until the end of June next year. 

Senator ROBERTS: Has this sum been reviewed? It is still in place, but what about the future? 

Ms Harvey: Has the funding been reviewed? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Ms Harvey: There has been a broad review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership which was handed down earlier this year, but in terms of the funding to the Northern Territory there are conditions within the National Legal Assistance Partnership that they meet those milestone events and we release the funding to the Northern Territory. They then separately have a contract with NAAJA, for example, which have their own conditions in there. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Commonwealth still seeking a reimbursement of some unspent funds, as I have been led to believe? 

Ms Harvey: The Northern Territory, I think, has been in contact with NAAJA and are working that through, in terms of their unspent funds. 

Senator ROBERTS: They’re what? 

Ms Harvey: The funding for legal assistance goes through the Northern Territory government, so they have the relationship with NAAJA about that funding including any underspends that there might be. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the amount being sought? Does anyone know? 

Ms Bogart: Being sought in underspends? 

Senator ROBERTS: Unspent money back. 

Ms Bogart: The Northern Territory government is responsible for that under their grant agreement, and they’re working that through with NAAJA. I think they’re in a negotiation about what that amount looks like. 

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s been given to the Northern Territory government, another entity in the chain, and that’s been given to NAAJA, and NAAJA and the Northern Territory government are now haggling over the unspent money. Is that right? 

Ms Bogart: They’re working through the amount and what, if any, can be retrieved back by the Northern Territory government. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what has been the outcome of audits of the agency? 

CHAIR: I’ll need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts. 

Senator McCarthy: I’ll refer to Mr Worth. 

Mr Worth: The audit is currently being finalised, so at this stage there is no outcome. We’re looking to have it finalised by the end of the year. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me about the nature of the audits: the scope, the purpose, the deadlines? 

Mr Worth: The scope itself, yes. The auditor is reviewing expenditure for the 2022-23 financial year, both the application of funds received for the 2022-23 financial year through the national legal services funding as provided by the Northern Territory government as well as the NIAA funding. 

Senator ROBERTS: Was that after Ms Priscilla Atkins was controversially sacked? 

Mr Worth: Correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

*BREAK* 

Senator ROBERTS: Back to the NAAJA, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency—I don’t know how you get your head around all these acronyms!—specifically, what is the nature of the current governance of the agency? 

Mr Worth: Are you seeking the current status of NAAJA’s governance? 

Senator ROBERTS: Governance, yes. 

Mr Worth: We are in regular contact with NAAJA. We have received advice from them that they are looking to hold an annual general meeting later this month, on 27 November, in order to elect new board members. 

Ms Bellenger: But they are registered with ASIC, and ACNC is their regulation body. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who are the voters? 

Mr Worth: The members of NAAJA. 

Ms Bellenger: The members. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is service delivery meeting the needs of the community? As I understand it, it’s suspended at the moment. And is legal representation in court meeting the needs of accused people and in accord with the contract with the Commonwealth Attorney-General? 

Ms Harvey: Throughout the time that we have been working with NAAJA coming out of the kinds of issues that they have been having for nearly two years, service delivery has been a really key focus of ours and so we have tracked it really carefully. We understand NAAJA is now back at full service delivery. For example, I mentioned we were advised by NAAJA in October this year that there are no Aboriginal people going unrepresented in criminal proceedings in the Northern Territory except by choice. I think that is a very strong indication of the service delivery having resumed. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there was a suspension of the services and they have been resumed? 

Ms Harvey: Yes. Toward November last year, I think, there was a temporary suspension of some services. They rebuilt through the end of last year and over the start of this year, and I think it was maybe April— 

Ms Bogart: First of April. 

Ms Harvey: First of April this year they recommenced full service delivery. 

Senator ROBERTS: How long were they suspended? Six months? Twelve months? 

Ms Bogart: November to April, so about six months. 

Senator ROBERTS: Six months, right. Minister, community members in Queensland tell me that taxpayer funds are not reaching the communities. That’s in the Torres Strait, that’s in Cape York, that’s in southern Queensland. Why does the government oppose full audits of Aboriginal agencies and why, in essence, does the government keep feeding the white and black Aboriginal industry of activists, consultants, academics, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians and others who are effectively barons while ignoring the plight of Aboriginal people in communities who are not getting what they are entitled to? They’re not getting the support they deserve and need. 

Senator McCarthy: Thank you, Senator Roberts. If I could just ask for a breakdown of the particular agencies or departments that they’re not receiving, because there are health departments going out, there are educational departments going out— 

Senator ROBERTS: They’re saying in general. 

Senator McCarthy: Well, they’re taxpayer funds. 

Senator ROBERTS: The money is being hived off to the barons in the white and black Aboriginal industry. 

Senator McCarthy: Alright. If you’d like to give us examples that you have specifically, Senator Roberts, but I do know that taxpayer funding goes right across Queensland—federal government funds as well as state funds. 

Senator ROBERTS: So why won’t you do audits? 

Senator McCarthy: There are audits. The ANAO does its audits with respective organisations, certainly with the land councils that you’re referring to. Questions around audits for land councils actually do occur. 

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding, Minister, is that the ANAO does not do audits. It does scoping assessments, not comprehensive audits. They identify areas of weakness, but they do not do comprehensive audits. 

Senator McCarthy: That is not correct, Senator Roberts, but perhaps I need to refer to those who work in the area. Mr Worth? 

Mr Worth: The ANAO undertakes two kinds of audits on Commonwealth entities. The first ones are financial statement audits, which might be pointing towards the ones you’re talking about with how funds are received and applied through the departments—or agencies, I should call them. The second ones are the performance audits, which are the ones that look at how effective operations, governance arrangements and things like that are and make the recommendations on their findings on those. So there are the two different types of audit. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I have a list on notice, please, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agencies that have been audited in the last five years? 

Mr Worth: Absolutely. 

Senator ROBERTS: The agency, the scope of the audit and the date. 

Senator McCarthy: Absolutely. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Minister Defends Government Amid Blood Safety Controversy

,

I asked the representative of the National Blood Authority if he was aware of the early history of the Red Cross and Health Department’s responses to ensuring the safety of blood products used in Australia.

He stated that the National Blood Authority had not been established at that time but recalled that Australia was one of the first countries to adopt measures to ensure the safety of blood transfusions.

Minister Gallagher took a defensive stance and denied any wrongdoing by the government at the time, and undertook to provide information to confirm this. However, I already have information showing she is mistaken and covering up for a government that disgracefully allowed many people to become sick, knowing this was a possibility.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Cahill, for being here. In the 1970s, were the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Australian Red Cross and the federal health department aware that hepatitis C, which was then referred to as non-A, non-B hepatitis, was present in Australia’s blood supply and blood products?  

Mr Cahill: The issues you’re raising preceded the creation of the National Blood Authority in 2003, so they’re issues for the Department of Health that they might want to address. But I can say that, yes, there was an awareness at a point in time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for making it clear that your entity didn’t exist. In the 1970s and 1980s, were the federal health department, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Australian Red Cross aware that the practice of mass-pooling blood donations for fractionation, specifically for manufacturing haemophilia treatments like factor VIII and factor IX concentrates, significantly raised the risk of contaminating these products with hepatitis C, which was then non-A and non-B hepatitis virus?  

Senator Gallagher: What’s the question? Prof. Lawler: Sorry, to whom is the question directed?  

Senator ROBERTS: It was to the National Blood Authority, but it might predate you.  

Senator Gallagher: It’s hard to answer things from 50 years ago.  

Mr Comley: Chair, we’re trying to work this out. I know we very rarely say ‘relevance to the estimates’, but I am—  

CHAIR: I apologise, Mr Comley. Sorry, Senator Roberts. I can’t hear you, because you’re a bit away from the microphone, so I didn’t hear the question.  

Mr Comley: His question is about blood product practices in the 1980s, and I’m just—  

Senator Gallagher: It was the seventies.  

Mr Comley: It was the seventies and eighties.  

CHAIR: Could you just repeat the question, Senator Roberts? Come a bit closer to the microphone.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. There are many people in Australia who are still crippled by contaminated blood. Some of that originated in the seventies and eighties. In the United Kingdom, they’ve addressed this and given compensation. In Australia, we’re apparently pretending that it doesn’t exist. This affected budgets. It affects livelihoods. Shall I continue?  

CHAIR: Could you put it as a question?  

Senator Gallagher: I mean, we do usually have pretty wide-ranging question opportunities, but, I have to say, going back over 50 years and asking officials at the table is a bit difficult, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: These people have recently made an official complaint to the Australian Federal Police.  

Senator Gallagher: Okay, well—  

Senator ROBERTS: In Britain, they have given people compensation fairly recently. In other countries they’ve done it too, but not in Australia.  

Senator Gallagher: Again, we’re happy to assist where we can.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a legacy that’s hanging over the Australian government.  

Mr Cahill: I can make some observations, even though the issues did precede—  

CHAIR: Sure, but I still haven’t heard a question. I’m sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, there was a question in there. Do you want me to do it again?  

Mr Cahill: The question as I understood it was, ‘Is there awareness?’  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Cahill: The answer is: yes, there was awareness.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about the fractionation.  

Mr Cahill: There was an evolution of scientific knowledge around that time. All of these issues have been canvassed through a range of inquiries that occurred also over time, including a Senate inquiry in 2004 that took evidence about these matters. There was also an inquiry in 2001 by Sir Ninian Stephen, the former Governor General, and that actually led to the creation of the National Blood Authority in 2003. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a problem that caused your [inaudible] formation.  

Mr Cahill: There have been compensation arrangements put in place. There has been access to antivirals for people affected by hepatitis C. The governments collectively across Australia have invested substantially in the safety of Australia’s blood supply since then. I think in the early 1990s or maybe the late eighties—but certainly by the early nineties—as soon as the scientific evidence emerged about the risks associated with HIV, the practices were changed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s skip all of the details—  

Mr Cahill: Drawing analogies with the UK inquiry, there are substantial differences between what occurred during the UK during that period, which has been the subject of the inquiry you’re referring to, and what transpired in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can the government clarify its stance on the handling of the infected blood scandal, particularly in light of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories’ decision to delay the implementation of viral inactivation or heat treatment for factor IX until 1993?  

Mr Cahill: I don’t think there is evidence that that’s what occurred.  

Senator Gallagher: I think we’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.  

Senator Gallagher: If there’s anything we can provide you, Senator Roberts—I’m not sure we will be, but let’s just see.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that this delay occurred despite global practices by other manufacturers, such as British plasma laboratories, in heat treatment for hepatitis C, from 1985 onwards, to provide heat treated products to safeguard against this virus?  

Mr Cahill: I think the inquiry’s concluded that Australia was one of the first countries to respond to the emergence of the new virus.  

Senator ROBERTS: What actions are being taken to identify those Australians now at risk of having received tainted blood when the blood should have been safe? Other countries had it safe. We didn’t.  

Mr Cahill: I don’t accept that premise.  

Senator Gallagher: I’m not accepting that proposition. I think we have very safe systems here.  

Senator ROBERTS: We might have now, but we didn’t then. It was neglected and people are crippled as a result of that. That’s what I’m after. Some of my constituents are seriously in trouble through neglect. It’s time for those involved in this horrendous scandal to come clean. Why are we burying this? Why aren’t we looking?  

Senator Gallagher: Again, I don’t agree. The evidence that you’ve just been given would indicate an alternative view on that. Perhaps there’s a way that we can send you all the links, for all the reviews and things that have been done, and inquiries into it and the responses to those, and you can have a see.  

Senator ROBERTS: That would be fine, thank you. 

Question on Notice – No. 745

Senator ROBERTS: What actions are being taken to identify those Australians now at risk of having received tainted blood when the blood should have been safe? Other countries had it safe. We didn’t.

Mr Cahill: I don’t accept that premise.

Senator Gallagher: I’m not accepting that proposition. I think we have very safe systems here.

Senator ROBERTS: We might have now, but we didn’t then. It was neglected and people are crippled as a result of that. That’s what I’m after. Some of my constituents are seriously in trouble through neglect. It’s time for those involved in this horrendous scandal to come clean. Why are we burying this? Why aren’t we looking?

Senator Gallagher: Again, I don’t agree. The evidence that you’ve just been given would indicate an alternative view on that. Perhaps there’s a way that we can send you all the links, for all the reviews and things that have been done, and inquiries into it and the responses to those, and you can have a see.

Senator ROBERTS: That would be fine, thank you.

Answer

The safety of Australia’s blood supply during the 1980s was examined through the 2004 Senate Inquiry into Hepatitis C and the Blood Supply in Australia. The full report, ‘Hepatitis C and the Blood Supply in Australia’, is available at www.aph.gov.au.

The Australian Government has implemented a range of initiatives consistent with the Senate Community Affairs References Committee’s recommendations including ongoing funding for the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood’s (Lifeblood) Lookback program, which investigates infections possibly transmitted through blood transfusion. More information on Lifeblood’s Lookback program is available at www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/blood-testing-and-safety.

Further Government initiatives include implementing national strategies and programs to address blood borne viruses, including hepatitis C, and subsidising medicines to treat hepatitis C and other blood borne viruses through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Since 2016, the Government has invested over $7 billion to provide access to curative direct acting antiviral medicines through the PBS, to all eligible Australians regardless of how they acquired hepatitis C or their current circumstances.

A0745_Question on NoticeDownload

/by

Minister Makes ABYSMAL Defence of Net-Zero

,

When government discounts expire, Australia will be facing their highest electricity bills ever.

This is despite CSIRO claims that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity.

With the largest amount of wind and solar on the grid, electricity prices have never been higher – go figure. Australia is incredibly rich in resources and should be an electricity super power. 

Instead, we have Minister Ayres and the once respected Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) who continue to destroy our country.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are fairly short. CSIRO didn’t give a direct answer to my question on notice about the cost of Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, but I have the latest figure the CSIRO is using for the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro in Queensland: $12 billion. We now know the Queensland government internally have the actual cost at $36 billion—triple. Snowy 2.0 has blown out from $2 billion to $20 billion, and I forecast that in 2017. That’s if you include the connecting infrastructure—everything to turn the power on. Why do you continue to tell Australians this is a cheap pathway to follow when every step we take proves you wrong—repeatedly wrong. Why?

Dr Mayfield: These numbers are embedded in our GenCost report and, with every technology, we’re looking for actual projects to base our numbers on. I don’t believe we’ve been using the numbers for the Queensland project as part of that. Mr Graham can probably clarify that for me, but we update that on each cycle based on what’s actually happening out there. So the numbers are as up to date as they possibly can be, as we get more project information.

Senator ROBERTS: That worries me more—that they’re up to date. Your GenCost is nothing more than a fairytale. Considering the assumptions, when we include, then, all of the additional costs, like pumped hydro, that are needed to make it work in Australia, we’re not going to have a cheaper energy system, are we, under GenCost?

Dr Hilton: Chair, could I just object to the use of ‘fairytale’? I think that’s a pretty derogatory way of describing what is a well-considered report that has opened itself up to input from a large range of experts over an eight-year period and, I think, provides excellent guidance to the community about the levelised cost of energy.

CHAIR: I think you’ve put that—

Senator ROBERTS: As I said, when we go into the assumptions, it’s a fairytale.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts!

Senator Ayres: Can I just make a couple of comments about this? I think it’s—

Senator ROBERTS: The assumptions have been proven wrong repeatedly.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts!

Senator Ayres: It’s the kind of badgering of our key national scientific organisation that you should not do—you should not do. It’s an organisation that has served Australia well for decade after decade after decade. It is composed of scientists and staff who work diligently on these questions. It is, of course, open to people—particularly people who have got some peer-reviewed scientific background, but it’s open to people—to ask questions and to criticise the findings of the CSIRO and any other research institution. I don’t mind the scrutiny. I don’t think it does your cause any good when you ask these questions, but I don’t mind it. What I do mind is the use of derogatory language. The problem is it’s not just a One Nation Senator who does it. We sort of expect that. It’s the Leader of the Opposition who said on GenCost: It’s a discredited report—let’s be clear about it. It’s not relied on. It’s not a genuine piece of work.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct.

Senator Ayres: What is wrong with the Liberal and National Party that you allow a bloke to run the show who pours scorn—

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this is taking up my time. It needs to stop.

CHAIR: Alright.

Senator Ayres: who pours scorn on science and engineering. It has it has got—

Senator ROBERTS: You’re just taking up my time to shut me down.

Senator Ayres: But you’re the one who applied the derogatory comments. It’s got to stop.

CHAIR: Minister!

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my opinion.

Senator Ayres: It’s got to stop.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my opinion.

Senator Ayres: It’s got to stop. It’s disrespectful.

CHAIR: Minister. Senator Roberts, can I just have a conversation with you?

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

CHAIR: You still have the call. You’ve asked a question in a certain way. Dr Hilton has put some comments on the record about that. The minister has put some comments on the record about that. My job is just to make sure that you ask your questions in a courteous way. And you can ask questions about GenCost. I’d just ask that you put them in a courteous way.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get a move on to the next question. Can you guarantee—guarantee—the entire electricity system, from generation to poles and wires to the electricity bill to the cost of taxpayers, is going to be cheaper if we continue down your pathway? The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act was passed in the year 2000 under the Howard LNP government. So for more than 20 years, government has forced an increasing amount of wind and solar onto the electricity grid. I have here a graph of the cost of electricity over the past 20 years. It has tripled, largely under your guidance. Can any one of you experts here please tell me in which year on this graph putting more wind and solar onto the grid has brought down the price of electricity? I’m happy to table this.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Dr Hilton: Senator, we don’t have a pathway; we provide data to our elected representatives for them to make policy decisions about our electricity system. We’ll continue to do that through the GenCost report in a manner that is objective and that is open to feedback with each iteration of the report, as it’s been over the last eight years, and it’s up to our elected representatives to make the policy decisions about pathways, as they’ve done over the last 30 years, as you showed in your graph.

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t guarantee a pathway.

Senator Ayres: It’s not up to Dr Hilton or the CSIRO—

Senator ROBERTS: The CSIRO has advised there are three pathways, Senator.

Senator Ayres: They don’t run the energy strategy of the Commonwealth or the states. They provide expert advice on what the cheapest technologies are in the Australian context. That’s what they do. They are scientists. They provide advice. It’s a matter for government to follow it. It’s not their pathway. The government—and the private sector too—takes advice about what the cheapest forms of technology are, and if you persist in supporting the most expensive ones, that’s a matter for you.

CHAIR: Okay. Thank you, Minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s take the word of the RBA governor this morning. She said the key factor is supply and demand. When you add electrification to this, what the hell are we going to do with prices? Are you aware that higher electricity prices cascade and multiply throughout the economy, devastating manufacturing, devastating agriculture, devastating household bills when you remove the subsidies. Are you aware that in every nation in the world, increasing solar and wind increases electricity prices? The real-world data shows that. Within you, does this fact about increasing solar and wind driving increasing electricity prices in every nation across the globe raise any questions and, if so, what questions?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking.

Senator Ayres: I’m answering. If you’d approached this issue in a straightforward way, you would’ve explained that the graph that you waved around is the electricity CPI. Right? It’s not the real cost over time; it’s got inflation built into it. If you were straightforward about it, you would pose the counterfactual: what happens if you put more expensive than the—

Senator ROBERTS: I just told you what happens, around the world. Every nation that increases solar and wind increases electricity prices.

Senator Ayres: What the government has to do, serious government that’s actually interested in the future of manufacturing—we will need more electricity.

Senator ROBERTS: The most important factor in the manufacturing cost is electricity, and you’re driving the price up.

Senator Ayres: We’re going to build more manufacturing, and we’re going to drive the price down by delivering more supply and a modern generation facility.

Senator ROBERTS: When you add the demand of—

Senator Ayres: You can hold up your silly graph as long as you like, but it doesn’t alter those facts.

CHAIR: Okay. I’m about to—

Senator ROBERTS: One more question.

CHAIR: Hello, everyone! I’m about to share the call, but I take Senator Roberts’s point that we’ve also had some long answers.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m on my last question.

CHAIR: Ask your final question.

Senator ROBERTS: The federal government says it relies on the CSIRO for advice on energy and future climate. Do you take responsibility for destroying Australia’s position as the cheapest supplier of electricity in the world, with it now being among the most expensive and hurting people and industries, while Mr Mayfield, during a cost-of-living crisis, two years ago was on a total remuneration package of more than $613,000. I’m thinking of people with a median income of $51,000, and half the Australian population is earning below $51,000.

Dr Hilton: I’m always impressed with the quality and influence of the work that our scientists do, but the capacity to directly alter the cost of living for Australians is not one of those gifts our researchers have.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Defence Claims No Housing Issues for Troops in Townsville

,

Defence generals tell me that, despite a large number of troops being relocated to Townsville during a housing crisis, there’s no problem with finding accommodation for our diggers. This claim comes despite Townsville having a “dangerously low” rental vacancy rate of just 1%.

If you or your family are experiencing difficulties in finding accommodation after being directed to move to Townsville, please email my office as I’d like to hear from you.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How many extra people have been moved to Townsville? What numbers will Townsville increase by and are there adequate homes in Townsville?  

Senator McAllister: I think, as part of your answer, Lieutenant General Stuart, you might respond to the first part of the senator’s question, which was about making diggers homeless. You may wish to include a response to that in your answer.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: That’s just not a factually correct statement. We’re not making soldiers homeless. We have a plan that’s been worked through with our team mates in the Security and Estate Group, who are our liaison with Defence Housing, and manage the on-base accommodation. And, of course, we have a very strong relationship with local government in Townsville. It’s a staged plan, over the next three career management cycles, the first of which is—  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s a management cycle—how long?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: It’s a posting cycle—every 12 months. The moves occur roughly between December, January and February. This coming posting cycle will see the first of those soldiers that have volunteered, or have been asked to, go to Townsville to have those skills that we are building in the brigade there. To go to your point about shortages in some of our numbers, we are well under our authorised strength in Townsville. So the additional numbers don’t actually fall above the authorised strength in the next two years. That is notwithstanding the fact that the rental market in Townsville is quite tight.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s tight all over Australia—almost at record levels because of massive immigration. Immigration has doubled the previous records, so I understand the dilemma. So what you’re saying is that you understand the housing pressures, but you’re managing that?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes. 

/by

New Chief of Defence Johnston Faces Integrity Questions

,

Angus Campbell’s DSC (Distinguished Service Cross) is still a live issue and retiring won’t bury it. Now we know Campbell’s replacement, CDF Johnston, was the person who nominated Campbell for his DSC.

Johnston maintains he was just doing what everyone else did at the time. He did not disclose the specific action, with enemy forces in contact, he saw Campbell in that justified a combat award. 

Anyone hoping that there would be new type of direction and integrity leading the Defence Force might be worried that this doesn’t signal a change of pace.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: What about leadership and integrity and truth?  

Adm. Johnston: That was the third in terms of what I understood when you said ‘culture’: leadership is key to culture.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are on the same track. There’s been a long process, revisited over multiple years now, of estimates sessions, questions on notice and freedom of information requests on a particular issue. You’ve been in this room while I questioned your predecessor, Angus Campbell, over his Distinguished Service Cross, which I’m sure you will recall. Admiral Johnston, you were the officer who recommended Angus Campbell for that Distinguished Service Cross, weren’t you?  

Adm. Johnston: I was on the nomination for it, yes, that’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: According to Defence freedom of information request 522/23, you recommended him for that award on 29 September 2011. At that time, the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross required the recipient to be ‘in action’. Admiral Johnston, can you, once and for all, as a person who recommended Angus Campbell for his DSC, clarify what contact with the enemy you saw General Campbell in, in action, that led to your recommending him for a combat medal?  

Adm. Johnston: If I could answer—the nomination was provided to me in my role as the Deputy Chief of Joint Operations at the time. That position has, as one of its responsibilities, to look at the performance of commanders in our deployed forces, of which General Campbell was one at the time. So I progressed the nomination because of the function that I had in Joint Operations Command. I did, as part of that, indicate that the submission of the nomination should be after the period when General Campbell completed his tenure, which was the case. The definition of ‘in action’ that I applied is consistent with that which had been standing for some time, as to commanders—and certainly in General Campbell’s case, I believe, he spent more than 100 days in Afghanistan, as part of his command role, in an area that was classified as a warlike zone.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘A warlike zone’?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was he in a war zone?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And facing fire?  

Adm. Johnston: He was, as part of his duties, rotating through the places where Australian soldiers and others were located, experiencing the same threats as they had in those locations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your definition of ‘in action’?  

Adm. Johnston: The definition I applied is the same as what had been applied by my predecessors and over, I think, eight commanders prior to General Campbell, who had been nominated for a Distinguished Service Cross. It was an individual who is operating in an area where it is a warlike zone and there are threats from hostile forces.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did that definition come into place the day after his nomination? I think beforehand it was direct action.  

Adm. Johnston: The definition changed before his nomination, but the application of what we understood that to be is consistent before General Campbell’s nomination. 

/by

Pornographic Book for Kids Shortlisted for Prime Minister’s Literary Award

,

The pornographic publication – Welcome to Sex – which is aimed at children, was shortlisted for the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards. This book is unclassified, meaning it can be accessed by children of any age, and is found in the children’s section of many libraries.

I asked Creative Australia how this could happen. The answer was disturbing and effectively amounts to a confession that their industry experts and selection panel have become so desensitised to sexual content for children that no one thought teaching young children about sexual techniques—topics that most adults would find inappropriate—was a problem. Instead, it was seen as something that should be encouraged, leading to it being shortlisted for the award.

One Nation is committed to implementing measures that will allow children to be children, protecting them from exposure to adult sexual material before they reach their teenage years.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Who decides which publications are listed in the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards? Is that entirely a decision of Creative Australia, or does the Prime Minister make recommendations?

Mr Collette: It is neither, in fact. It is certainly not either the Prime Minister making recommendations or Creative Australia. We have a robust process. We appoint industry experts to act as adjudicators. We then call for nominations. Then all those books are read. I can’t recall by how many—I can find that out for you—but literally hundreds of books are read over the course of six months. Our selection committee will then choose the shortlist and eventually the winners of each category.

Senator ROBERTS: How many people are on the selection committee?

Mr Collette: I think there are about eight. I’d have to check. I haven’t got that with me.

Senator ROBERTS: Industry experts—that means authors, or publishers, or both?

Mr Collette: It means people with a significant record in the book industry.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the age range for each of the categories young adult and children?

Mr Collette: The young adult range goes from 13 to 19 years.

Senator ROBERTS: And children?

Mr Collette: Under that.

Senator ROBERTS: Everything less than that?

Mr Collette: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: The book Welcome to Sex is unclassified, meaning it’s available for children of any age. The author of the book has stated it’s suitable for eight-year-olds. The book is sold by the publisher without an age guidance. Why was the publication listed under young adult rather than children’s?

Mr Collette: I wasn’t aware of that, Senator. I would have to check that. The entries were assessed by an independent panel of judges with expertise across young adult writing, which is a category for works written for readers, as we said, between 13 and 19. I can tell you the names of the judges. They’ve since been published. The title, as you probably know, has been a bestseller in Australia, widely respected by teachers, psychologists and academic researchers. The title won the 2024 Australian Book Industry Award Book of the Year for Older Children in May 2024.

Senator ROBERTS: What are older children?

Mr Collette: Thirteen to 19. The book is clearly aimed at a teen audience, and the book’s introduction states, ‘Welcome to a book about sex and being a teen.’ I note, too, that Welcome to Sex has now been recommended as an educational resource for young people 14-plus by eSafety Kids, which is a trusted e-safety provider endorsed by the eSafety Commissioner. I’m not aware of the details of the question you’ve asked me. I will certainly investigate it. But there is a lot to recommend the excellence of that book, and indeed it has now been endorsed as a text for older children.

Senator ROBERTS: Older children being teens and 14-plus under the eSafety Commissioner—okay. I think the answer to this is no, but I’ll ask it anyway. Did the Prime Minister or any member of his staff or department make any representation regarding this publication, either for it to be included at all or for it to be included in a particular category?

Mr Collette: No, certainly not.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought so. Can you confirm that it was your decision to list that publication for a Prime Minister’s Literary Award, or was it the committee?

Mr Collette: It was the committee’s decision.

Senator ROBERTS: Who made the decision for the publication not to win? If it’s won so many awards, why didn’t it—

Mr Collette: It would be the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: The book was reprinted with a splash on the cover, ‘Prime Minister’s Literary Award nominee’ and sold many copies based on your endorsement. Did you receive any representation on behalf of the publisher for that work to be included in the awards? I imagine publishers would love the extra sales that result from that recommendation?

Mr Collette: Publishers do love the extra sales. One of the things we’ve done since we took responsibility for the awards was to bring it forward in the calendar year because, as a former publisher myself, I understand that two-thirds of our books are sold in three months before Christmas. So we had publishers, but more importantly booksellers, urging us to announce these awards early because they mean so much to keeping bookshops afloat. So, yes, we did all that. But the entire selection of that book was made by the panel of experts, as was the winner.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Millions Lost to Bureaucratic Stalling

,

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.

/3 Comments/by

Concerns Raised Over eSafety Commissioner’s Powers

,

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.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am going to move on.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/2 Comments/by