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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/nD_SeEKKWgk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-12-20 07:59:362023-12-20 07:59:40The Senate is Supposed to be the House of Review
The government is defying the senate and ignoring its orders for the production of documents. That is contempt and must be punished as such by the Senate.
In this speech I made it clear to the Coalition and to the Greens, if they are serious about orders for the production of documents, about the explanations for refusing, about transparency and accountability, and if they’re serious about being the House of Review, then bring on a motion of contempt or censure. We will support it.
I will be proposing an amendment to Standing Orders in relation to the production of documents. Senators should assess public immunity claims and be able to decide if they are genuine. That assessment can be done confidentially so that the public interest is still protected.
No more slaps on the wrist in response to the callous disregard for the orders of this Senate on behalf of the people the Senate represents. It’s time to enforce the will of the Senate on behalf of the people of Australia.
Transcript
Unfortunately, we are here again for yet another slap on the wrist. This government continues to defy the orders of the Senate. There is no other word for this behaviour. It is contempt. It’s time that the Senate started treating contempt with real punishments. Orders for the production of documents are a vital part of our democratic process. The Senate is constitutionally superior to every law or excuse that government might try to use to justify not handing over documents.
Right now, we’re stuck in an ineffective cycle. The Senate makes an order demanding that the government table documents. The government may have a different opinion, yet these orders are not optional. They’re Senate orders. The government defies the Senate anyway and refuses to hand over the documents. The Senate makes even more orders, rejecting the excuses from the government and affirming that the documents must be produced. The government yet again ignores the Senate’s orders. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called contempt. We must punish it as such. Instead the minister is hauled in here for 15 minutes to give more excuses, and everyone lines up to give them a slap on the wrist and call them a naughty boy or a naughty girl. At the end, the minister sits down pretty chuffed with themselves because they haven’t had to hand over any documents and haven’t suffered any real punishments.
I say to the coalition and to the Greens: if you are serious about orders for the production of documents, about the explanations, about transparency and accountability, about being the house of review and about serving the people, bring on a contempt motion against the minister. We don’t need a referral to the Privileges Committee to tell us whether it is contempt or not. The minister is now in direct defiance of multiple orders from the Senate. Bring on a motion of contempt or censure, and you will have our support.
I foreshadow that I will be introducing, before the end of this year, a confidential process to review documents where any public interest immunity is raised, such as these documents. Public interest immunities are raised on the basis that sensitive information should not be released to the public. Whenever the government makes that claim, it needs to be assessed. Senators should assess public interest immunity claims. That assessment can be done confidentially so that the public interest is still protected. I’ll say it again: that assessment by the senators can be done confidentially so that the public interest is still protected.
To this end, I will be proposing an amendment to standing orders in relation to orders for the production of documents. This would trigger a formal process whenever a minister wishes to raise a public interest immunity claim. This process would require the relevant minister to explicitly outline to the Senate the actual harm that they say would flow from releasing information to the public, who we are supposed to serve. The minister would then be required to confidentially produce the documents to a Senate committee, where the documents would be made available only to senators for confidential viewing purposes. The Senate chamber as a whole would be able to confidentially make an assessment of the public interest immunity claim and whether or not there is any merit to it. If the minister does not comply with the process, it will be very obvious that the public interest immunity claim is not genuine. The Senate can then be more confident in applying sanctions such as censure and contempt. This would be fair to everyone.
This government continues to show callous disregard for the orders of this Senate on behalf of the people we represent. It’s time the Senate punishes such behaviour appropriately. No more slaps on the wrist. Instead enforce the will of the Senate, acting on behalf of our constituents, the people of Australia.
Senator Roberts: My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. The Constitution requires the proposed law to be submitted to the electors so electors can see what they are voting on in a referendum. Minister, do you agree that the proposed text to be included on the ballot paper is the full text of the proposed law change as contained in the enabling legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Voice 2023?
Senator Farrell (Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for giving me the courtesy of some advance knowledge of this question.
Honorable senators interjecting—
Senator Farrell: Well, some people just like me! I hate to say it—I can’t help it! Some of them actually get a better answer if they give me a bit of advance notice. It’s hard to believe, I know.
I have been made aware that there are claims by one legal academic that the form of the proposed constitutional amendment and/or the ballot paper question do not satisfy the constitutional requirements for a referendum. But the referendum legal issues have been considered in detail by the Constitutional Expert Group, the Solicitor-General and the parliamentary inquiry. This gives me some assurance that the amendment and the question are legally sound, Senator Roberts.
Historically, all referendum ballot paper questions have either used the short title, until 1951, or the long title, after 1951, of the Constitution alteration that passed through the parliament. The question for the Voice uses the long title, consistent with the practice for over 70 years. The government is aware of a potential challenge to the ballot paper reform. This application has not yet been accepted by the High Court and is therefore not an active proceeding. At this point, I’m advised that it is probably inappropriate to comment further on that possible legal challenge.
The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator Roberts: Section 128 of the Constitution makes no provision for a summary of the change to appear on the ballot paper. Section 128 requires the proposed law change to be submitted in full. Form B of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which allows for a summary, is in breach of section 128 of the Constitution. Minister, will you ensure the Voice ballot paper is compliant with the constitutional provisions for a referendum?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his first supplementary question. Yes, Senator Roberts, I will ensure that the wording in the question on the referendum on 14 October is compliant with the Constitution. Can I reiterate my earlier answer, that all of the advice that I’ve got from the Constitutional Expert Group, from the Solicitor-General and from the parliamentary inquiry that examined this issue is that it does meet the existing constitutional requirements. I should say that my office has at all times tried to facilitate your ability to get advice directly from the AEC about any issues that you might have with the ballot paper. I invite you to— (Time expired)
The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator Roberts: A case could and will be made to the High Court that including a misleading feel-good summary on the referendum ballot paper rather than the actual details of the change is a breach of section 128 of the Constitution, which may have the effect of misleading voters and rendering the result void. Minister, are you or your government about to make a $364 million mistake?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his second supplementary question. No, I don’t believe so. I have seen some of the reports that you are referring to. Interestingly, one of the reports I think that you’re relying on was from Michael Detmold, who was my constitutional law lecturer in 1972 at Adelaide university. But that doesn’t mean, Senator Roberts, unfortunately, that everything he may or may not say is correct.
Senator Scarr: Did you pass?
Senator Farrell: You’ll be surprised, Senator Scarr—I did. I not only passed Constitutional Law 1, but I passed Constitutional Law 2. That was even more surprising! (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/l0NVA_JXejo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-11 16:45:112023-09-12 17:13:34Constitutional Questions Raised Over Referendum Ballot Paper | Part 1
Earlier this year the Senate failed to pass my proposal for confidential document discovery. The stoush currently underway between Senator Braggs’ Committee of Inquiry into ASIC and ASIC themselves confirms the need for confidential document discovery. Had this been available, the Committee would have the information they are after already.
Public officials have an obligation to allow scrutiny of their performance and the Senate must allow agencies due process. I am not convinced either is happening the right way in this stoush between ASIC and Senator Bragg.
Having said that, Senator Bragg’s diligence in trying to introduce accountability to Australia’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), is much appreciated. The Senate serves the people and this Inquiry which began last October came about as a result of complaints about ASIC from everyday Australians, and is on behalf of the people of Australia, including investors and small business.
As I outline in this video, there are broad community concerns and systemic issues with ASIC’s investigations and enforcement capabilities.
Unfortunately, not only has ASIC has refused to cooperate with the Senate, displaying contempt for the process of review, Freedom of Information documents reveal ASIC was in contact with unknown people within parliament in an attempt to secure a watering down of terms of reference and to try to block disclosure.
In seeking to squash this inquiry into itself ASIC has this government using public interest immunity. This government is also showing contempt for the people of Australia.
The Albanese government is setting a world record for how fast they broke their promise of accountability and transparency.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Bragg very much for his hard work trying to introduce accountability to Australia’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I’ve watched his diligence, his patience, his commitment and his determination, and I admire and acknowledge all of that.
Last October the Senate referred an inquiry to the Economics References Committee into the capacity and capability of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, in particular to answer the question: did ASIC meet the expectations of government, business and the community with respect to regulatory action and enforcement? A simple question.
This inquiry was prompted by complaints from everyday Australians and small business that ASIC was not doing its job. ASIC’s job is to ensure a level playing field and, where a company has engaged in corrupt conduct, ensure prosecutions occur. The evidence received has indicated that there are broad community concerns and systemic issues with ASIC’s investigation and enforcement capabilities. That mirrors what I have perceived. The committee has sought information surrounding a small number of closed investigations in order to understand how ASIC conducts investigations and understand its prosecution approach. The closed cases concern Nuix, ALS, super insider trading and Magnus, where there were serious allegations of commercial misconduct. Unfortunately, ASIC have shown contempt for the committee process, making public interest immunity claims to get out of handing over this information. ASIC were given one last chance to comply with this order, and here we are now. ASIC have again refused to cooperate with the Senate.
This should not be the end of the matter. The Constitution gives the Senate extreme powers of investigation and penalty on individuals for refusing to follow the instructions of the Senate. I’ll say it again: the Constitution gives the Senate extreme powers of investigation and penalty on individuals for refusing to follow the instruction of the Senate. That reflects the Constitution’s intent in making sure that the Senate serves the people, and I remind everyone that is the case. These powers should be considered in this case.
To say that ASIC have been dragged kicking and screaming into this inquiry is an understatement. Freedom-of-information documents obtained by Adams Economics reveal ASIC were in contact with unknown persons within the parliament to secure a watering down of the terms of reference or to deny the numbers entirely, to squash the inquiry. This is why we are here. How dare ASIC interfere to avoid review by the house of review on behalf of the people of Australia! One Nation rejected ASIC’s public interest immunity claims over materials concerning closed investigations into misconduct. ASIC’s reliance on public interest immunity claims to block disclosure has been an ongoing issue obstructing the committee’s ability to conduct a proper investigation on behalf of the people of Australia—this is not the Senate; this is on behalf of the people of Australia—the people who pay ASIC’s salaries, the people whom ASIC is supposed to serve. Public interest immunity is being used by a government that has nothing but contempt for openness and transparency.
Only today I discovered, by chance, that the industry groups the government are showing their new IR bill to are being required to sign a confidentiality agreement so that they can’t say what is in the bill. That shows contempt from this government for the people of this country. What sorts of nefarious provisions are in that bill that they require a cloak of secrecy? Every government is elected with a promise of transparency, and every government then breaks that promise. The Albanese government is, however, setting a world record for how fast they broke their promise and setting a world record for arrogance towards the people of Australia. This request from the Senate goes to a small number of closed cases. They cannot possibly effect an ongoing investigation. There’s no down side to revealing this information other than embarrassment, or worse, for ASIC management and the responsible minister.
I have received a report from a third party regarding ASIC senior executives using private phones for official business, and I look forward to further information around that issue. If a Commonwealth government agency spends $200,000 of taxpayers’ money on a secret investigation into allegations against ASIC’s deputy chair, the Senate has a right and a duty to ask what that was about. It’s our role as a Senate to do that, and we would be deficient in our duties to the people of Australia if we did not do so. This matter places the career interests of bureaucrats against the sworn duties of a senator and of the whole Senate. One Nation is betting on the Senate ultimately discharging its duties without fear or favour. ASIC has refused to disclose its correspondence in relation to public interest immunity claims with the minister. The committee has formed a view that ASIC’s refusal to provide the information sought is obstructing the committee’s ability to conduct this inquiry. That, by the way, is an offence. ASIC appear to be all lawyers. Let me say: you should know better, ASIC.
I’ve got some notes in front of me that I’ll divert to briefly. We are inquiring through the committee into the ability and, indirectly, the intent behind ASIC’s behaviours—the intent. The government is digging a deeper hole when it comes to the intent, because as Senator Brockman and Senator Bragg have pointed out in detail, the government is covering up, and that makes it even worse. If it was innocent, the government should welcome the disclosure. If it had something to hide or something to protect in ASIC, then it would shut down, and that’s what we see. I’ll go to the terms of reference:
… whether ASIC is meeting the expectations of government, business and the community with respect to regulatory action and enforcement …
It’s also not meeting the expectations of parliament. ASIC has failed persistently to enforce the law and investigate complaints of misconduct. Small business and consumers across Australia, who are tired of ASIC’s persistent failure to enforce the law and investigate complaints of misconduct, are the customers we serve. They’re the customers ASIC serves. The evidence received so far has indicated that there are broad community concerns and systemic issues with ASIC’s investigation and enforcement capabilities, and my personal concerns are similar.
The committee has sought information surrounding a small number of closed investigations. I’ve listed them, as have Senator Bragg and Senator Brockman. The government has a choice: release the documents and remove suspicions if you have nothing to hide, or, if you have something to hide, hide and stoke the suspicions. A private briefing is not adequate because that would be just ASIC giving selective disclosure. The executive government should support an inquiry to end white-collar crime in Australia and strengthen inquiry in our financial sector. Instead, the Labor government has defended ASIC at the expense of the work of the Senate, arrogantly keeping people in the dark. I ask the question: is ASIC protecting criminals or is it protecting its own incompetence or its own lack of intent to hold criminals accountable? Who watches over the regulator? We, the Senate, do, and the people watch over us. I call on the minister to stop obstructing the Senate, and I call on ASIC to rethink their obstruction to this inquiry.
Despite billions of dollars in funding and endless virtue signalling from inner-city lefties for Aboriginal and Torres-Strait Islanders, the state of healthcare services being provided by Governments on Mornington Island is close to third world.
You should get the same government services regardless of skin colour. If the government can’t take care of the basics, why should we allocate more funding?
Transcript
Senator Roberts : Thank you all for attending today. I’d like to ask some questions about Mornington Island, following my questions last year, and then perhaps some general questions. How did the federal government allow the Mornington Islanders’ situation—their health and wellbeing—to slip into one of a Third World country’s?
Ms Rishniw : Mornington Island—I think we provided some answers to questions on notice that we took last time. As you are aware, we work closely with ACCHOs and with the communities. With Mornington Island in particular we worked very closely with the Queensland health and hospital services there, and we are working closely with them to make sure that the services on the island are improved over time.
Senator Roberts : Can you tell me how you are working with the government?
Ms Rishniw : Mr Matthews?
Mr Matthews : There are a number of arrangements. It’s a very broad question when you get to health because you can’t differentiate the health and wellbeing from the broader people, social and environmental aspects around that.
Senator Roberts : I agree.
Mr Matthews : Probably the headline way I would respond to what is happening is through Closing the Gap, which is the framework for the government and states to work in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around improving outcomes generally. That agreement was signed and struck around the middle of 2020. It’s been in place about 12 months. Its aim is to reset the relationship. It is looking at a broad range of factors to work with. Rather than doing things to people, it’s the concept of doing things with people and bringing them to the table and then looking at how the overall investment across the range of things, from education, employment and housing through to health and health outcomes, come together around that situation. That is probably the nutshell, the main context of the answer to your question about how that’s going to progress into the future from here. Health is a part, but it isn’t the only part in relation to that question.
Also, when you start to get into the provision of hospital services on Mornington Island, they are delivered by the Queensland government, as are a range of education services and those sorts of things, so it’s not a simple Commonwealth Department of Health question; it’s a very broad question. In that context, it’s about understanding the landscape through the lens of where Closing the Gap is resetting that and also some of the other mechanisms—for example, when Senator Dodson was asking about the development of the voice, that is geared towards empowering and encouraging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be more in charge of their future, which will hopefully lead to improved outcomes over time.
Senator Roberts : There were some wonderful points there that I’d like to continue with. First of all I endorse and value your comments about needing an holistic approach. Health is just one part of it. Health is an outcome of the whole way of life, so I understand that. That was a very broad statement, but what are the current initiatives for working with the Queensland government and doing things directly? The Premier of Queensland and the Queensland health minister promised to visit the island last year or early this year. Have they done so?
Mr Matthews : I couldn’t comment on anything about the Queensland government or their ministers and their intentions around that. We don’t have visibility or necessarily monitor or track that, because that’s obviously a matter for the Queensland government.
Senator Roberts : More specifically, how do you work with the Queensland government?
Mr Matthews : From a health point of view—and my colleagues from the National Indigenous Australian Agency may be able to talk more broadly from a broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs perspective—from the Health perspective, there are two mechanisms. We have what are called partnership forums in each jurisdiction, including Queensland. They are regular meetings that usually happen a couple of times a year between Queensland health officials, Commonwealth health officials and officials from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health sector in Queensland. They’re largely geared towards trying to increase the alignment between the Commonwealth, the state and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders, many of whom are delivering services there, to ensure that we are aligning our policy and delivery as far as possible. I’m not talking about Mornington Island specifically, but there are a range of things that will happen through that. Many of the programs we talked about, including things like our syphilis program, will deliver services into Queensland. Over the last two years we have also been looking to increase investment in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services, where we’ve increased investment in the Aboriginal community controlled health system by a bit over $160-odd million.
Senator Roberts : Specifically doing what?
Mr Matthews : The investment we’ve lifted into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health service is really around increasing the primary resourcing that goes to primary health care delivered by Aboriginal and community controlled health services in communities. That is different from Mornington Island, which doesn’t have one; it does have some servicing through the Mount Isa service into the community, but a lot of services are delivered by the Queensland government there. What we’re looking to do is increase the resourcing for primary healthcare services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations because they know their clients well and will put in place a stronger framework around comprehensive primary health care. That is something we’ve been doing across the country, not just in Queensland, and will continue to do over—
Senator Roberts : Is that funding for nurses or doctors or—
Mr Matthews : It’s for both really. It funds the resourcing of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health clinic and the health clinic will use that for a range of things—it could be used for an Aboriginal health worker, for a doctor, a nurse or other things it may do from a comprehensive healthcare point of view. It is really about the patient coming in and having their needs understood and looking at their broader circumstance and spending an increased amount of time. It’s a little different from a normal visit to a GP. We will bring them in, spend more time with them, look at their other issues and try and provide some of those wraparound supports. That’s how comprehensive primary healthcare works within an Aboriginal community controlled health setting. One of the things we’re doing is increasing our investment in that over time and working with the sector in particular to expand that and look to improve how they service over time as well, which is their intention.
Senator Roberts : How would you characterise not just the quality of the relationship but the actions and behaviours that come from the relationship? Are you a money provider? Are you a resource provider? Are you someone looking over their shoulder in a helpful way that identifies shortfalls in the Queensland government’s approach? Are you advisers to them? How would you describe it?
Mr Matthews : Are you referring to the Queensland government, or to the Aboriginal health services?
Senator Roberts : The Aboriginal health services, with the Queensland government—not just Mornington.
Mr Matthews : I hope the Aboriginal health services wouldn’t characterise us as looking over their shoulder.
Senator Roberts : I mean in the sense that you are working with them.
Mr Matthews : Our intention is very clearly to ensure that we have a partnership approach with Aboriginal health services, which is one of the priority reform areas in the Closing the Gap agreement as well.
Ms Rishniw : Senator, we take the Closing the Gap agreement very seriously. It talks about a partnership with Aboriginal people and Aboriginal services. The money that Mr Matthews outlined goes directly to service delivery by community controlled health organisations. We provide funding—
Senator Roberts : It doesn’t go through the state government?
Ms Rishniw : No, it doesn’t. It goes directly to the sector. It’s deliberately flexible to allow them to address the particular issues around health and providing holistic health services to their community. We work very closely with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, and all of the services, to make sure that what we are achieving is a collective set of outcomes that everyone has agreed to around improving health and wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Senator Roberts : It was wonderful to hear Mr Matthews talking about a holistic approach—not just health but health as an outcome of lifestyle. What about personal accountability? Two or three people in my office and I visited all the Cape York communities. Although the communities are quite different in their needs and their backgrounds, they have some commonalities. Mr Matthews mentioned Closing the Gap. I put it to all the communities that Closing the Gap perpetuates the gap, and they resoundingly said yes. First of all, the underlying intent is to focus on the gap which perpetuates the gap. But putting that aside, there is also what some people call the ‘Aboriginal industry’ and it consist of whites as well as Aboriginals, who are consultants and lawyers et cetera that feed off this and they perpetuate the gap, because without the gap there is no Aboriginal industry. Any comments on that?
Ms Rishniw : I don’t want to speak for Mr Matthews, but our job is to make sure that we can provide comprehensive health care for all Australians. The government invests significantly in the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First Nations peoples because of the disparity in health outcomes to date, and that is what the closing the gap agreement is about. We have worked tirelessly. The community-controlled health sector has been a major part of the infrastructure of delivering health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for over 50 years now and to suggest in any way that that is not a necessary and evidence based investment—
Senator Roberts : I wasn’t suggesting that—
Ms Rishniw : I just wanted to clarify—because asking Mr Matthews for a comment on that. It is evidence based. It is clear. It is a government commitment.
Senator Roberts : You would agree, I would hope, that personal accountability has a lot to do with managing people’s health?
Ms Rishniw : Everyone, I think, across the country wants the best health care and the best for their family and themselves. Personal accountability is one element. We recognise social determinants of health and a range of historical factors as well.
Senator Roberts : So you’re agreeing with me that personal accountability is important?
Ms Rishniw : I think I said it was one of the factors.
Senator Roberts : It is one of the factors so it has a part to play. What we’ve done in this country, under both Labor and Liberal since 1972—people in the communities have told me we have created a sense of victimhood, not beggars but of victimhood, and that’s the opposite of accountability. What I’m trying to do is to get an understanding of the environment in which you work, because if that accountability is not there—these people in the communities are wonderful. There are a diverse range of them, as you know. But they seem to be held back by the ‘Aboriginal industry,’ maybe not deliberately, maybe subconsciously, but that is what’s happening, and lot of it has been caused by state and federal governments, particularly since 1972.
Mr Matthews : We are probably limited to speak from the health perspective. It is where our responsibility is. Just to repeat Ms Rishniw, it would not right be to characterise the community controlled health sector, that is delivered and run by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people, in a negative connotation around an ‘Aboriginal industry.’ We fund them because of your point around getting good services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are talking about the provision of health services. There is clear evidence that it is effective in delivering it because it comes from an empowering place of empowering people to do it—
Senator Roberts : That is what I was after.
Mr Matthews : That is why we are growing the sector strongly, investing in it and trying to work very closely with the sector on the way through. I think if you were listening to Dr de Toca’s evidence around our response to COVID we’ve also centred that 100 per cent with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and experts for that very reason.
Senator Roberts : What I’m interpreting—it is very welcome if I am interpreting it correctly—is that you’re giving more responsibility to the communities for their health and managing that health?
Mr Matthews : This is always very difficult to verbal, but I would imagine from our colleagues in the community controlled health sector that they would say they are services that are—that their membership is the community and their boards are elected from their community, so they would say they are in and of the community. They would express their view very strongly around that in terms of providing services to their own people.
Senator Roberts : That is welcome news. Is there a plan within your organisation that is part of an overall plan within the government’s—I don’t know what’s Ken Wyatt’s department name title is. The department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or the—
Mr Matthews : The National Indigenous Australians Agency.
Senator Roberts : Is there a coordinated plan with the National Indigenous Australians Agency?
Mr Matthews : This is something that’s easily googled. If you google ‘national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health plan’, you’ll find the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan that was released on 15 December last year, which is now a new 10-year national plan around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, worked up very extensively by, and predominantly led by, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health experts in the sector around the development of that plan and refreshed to be consistent with Closing the Gap and many of the things we’ve learnt over the last few years. As I said, it was released in the middle of December.
It has at its very heart the concept of how the broader social determinants, linked with health, bring in a dimension around the cultural determinants of health, of how culture plays out for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and impacts on their health and how health needs to respond to that landscape. So that’s been recently refreshed. If you are looking at where the national plan is, that is probably the prime and most important one to have a look at. I’d encourage you to do that. We can provide the link on notice, if you like, just to refresh. If not, that’s okay. That would be well worth having a look at. I also note that it’s endorsed by the majority of the states and territories. It forms a plan now that is developed in and of through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sector, agreed by the Commonwealth government and endorsed by the majority of the states and territories.
Senator Roberts : Thank you. That’s welcome news, too, because there are a lot of outstanding people with a lot of potential in those communities who are somehow stymied by an invisible hand. It’s varying from, say, the Lockhart River, where they are really going ahead, to other parts of the country.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just quickly, we are very close to time, and I have one question that I would like to ask the officers before we finish up.
Senator Roberts : Last question, then, Chair. Thank you for that notice. Has there been a drop in the death rate from suicides in the last year? What’s the overall trend in suicide, because it’s quite alarming?
Ms Rishniw : I might go to my colleague online, Mr Roddam, who can talk about speak suicide data and prevention activities.
Mr Roddam : Overall, in 2020, there was a 5.4 per cent reduction in suicide for the whole population. Unfortunately, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, suicide remained the fifth leading cause of death that year, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to die by suicide at more than twice the rate of non-Indigenous people—27.9 per 100,000 population compared with 11.8 per 1,000 population.
Senator Roberts : Can you tell me the overall trend? Relative to the rest of Australia, it’s high. Thank you for that. What’s the overall trend? Is it increasing, decreasing, flat—
Mr Roddam : It did increase slightly in 2020. I’m just trying to get the figures for 2020 compared with 2019. I know that it was a little higher, while the whole-of-population rate fell.
Ms Rishniw : Senator, given the time, we can take that on notice and give you the data around the trends. But it also goes to why we are investing heavily in suicide prevention and mental activities across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We have a 24/7 crisis line that’s about to be launched—and we’ll start services from 24 February—and a range of other activities that Senator Dodson well knows we’ve been undertaking around suicide prevention.
Senator Roberts : And just like physical health, mental health is an outcome of cultural and social factors. I think those were Mr Matthews’ words.
Ms Rishniw : There are a range of social determinants that impact on an individual’s health across the board.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/csXTj8VTf9E/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:21:232022-03-04 11:21:36Billions spent on the Aboriginal industry for third world healthcare
When the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) allocates water to farmers at the start of the season, they do it based on a very conservative ‘extreme dry’ scenario.
This means farmers are allocated far less water then they should be. If the rainfall for the following season is above the extreme dry scenario (it very frequently is) the MDBA will allocate excess water to the farmers, but at the end of the season.
This end of season allocation is nearly useless to farmers as they need certainty from the start to be able to plant the amount of crops to match their water allocation. The MDBA seem to think they have a crystal ball and predict every year will be a drought. Farmers miss out, crops aren’t planted, small communities are slowly destroyed and less Australian grown food is on our shelves as a result.
MDBA questioning part 1: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/menindee-lakes-sdl-water-acquisitions-and-lock-zero-mdba-part-1/
MDBA questioning part 2: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/why-did-the-government-vote-against-a-water-trading-register-mdba-part-2/
Transcript
[CHAIR] Senator Roberts, I believe you have one question before we release the agency.
[Senator Roberts] Mr Reynolds, you gave us a statement here at Senate estimates on 28 May 2021, and I’ll just read from that:
Finally, the March rain has delivered a more positive forecast for the next irrigation year compared to the same time last year. Indicative opening allocations for next year under a conservative extreme dry scenario are …
Then you gave us the releases. In fact, the rain in that period was well above average, with some areas experiencing record falls. This is from your website. Even the area in red is now blue. I’m not blaming you for the weather forecast, by the way. Dam levels are from 92 per cent. It seems that farmers always start with minimal water allocations and then later, after the season, farmers get offered some more that farmers can’t use. So farmers have missed an opportunity to make more money. Surely this has to stop. Who provided the ‘extreme dry’ scenario? When was it changed to ‘pouring down’, as in this year? Did the use of the ‘extreme dry’ scenario cause farmers to lose early season water allocations?
[Mr Reynolds] No, it doesn’t. When we do our analysis, we model a range of scenarios. I don’t recall exactly the words in that statement, but I would have quoted from one of those scenarios, which was extreme dry—very conservative. States, under their allocation frameworks, provide the allocation to irrigators. The MDBA’s role is to advise the states on the volume of water they might expect to have under a range of scenarios. States adopt a conservative approach to allocating water to make sure they don’t over-allocate early in the season and are unable to deliver it later in the season—that is a much poorer outcome. When the MDBA provides advice to the states on the water they might have available, we provide them a range of scenarios, not just the extreme dry, and they work within their own allocation framework on where they actually make an allocation decision.
[Senator Roberts] On whose advice do you base that consideration?
[Mr Reynolds] The MDBA does the statistical analysis of projected inflows for the season and develops those estimates of the volumes of water that might be available to each of the states, applying the water sharing arrangements that are specified under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. The states then use their allocation frameworks and their assessment of the appropriate level of risk in making allocation decisions.
[Senator Roberts] Thank you. Chair, we understand that there was a discussion about Yanco, which I hadn’t intended asking questions about. We’re going to evaluate the Yanco decision, because it is significant to us, but I’m not going to ask questions.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/st-s_90Uxm4/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:08:532022-03-04 11:12:36Farmers always left high and dry by water allocations – MDBA Part 3
The Murray Darling Basin plan has been a disaster for regional communities. Overwhelming complexity, water being flushed out to sea and bureaucrats thinking they know better than everyone else have caused enormous damage.
Despite the evidence, the government and MDBA refuse to take responsibility for the mess they’ve made.
MDBA questioning part 2: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/why-did-the-government-vote-against-a-water-trading-register-mdba-part-2/
MDBA questioning part 3: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/farmers-always-left-high-and-dry-by-water-allocations-mdba-part-3/
Transcript
CHAIR: Alright; thank you. Senator Roberts, over to you.
Senator Roberts: Mr Taylor, I’d like to reference an exchange we had at a previous estimates regarding Menindee Lakes. I’ll quote from Hansard. I said:
So, Menindee Lakes is a vital component of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?
You said:
It’s a vital component of our environmental management of the system.
Then I said:
And it’ll stay there.
You said:
And we’re actually getting those golden perch out of that system, connected through the Great Darling Anabranch, down into the Murray and distributing those fish. They become callop, as they’re called in South Australia, and they travel thousands of kilometres over their life. So, this is a critical part of what we’re doing.
That was not an answer to my question. You dodged my question, so let me try again. Will the Murray-Darling Basin Authority keep the Menindee Lakes as an environmentally important wetland having the same area as it currently has, including water storage with the current capacity, with the level, of course, decided by basin inflows? This is Queensland water, and we’d like to see it used properly.
Mr Taylor : Not sure I’m in a position to answer on behalf of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of feature plans and management. I think the other thing is that the Menindee system is a jointly managed lake and water resource, jointly managed between New South Wales, the Commonwealth, South Australia and Victoria. So I’m not in a position to talk about—
Senator Roberts: Is anyone from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority who could answer that question here?
Ms Connell : Mr Reynolds.
Senator Roberts: Will Menindee stay as it is, a vital part of the environment?
Mr Reynolds : As discussed earlier, New South Wales is scoping, or rescoping, the Menindee project, now called the Better Baaka project. That anticipates changes to the Menindee infrastructure and the operating rules for it. As departmental colleagues explained earlier, we’re yet to have a scope of that project brought forward by the New South Wales government. I can’t give you the assurance that you’ve asked for because that rescope project will inevitably change arrangements at Menindee Lakes. I think the proposal for the project is to look at how things can be done differently. If the project proceeds, then I think the circumstance at Menindee will be different to what they’ve been in the past.
Senator Roberts: So you can’t give me—
Ms Connell : It will continue to be subject to water resource plans and water sharing plans which will contain requirements in relation to environmental measures and environmental outcomes.
Mr Reynolds : Absolutely. The project in terms of its development will have to consider environmental impacts and benefits that can be achieved ultimately, but, until we see the scope of the works, I can’t advise on what the changes on the Menindee arrangements would be.
Senator Roberts: Setting aside the sustainable diversion limit acquisitions currently underway, how much water is still required to complete the sustainable diversion limit acquisitions? I’d like a figure. Secondly, how much is required to complete water acquisition, the baseline diversion limits?
Ms Connell : We addressed some of those questions this morning. The 605 sustainable diversion limit adjustment measure program is made up of about 36 projects for which a gigalitre component was identified when those projects were conceived. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will go through a process we refer to as reconciliation in the lead-up to 1 July 2024, and I’ll let Mr Reynolds talk you through that.
Senator Roberts: Okay.
Ms Connell : Earlier this morning we provided an update on progress towards the 450 in terms of current entitlement holdings that are with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, projects that are contracted and projects we are in discussions with states over.
Mr Reynolds : In terms of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism reconciliation process, the authority is required to take a decision in December 2023 as to whether or not a reconciliation is required. That decision can’t be taken earlier than that, because states are able to advise notifications to modifications of projects up until that point in time. So we won’t have clarity about what the package of works looks like until that point in time. If, on the basis of our understanding of the projects, their progress and the condition they’re likely to be in in June 2024, the authority determines that the adjustment amount is likely to be different than what was determined in the original decision, we will undertake a reconciliation. We will assess the projects as they are notified at the end of December 2023 and make an assessment of the volume of water, or the offset that they will achieve at that point in time.
Senator Roberts: You have a document on the website of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority entitled ‘Progress on Water Recovery’. Under the heading ‘Summary of surface water recovery progress’ it states:
Following the amendments to the Basin Plan, the overall target for water recovery is 2,075 GL/y plus 450 GL/y of efficiency measures by 2024.
That’s 2,525 in total. And then, on the third page, under the heading ‘Total water recovery still required’ it is just 46 gigalitres.
Ms Connell : We addressed those figures earlier this morning as well. The gap bridging target under the Basin Plan is 2,075 gigalitres—2,100, and I think five gigalitres have been recovered and are held by way of entitlements with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. So 98 per cent of the target has been reached, but there remain about 46 gigalitres across the basin that need to be recovered from different water resource plan areas.
Senator Roberts: The other comment Mr Reynolds has already covered, so thank you for that. Before I move on, how much water is required to complete the baseline diversion limits, the up-water?
Ms Connell : I guess there are three overall programs. There’s the water recovery target of 2,075 gigalitres, so there’s 46 gigalitres still to go there. Then there is the 450 up-water program, as it is known, which I referred to earlier in terms of what’s being delivered, what’s contracted and discussions we’re having with states. Then the third program is the 605 sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism program, which Mr Reynolds was discussing in terms of the reconciliation process that happens in 2024. There are 36 projects which go to make up that program of work that South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have to deliver, and the authority will look at that program of works at the end of next year to determine whether reconciliation needs to happen to identify whether the 605 will be met or what component of it will be met.
Senator Roberts: As I’ve discussed before with Mr Glyde and Mr Reynolds and also the previous water commissioner, it’s a very complex issue, isn’t it? The whole thing is very complex, with many variables and a lot of variation.
Ms Connell : There are some key, major complex areas of work. The Basin Plan is a significant water reform, and there are some complex components, as you would expect in a system, I think, where there are 20 surface water areas and about 13 groundwater systems.
Senator Roberts: Then we have a naturally variable climate. The north varies considerably, in a different way from the south. So I would raise that for the future. Turning to the south-east drains SDL acquisition, Mr Reynolds, a reminder of your answer at the last estimates:
The water from the south-east drains has been put forward by the South Australian government as an SDL adjustment mechanism project. So the water that comes from the south-east drains into the southern lagoon will be accounted for through that process.
That means it will be counted as SDL. How much water is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority counting against the remaining SDL target for the south-east drains restoration flow?
Mr Reynolds : As we’ve explained previously, the assignment of individual volumes to projects in terms of the adjustment mechanism can only be an estimate, because the whole package of projects is modelled as a whole, and they interact with one another. We have made a range of estimates against individual projects. I will see if I can get the number for that particular project. I don’t think I have it in my papers here. I will have to get someone to provide that to me, but I will provide it this morning.
Senator Roberts: I would be very interested to see that number. I’m wondering if we’ve just found some more water.
Mr Reynolds : Well, the south-east drains project is part of the adjustment mechanism, so it’s been accounted for.
Senator Roberts: It is my view that this is a significant unaccountable flow—it hasn’t been to date—and may provide a substantial part of the remaining SDL acquisition that can both take the pressure off farmers elsewhere in the basin while restoring the amazing Coorong wetland and moderating extreme salination in Lake Albert by flushing from the south-east, not from the north-west; from the north-west is not really flushing. Have you the south-east inflows? I think the answer was ‘no’ in the last Senate estimates in October. Have you modelled the south-east inflows, both aquifer and surface flow? How much water is available? How much can be redirected—and this is really important—without interfering with agricultural production?
Mr Reynolds : We haven’t modelled that directly. The South Australian government manages that part of the system. We have consulted with them about the volumes. There’s not a direct estimate available of the total flow from the south-east drains, including through the groundwater systems into the Coorong. The operation of the south-east drains does provide water back to the southern lagoon in the Coorong, and that scheme has been developed and the operating rules have been developed to achieve that. There are requirements to manage the flows through the south-east drains. It is drainage from agricultural land. It does carry a nutrient load. There are particular management challenges with that water. So part of the south-east drainage scheme passes water through wetlands and the like to remove nutrient loads from that water before it enters the Coorong. If that’s not done, there are undesirable ecological impacts in the Coorong itself. That limits somewhat the volume of water that comes from the south-east drains. The South Australian government is continuing to work through those issues.
Senator Roberts: As I understand it, the drains are made by humans? They’re not natural and they take up a significant quantity of water, straight to the ocean.
Mr Reynolds : The area that’s been drained naturally was a low-lying marshy area, and water tended to lie in that area. Some of it would have seeped through groundwater systems to the sea. Some of it would have made its way to the Coorong. The drains are man-made structures that have taken water from that area and dried it out and made it more productive as an agricultural area.
Senator Roberts: I’ve been there and seen those drains. They’re definitely man-made. There is a belief that there’s a significant amount of water to be recaptured and sent to the Coorong.
Mr Reynolds : And water is being captured through that system and does flow to the Coorong. I think from memory it’s in the order of 26 gigalitres, on average. Obviously it would change with seasonal conditions. In wet years it will be more; in drier years it would be less. But it’s of that order.
Senator Roberts: My understanding is there’s a lot more water to be captured than that.
Mr Reynolds : I think the South Australian government clearly has an interest in trying to improve the health of the Coorong. They’ve undertaken an enormous amount of work in that region to do that. I’m sure they’re examining whether or not it would be beneficial to take more water from that region if it’s possible to do so, for that purpose.
Senator Roberts: So the Coorong problem has been man-made, not by the rest of the basin, but by diversion of water that used to go through the Coorong straight to the ocean? I’m not being critical, because in those days they were trying to look after their narrow scope. That’s something that, to return the environment to its natural state, would require a lot of water to go back to the Coorong and keep it clean.
Mr Reynolds : There are obviously significant volumes of water diverted from the basin, which has reduced the volume of water that reaches the end of the system, particularly coming down the Murray. Part of the challenge is to address some of those issues. To get back to the natural balance of what happened in the Coorong before river regulation would require all of the water that’s subsequently been diverted to be returned to the environment. No-one is proposing to do that. We’re looking for alternative solutions and alternative balances.
Senator Roberts: Shouldn’t that south-east portion be counted as part of the basin? You just said water is diverted from the basin, but it’s not included in the basin yet?
Mr Reynolds : I’m sorry; when I said that I meant water is diverted from upstream right across the basin. Very significant volumes are diverted.
Senator Roberts: This water’s going straight to the ocean, and doing damage by not going through the Coorong.
Mr Reynolds : I think the benefits that can be provided to the Coorong, by diverting some water from the south-east drains, are being realised through the project that’s been implemented. I’m sure the South Australian government and others will continue to examine where additional benefits might be able to be accrued. Significant money from the Commonwealth government has gone to the Goyder Institute. I think $8 million has been committed to examine options and other interventions that might be possible around the Coorong, Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth. That could include activities within the south-east drain system, although that has been explored fairly extensively already.
Senator Roberts: It’s very complex, and it’s made even more complicated by the politics involved at the state and federal levels. We will end it there for now.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but could you make this your last question? Sorry, Senator Roberts! We knew what was going on.
Senator Ruston :They don’t look anything alike.
CHAIR: They don’t.
Senator Roberts: I don’t know who you’re insulting the most. That was my last question.
CHAIR: Make this your last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: Concerning Lock Zero, in the last estimates, you spoke about engineering challenges and other issues, and you said, ‘Lock Zero was examined in some detail.’ If salt water is used in the Lower Lakes to protect against sulphur emissions—and that would be a one-in-100-year type drought; it’s an absolute last resort—then suddenly we will be wishing we’d built Lock Zero, won’t we? Doesn’t the Murray-Darling Basin Authority or the department have documentation on Lock Zero? Your comment ‘examined in some detail’ suggests such documentation exists. It seems like too significant a project not to have some formal process underway.
Mr Reynolds : During the millennium drought, Lock Zero was considered as to whether or not it would be an arrangement that would help protect the Lower Lakes. Part of that was looking at what flow would be required past Lock Zero to ensure that the Lower Lakes retained their ecological character. There is significant concern that if the flow of fresh water to the Lower Lakes was terminated, and if just sea water was allowed in, that would progressively concentrate through evaporation and become hypersaline, and so the Lower Lakes would not be a natural estuary.
Senator Roberts: It’s not natural at the moment, with the barrage, is it?
Mr Reynolds : No, but the Lower Lakes naturally would have had a much larger volume of fresh water flowing to the Lower Lakes, to the end of the system. We take a lot of water out upstream for irrigation and other productive purposes, and so the natural balance of mixing of fresh and salt water at the Lower Lakes cannot be reinstated unless there’s a lot more water coming down the river system. Building Lock Zero does not alleviate that issue.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/NMcFtd7qQbE/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:05:222022-03-04 11:15:54Menindee Lakes, SDL water acquisitions and Lock Zero – MDBA Part 1
Services Australia is pressing ahead with plans to move to convert 5 suburban offices into one riverfront high-rise office. The fit-out alone will cost taxpayers $89 million. After that, the leasing costs for the high-rise office will be $1.7 million a year more expensive than Service Australia spent on leases for the entire financial year.
How on earth can an extra $91 million cost be justified as ‘value for money’ for taxpayers? I certainly don’t feel like it’s money well spent.
Transcript
[Chair] Senator Roberts. So we’ll give Senator Roberts a call.
[Malcolm] Thank you Chair and thank you for being here tonight. Might, also have some questions about Services Australia’s service centres. Services Australia is spending $89 million purely on a fit-out for their expensive new riverfront high rise office in Brisbane. Minister, when Australia has such a huge debt, due to the COVID restrictions, what is the cost benefit that a Services Australia would achieve from year one? And why not postpone it?
[Chair] Senator, you may be surprised to learn that I haven’t done a personal cost benefit analysis on the particular project. But I’m more-
[Malcolm] Wouldn’t most projects have a cost benefit?
[Chair] I’m just saying I haven’t-
[Malcolm] No, no, I mean-
[Chair] Yes, of course. So what I was gonna say is that I would, perhaps, if with your indulgence, ask the agency to please provide the cost or the justification for that particular project.
[Services Australia] Senator, we support a work force that’s over 30,000 people. We require both office space and as I’ve outlined, have a range of service centres and residential properties. We have 392 commercial properties. We are where we can looking at ways to reduce the overall costs of the office footprint. And so you will see us in places like Brisbane, amalgamating some of the office space. They all go through a proper procurement process, which in the whole and the whole cost benefit analysis is looked at. It is important to that we maintain office space that meets contemporary work, health and safety standards. And is able to manage a modern and contemporary technology. So all of those aspects go into ensuring that office space remains fit for purpose. And I can assure you that we look very carefully at making sure we manage our property footprint and service centres within the agency’s envelope for property.
[Malcolm] Thank you. Looking at some of the, I think five service centres, from the suburbs in Brisbane are being amalgamated into one, downtown?
[Services Australia] No not service centres. We need to be very clear about that. The service centres are separate. We are looking to amalgamate a smattering of different back office leases into a better fit for purpose centre.
[Malcolm] So these are not service outlets?
[Services Australia] No senator.
[Malcolm] Okay. They’re not customer-
[Services Australia] They’re not shop fronts if you like. So we, as I said, we’ve got a very large workforce. Most of our telephony and things are done in big smart centres, we have large technical workforce lawyers, all sorts of people. We all work in offices and we have 318 shop fronts and then access and agents points. We also do have some residential properties to support our remote and regional servicing.
[Malcolm] From the figures I’ve got, the annual, the current annual leasing bill for Services Australia in Brisbane, this financial year, is 32.35 million or 1.73 million cheaper than the proposed new building. That’s per annum. Are there any risks to productivity? Because of-
[Services Australia] There’s no, no Senator, there’s no risks to productivity.
[Malcolm] So you’re gonna pay more to go downtown? 1.73 million more?
[Services Australia] I will take on notice… Lease costs are renegotiated at various points in the leases of other buildings anyway. So extrapolating how other lease costs may have gone up around a single lease. Let me take on notice particular details around the five sites versus the cost of the one.
[Malcolm] Okay, thank you. How many public servants in your department are now working from home?
[Services Australia] For various reasons we have around 10,000 people working from home. So Services Australia has a mixed workforce. So some 28, 29,000 Australian public servants, but there are also service delivery partners that support us. And some, and contractors, particularly in our ICT space. So a number of those people were also working from home and some of our service delivery partners have been able to work from home. But broadly about 10,000 people are working from home as part of the Services Australia at the moment.
[Malcolm] Is there any reluctance from people coming back to the office?
[Services Australia] We’ve not experienced that we’ve had. We are nationally distributed. So our workforce, we manage our workforce against each of the state and territory requirements. For example, we had many more people working from home in Victoria for large parts of last year In Canberra, most people were still coming into the office if they to work; we’ve seen different arrangements through Omicron. You know, our work is our people both work from home and come to the office and we haven’t had any real issues with people coming and going in that arrangement.
[Malcolm] Yeah, thank you. Last question. I understand Services Australia has the federal government’s second largest property portfolio after the Department of Defence and you lease around 720,000, almost 721,000 square metres of commercial property. What do you do to ensure that property costs are reduced and that services are located where they’re needed? I know, I’ve just learned that these are nothing to do with customer interface, but… What are you doing?
[Services Australia] So Senator, I think, as I’ve stated, we are, what you’ve outlined with things like, bringing together five leases in Brisbane, we’ve done something, we’re doing something similar. There’s a new building being built in Adelaide which brings and reduces three or four leases into one. So we are trying to drive an efficient and fit for purpose, office requirements. Every dollar that comes out of my budget into a property is money I can’t use for transformation or other things. So we are very focused on driving an appropriate fit for purpose workspace that delivers the outcomes for the best value, which is as we are required to do, under the PGPA; and consistent with the finance property guidelines.
[Malcolm] So in your response that you’re gonna give me on notice. You’ll be able to tell me why we’re going to go downtown and have $1.73 million more expensive than the current scattered five outlets in five centres in Brisbane.
[Services Australia] Well, I will take on notice that framing of your question and we will-
[Malcolm] And you’ll check the assumption?
[Services Australia] Yeah, we’ll check the assumptions that you’ve got there and own the decision and the context around, the full context of our decision to do that.
[Malcolm] Okay, thank you very much, thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/4vhtJZMG91g/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-03 09:50:462022-03-03 09:50:59Services Australia burning $90.7 million for flash riverfront city office
Scott Morrison won the last election by bashing Bill Shorten on his climate policies, especially a net-zero emissions commitment. After getting elected for not buying into the climate nonsense, Scott Morrison unexplainably signed us up to net zero despite CSIRO confirming there was no change in the ‘Science’™.
There’s still no proof that human produced carbon dioxide affects the climate and needs to be cut. By signing up to net-zero, Scott Morrison has given a death kiss to productive agriculture, mining and every Australians power bills with no justification..
Transcript
If you could be as quick as you could.
[Roberts] Thank you. And thank you all for attending. My questions are gonna be initially to the minister. And then if there’s time to the Chief Executive, of CSIRO. Minister, referring to the government’s change in its 2050 net zero policy in the 2019 election, the government’s opposition to the UN’s 2050 net zero carbon dioxide policy gained you many votes and a lot of political traction and you used the the policy, Labor’s adoption of the policy to really smash the opposition leader Bill Shorten. Just two years later, after emphatically repeatedly and thoroughly criticising Labor and the Greens, there was an unexplained reversal last year and the government adopted the UN’s 2015 net zero carbon dioxide policy. What is the specific change in climate science in which the government’s change of policy is based?
Oh, well, thank you. I think to answer that question in detail I think it will probably be best for the environment minister, but I would simply say that I don’t accept the premise of all of what you’ve said in terms of-
[Roberts] What do you disagree with?
Well, you said unexplained. I mean, obviously we went through quite a detailed process. The prime minister spoke on a number of occasions about his desire to get to a net zero position if it can be done in a way that protects Australian jobs and continues to see industries thrive. And that’s what Minister Taylor worked on. Now we’re not obviously in the space where we have the detail in terms of those portfolios, but it was explained over a period of time. The government made the decision. Obviously, it played out publicly where there was a conversation, I think, with the Australian people. And obviously, there was a live debate that you were aware of that the coalition went through when the government came to a conclusion.
[Roberts] Okay. It wasn’t explained in terms of some change in science. There was no references. There was no document. No publications referred to no specific page numbers of the change in the data or the cause. So there was nothing to change the policy.
Well, as I say, the government was not prepared to commit to such a policy without being able to do the work as to how we would get there and how we would do so in a responsible way. And that was the the job that Minister Taylor in particular was tasked with. And that was the the work that fed into the government decision. Now, in terms of the detail, the various portfolio parts of that, I think that’s probably for another part of estimates.
[Roberts] Okay.
I think that summarises the government’s position.
[Roberts] Well, let’s go back a step further. What’s the basis of the government’s climate policy and ensuring policies on consequent policies on energy, agriculture, manufacturing, social policy and other aspects that the UN’s climate and associated policies impact? What’s the overall basis?
Sorry. I might just get you to repeat that question, sorry.
[Roberts] What is the basis of the government’s climate policy and the consequent policies that stumble on from that on energy agriculture, manufacturing, social policy and other aspects that the UN’s climate and associated policies impact?
Well, look, it’s a fairly broad question.
[Roberts] It is.
I might ask officials if they can assist.
[Man] There are appearing in my data.
Yeah. [Joe Evans] Miss Evans.
Very quickly, Joe Evans, the deputy secretary in the department and Senator, the basis is really the globally agreed science on climate change, which is articulated through the International Panel on Climate Change reports
[Roberts] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
That’s the one. Yeah.
[Roberts] Okay. Thank you. That was nice and quick. Back to the minister. Cutting human carbon dioxide output has had huge costly impacts across our society, especially on fundamentals for productivity and prosperity, for example, energy. Surely the only sound basis for a policy with such economic consequences is the specific effect of changing human carbon dioxide output. The impact for example of a specified change in human output of carbon dioxide, what specific impact would it have on climate factors such as temperature, rainfall, droughts, wind? So the specific impact. Then when the effect is quantified, only then can we do a cost benefit analysis of the cost of doing that and the benefits that come from that. And significantly, we can’t do any measurement of progress as we implement the policy unless we’ve got that specific impact of carbon dioxide. What is that specific impact of carbon dioxide on various climate factors?
Well, I’m happy for officials to elaborate, but I mean, in terms of what the government’s approach has been, it has been to be part of The Paris Agreement. So part of collective action across the world where we are doing our part, and we’ve been doing that obviously with our emissions reductions to date, which have been tracking, in fact, ahead of many comparable OECD nations and many sort of comparable resource-rich nations, such as Canada.
[Roberts] So what would be the extra impact of tracking?
But if I can also go to your question, and in the preamble to your question around, you talked about other economic impacts or impacts in relation to higher energy prices and the like. What we’ve seen under our government in the last few years is actually energy prices coming down year on year and coming down quarter on quarter. So we as a government never look at these issues in isolation. We look at it as part of that collective response and taking our responsibilities to the environment seriously, but never taking our eye off the ball, in terms of the need for affordable and reliable energy for instance. And that’s something that we’ve been delivering and that’s been our track record.
Senator Roberts, we got to go to the office of the chief scientist at 6:25. So I know you did want to ask some questions to the Chief Executive Officer, of CSIRO. So I just wanted to give you that chance.
[Roberts] Thank you. So essentially what you’re saying, Senator Seselja, is that your answer is the same as the one Senator Cormann gave me repeatedly when I asked questions in the Senate and wrote him letters? That was, we’ve got to do our part of global agreements.
I’m not aware of exactly what former Minister Cormann-
[Roberts] That’s the gist.
Well, as I say, I’ll take you take your word for that.
[Roberts] I can show you his letters.
Sure. I’m not disputing. All I’m saying is I’m not aware of exactly what Minister Cormann told you, but my evidence is the evidence I’ve just given.
[Roberts] Assuming what I’ve said to you of Senator Cormann’s responses, you’re agreeing with it.
Well, look, it’s a difficult question to answer without seeing all the detail of what you’ve said but I think my evidence speaks for itself.
[Roberts] Okay. Bob Hawke’s Labor government first introduced the climate topic in the eighties. Then in 1996, the Howard Anderson Liberal-National’s government first made it policy. On what specific quantified effect did they base that policy? Do you know?
Well, look, I think you’re talking about history of before I was in this place. And so I would prefer without having been involved in those discussions, I don’t feel qualified to give a detail answer on that.
[Roberts] No, I understand. It’s okay. Are you aware that the Howard-Anderson Liberal-National’s government implemented their renewable energy target that is gutting electricity and industry, generally? That they stole farmer’s property rights to use their land. And they did that deceitfully going around the constitution, section 51, clause 31. And that John Howard was the first leader of a large party to adopt an emissions trading scheme, which Tony Abbott rightly called a carbon dioxide tax. Are you aware of those major policies that are now still in play? And John Howard actually said that the renewable energy target has gone too far now?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t accept your characterisation of some of those policies in the way you’ve framed them, and certainly in relation to those fine leaders of our nation that you’ve sort of characterised their policies in a certain way. So no, I wouldn’t agree with that.
[Roberts] Okay. Thank you.
Sorry. Senator Roberts, I’m sorry-
[Roberts] I just got one thing to follow up.
Well, it’s gotta be very quick.
[Roberts] It will be very quick. Are you aware that six years after being booted from office in 2007, in 2013, John Howard admitted, at a global warming sceptics annual address in London, that on climate science he was agnostic yet he introduced these policies?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/25wrsuzXz8Q/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-03 09:42:572022-03-04 10:45:34What changed to make the Coalition adopt country-killing net-zero?
Recently the Government changed its tune, but you used to be a conspiracy theorist for pointing out there was a difference between dying with COVID or from COVID. Now with the official release of Australian Bureau of Statistics data we have it confirmed just how many of those who died had other contributing factors.
It’s just another tick on the list of things “conspiracy theorists” been saying all along that the Government has tried to deny the truth of.
Transcript
[Malcolm] Thank you Chair, and thank you all for being here. My questions have to do with death data, particularly from COVID and information gathering. Can I reference your diagram entitled, Data Flow for Doctor Certified Deaths? I think that’s it there. It’s off your website.
[Committee Member] Do you need a copy of that, Mr. Gruen?
[Dr. Gruen] It’s a question of whether it’s in this publication or not but I know a copy would be helpful.
[Committee Member] Not sure this is speeding things up.
[Malcolm] Multitasking.
[Dr. Gruen] So just in summary, it’s a really simple workflow. So it’s a data flow for doctor certified deaths. The workflow is, someone dies, death event, doctor certifies, or it goes to a funeral director, but that’s only a small percentage. And then from there it continues to where the doctor then sends a certification sent to the state births, deaths and marriages. And then from there, the state officers send data weekly to the ABS, that’s broad summary.
And of course Senator, it doesn’t include deaths that would go to the coroner, so it’s not all the deaths.
[Malcolm] Correct, but that’s a small number.
[Dr. Gruen] 20 percentish, I think.
[Malcolm] 20, okay.
[Dr. Gruen] I believe so.
[Malcolm] But they eventually get entered in later, when the coroner has resolved.
[Dr. Gruen] Yes.
[Malcolm] And we’ve also got the Queensland process here, but that just verifies what you’re saying. Can I have copy back please?
[Dr. Gruen] Yes, certainly.
[Malcolm] So is that correct?
[Dr. Gruen] If it came from our website, it’s correct.
[Malcolm] And my summary, which is backed up by the-
[Dr. Gruen] I think the summary, I didn’t hear anything in the summary that I would take exception to.
[Malcolm] Thank you. When a doctor certifies a death, they certify a cause of death, thank you. If the cause of death is unknown, the matter is referred to the coroner to decide. Between 86 and 89% of deaths are doctor certified, meaning we know the cause of death at the time we know of the death. So my question is, the transfer of doctor certified death data from the state to the ABS, how long does that take? And has this reporting time changed over the last three years?
[Dr. Gruen] We can take that on notice exactly how long it takes but certainly what we have started to do, and we started doing this, I think in 2020, was to start publishing deaths data purely on the basis of deaths certified by doctors. So before that, we had an annual publication of all deaths but it was very substantially delayed. So the annual publication would come out something like 10 months after the end of the year for which it was reporting. One of the other things that we did as a consequence of COVID, was to see whether we could provide useful information on mortality much faster, and so we instituted a new publication, which is monthly, which is called Provisional Mortality Statistics. And what we do is report on doctor certified deaths that we have collected up to that point in time.
[Malcolm] And then if they come in later because the doctor is slow, whatever, you add them.
[Dr. Gruen] Exactly, so in other words, if you look at the subsequent month’s publication, it will have slightly more of certified deaths in the previous month because new ones have been added, that’s correct.
[Malcolm] Okay. So referencing your website, the causes of death in Australia, the last data release, I think you may have explained this, was September 2021 for the period calendar 2020. That’s what you said, it was about nine or 10 months later. Is this the most recent data, other than the COVID data released on the 15th of February? That’s this one here, COVID mortality in Australia.
[Dr. Gruen] I’ve got it. So the answer is, the annual data is the deaths from both doctor and coroner certified. That’s the annual data, but we are as well as that, doing a monthly publication of just doctor certified deaths. Those come out monthly.
[Malcolm] So the annual is accurate in terms of, it got the coroners.
[Dr. Gruen] It’s complete.
[Malcolm] Complete, thank you. Yeah, they’re all accurate. So, let’s continue. So referencing the COVID-19 mortality in Australia which you have in front of you, issued 15th of February, 2022. Quote, it says, “COVID-19 deaths that occurred by 31st of January, 2022 that have been registered and received by the ABS.”, end of quote. So here we’ve got death data, and cause of death data that’s only two weeks old. Not three months old for single mortality figure or 10 months for the cause of death. Could you go through that report on the bottom of the first page, Mr. Gruen? 2,639 deaths where people died with or from COVID. What do you mean by with or from, specifically?
[Dr. Gruen] So that’s explained later in the document. The vast majority of them are from, a small number are with. So if you look at page three, it explains, there were 83 deaths, which were COVID-19 related. Sorry, I’m reading from a doc point in the middle of page three.
[Malcolm] No, no, I’ve got it sampled.
[Dr. Gruen] 83 deaths, which were COVID-19 related. The person died with COVID-19, confirmed or suspected, but it was not the underlying cause of death.
[Malcolm] So COVID was not the underlying cause, it was something else.
[Dr. Gruen] That’s right. So just to be clear, there were 2,704 deaths that were either with or from COVID, and of those, only 83 were with, the rest were from. So the vast majority are from.
[Malcolm] The cause of death was COVID, okay. So if we turn over to page two, at the top of page two, you have chronic cardiac symptoms with the most common preexisting chronic condition for those who had COVID-19, certified as the underlying cause of death. That goes back to the previous page, the second bullet point, the majority of deaths had an underlying cause. So where would that fit in, the 83?
[Dr. Gruen] No, no. So there were a substantial proportion of the people who died from COVID had preexisting conditions, right? But the preexisting condition didn’t kill them, but the COVID was the underlying cause of death. But the fact that they had a preexisting condition, was material.
[Malcolm] So is there any percentage of those who died with or from, who had chronic cardiac conditions?
[Dr. Gruen] Yes. It’s a good publication, Senator. It’s worth reading.
[Malcolm] I haven’t read it all.
[Dr. Gruen] No, that’s okay. Associated causes conditions in the a causal sequence, page eight. That will tell you about all the… Hang on, preexisting conditions, sorry. Preexisting conditions, page nine. And there’s a chart on page 10, which shows you what the conditions were and the proportions.
[Malcolm] So that’s percentages, are they?
[Dr. Gruen] Yes.
[Malcolm] Okay, so these are percent of the 83?
[Dr. Gruen] No, percent of the 2000. We’re talking about people who have… Yes, that’s it. Preexisting conditions were reported on death certificates for nearly 70% of the 2,556 deaths due to COVID. That’s a sentence at the bottom of page nine. And then the conditions, that chart-
[Malcolm] On the graph.
[Dr. Gruen] The chart shows you the proportion of chronic conditions that were reported on the death certificate. And you can have more than one, cheerfully.
[Malcolm] Cheerfully, right. Okay, so turning now to birth data…
[Dr. Gruen] That’s not gonna help.
[Malcolm] The Australian Bureau of Statistics releases birth data at the end of the year following. This data could influence the debate around the effect of vaccines on reproduction and may provide reassurance to vaccine customers. Why does it take so long to report on a simple metric like births? I understand the delay in the deaths for the getting the accurate annual figure, but why does it take so long for births?
[Dr. Gruen] Yeah, so I don’t know the answer to that question.
[Malcolm] I will take that on notice, Senator.
[Dr. Gruen] Yeah, we can certainly take that on notice.
[Malcolm] So the Australian Bureau of Statistics budget has grown 18% in the last year from 497 million in 2019/20 to 588 million in 2021. Is that enough to get your data out in a timely fashion?
[Dr. Gruen] So as you would be aware, the bureau publishes data across a very wide range of topics, economic, social, environmental, demographic. And so, obviously timeliness is one of the things that we care about, and in answer to Senator Walsh’s questions, I was talking about some of the new products that we have produced that have been much more timely to help decision makers in the pandemic, but there’s no question, there’s a limit. And the other thing that we care critically about is accuracy and making sure that what we produce is correct. So some of these things do take a substantial amount of time, that we are cognisant of that, and we do our best to publish them as quickly as we can, and it ultimately is a function of the resources available to us.
[Malcolm] Last question. What you’re saying, and I would agree if this is the case, is that it is better to have accurate data a little delayed, than timely data that’s not accurate.
[Dr. Gruen] It depends on the circumstances. In a situation where a pandemic has just broken out, we made the judgement that we were happy to produce data that was somewhat less accurate, fast. So there are circumstances where you are willing to accept that trade off.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/J4wnAtLtKts/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-03 09:23:582022-03-04 10:06:1970% of Australian COVID deaths had a pre-existing condition
