Senate Estimates | Australian Electoral Commission

I spoke with the Tom Rogers of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) about the recent referendum and how the same shade of purple was used by the ‘Yes’ campaign.

One Nation calls on the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell to introduce legislation to grant the AEC control over their own colourway, to prevent attempts to confuse voters in the next election or referendum.

I also asked about the failure to include the entire proposed change to the Constitution on the ballot paper, as required by S128 of the Constitution. Mr Rogers’ answer was not acceptable.

I call on the Minister to clarify this Constitutional provision by enacting legislation to require the full text of the amendment to be included on future referendum voting papers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Firstly, Mr Rogers, thank you very much and congratulations on a successful referendum. You produced an accurate result and very quickly. I want to pass on comments from a
friend of mine who is fairly fussy and interested in accuracy. He volunteered to be one of your workers. He said the process of training and running the booth was first class. He had no problems, and he’s a fussy bugger. We do question the format of the ballot paper, but that’s history now. I wouldn’t take it personally about getting some nice messages. I think, after the last three years of the COVID response and the confusion around some of the Voice campaign, people are sick and tired of governments, so it wasn’t directed at you. I also noticed that ticks and crosses weren’t a thing. A Queanbeyan booth had 1,281 votes. Only one of those was a cross, and there were no ticks. However, in forms completed at the booth for declaration voting, I believe the elector was required to indicate their answer with a cross.

Chair: So no cause for conspiracy theory, then, but I’m interjecting.

Senator ROBERTS: Not at all. But please consider eliminating ticks and crosses from your own paperwork as a way of ensuring they are not used on polling day. That’s just a suggestion from one of the constituents. In the referendum, the Australian Electoral Commission allowed the use of AEC purple by the ‘yes’ campaign. That decision was correct in law, but let’s review that for the next time. Is that possible?

Mr Rogers: I might just talk about the purple signs issue because it’s a complex matter. We don’t own the colour purple. Legislatively, the AEC does not own the colour purple. I wish we did. I’d be very happy—

Senator ROBERTS: Despite the tie!

Mr Rogers: Indeed. There are only limited circumstances in which we can intervene with the use of the colour purple. In a lot of commentary that we saw both online and in the media, there’s this sort of thing about,
‘Oh my god, there are purple signs, and the AEC’s not doing anything about it.’ When you’re doing something like a short-form radio interview or a TV interview, it’s very hard to say, ‘Let us take you through the half hour of complexity of case law and legislation about this issue and why we don’t have power to do it.’ People just want to know about purple signs. Before the referendum, in fact I think before the last election, we’d made clear we would prefer that campaigners and parties do not use the colour purple. But that’s a legislative matter, and that would be a matter for parliament rather than for the AEC. But I can tell you that, wherever purple signs were deployed in those circumstances where we thought they would breach the legislation, we asked for those signs to be moved. By and large they were and in a fairly timely manner. We are satisfied with that, but again I make a plea to parties and campaigners in the future: please avoid the colour purple with white writing.

Senator ROBERTS: Was there a ruling regarding Josh Frydenberg’s campaign using purple with Chinese people?

Mr Rogers: There was a court case—Garbett v Liu—and, from memory, it found in very limited circumstances where the sign is indeed in purple with white writing, where that sign is placed in very close proximity to an ACC sign, almost next to it, and, as the third element, where it contains a message which says, ‘The right way to vote is X,’ it may breach the legislation. It’s that specific.

Senator ROBERTS: It is fairly specific. Thank you. Simon Frost worked for the ‘yes’ campaign in the area that created those deliberately misleading purple signs. Those signs did not pass the pub test, as I think you are implying. I also understand that Simon Frost worked for former treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s campaign. He was a senior adviser. Is there any comment there? It’s difficult.

Mr Rogers: No. As I’ve said, where those signs popped up, where we thought they were at risk of breaching the legislation, we took action. But we don’t own the colour purple and have no mandate over it.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’d support it if we put forward legislation on that?

Mr Rogers: Whatever bill passes through parliament is legislation I support in any case.

Mr Pope: We’d certainly welcome further clarification and widening of section 329, which I think is at the heart of your questioning.

Senator ROBERTS: The ballot paper, as I said a little while ago—we disagreed on that—did not include a full reproduction of the proposed change to the Constitution, as required by section 128 of the Constitution. I
understand that you don’t agree it has to be presented accurately in full and that the short description is sufficient. Is that still your position?

Mr Rogers: I understand that the argument was put by a legal academic in South Australia. I point out that this is absolutely a matter for the Attorney-General’s Department, not the AEC, but for the record I also note that a large number of other scholars dismissed that particular interpretation. For the record so that people understand: the form of the ballot paper followed exactly the form of the ballot paper in the legislation. The matter you are talking about is more of a constitutional and legal issue to be resolved by others, not by us.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. As I understand—but I’m not a legal expert—the Constitution takes precedence over any legislation. Have you sought legal advice on that issue?

Mr Rogers: No, because that’s not my issue.

Senator ROBERTS: Attorney-General.

Mr Rogers: I have a number of other issues. I don’t need that one as well. But that would be the Attorney-General’s.

Senator ROBERTS: The Kennedy prepoll voting centre in Cairns was located in a shop in a shopping centre. Centre management initially refused both sides permission to hand out how-to-vote cards and display signage, instead offering a location off their property and down the street. As owners of the property, this is their prerogative, except the point of doing that was to set stalls in front of the voting centre for the bargain price of $250 a day, so they made a deal out of it. ‘Yes’ took up the offer, allowing them to position copious signage and poll workers in front of the prepoll voting centre. ‘No’ didn’t have the money and were prevented from handing out. Is it okay to have that operation of poll workers controlled by a private shopping centre management company?

Mr Rogers: It’s not actually unusual for this sort of thing to occur. I was saying before to Senator Liddle, we get four weeks notice to find whatever venues they can. They have to meet certain criteria as well, as you know. You have to have a number that have access for disabled Australians, and there are a range of other requirements such as security, so the number of venues that we get to choose from is quite small. Occasionally it comes down to either taking that one or there being no polling premises in that area. Occasionally, we’ve noticed before in certain large shopping centres and in airports when we’ve used those, there’s no ability for political parties to hand out material. We do try to advocate on behalf of the parties. As I said at the very start of my opening statement, we think scrutineers and campaigners play an important part in the process, but there will always be the odd event where the parties are unable to gain access rather than us arranging it. That was one of those very unfortunate circumstances. Of the over 7,000 polling places, there may have been only one or two that were like that.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely there’s a benefit for the shopping centre because your voting booth becomes a draw card for them. Can there be something written into the contract?

Mr Rogers: Sadly, I know that shopping centre—in fact, I think I visited that place last week, and I know Mr Pope has found some other issues up there as well and tried to secure polling premises, but it was difficult.

Chair: Can you write that into the contract?

Mr Rogers: Some of them will not write that into the contract. They say, ‘Either you sign the contract that we’re providing you or you or go somewhere else.’ I know that’s complex—

Mr Pope: I think we could suggest.

Mr Rogers: And we do suggest. With that particular one, I understand, we did try to work with the centre management, and they flat-out refused.

Chair: Can you perhaps write it into their legal obligations?

Mr Rogers: They won’t sign it.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a free world. Finally, the AEC has been criticised for responding to a question from a voter with regard to what happens to a voter if he votes twice? The response was accurate: that, well, you just count them. Could that have been more sensitively done in the sense of, ‘Well, we have to count them, but have precautions to make sure people don’t vote twice’? In hindsight it’s always easy.

Mr Rogers: Actually, I do have a view of this. I’m conscious of time, but I think I mentioned before that we were tagged in 145,000 comments in social media in the middle of delivering a referendum. We were trying to serve information to the community as quickly as possible. As you yourself said, that was highly accurate. But it was picked up by a few individuals and weaponised deliberately to try and denigrate Australia’s electoral system. I don’t understand why you’d do that. The electoral system isn’t owned by the AEC; it’s owned by all Australians. I was reflecting the other day on a section of the act—I think it’s 365—which contains a piece of information that, effectively, immaterial errors shouldn’t vitiate an election outcome. It was put in there by smart people. It says, effectively, elections are complex and minor issues shouldn’t be used in any way to denigrate election outcomes. What we’ve seen is that there are a few dedicated individuals online who want to pick up the most minor of issues and create it as a huge event to try to undercut citizens’ trust in electoral outcomes. Let me tell you that, going back in time, we’d do exactly the same thing because it was an accurate answer. What I can’t control is the manner in which people react. As I read out earlier—and I’ve read out two per cent of some of the nutty stuff that barrels down at us, where people seize on the most minor of issues. The whole thing we’ve said before about Dominion voting machines, which emerged again at this—we even had groups of people standing outside at least one polling place in Melbourne in an organised way, handing out pens to voters who were going in, saying, ‘The AEC are going to rub your votes out.’ It’s insane. I don’t know where this comes from. I never thought I’d see this sort of thing in Australia where these minor issues about one comment on a social media page are then used to weaponise such a ridiculous thing.

I’m sorry for the long answer, but I’m very proud of the work that our social media team did in serving up information to Australians in such a timely and informative fashion. I read out some statistics before about our
overarching awareness campaign. It was the biggest campaign we’ve run. I’m very proud of that. I’m proud of the work that our individuals do. I know you know this, but our social media team and the AEC in particular have copped a torrent of abuse from idiots online who should know better, including threats to our staff, including death threats to our staff. It is utterly ridiculous. I’m sorry for using that as a vehicle to point out that our staff do a great job, our social media team do a great job and I’m extraordinarily proud of the work that they do.

Senator ROBERTS: Fortunately, the number of people who do that is very small. Sometimes they get magnified. It’s just that some people latch on to what you didn’t say, which was that we have adequate precautions
to make sure people don’t vote twice. That’s all I’m suggesting.

Mr Rogers: That actually was put there; but, again, I am just pointing out that these minor issues are occasionally blown out of all proportion. I’m also just using that—and I know you won’t mind, because our staff
are so good—to thank our staff who put up with some of that abuse that they get on a very regular basis.

/by

Mornington Island Misery

In this senate estimates session I drew attention to the living conditions of the inhabitants of Mornington Island. To describe it as ‘Third World’ would be a kind interpretation.

The health of Mornington Islanders has been of concern to me for several years since one of my staff visited the island.

According to a recent KPMG report, $326 million has been put into Mornington Island community between 2017 and 2022, yet there have been “no consistent improvements” achieved in the areas of schooling, employment, chronic disease and child health. Where’s the money gone?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: The health of Mornington Islanders has been of concern to me for several years, since one of my staff visited the island to see first hand how the islanders were being serviced. To describe the conditions of those living on Mornington Island as third world would be a kind interpretation. It has been pervasive for a long time. How many Mornington Islanders in the last three years have died from alcohol related kidney disease or diabetes? If you haven’t got the figures—

Mr Exell: I’d have to take that specific thing on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What medical services are currently provided on Mornington Island?

Mr Exell: I’m just checking—

Ms Turner: We’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What improvements to the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables have been made in the last three years?

Ms Turner: I think we’ll have to take that on notice as well.

Senator ROBERTS: What progress has been made in establishing a market garden to provide fresh fruit and vegetables?

Mr Exell: For that one, there might be a broader—

Ms Guivarra: You may be aware—and I think we’ve talked about it previously—that there is work underway on a food security strategy. So I might call my colleagues just to give a bit of an update on what work is happening on that.

Ms Bellenger: Can I just get the question again on food security, please?

Senator ROBERTS: What progress has been made in establishing a market garden to provide fresh fruit and vegetables for the islanders?

Ms Bellenger: Thank you for that.

Senator ROBERTS: I think there was a garden planned or established. I think it was underway.

Ms Bellenger: That’s correct. There’s a feasibility study underway on Mornington Island, so NIAA have funded people there to actually look at the viability in how that works. We provide $13 million for three community market gardens, who, after feasibility, are actually building the gardens in Doomadgee, Mornington and Yarrabah. Market gardens are notoriously difficult to set up and keep viable, but we are definitely working closely with our partners in those three regions.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there any way of giving us a quick snapshot as to the stage you’re up to?

Ms Bellenger: I’m sorry. I’ll have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many islanders are receiving treatment for alcohol related complications to their renal and liver health?

Mr Exell: I will take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: How many Mornington Islanders have diabetes?

Mr Exell: Again, we don’t have those details with us. Sorry.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s understandable. How many Mornington Islanders are requiring dialysis at other centres?

Mr Exell: Again—

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Can you tell me something about the costs and the travel for those who are on dialysis?

Mr Exell: The cost for those who need to travel for dialysis?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The travel indicates to me some higher elevation of cost, as well as inconvenience to the people. What health programs are currently being offered for aged care of Mornington Islanders?

Ms Turner: We’ll have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What support or development programs are being offered to Mornington Islander youth?

Mr Exell: Again, from a Health perspective we will have to take it on notice. I’m just checking for an NIAA—

Ms Guivarra: Yes, we can also take that specific question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t mind things being taken on notice if it means a better answer. That’s fine. I’ve got no problems with that. What mental health support is being offered to Mornington Islanders?

Ms Guivarra: Again, we’d have to take that on notice.

Senator Gallagher: How about we provide you a comprehensive brief of services, support and investments that are going into—

Senator ROBERTS: I would like the answers, though—

Senator Gallagher: Yes, as part of that.

Senator ROBERTS: And a brief, a personal briefing?

Senator Gallagher: I will certainly check with the minister’s office. It’s not up to me to give, but I will undertake to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. According to a recent KPMG report, $326 million has been put into the Mornington Island community between 2017 and 2022 but with ‘no consistent improvements’ achieved in the areas of schooling, employment, chronic disease and child health. Where’s the money gone?

Mr Exell: That’s, again, across a range of sectors there, so we are happy as part of that report to pull that together and try to address—

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. My next question is why no improvements, but that’s the same, so that’s fine. But we need answers to these questions. Australia is looking for answers. To the member of staff who went there, it seems money is wasted. He’s not saying there is not an issue or that it’s not deserving of a solution—it certainly is—but the attempted solutions over the past few years have not been successful. There is wasted money, too much talk and not enough action while islanders continue to live in squalor and die too early, and that’s a really serious concern. I would also like to know: can locals work? The previous witness talked about being involved in making the garden, which is wonderful.

Ms Broun: Again, we could include that in this comprehensive brief and it would go to some of the programs that we’ve been running.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, alright. Chair, I would just like to put on the record that I am very pleased to see Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerrynne Liddle in here. I haven’t worked with Jana, so I don’t know her. I’m not going to make any comment. I’m not leaving her out by omission, but I want to make it very clear that I support what they’re doing and it’s a refreshing breath of fresh air.

/3 Comments/by

What is Coal LSL Hiding?

Simon Turner, a coal miner from the Hunter Valley, suffered a workplace injury and has missed out on his entitlements, including long service leave, for 9 years. I have consistently questioned Coal Long Service Leave (LSL) at previous Senate Estimates and did so again in October.

The CEO of Coal LSL, Ms Darlene Perks’ responses to my questions were clearly not co-operative and were defensive.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. You have the last gig, as usual!

Senator Watt: We’re saving the best for last!

Senator ROBERTS: At estimates on 30 May this year, right here, I asked Ms Perks for the contracts between Coal LSL and AUSCOAL for the years 1993 through to 2017. I was eventually provided with only three
unredacted contracts for the years commencing 1 July 2006, 1 July 2008 and 1 July 2012. That’s only three out of the 25 documents. Why were the rest not provided?

Ms Perks: The three contracts that have been provided were the documents that we have been able to access from the archives. The contracts were for more than a one-year term, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that 25 were missing. But it is fair to say that the three we have provided are the three that we have been able to access from the archives.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s all?

Ms Perks: They are the three that we have been able to access.

Senator ROBERTS: You could only access those three?

Ms Perks: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Wow! Is there any other place that you can look—any other source?

Ms Perks: We’ve exhausted our resources.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I place on record your noncompliance with the original request and your reason is now on record as well. Why did Coal LSL pass on the administrative responsibilities of Coal LSL to AUSCOAL?

Ms Perks: I can’t comment on a decision of the board back in that period of time.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you meet with the board? Or did you meet with the board at that time? When the board met, were you in attendance?

Ms Perks: Senator, you’re talking about a period which was before my employment. I think this was part of the discussion—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s true. Did the responsibilities that the board of Coal LSL passed on to AUSCOAL include collecting long service leave levies from employers?

Ms Perks: The contracts that have been shared with you certainly included the collection of levies as one of the responsibilities included in the outsourced administration contract.

Senator ROBERTS: When did that first happen, and over which years? Right from the start of the contract, was it?

Ms Perks: My recollection is that AUSCOAL, as a service company, were contracted by the entity from 1993.

Senator ROBERTS: Right from the start. It was reported in annual reports that over those years Coal LSL had no employees—is that true?

Ms Perks: That was my answer at the previous estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. So you were employed by AUSCOAL during those years?

Ms Perks: I answered that question at previous hearings, and the answer doesn’t change.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you cease working for Coal LSL—I don’t think we’ve asked this question before—when employed by AUSCOAL? I’m guessing that would be yes.

Ms Perks: Coal LSL only started employing employees from 2017. Again, that was the information I provided in the previous hearing.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why AUSCOAL ceased providing services to Coal LSL?

Ms Perks: Sorry, AUSCOAL providing services to Coal LSL? Is that your question?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why did they go to Coal LSL doing its own work?

Ms Perks: That was a decision by the board of Coal LSL at the time, to insource the operations.

Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t necessarily on the board, but you were present as general manager then?

Ms Perks: I was not part of the board discussions.

Senator ROBERTS: So you weren’t sitting in on the board meetings?

Ms Perks: Not when the decision was made.

Senator ROBERTS: So you were then re-employed by Coal LSL?

Ms Perks: Coal LSL ran a national search for the role of CEO. I applied, I was successful through that process and I was appointed into the role of CEO.

Senator ROBERTS: AUSCOAL was part-owned—50 per cent—by the CFMMEU. When was that changed from the original statutory—

Ms Perks: I can’t comment on the shareholding structure.

Senator ROBERTS: It was before your time?

Ms Perks: I can’t comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Just thinking about it now, my recollection is it was quite a while ago. Do you know if AUSCOAL collected the levy and made a profit from holding the accumulated funds under a government
scheme?

Ms Perks: I can’t comment on AUSCOAL’s profit and loss. I didn’t have visibility of it. It wasn’t part of my role.

Senator ROBERTS: The CFMMEU is one of the owners of AUSCOAL. It has a 50 per cent share?

Ms Perks: It’s not part of my role to be concerned with the shareholding of AUSCOAL.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know, though?

Ms Perks: I am not going to comment on that.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I think the question—

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have seen Ms Perk’s reluctance to answer.

Senator Watt: That’s not fair. She is here, as all other witnesses are, to answer questions about the activities of the organisation she is representing, not provide information about shareholdings in companies external to the organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask which entities made a profit from this arrangement based on moneys paid by the coal companies, but it’s outside your purview. Minister Watt, I don’t know if you would know the
answer to this, but it is not a question for Ms Perks. Is it true that 2011 legislation under the auspices of Bill shorten enabled casuals to be covered by Coal LSL arrangements? They actually changed the Coal LSL
legislation, I understand, even though casuals are not covered under the black coal award.

Senator Watt: I don’t know the answer to that. That is talking about events from four or five Prime Ministers ago.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct, but it’s affecting miners right now. Prior to that, there was no way that someone who was a casual could be on Coal LSL.

Senator Watt: I don’t know the answer to that question.

Senator ROBERTS: Bill Shorten’s legislation, I understand—I was hoping for confirmation—opened the door for that.

Ms Perks: The change of legislation in 2011 did change the eligibility rules under the scheme, and the eligibility rules that are still current under section 4 of the admin act talk about the duties of the employee. That is
the explanation I’ve provided in several hearings—that the eligibility rules do not refer to the employment relationships and industrial relations of the employee. So, yes, they were the changes in 2011 that were
implemented as part of the administration act amendment.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Slow Progress on Protecting Kids from Graphic Sex Books

I asked the Classification Board about publications that are considered obscene material for children and whether the rating system available to the board to make an accurate rating is allowing such material to slip through the classification cracks.

I have for some time been campaigning on the powers the Classification Board has to stop kids having access to graphic novels that are nothing more than pornography.

After having my concerns deflected at the last Estimates, I was pleased to find the Classification Board does agree that there is a need to expand the range of options they have for the classification of graphic novels for children.

At the moment the choice is either to not classify the publication that allows any child to access it in a store or library, or R, meaning the publication can only be displayed in a plastic wrapper and sold to adults. The rating in the middle is M, which means 15 and up, however this is only an advisory rating and does not serve to limit children accessing the publication in any way.

I am pleased to see the Classification Board is now seeking to add a further, legally binding restriction on these publications.

I am concerned the time frame seems to be open-ended and will continue to pursue the Minister and the Classification Board to get this loophole closed sooner rather than later.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: First question—thank you for being here; that’s the first thing. I’ve asked the Classification Board before about publications that must be considered obscene material for children. Last time it
was the books The Boys and Gender Queer. Since then, the publisher, Hardie Grant, has released Welcome to Sex, which is targeted at 10-year-olds, and the author said actually eight and up. The distinction between eight and 10 is academic. This book was on the shelves of retailers like Target, where a child of any age could purchase it. My question now is the same as it was last Senate estimates. Does the Classification Board have a rating system available to it for graphic novels that allows the board to make an accurate rating, or do you need something between anyone being able to access a publication and R—restricted for sale to adults, in plastic wrapping? Do you need an intermediate classification?

Ms Jolly: As you’ve outlined, the options available for the Classification Board are restricted publications of different types, but they’re restricting publications for over 18-year-olds or freely available. The other option we have is to produce consumer advice, which is not legally restrictive, which advises that the material is not suitable for people under 15.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you need an intermediate classification, then?

Ms Jolly: I think the board’s submission to the Stevens review back in 2020 was that we felt that there would be benefit in having some greater—

Senator ROBERTS: Another category.

Ms Jolly: gradations in classifications.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Your answer’s really clear. Minister, in my meeting with Minister Rowland, I was advised that a review of the classification system would be commenced shortly. Has that
review commenced?

Senator Carol Brown: The review is being taken in two stages. Stage 1, of course, you would understand, included the piece of legislation that was passed recently in the parliament and received royal assent on 14
September, and that will commence next year, in March 2024. The stage 2 reforms aim to bring the scheme into alignment with the modern media environment, particularly the treatment of online content. Do you want me to tell you what those reforms go to?

Senator ROBERTS: I really just want to know: is it looking into options available for written publications?

Senator Carol Brown: This is a result of the 2020 review of Australian classification regulation, the Stevens review, which was handed to government in 2020 and released in 2023, and one of the things that it is looking at is to ensure that the classification criteria are evidence based and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it looking into the options available for written publications—another classification, for example?

Senator Carol Brown: The review is quite broad, and it will refine the purpose and scope of the National Classification Scheme, so it will establish—

Senator ROBERTS: The review has commenced?

Senator Carol Brown: Informal consultation with government stakeholders has commenced. Public consultation will occur early in 2024.

Senator ROBERTS: So it is looking into options available for written publications. The public will get the opportunity to comment early in 2024. What is the time frame for recommendations?

Senator Carol Brown: I might hand to the deputy secretary to give you some time lines—if that’s what you’re after?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please.

Mr Windeyer: I don’t think I can give you a date for conclusion at this point. I’m happy to take on notice to see if we’ve got some more precise time lines developed at this point, but the key point is: we’ve started
preliminary consultations with some internal-to-government stakeholders. Public consultation will commence early next year. But I don’t have a set date for the conclusion of the review.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice.

Mr Windeyer: I’m happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/3 Comments/by

Vaccine Mandates: Human Rights Destroyed by Emergency Declarations

In light of Professor Brendan Murphy’s, the Secretary Department of Health & Aged Care, evidence during the June estimates that mandates are no longer justifiable, I asked the Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, for their latest guidance on COVID vaccine mandates.

Commissioner Finlay’s response was that this advice has not changed throughout the COVID response in terms of general human rights principles. What this means is that although governments can restrict individual human rights in an emergency, those restrictions need to be proportionate, non-discriminatory and targeted to risk.

This goes to the heart of the problem. Decisions were made that put Australia onto an emergency footing in 2020. Yet this has dragged on beyond what is reasonable. The response has not been proportionate to the risk of the COVID infection, which the Chief Medical Officer in March of 2021 admitted was low to moderate.

Discrimination remains to this day against those who exercised their right to say no to injections, despite the coercion. We must have a system in place whereby civil liberties are rightfully returned. The Australian Human Rights Commission should be at the forefront of calling for this, yet they appear to be captured, with the exception of Commissioner Finlay, who has come out strongly in support of human rights principles.

Commissioner Finlay is looking forward to the COVID Inquiry that was recently announced, after the Senate approved my motion to establish an inquiry to recommend and report on the Terms of Reference for a COVID-19 Royal Commission. She sees the need not only to look at the economic and scientific impacts and advice that were given throughout the COVID response, but the human cost too.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you want to see if you can get some questions done?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. As the chair said, my questions are fairly short and straight to the point. What is the latest guidance from the commission on COVID vaccine mandates? Where was that published?

Ms Finlay: I would refer you to the answer we gave you in relation to this at the previous estimates. The advice remains the same in terms of the general human rights principles that we rely on in our approach to both
vaccine mandates and all other restrictions that were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator ROBERTS: I must compliment you here and express my appreciation and admiration for your stand on being so clear on the Voice and on misinformation and disinformation. I also want to thank everyone for being here tonight so I could do that. Are you aware of the evidence from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care, Professor Brendan Murphy, at the previous estimates in regard to COVID mandates?

Ms Finlay: In a general sense.

Senator ROBERTS: On 1 June, Professor Brendan Murphy said – at this stage in the pandemic there is little justification for vaccine mandates. That is the most senior health bureaucrat in the country who said that. There doesn’t seem to be any updated guidance from the commission on vaccine mandates despite the fact they are still in effect at employers and are clearly a breach of human rights that’s not proportionate to any supposed benefit. Why haven’t you come out clearly on this issue?

Ms Finlay: I would answer that in two respects. The first is that the guidance in terms of the general human rights principles remains the same. We are not medical experts. I think we discussed that at the previous estimates. Our advice is based on those general human rights principles where in emergency situations governments can restrict human rights but those restrictions need to be proportionate, nondiscriminatory and targeted to risk. So the advice remains the same because of the general principles of international human rights law that we rely on in informing our views about these things and those don’t change.

Senator ROBERTS: So you as a commission essentially follow blindly? The Chief Medical Officer advised me in March 2021 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate, not severe. So it was not a crisis.

Ms Finlay: No, our advice doesn’t follow blindly. Again, I would refer back to the evidence we gave previously and note that, for example, the most recent TGA advice in relation to their vaccination safety report
repeated the same advice that we discussed at the previous estimates in terms of the benefits of the vaccination outweighing the risks. It’s on the basis of that that the general principles of human rights law then apply.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate that you probably haven’t got any latitude to investigate, but the TGA told me at Senate estimates in February, I think, that they did not test the injections. They relied on the FDA in
America, which did not test injections. It relied on Pfizer, which shut down the trial because of the horrendous results.

Ms Finlay: I can’t provide any information on that—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t expecting that. I’m just—

Ms Finlay: but I would refer to the second aspect of the answer that I was meaning to get to, which is that we welcome the opportunity for these issues to be explored at the COVID-19 inquiry that’s been announced. Certainly we have made public comments in relation to that inquiry about the need to not only look at the economic and scientific impacts of advice that was given throughout the pandemic but at the human cost of the
pandemic as well.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s refreshing to hear. Thank you.

/6 Comments/by

ASIO Not interested in Investigating COVID and Wuhan Bio-lab

I asked ASIO if they would investigate the origin of COVID, which is now known to be the Wuhan bio-lab and involves illegal USA Dept of Defense research?

The answer was clearly an emphatic NO.

Our head of intelligence has no interest in digging into events that led to COVID and worse still, the deadly COVID response.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to come back and follow up on a question from Senator Rennick. In World War II we lost 34,000 troops in addition to 70,000-plus casualties and about 10,000 deaths in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. We were told by the previous government that it was nonsense, initially, that it came from Wuhan gain-of-function research. We now know that’s the case. In America they set up—you’re probably aware of this far more than I am—a Department of Defense medical countermeasures consortium involving Australia, Canada, the United States and Britain. It was a military operation, and we now know gain-of-function research was the origin of COVID. The number of deaths we’ve now had, around 30,000 to 40,000 deaths, rivals World War II. We know this was a military operation in that military departments from those four countries were involved. Surely it’d be something you’d research.

Mr Burgess: You’re saying it’s something we know. I don’t agree with you on that. I don’t know that, and I’m not taking any further action on the COVID matter.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s killed almost as many people as troops died in World War II.

Mr Burgess: I recognise the impact COVID had on the globe. As for the matter of whether it’s a threat to security and ASIO are investigating it, I can tell you we’re not investigating its origins.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to be clear: COVID didn’t cost those lives; the government’s injections cost those lives. Surely you want to know whether gain-of-function research led to the spike protein also in the injections.

Mr Burgess: I stand by my comments. We’re not investigating it.

/5 Comments/by

Defence Could Have Avoided ABC Defamation of Veteran Heston Russell

I asked the ADF about whether they could have stepped in and provided the correct information that would have avoided the need for Special Forces veteran Heston Russell to take legal action to clear his name when the ABC published incorrect and defamatory information about him.

All Defence needed to do was clarify to the ABC that Heston wasn’t even in Afghanistan at the time of the allegations and a multi-million dollar legal case could have been avoided.

The Generals wouldn’t even lift a finger to help one of their own Special Forces veterans and they wonder why they have a recruitment crisis.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The next line of questioning goes to the topic of Heston Russell. How much, roughly, does the defence department spend each year on legal costs?

Mr D’Amico: I don’t have the exact figures in front of me, but I think our expenditure last year was around the $150 million mark in total.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you give me an accurate one on notice, please.

Mr D’Amico: Yes, I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Did the defence department provide financial or legal assistance to former special forces commander Heston Russell in his defamation case against the ABC recently?

Mr D’Amico: I don’t believe so.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?

Mr D’Amico: That was a private civil matter. He commenced those defamation proceedings. The way that we provide legal support to former ADF members would be through what I’d describe as a LACE payment made under the Legal Service Directions, and that just doesn’t allow for that sort of circumstance.

Senator ROBERTS: Wouldn’t it have been in the best interests of the defence department to ensure Mr Russell won his defamation case so he could clear his name and the reputation of the November platoon and the
Australian Defence Force in general?

Mr D’Amico: I’m not sure if that’s a comment or a question.

Senator ROBERTS: Would it not be in the best interests? It’s a question?

Mr D’Amico: That’s a difficult—

Mr Moriarty: It’s in the best interests of the department for the law to be upheld. There’s been a legal process.

Senator ROBERTS: I see that. He won, but that’s not your judgement to start. I get that. Nonetheless, to be seen to leave one of your senior people out in the cold doesn’t augur well for people in the armed forces still. Mr Russell spent 16 years in the Australian Defence Force and led November platoon in Afghanistan. He was the subject of a vicious smear campaign by the ABC, who wrongly accused him of war crimes, and the judge was pretty scathing in his comments about the ABC. The Federal Court has now ordered the ABC to pay Mr Russell more than $400,000, plus costs. Why did a veteran have to fight this public battle alone, at his own expense?

Senator McAllister: May I make a number of essentially procedural points? There are three things. The first is that officials have given you advice that they complied with the policy settings that are relevant for this legal assistance that may be provided to personnel. I think the second is that, in asking them to make comment about the appropriateness of those steps, you’re effectively asking them to offer an opinion about the current policy settings. The third thing is just to remind you that Defence was not a party to these proceedings and it’s not really appropriate to ask them, as I think you’ve done just now, to comment on a civil matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what do you say in response?

CHAIR: Last question.

Senator ROBERTS: I have one more after this. What’s your opinion?

Senator McAllister: I think the officials have given you advice that they have sought to comply with the standard arrangements that are in place for providing legal support to personnel. I don’t have any more to add in
relation to that.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the Department of Defence been in contact with Heston Russell during his three-year ordeal? Did the Department of Defence attend his trial in the Federal Court? Has Defence reached out to
Russell after his victory over the ABC?

Rear Adm. Wolski: I’m not aware of any official contact with Mr Russell. This was a civil defamation case brought about by a private person and it’s not appropriate to comment any further on it.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.

Mr D’Amico: Senator, I can update you on a number. Earlier, I gave an approximate figure of $150 million— in fact, it’s $155,570,000.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got a good memory, or you’re accurate.

Mr D’Amico: It was close.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I have another question about the Heston Russell case. Do you accept that much of the time, effort and expense in the Russell and ABC defamation matter could have been avoided if Defence had simply advised the ABC that the November platoon wasn’t even in Afghanistan when Heston Russell was first accused?

Senator McAllister: I think advice was provided earlier that, in the general issue of the civil matter between the ABC and Heston Russell, this is a private matter and Defence were not a party to the case. I think you are now asking Defence to speculate about events that may or may not have happened. I’m not sure that they’re going to be able to offer you an opinion of that kind.

Senator ROBERTS: I can see where you’re coming from.

Senator McAllister: We don’t wish to be unhelpful, but I think there are a number of elements of your question that make it difficult for officials to provide an answer in this forum.

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the SAS people are very close-knit; they have a long association after they leave the Army that’s very much entrenched in comradeship and mateship. I would have thought that the Department of Defence would want to cultivate that because that’s our key strategic weapon as I understand it from talking to former and current members of the ADF. Anyway, that’s fine.

/by

What is the Meaning of Distinguished Service Medals?

The Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) continues to claim there are no issues with his Distinguished Service Cross despite evidence that says there is.

General Campbell never saw “action” on the two way rifle range with the enemy, as was required by letters patent for the medal at the time of his nomination.

Despite claiming he had no ‘operational command’ of soldiers who have been accused of war crimes in the Brereton report, the nomination for CDF Campbell’s medal specifically states he received it for his ‘operational command’ of forces in the middle east.

So when there’s medals to be handed out, the CDF is happy to enjoy the claim he had ‘operational command’, yet when its time to face accountability for allegations of wrong doing, he denies he had any command.

I’ve already called for General Campbell to step down. If he had any leadership at all he would, for the good of Australia’s Defence Force.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Getting on to matters of operational command: General Campbell, do you still maintain that, as commander of the Joint Task Force 633, you did not have operational command of forces in Afghanistan?

Gen. Campbell: That’s quite the reverse. I had, in my tenure, national command and operational command. They are technical terms of command, and that’s exactly what I had.

Senator ROBERTS: So you had command over the Afghanistan operation?

Gen. Campbell: I had national command and operational command of personnel in the Middle East.

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t that make you complicit in the Brereton report’s accusations? You were the senior officer overseeing the people who allegedly performed those acts.

Gen. Campbell: Can you ask that question again? I’m not sure quite what you’re asking.

Senator ROBERTS: The Brereton report was damning about some events in Afghanistan, as I understand it. Is that correct?

Gen. Campbell: Yes. In terms of credible information of allegations of unlawful conduct, that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: And you wanted the stripping of the DSC from members of the SAS involved?

Gen. Campbell: Let’s be a bit more precise. One of the recommendations of the Brereton inquiry was to consider command accountability in circumstances of multiple allegations and credible information of unlawful conduct, which I have a part in in terms of the process of undertaking that work and providing materials and advice to the Deputy Prime Minister, which I have done. That issue is now with the Deputy Prime Minister for his further consideration.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to your nomination for the Distinguished Service Cross that’s provided in Defence Freedom of Information 544/22/23 document 8. I’ll quote from your nomination:

Major General Angus John Campbell exercised operational command of a joint task force that, while mainly focused on Afghanistan …

Through his visits and continuous engagement, Major General Campbell’s exercise of operational command ensured that Australian national expectations were met, that Australian forces were supported and operated effectively …

Your exercise of operational command is referenced twice in the nomination for the bars you’re wearing on your chest right now, but you claimed earlier on when it came to the war crimes allegations that you did not have operational command. Is that correct or am I misunderstanding something? There seems to be a contradiction.

Gen. Campbell: If you’re talking about today or any other day I can remember, it is very, very clear the chief of joint operations of the day assigned me national command and operational command for the tenure of my
appointment as commander of Joint Task Force 633 from 14 January 2011 to 17 January 2012. So there’s never been a moment when I don’t suggest that I had national command and operational command.

Senator ROBERTS: Didn’t you want to strip the DSC from people in that operation?

Gen. Campbell: As I said, in delivering on the particular recommendation of the Brereton inquiry, I was required to consider across the period 2005 to 2016, which is the time frame of the inquiry, circumstances in
which command accountability might arise for multiple allegations and credible information of unlawful conduct. I have, as I say, done my part in that process and offered materials and advice to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Did the Brereton report say you were or were not part of the operation?

Gen. Campbell: The Brereton report acknowledged that I as much as anybody else who was deployed into the Middle East and had different forms of responsibility in their duties for service in Afghanistan as just that. So, again, I’m not quite sure what you mean.

Senator ROBERTS: We discussed this at last Senate estimates. Can you recall?

Gen. Campbell: I know that we have discussed this on a number of occasions.

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s only been twice. Does Defence have an accepted definition of ‘in action’ in relation to awards and honours?

Gen. Campbell: I’m unaware and would have to take it on notice to our honours and awards team.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know what Defence’s application is of the definition of ‘in action’ from the Gilbert case as well, which was in 2019.

Gen. Campbell: I’m not familiar with that case, but I’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your nomination for the Distinguished Service Cross was made on 29 September 2011. At that time the letters patent for that award required that you had to be in action. Can you
please provide to this committee on notice the exact action you were involved in that meets the definition of ‘in action’ from the Gilbert case?

Gen. Campbell: As I was not the nominator, decision authority or the controller of that honour, I’m not in a position to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Who is in a position to give me, on notice, the exact action that you were involved in that meets the definition of ‘in action’ from the Gilbert case?

Gen. Campbell: I will have to take that on notice, but it’s unclear to me at this point.

Senator ROBERTS: The bottom line is that, if you weren’t in action, your medal appears to be not legal. A leader would have handed back their Distinguished Service Cross already. I was just talking with the minister a minute ago about the importance of teamwork and consistency in the leadership, and that’s what I’m getting to here. A number of ADF people and veterans are deeply concerned about the inconsistency.

/1 Comment/by

MRH-90 Taipan Helicopter Crash

Four of our defence service personnel are dead after a MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crashed in the Whitsundays.

While investigations are still ongoing, the Department of Defence has known about multiple serious, catastrophic issues with the helicopter for over a decade. By some accounts, this helicopter should have been pulled from service years ago.

The question many are asking is whether the upper brass and generals of Defence have blood on their hands for allowing this helicopter to continue flying when such huge issues were known.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I understand. My second set of questions goes to the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter. General, the defence minister has decided to replace the Taipan helicopter platform with Black Hawks after the
Whitsundays crash. I want to express my condolences for the loss of those service members, especially to their families and their unit. Defence has known about these issues with the Taipan helicopter for more than a decade. The question many people are asking, and the question I’m asking, is whether this helicopter should have been pulled from service before the Whitsundays crash and four people are dead because Defence or politicians or both kept pushing it.

Gen. Campbell: Firstly, thank you for your expression of condolence and consideration of the families, the friends and the people we’ve lost. I very much appreciate it. As I noted in my opening remarks, in responding to your query, we have to be scrupulously careful not to, in any way, impinge on the independence and the objectivity of the four investigations that are underway: the investigations by the Queensland coroner, by
Comcare, by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and, most particularly, by the Defence Flight Safety Bureau. With that I’ll pass to the Chief of Army.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I think I can help in regard to your question about the withdrawal of the MRH-90. As you’d recall from our last conversation last estimates, it was always our intention to withdraw the MRH. It was due for withdrawal from the 5th Aviation Regiment on 5 August this year. The tragic accident in the Whitsundays occurred on the evening of 28 July, immediately after which there was a cessation of flying for the aircraft. As the CDF has outlined, there’s an active air safety investigation underway as we speak. The advice from the Defence Flight Safety Bureau is that that investigation is likely to take approximately 12 months, which takes us into the latter half of 2024.

We would have had to have signed an additional sustainment contract this year to continue the option to fly the aircraft, which we were going to withdraw from the 6th Aviation Regiment in quarter 4 of 2024. So the calculus, on a value-for-money basis, in the first instance, was that it was not worth spending the money when, in our assessment, there was no probability or a low probability that we would return to flying. And, if we were able to return to flying, it would be for a fraction of 2024. The other key consideration was with regard to whether we’d be able to further accelerate the introduction of the replacement, the UH-60 Black Hawk. Those two factors were the key factors in consideration for the decision to withdraw the MRH-90 this year, in late 2023, rather than in late 2024.

With regard to the other elements or questions that you framed, I’ll refer to the CDF’s comments about ensuring that we respect the process of the active air safety investigation. It’s very important that we don’t contribute to any sort of speculation so that that air safety investigation and, indeed, the other three inquiries and investigations can continue to do their work.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Before I continue with my questions, I must say that, though I’ve been very critical of this helicopter, nonetheless, I want to compliment Major General Jobson and Major General King for the generous time they’ve spent—twice, now—providing me with information on this. Their hands are tied for similar reasons to what you’ve just given. That’s not something they had to do, but they did it, and it’s appreciated. They did it very well. But it still goes back to the core issue for me: do politicians and Defence senior personnel have blood on their hands for ignoring the issues that have been rife throughout the Taipan’s operational history in Australia? On notice, could you please provide me with a list including the dates and titles of every report or briefing provided to Defence or created internally raising issues with the Taipan platform.

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In relation to the Whitsundays crash, were there any delays to vessels that were capable of participating in the search and rescue operation being tasked to do so?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Sorry—I want to understand exactly what information you were seeking there.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know if there were any delays to vessels in the area of the Whitsundays crash that would have been capable of participating in the search and rescue operation. Were there any delays in their ability to do so?

Gen. Campbell: That line of questioning will cut across the Queensland coronial inquiry. So I don’t think we’re in a position to respond to it.

Senator ROBERTS: I can see how it may be part of the coronial inquiry, but I can’t see how it would impact the result of the coronial inquiry, because it’s just fact.

Gen. Campbell: It may be or not, but this is too precarious a place for any of us to be in. So, while these inquiries are underway, we will say as little as possible—preferably nothing at all.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s understood that one of the exercises at Talisman Sabre involved a photoshoot with partner vessels. Is that accurate, and when was this held?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Sorry, I’m not following. What vessel you are referring to?

Senator ROBERTS: We understand that one of the exercises at Talisman Sabre involved a photoshoot with partner vessels. I don’t know whether that’s American or Australian. Is that accurate, and when was this held?

Gen. Campbell: We’ll take it on notice and reply.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The next question—that was the coroner’s inquiry—is: on notice, could you please provide a schedule of all Defence vessels that were in the Talisman Sabre area of operations on 28 July and exactly when each one was tasked to assist with the search and rescue operation?

Gen. Campbell: We’ll take that on notice

Questions on Notice Answers

A0234_ForeignAffairsDefenceandTrade_2023-24SupplementaryBudgetestimates_Defence

A0235_ForeignAffairsDefenceandTrade_2023-24SupplementaryBudgetestimates_Defence

A0233_ForeignAffairsDefenceandTrade_2023-24SupplementaryBudgetestimates_Defence

/by

Fraud Investigation of Aboriginal Funding in the Northern Territory

In mid-September of this year, a Matter of Urgency was referred to Mr Grant Hehir, the Commonwealth Auditor General, Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) by Senator Michaela Cash.

The issue was allegations that millions of taxpayer dollars had been the subject of fraud and corruption amongst senior staff of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and that a decision was made by ANAO not to investigate these allegations. I wanted to know why.

During senate estimates, Mr Hehir informed me that it was true that a decision had been made by ANAO not to investigate the allegations and that this decision was made purely because a review into this is already being undertaken by the Attorney-General’s office. Mr Hehir said that ANAO is not an investigatory body and therefore any fraud investigation is not within its remit.

In the case of suspicion of fraud, ANAO could refer it to the appropriate body. ANAO’s role in this case would be to undertake a performance audit and an audit of the government programme that funded this entity. The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency receives government funding of $20 million to provide legal services in the area. I think an audit is long overdue.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. In mid-September this year a matter of urgency was referred to the Commonwealth Auditor-General, Mr Hehir, and the Australian National Audit Office by the
shadow legal affairs spokesperson, Michaelia Cash. The issue was the allegation that millions of taxpayer dollars had been the subject of fraud and corruption amongst senior staff of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. Allegations were made of extensive criminal conduct by some members of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency’s leadership. Is it true that a decision was made by ANAO not to investigate the allegations?

Mr Hehir: We made a decision not to undertake an audit in that area after making inquiries into the space and identifying that a review in the area was being undertaken by—

Ms Mellor: Attorneys-general—around the jurisdictions.

Mr Hehir: Attorneys-general. We felt that it was best for that process to play out before we did anything, noting that we’re not an investigatory body, so we wouldn’t go in and undertake a fraud investigation. We would go in and do a performance audit of, effectively, the control framework of the entity, not a—

Ms Mellor: Corruption investigation.

Mr Hehir: corruption or a fraud investigation. That’s not within our mandate. That’s not what we do.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong here—I’m jumping ahead—but, if you went in and found evidence of fraud, someone else would come in and investigate it.

Mr Hehir: We would give it off to an investigative body, whether it be the AFP, the NACC or someone like that, to do it.

Senator ROBERTS: So there was already an investigation of that kind going on.

Mr Hehir: I understand there’s a review being—

Ms Mellor: The jurisdictional attorneys-general agreed to conduct a joint review.

Senator ROBERTS: So it had nothing to do with the referendum that was upcoming or anything like that. It was just purely—

Mr Hehir: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, that’s good.

Senator Colbeck: Do you conduct their annual audits?

Mr Hehir: It’s not a government entity.

Senator ROBERTS: So when will you review that decision and conduct an audit?

Mr Hehir: As I said, it’s not a government entity. So, if we were to audit, we would be auditing the government program that funded it. That’s the space that we would go in on. If there were information subsequent
to the review that the program looked like something that was worthwhile auditing, we would consider it in that context.

Senator ROBERTS: You may have to correct me if I’m wrong here, but is it possible that millions of dollars may have been misused when almost $20 million is provided to the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency each year to provide legal services? If that were your suspicion, you wouldn’t be doing it—you would hand it over to an investigative body.

Mr Hehir: If there were a suspicion of fraud, we wouldn’t investigate it—we would give it to an investigatory body. As I said, fraud investigation isn’t our purpose. When we do financial audits, we do control works to get assurance around whether fraud has been undertaken or not, but, again, if we suspect there’s fraud, we pass it onto someone else to do that sort of criminal-type investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: My further questions have to do with the corrupt use of money, so that’s not you—I mean, that’s not on you to investigate.

Chair: It’s maybe the agency that gives out the money. I might give the remaining time to Senator Nampijinpa Price.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d be happy with that.

Senator Colbeck: So, Mr Hehir, you would investigate the conduct of the program, not the operation of the organisation, because it’s not a government organisation.

Chair: No, you’d hand it over for criminal investigation.

Mr Hehir: We can follow the dollar into government funded entities and audit the entity. We do have the capacity to do that under our act.

/1 Comment/by