Posts

Transparency Needed: Rob Stefanic’s Departure

,

I questioned the Department of Parliamentary Services about the concerning departure of former Secretary Rob Stefanic who I questioned over serious issue previously. The President confirmed he was terminated due to “lost trust and confidence” – but both the President and current Secretary Ms Hinchcliffe dodged questions about whether Mr Stefanic intercepted a public interest disclosure letter, potentially contradicting his court affidavit.

Even more troubling: 14 senior executives have left DPS in just three years. This follows my previous questioning about serious cultural issues within the department.

As your Senator, I remain committed to ensuring proper oversight of taxpayer-funded positions. The Australian public deserves full transparency about what occurred under Mr Stefanic’s leadership and exactly why he was asked to step down, especially given his $478,000 salary was funded by taxpayers.

I’ll continue pushing for accountability. If you’re a current or former DPS staffer with concerns, you can contact me confidentially at senator.roberts@aph.gov.au

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again. Ms Hinchcliffe, last November I asked you a series of questions, and you and your department have plain refused to answer the questions I’ve put to you. You’ve raised no public interest immunity claim. Ms Hinchcliffe, you are the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services. You cannot expect us to believe that you don’t know the proper process is to raise a public interest immunity claim, not simply flat-out refuse to answer questions. You know a public interest claim is the correct process, don’t you? 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: The questions on notice that you’ve raised—and, I’m sorry, I need to find them— 

Senator ROBERTS: Question 116.  

Ms J Hinchcliffe: We have provided an answer to those questions and those answers have been submitted. I suspect what you’d like to say to me is that those answers are not the answers that you’re looking for and you’d like to press me in relation to those. But we have provided answers to those questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: In question on notice 116, I asked you about your predecessor, Rob Stefanic, who 

stepped down in absolute controversy, yet you still won’t explain why he stepped down. That’s the answer I’m looking for. Why did he step down?  

Ms J Hinchcliffe: That’s not a question for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who is it a question for?  

The President: It’s a question for the presiding officer. 

Senator ROBERTS: President, why did Rob Stefanic step down?  

The President: I provided an opening statement at the last estimates, at which I said we had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.  

Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether Rob Stefanic intercepted a letter of an employee making a public  

interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit that he made in court. The answer to that question is contained in documents that you have access to, both of you.  

The President: Do you mean me, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

The President: I don’t have access to those documents. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who does? 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure what documents you’re talking about. As I said to you at the last estimates that you raised these, these matters are matters that pre-date me. I don’t know what occurred. It seems to me that question, of what Mr Stefanic did, is a question for Mr Stefanic rather than a question for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s either you or the President, the presiding officer. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: In terms of Mr Stefanic’s actions? 

Senator ROBERTS: Why Mr Stefanic stepped down. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: Sorry, what— 

Senator ROBERTS: Why did Mr Stefanic step down?  

The President: I’ve answered that question: because the presiding officers lost trust and confidence in the secretary.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did he intercept a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, and did that not contradict an affidavit given in court? Did he or not?  

The President: Who’s the question to, sorry? 

Senator ROBERTS: You.  

The President: I’ve indicated that those are proceedings I have no knowledge of and nothing to do with. That is not my role as the President.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who would have knowledge of that? 

The President: I have no idea, I’m very sorry. That’s not a question for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have knowledge of that, Ms Hinchcliffe? 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I don’t, and I’ve said before that I don’t have knowledge of that. 

Senator ROBERTS: So no-one knows why he stepped down. 

The President: I’ve answered that question twice now, and I’ve answered it a third time. I made an opening statement at the last estimates at which I said the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the details around that, and was his intercepting of a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court, part of the reason for losing trust?  

The President: I indicated in my opening statement that I was not able to provide any further information. The letter that you’ve talked about, I have absolutely no knowledge of at all. I know nothing about it.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that answers your question—in that it was not a relevant factor in losing confidence if the President didn’t know about it.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that we request. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. And both of you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or in producing documents to this committee. As I understand it, President, the default position of senators is that the Senate prevails. So unless you can come up with a public interest immunity, we are constitutionally empowered to fulfil our duty to taxpayers.  

The President: I’ll re-table my statement from last time. I made it clear that the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in the secretary and that it was not able to discuss, at that point, further matters in relation to the secretary. In relation to the matter that you are raising, a legal matter, whether it was me as a presiding officer or the previous presiding officers, which is where I understand this matter has its genesis, none of us would have—it’s not our role as presidents to have that level of depth of knowledge about court proceedings or DPS operations. That is not the role of the presiding officers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who oversees that? Whose role is it? Surely there’s someone with that role? 

The President: A court matter is a court matter. It’s nothing to do with the department. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Did he or did he not, and who would be aware of that? Surely, someone must be?  

The President: Ms Hinchcliffe has answered the question to the best of her ability. I have indicated, on a number of occasions, it’s not my role as the President. I have no knowledge of the matters you’re raising. We have answered your questions. I don’t know what else I can do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve got a new question. 

The President: These are matters which go back to previous presiding officers and previous DPS executive officers. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic left a rotten legacy. I want to know whether or not he intercepted a letter to an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit he gave to court. 

The President: Senator Roberts, I would hate for the DPS staff who are watching this to think that they are dirty and rotten. They are fine officers. They do an amazing job. 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. 

The President: I think that’s what you’re implying. I took that as— 

Senator ROBERTS: I said he left a rotten legacy. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, don’t speak over the President. 

The President: I’m not making a comment about that. The Presiding Officers acted swiftly. We lost trust and confidence, and he was terminated. We acted very swiftly in filling the position with Ms Hinchcliffe, and what we hope and what we’re looking forward to and what is currently happening within DPS is that we are restoring trust and confidence within that department. That is our role. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again. He left a rotten legacy. Many of your fine employees have come to me telling me of that, and still they’re very concerned about the legacy he left—what he actually did. I will ask if you can take it on notice to find out whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court. 

The President: I can’t take that on notice because it’s not my business. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t know, then tell me who does know. Who should that question— 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve already said to you that I don’t know that information and that the person who would know that information is Mr Stefanic. 

The President: This is a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter. It was a court matter. 

Senator ROBERTS: He was paid by taxpayers, as are we—all three of us. We all have a responsibility, don’t we, to taxpayers? 

The President: Absolutely. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you disrespecting the Senate and the taxpayer in this? 

The President: Senator Roberts, you are asking me about a court matter. If you ask me about a DPS matter, of course I will answer to the best of my ability, and it will be a truthful and transparent answer. I can’t comment in court matters. They’re not my purview. I am responsible for the running of Parliament House, DPS, the PBO and the Department of the Senate. That is the extent of my responsibilities. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking a simple question. Who is responsible? Who can I ask this question of?  

The President: Ms Hinchcliffe just told you: the previous secretary. It’s his matter. It’s a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter. 

Senator ROBERTS: Someone oversaw it. He intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Surely that affects everyone, ultimately. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: Senator, I’ve answered your question. I don’t have any knowledge of this. The person who you would need to ask is Mr Stefanic. If you’re asking about his actions, you would need to ask him. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Hinchcliffe, your department and what you do is immune to freedom of information requests. The only chance the Australian taxpayers and the fine employees of DPS have to hold you and the department accountable for your conduct is through questions we, as senators, ask. I’ve asked you to provide answers, and you’ve point blank refused. How are you meant to be accountable and transparent if you don’t answer questions this senator puts to you? 

The President: That characterisation is incorrect. The secretary has not refused. She has answered questions to the best of her ability. Both Ms Hinchcliffe and her staff are working very, very hard to restore trust and confidence not only within DPS but with all senators in this room. Of course we have a responsibility to answer your questions as they relate to DPS. This does not relate to DPS. It relates to a former secretary on a court matter. I can’t be any clearer on that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but it still remains the fact that apparently he intercepted a letter of a DPS employee making a public interest disclosure. That must bother someone. Please, someone. 

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered the question about my knowledge of this matter and who you would need to ask about whether or not Mr Stefanic intercepted the letter. I don’t know the answer to that. You would need to ask him. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there is no-one— 

The President: I think the actions that the Presiding Officers took in terminating the previous secretary indicate that we are very concerned about DPS and its reputation, so to suggest that no-one cares is, again, an incorrect characterisation. We acted as swiftly as we could. The secretary was terminated. We’ve acted extremely quickly to replace him, and I am very optimistic that with the new leadership at DPS we have a very, very exciting future. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we will need to conclude. We may be here next week for you to continue  

questioning. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I just have one more question? 

CHAIR: One more, and then the coalition has the call. 

Senator ROBERTS: It must bother your employees—taxpayer employees, whom you serve and for whom you are responsible—that someone wrote a letter and that letter was intercepted in making a public interest disclosure. Why does that not raise a simple answer in you to say, ‘I will find out’?  

Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered your questions here today about my knowledge of this matter and about who you would need to ask about your suggestion that the secretary intercepted a letter. I’ve been very clear with this committee about my views on the use of taxpayers’ money: that everything that we do as a department is spending taxpayers’ money and we need to be very clear that we are getting value for money. You heard the conversation I just had with Senator Hume on that matter and the work that I’m doing to ensure that we are really clear in the department that we are spending taxpayers’ money wisely and well to support each of you in your business here in  

parliament. That is what we are here to do. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve had 14 senior executive service staff leave their senior positions in the last three years. That tells me something. 

The President: If I could state—I think it should be on the record—I think the matter you’re referring to is a matter that goes back to 2018. 

Senator ROBERTS: And when did Mr Stefanic leave? When was he removed? 

The President: In December. 

Senator ROBERTS: Of 2024. That’s six years in which he was doing— 

The President: But none of the officers at the table, including me, including the current government, had anything at all to do with this matter. 

Senator ROBERTS: That speaks to low accountability in your predecessors. 

The President: It’s seven years ago, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/0 Comments/by

Let’s Do This: Vote One Nation

,

I’d be honoured to represent you in the 48th parliament.

👉 If you haven’t voted yet, save paper and get your One Nation ‘how to vote’ suggestions straight to your email or phone.

Here’s how:

1️⃣ Copy the link to your browser or open the link: https://senroberts.com/3ECWOYD

2️⃣ Type in your address or select your electorate if known.

3️⃣ Find Locations | Your ‘how to vote’ will appear on the screen, along with pre-poll and election day voting centres.

4️⃣ Type in your first name and email address or mobile phone number.

5️⃣ The ‘how to vote’ will be sent to you exactly as you would receive it at polling booths.

To vote for me in the Senate for QLD: put a [1] in the box in column Q

ONE NATION WILL PUT $40 BILLION BACK IN YOUR POCKETS!

/0 Comments/by

Podcast: Become Your Own Super Hero

,

I had the pleasure of joining Laban Ditchburn on the Be Your Own Super Hero podcast! We delved into my current world perspective, offering straightforward explanations of both current and past Australian politics. Plus, I shared my tips on staying sane in a world that often feels completely at odds with common sense.

/by

Podcast: The Right Side Show

,

I had a fantastic time chatting with Brodie Buchal on The Right Side Show! We dove into a range of topics, from Australian politics to the heated debate over the Under 16’s social media ban bill. We also tackled the lack of accountability in government processes and so much more.

/by

Superannuation Bosses Team Up With Labor to Hide Dodgy Deals

,

Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, Labor is using every trick to keep Australians in the dark about their decisions. After 18 months of delays, Labor are protecting their mates while blocking Senate oversight on lobbying done by CBUS Super. The connections between CBUS Super and Labor run deep, with former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan now chairing CBUS.

Despite ordering the government to hand them over, these documents were only unveiled through a separate Freedom of Information claim decided by an independent commissioner.

So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese government.

Transcript

Here we are this morning in the house of review, and we hear cloaks of cover-up from the Labor Party when we’re trying to do our job. Labor responds, first of all, to Senator Bragg by hiding behind the gender argument. What that’s got to do with this is beyond us. Then Senator Walsh cloaks it as an attack from the coalition on super. How is making sure that we have probity on superannuation funds an attack on super? It’s protecting superannuation. Senator Bragg is just doing his job, as am I as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. We need questions answered.  

The Labor Party’s defence this morning has not focused on Senator Bragg’s comments; it has focused on furphies and distractions, which are condemning the Labor Party. I’ve had the comedy of watching Senator Ayres respond twice in the last two weeks of sittings in this Senate—10 minutes each time of just nonsense, misrepresentations and labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the stupid, the dishonest and the fearful—no response based on fact. Instead we have distortions and labels.  

To recall what Senator Bragg talked about, he wanted to know why the Treasurer told the Senate mistruths and false statements. That’s it. My question now is: why is the Labor Party trying to dodge and divert from that? We have a document from Cbus to the Treasurer. Cbus objected. Is Cbus running the country? They’re claiming commercial in confidence for not giving Senator Bragg the documents, while giving Mr Bragg the documents. What are they hiding by hiding behind commercial in confidence? It’s taken 18 months to get documents in this house of review—18 months. He had to use alternative channels as well. Labor’s behaviour in response to Senator Bragg is now rising to one of contempt—holding the Senate in contempt. 

This is the way Cbus treats its members—hiding. This is the way this government treats the people of Australia—hiding. The government is protecting the CFMEU and Cbus. The government is doing more than just protecting it on superannuation. The government is protecting the CFMEU in Australia’s biggest wage theft case. The Senate has instructed the workplace relations minister to do an investigation into wage theft involving thousands of miners from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, up to a $211,000 claim from one person. It’s over a billion dollars in total, we believe, with miners being owed on average up to $41,000 per year of work. The Labor Party are burying it, hiding it, not doing what the Senate is telling them. Then we’ve got CFMEU directors involved in Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services and coal long service leave, and they’re all protecting each other and protecting the CFMEU. 

My position on super, just so the Labor Party is clear, is that I believe people should have a choice—to access their money or to have it in a super fund that is also of their choice. 

My last point is that I proposed a fair way of adjudicating these matters of withholding documents due to commercial in confidence and public indemnity. That has been rejected. That is still available. I also make the point that the Labor Party, as I disclosed last night, has almost a million dollars in donations for the last election from big pharma, and it is hiding, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the contracts from the people who paid $18 billion for COVID injections. That’s what we want. It’s hiding tens of thousands of homicides.  

Confidence in Labor is plummeting. Support for Labor is plummeting. The truth has vanished, and that’s the reason you’re losing the confidence and support of the Australian people. 

/by

It’s Time for Accountability, Transparency and Restoring Trust

,

As we head into another election season, Australia’s trust in politicians is at rock bottom. It’s no surprise people feel betrayed by endless promises from the major parties that are never carried out. 

A recent Roy Morgan survey reflects the truth — Australians believe in straightforward, principle-driven politics, and they recognize these values in One Nation. 

It’s time for politicians to be accountable, communicate openly, and restore faith in our democratic process. One Nation stands firm against the censorship bill— because free speech and public debate are vital for democracy. 

Transcript

Ask anyone in the real world what they think of politicians, and the answer is, ‘I don’t trust the bastards.’ And why should they? We’re again about to enter an election season where the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties will make endless promises about things they will never do. If you lie to the people, they won’t trust you, and Liberal, Labor and the Greens have done plenty of lying. It’s telling that in this chamber we can’t call out a lie. I can say that the Labor Party lies, that the Liberal Party lies and that the Greens party lies, yet I can’t say a particular senator has lied in a debate. That’s unparliamentary. Well, Australians are listening to this discussion live right now, and tens of thousands more will listen later on social media. Listening to the comments, Australians think the never-ending lies are what’s unparliamentary. 

Teenagers make a lot of those social media comments, and teens certainly are not fans of the government. The memes that teenagers come up with in picking apart the government are as funny as they are cutting. Has Prime Minister Anthony Albanese started reading the comments on social media? Is that why he’s trying to get teenagers banned from social media? 

Eighty-nine per cent of Australians agree most politicians will lie if they feel the truth will hurt them politically. The Australian people aren’t morons, and they aren’t just seeing things. Many politicians do lie, and they lie all the time. That’s not how it should be. It’s not what I believe in. Ministers stand up in this place and avoid answering simple, direct questions. They give themselves a pat on the back and cheer themselves, thinking they’re so clever for not giving an answer. Well, ministers, out in the real world, no-one believes the spin and the lies. They can see through the distractions and smears from ministers—for example, Ministers Watt and Ayres. People are laughing at and ridiculing you. Ninety-four per cent of surveyed respondents believe that a politician who is caught lying to the Australian people should resign their position. Liars are destroying trust in the democratic process and parliament. This place should deserve respect and trust as a gathering of representatives of the people. Every dishonest answer is a chip away from the health of our country. 

So I say to the other parties: the proof is in the data, and the solutions are obvious from the data. On 18 October, the Courier-Mail in Queensland reported the Roy Morgan survey on political trust. They surveyed the number of people who trusted and distrusted four of the largest parties and looked at the difference to get a net figure. Have a listen to these figures: net trust for the LNP, minus 12 per cent; net trust for the Greens, minus 13 per cent; net trust for the Labor Party, minus 17 per cent. Guess which is the only party with a net positive trust rating? One Nation. It turns out that, if you have principles and you say what you mean, people trust you. Many people agree with what One Nation says. Some people don’t agree, yet everyone knows where we stand. 

If politicians stuck to their guns as Pauline Hanson does and if they listened to the people and stood up and said, ‘This is what I believe in, and I can’t be changed,’ no matter what side of politics you’re on, our country would be in a better place. No matter how embarrassing they are in the short term, honest answers are better for politicians and for the country in the long term. What will it take for politicians from the major parties to understand this? The Australian people are not mugs. They can make up their own minds, and they sure know when you are lying, so it’s time to stop lying. 

The misinformation bill treats people as if they’re all idiots who can’t be trusted with the facts. There’s nothing more damaging to trust and integrity than censorship. Australia doesn’t trust them, so the question immediately becomes: what are the Liberals, Labor and the Greens hiding? The answer is everything, because you stand for nothing. That’s why One Nation will move a motion asking the Senate to throw out the misinformation and disinformation bill this Monday. I’ll say that again. This Monday, One Nation will be moving a motion asking the Senate to throw out the misinformation and disinformation bill—the mad bill, the censorship bill, the one that doesn’t trust the people. To restore trust in politics, politicians must be trustworthy. No-one who seeks to censor the opinions of Australians deserves their trust. While Labor pushes for a censorship regime under the excuse that it’s about protecting your safety, One Nation pushes for you to be allowed to see the true facts and make up your own mind. There is nothing better for getting to the truth and being the arbiter of truth than free, open, public debate. Why do you not like free, open, public debate? 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): The time for this discussion has expired. 

/5 Comments/by

Top Bureaucrat Skips Senate Estimates

,

Earlier this year, I asked the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services numerous questions about his oversight of workers that help out at Parliament House. Despite earning $480,000 a year and only needing to attend Estimates three times a year, there was no explanation for the type of leave Stefanic was on that prevented him from fronting up to answer questions.

There are serious questions he needs to answer, and I’ll continue to ask these questions on behalf of former employees of Parliament House.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. What is the nature of your boss’s leave?

Ms Hinchcliffe: In my opening statement I indicated we don’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not? I heard your opening statement.

Ms Hinchcliffe: They go to personal matters for individuals, so we wouldn’t comment on individuals’ leave arrangements.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely this is affecting the morale, which you want to turn around, of the DPS staff. As Senator Hume pointed out, the taxpayer is paying for it.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure that it’s affecting morale of staff. I walk around the building and talk to our staff, and my sense of staff is that they are very committed to this building and are very committed to the work they do.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree, but many of come up to me and they’re not happy. They’re very dissatisfied with the way the department has been run. What is the nature of his leave?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that we won’t be discussing—

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard that he’s being paid while he’s on leave. How long will he be on paid leave, noting that on Wednesday it will have been four weeks since he informed DPS staff he had gone on leave?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I indicated to an earlier question that I don’t have an end date for his leave.

Senator ROBERTS: Was Mr Stefanic’s decision to take leave on 9 October 2024 related to the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s raid on DPS in Parliament House on 3 October?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve indicated that I’m not speaking any further in relation to the execution of the warrants by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware it was specifically requested that Mr Stefanic be here to answer questions that he has personal knowledge of.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I wrote to the committee chair to indicate that he would not be available and to request that he be excused from this.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re aware that he was specifically requested. I specifically requested him.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m aware now that you specifically requested. As I said, I went through the process, wrote to the chair and asked that he be excused.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has to appear at estimates only three times a year. He knew these hearings were coming up. He was formally requested and has failed to show up. How is this not contempt of the Senate?

Ms Hinchcliffe: As I already indicated in my evidence, I wrote to the chair and asked for him to be excused.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you feel like you’ve been thrown under the bus?

Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I do not.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic has repeatedly said that complaints about DPS are purely due to former employees with an axe to grind. Do you share that view?

Ms Hinchcliffe: You may remember my evidence at the last hearing, where I said that I think that feedback is gold. We talked particularly about things like the staff survey and the importance of staff having the availability to provide to management their feedback on how they consider things are going but also where they’d like to see the department go into the future.

Senator ROBERTS: The employees of DPS that I hear from, especially security, are not at all happy. Do you know whether Mr Stefanic was in a relationship with Cate Saunders before or after he appointed her to the deputy secretary position?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge about Mr Stefanic’s relationships, and I’m not willing to answer anything further on that. That’s not a matter for me.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to the case of ACD 13—it almost sounds like a rock group—in the Federal Court involving DPS. There’s a suppression order over that case except for hearings of parliament. I remind you that estimates is a hearing of parliament. I understand that the complainant, ACD 13, has consented to lifting that suppression order but DPS will not consent to lifting the suppression order. Is DPS resisting lifting that order?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have a lot of details on that matter, but as I understand it there’s currently a consultation underway. I can understand that our lawyers have been approached and that we’re going through
consultation processes at the moment, so that’s an ongoing matter which I won’t comment on any further.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you find out that the status is and give us an update on notice, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I will take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What does DPS have to hide that you want to keep under suppression? What is it?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I have nothing to add in relation to that matter.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand Mr Robert Brigden instructed solicitors in ACD 13 that Rob Stefanic had ‘no involvement’ in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee. Is that what was instructed?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware of this matter in any detail. It occurred before I came to DPS. I don’t have anything I can add to that, sorry.

Senator ROBERTS: Is the statement that Rob Stefanic had no involvement in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee true?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I don’t have any knowledge of this matter to provide you with any further information.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the records of the first interview that took place with Barbara Deegan of Ashurst Lawyers?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’m not aware, no. I have no awareness of this matter.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is, in those records of the interview, contrary to the statement that he wasn’t involved, the facts show the contents of the envelope were taken and shown to Mr Stefanic and they were then kept in Mr Stefanic’s safe. Is that true?

Ms Hinchcliffe: As I just said, I don’t have any awareness of this matter. It occurred before I became to DPS.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice to find that out, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I can take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Please take on notice to produce the transcripts of record of first interviews by Barbara Deegan from Ashurst with Andrew Brigden, Rob Stefanic and Cate Saunders. Note that the suppression order
from the Federal Court has a specific exemption for this hearing, so it does not apply to this request. Can you take that on notice, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Did Cate Saunders make any intervention to ensure that the statement that Rob Stefanic was not involved in the envelope interception was included?

Ms Hinchcliffe: As I said, I have no knowledge of this matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and find out, please?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take it on notice, but whether I can find anything out is a different matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could check with the people involved that I’ve just named. Can you please confirm exactly when Cate Saunders began her employment?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I can. She was engaged with DPS on 17 December 2017.

Senator ROBERTS: How many branch or division managers have left their position over the last three years?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I would need to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: That is understandable. Broadly, in relation to the NACC raid on raid on DPS of 3 October 24, have any DPS executives been stood down pending the NACC investigation and, if so, how many?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already indicated that I won’t be speaking any further in relation to the NACC matters, but I can say that no senior executives have been stood down.

Senator ROBERTS: How many DPS executives are on paid leave while the investigation is underway?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Again, I’ve said that I’m not going to answer any other questions in relation to the—

Senator ROBERTS: This is in relation to your department, not the NACC.

Ms Hinchcliffe: No, you’re asking questions about people who might be on leave that go to whether or not they’re being investigated. At that point I need to consider whether or not that actually starts to go to a public
interest question, so I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice and, if you want to claim public indemnity, then it needs to go through the minister.

CHAIR: Public interest immunity.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—I get tangled up. Ms Hinchcliffe, when did you become aware that the NACC was investigating DPS?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I haven’t indicated what the NACC is investigating; I’ve indicated that the NACC has executed search warrants on DPS, and I’ve also indicated that I won’t answer any further questions.

Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of that investigation?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I have indicated that I won’t answer any further questions in relation to the investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: When did you become aware of the warrants?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I became aware that the NACC were going to issue warrants on DPS on 2 October.

Senator ROBERTS: Was that your first indication?

Ms Hinchcliffe: That the NACC was going to execute a warrant on 3 October? Yes, it was.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ms Hinchcliffe, during your time working at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, were you part of the team that dealt with the complaint about the handling of a Public
Interest Disclosure Act disclosure at DPS?

Ms Hinchcliffe: No, I was not.

Senator ROBERTS: When did you first work with Rob Stefanic?

Ms Hinchcliffe: When he started as secretary at DPS, and I think that was in the second half of 2015. It might have been in December.

Senator ROBERTS: So you were already there, and he came in as your boss?

Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s exactly right.

Senator ROBERTS: What year and date?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I think Mr Stefanic started in 2015. It was towards the end of the year; I started in April 2015.

Senator ROBERTS: So you preceded him by about six or seven months?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I think so.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you consider Rob Stefanic to be a personal friend?

Ms Hinchcliffe: I consider Mr Stefanic to be a colleague. He’s been somebody that I’ve worked with previously, and I’ve come and worked for him as the deputy secretary. I don’t have any outside engagement with
him, and I work with him as a colleague.

Senator ROBERTS: So you were there when he arrived? He arrived after you?

Ms Hinchcliffe: That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you work with him before that?

Ms Hinchcliffe: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please take on notice to provide the total number of sexual harassment claims that DPS has settled over the previous five years and include the average settlement amount, the standard
deviation and how many of them have been under non-disclosure agreements?

Ms Hinchcliffe: Yes, I’ll take that notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The upper management of DPS obviously has a lot of work to do to earn back the trust of DPS employees. We know that from just walking around the building. People come up to me
frequently. I would say to you that that work to restore trust starts with accountability and transparency. Surely, you could start the transparency with how you answer these questions and allow the suppression order to be lifted.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll take that as a comment, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, will you lift the suppression order? I’d like that on notice.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ve already taken on notice of where that is up to, and I think that forms part of that question. If it’s not, if it’s a separate question, then I’ll take that on notice too.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. President, Minister—

The President: President.

Senator ROBERTS: President, thank you. Could I have your answer to that question as well please?

The President: What question?

Senator ROBERTS: I would say that trust starts with accountability. Could the suppression order be lifted?

The President: That’s got nothing to do with me, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Nothing at all?

The President: No. It’s a departmental matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, President. Thank you, Chair.

/by

The Senate is Supposed to be the House of Review

I’m putting it on the record that this government’s legislative processes are compromised. There are numerous examples of shoddy and rushed Bills being bulldozed through into legislation.

I ask here for a simple review, a chance to hasten slowly and ensure that one such piece of rushed, yet vital legislation, has the opportunity to be done correctly.

Minister Watt could not even grasp the concept of ‘independent’ review. Labor is the party of control.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, constituents lack confidence in Labor when it comes to security, especially after the last few weeks. So I’m wondering whether or not you will be supporting my amendment to do a simple review of the legislation, especially the amendments. If not, what is the problem?

I remind the Senate that last week’s highly significant Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 saw 31 amendments from the government to its own legislation in the House of Reps plus 20 amendments in the Senate. There was a total of 51 government amendments to its own bill, and those from the crossbenches and the Liberals brought them to 69. Minister Burke has been falsely creating the dishonest label ‘closing loopholes’ to hide the Hunter mining and energy union’s complicity in aiding some labour hire firms in Australia’s largest-ever wage theft worth billions of dollars. We’re told that the Greens oppose the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. They said so themselves just last week. Yet the Greens now support it because Labor has apparently agreed to allow the Greens to move amendments to the EPBC Act. The Greens support Labor’s disastrous Nature Repair Bill apparently in return for Labor’s support for disastrous Greens amendments to an existing law not before the Senate.

The CHAIR: Senator McKim, a point of order?

Senator McKim: It’s a point of order on relevance, Chair. The bill that Senator Roberts is referring to is actually not the bill that is currently before the Senate.

The CHAIR: We do allow some latitude, although I do take the point. I think Senator Roberts is trying to underpin his arguments for a review. Senator Roberts, please keep it to the point.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased you could see that, Chair. That’s exactly what I was doing. The government has a very shoddy reputation and is lacking credibility for its legislation that’s been rushed and bullied and bulldozed into this place from the start of its term. So, Minister, I ask whether or not you’ll be supporting our amendment for a simple review of the legislation.

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thanks Senator Roberts. No, we won’t be supporting the amendment putting forward a review. As I made it clear earlier in this debate, we are modelling this regime on the existing high-risk terrorist offenders regime. So we have some confidence in its ability to work, given it’s been based on a regime that already exists. In addition—I don’t know if you were here, Senator Roberts, when I mentioned this before—one of the amendments that we’ve tabled, clause 395.49, requires the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to deliver an annual report about the operation of this regime. That is intended to give a level of transparency going forward to how this regime is operating, and we think it is an adequate measure to ensure that there is transparency in the system.

Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge that the legislation will have a ministerial report, but we are suggesting an independent review, not a government report.

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I can’t really elaborate on my previous answer.

/1 Comment/by

The Labor-Green-Teal Coalition Con

The Albanese government is doing dodgy deals behind the scenes with mates and donors, letting down workers while driving up the cost of living. Labor is horse-trading behind our backs with the Greens and Teals to get the numbers to fast track its Bills through the Senate without conventional review.

It’s obvious the Albanese government in the Senate is a Labor-Greens-Teal coalition that is repeatedly protecting itself from scrutiny, gags debate on key legislation and is doing dodgy deals to push the Greens’ destructive policies through parliament.

This is hurting Australians and taking our country backwards.

No wonder this government is being slammed in the polls. The people didn’t vote for this coalition with its nation-killing agenda. The tail is wagging the dog.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I listen to people from across our country. Many are hurting because of the skyrocketing cost of living due to record
immigration, with 2.3 million people in Australia on visas—there are 100,000 student beds, yet the Albanese government issued a record 687,000 student visas in one year—as well as skyrocketing house prices, with foreign owners buying and locking up homes; green jackboots suppressing builders and suppliers; and ESG choking companies. People in Gladstone, Bundaberg and other regional towns and cities are living in cars, in caravans, in tents and under bridges. There are skyrocketing rental rates, if people can find a rental. High inflation is destroying wealth and being a tax—inflation due to printing money and splashing cash and to supply side restrictions.

There are high energy prices, due to solar and wind. All countries with high proportions of solar and wind have very high electricity prices. Plus there’ll be the future $60 billion in additional costs for transmission lines to hook the solar and wind into the grid that has not been budgeted for.

One Nation raises solutions to meet people’s basic needs, like cutting immigration to zero, net; ending foreign ownership of property; ending net zero electricity policies; stopping endless money-printing and cash-splashes. Labor responds with ridicule, showing contempt for people’s needs. This destroys confidence in the government.

We’re on a highway to hell because Anthony Albanese has not grown into the prime ministership. He still acts as though selfies, music-band T-shirts and empty symbols are substitutes for thoughtful governance and hard work. They’re not.

In proposing his recent Voice referendum, his arguments were shallow and condescending. He offered only a vibe and an emotion. His government tried to con the people. This is not leadership; it’s floundering. This is not governance—

The Acting Deputy President (Senator Chandler): Order, Senator Roberts. Senator Urquhart, on a point of order?

Senator Urquhart: I think the senator is actually impugning by saying what he said about the Prime Minister, and I would ask him to withdraw that.

The Acting Deputy President: Senator Roberts, perhaps if you could clarify your comments and then continue your remarks, noting the point of order that we’ve heard?

Certainly. I said that his government has tried to con the people, not him.

The Acting Deputy President: Please continue, Senator Roberts.

This is not leadership; it’s floundering. This is not governance; it’s deceitful irresponsibility. This is not transparency and consultation; it’s dodging scrutiny. This destroys confidence in the
government. Look at their legislation processes that are bankrupt. Last week’s water amendment bill entered the House of Representatives with 31 amendments, from the government; plus 20 amendments in the Senate, from the government—a total of 51 government amendments to its own bill—plus crossbenchers’ and Liberals’ amendments, for a total of 69 amendments. Consultation? Hah!

The Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 was suddenly sprung on the Senate in a deal between the globalists in Labor and the globalists in the Liberals. It includes provisions for facial recognition of every Australian 16 years or older going about their everyday life, including in travel, using ATMs, in supermarkets for shopping, driving their car, in financial services—everything. It’s a basis for Labor’s digital identity bill that they rushed into the Senate—again, hiding from scrutiny. They were trying to rush the IR bill next, then delaying passage of what Labor said were four urgent schedules.

There was Minister Burke falsely creating the dishonest label ‘closing loopholes’ to hide the Hunter Mining and Energy Union’s complicity in aiding some labour hire firms in Australia’s largest-ever wage theft, worth billions of dollars; protecting the Fair Work Commission for blatant breaches of law in approving the Mining and Energy Union enterprise agreements enabling systemic wage theft; protecting the Fair Work Ombudsman for using a fraudulent document covering up the Mining and Energy Union’s enterprise agreement systemic wage theft. They’re throwing workers to the wolves and hiding mates and donors from scrutiny.
There’s the nature repair bill—the arrogance! The Greens stated they were opposed, clearly. Yet the Greens now support the bill because Labor agreed to allow the Greens to move amendments to the EPBC Act. The Greens support Labor’s disastrous bill in return for Labor’s support for the disastrous Greens amendments to an existing law that is not before the Senate—without debate. They’re hiding political mates and bosses from scrutiny.

During deceitful COVID mismanagement, Liberal and Labor governments used Labor state premiers to steal basic human rights and freedoms. The Australian Bureau of Statistics data confirms that COVID injections killed tens of thousands of people—homicide! Livelihoods and homes were lost due to injection mandates. Health bureaucrats, with plenty to hide, dig in. And what does Labor do? It covers up, and that makes them complicit. Prime Minister Albanese breaks his royal commission promise to instead propose a whitewash to cover up the Labor states’ mismanagement and deceit—hiding political mates from scrutiny.
In practice, the Albanese Labor government seeks to suppress, silence and control. That’s why people have lost confidence in Prime Minister Albanese and his government. Remember the Rudd slide and the Gillard slide? After just 18 months, the media is already referring to the even steeper Albanese slide. That’s why the people have lost confidence in this government

/3 Comments/by

Obscene Rush to Push Bills Through the Senate!

Labor is gagging the senate and forcing a vote on bills without debate.

These are bills relating to legislation of great significance, which will impact the lives of everyday Australians.

The Senate’s role is to ensure legislation has proper scrutiny. This is 1000s of pages of legislation, including the Identity Verification Services Bill which is a defacto digital identity. This is a shocking decision.

Each of these bills would normally require a day’s scrutiny, debate and potential amendments before passing. This Labor government, which promised Australians transparency and accountability, is strong-arming the bills through the senate.

What deals have been done to make this happen? And with whom?

/4 Comments/by