Posts

What’s the Purpose of the NIAA? 

,

I asked the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) about their audits in relation to fraud and found out how their work on a report of recommendations was progressing. A broader chat followed about releasing aboriginal communities from the aboriginal industry comprising white and black activists, consultants, lawyers, bureaucrats, academics and politicians.

What the main remote communities need is autonomy. Allocating funds directly to aboriginal communities will cut out the middlemen and women. Jobs, health and housing.

I listened to Miss Broun talk about the role of the NIAA. Briefly, the NIAA’s purpose is to lead Commonwealth activities, inform whole of government priorities, coordinate indigenous portfolio agencies, enable policies, programmes and services and advance a whole of government approach to improving lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. What was the purpose of the ‘Voice to Parliament’ when the NIAA has such a broad role and funding?

The administration of the aboriginal industry does need to look hard at whether all these strategies, consultants, reports, and micromanagement are getting in the way of progress.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here today. I’ve got two sets of questions. There are some short ones to get out of the way, and then I’d like to have a discussion through some questions about behaviour change. I’ll get to the mundane questions, although they’re still important. What money was spent by your agency or given to others on promoting the ‘yes’ case for the recent referendum?

Ms Guivarra: None.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I like concise answers. What money has been spent by this agency in relation to any proposed treaty?

Ms Guivarra: We were allocated funding for work associated with the makarrata commission. You will see from the budget papers that that was in the order of $5.8 million, from recollection. I’ll get Dr Gordon to confirm that, and he can give you a breakdown of how much of that has been spent. But, specifically on treaty, again, none has been spent. Our role, essentially, has been to seek information on the processes that states and territories are currently involved in. But I’ll get Dr Gordon to give you a more comprehensive response.

Dr Gordon: That’s correct, yes. No funding has gone towards a makarrata commission. Where the funding has gone in the agency, from that $5.8 million, is towards work on understanding treaty and truth-telling processes underway in states and territories and internationally. As of 30 September 2023, we’ve expended $607,000.66 on that.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s involved in spending that money to gain understanding of what the states and overseas people are doing?

Dr Gordon: It involves some desktop research but also bilateral meetings with states and territories, or multilateral meetings. There have been a considerable number of bilateral meetings over the last year; I think it’s around 25 between the agency and our colleagues in the state and territory agencies, as well as a few kind of broader ones.

Senator ROBERTS: Face to face?

Dr Gordon: It’s virtual, primarily.

Senator ROBERTS: But it’s real humans with real humans? Okay. So you’ve spent six hundred and something thousand dollars out of $5.8 million allocated. What are the prospects for the $5.2 million left? What are the plans, rather?

Dr Gordon: As Minister Burney has stated a number of times, including on 2 August, the government will be considering next steps following the referendum, and that’s a process that’ll happen from this point on. What happens now in relation to that is a matter for government, and that will be informed by engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and also our ongoing work with the state and territory governments.

Senator ROBERTS: That goes to my next question. Minister Burney previously said, prior to the failed referendum, that $1 million had already been spent on the treaty. What is the full figure spent so far on all aspects of that—in the past as well? You’ve just told me zero currently. What is the full figure spent so far, and how much of it is proposed to continue to be spent, given that Prime Minister Albanese has backed away from the commitment to pursuing makarrata and truth-telling?

Dr Gordon: I’m not aware of that particular statement by the minister, but the figure that I just gave you is the amount that’s been spent on work looking at the treaty and truth-telling arrangements. And that process going forward for the remainder is what I just outlined as well.

Senator ROBERTS: A recent ANAO audit found inadequate safeguards and procedures in relation to identifying and dealing with financial risks, including fraud. What plans are being made in response to these
deficiencies?

Mr Worth: The report outlined seven recommendations for improvement in relation to our broader risk and fraud compliance risk management. We have developed, in response to that, an implementation program, making a number of changes to address all the recommendations. We have accepted all of the recommendations. We have completed a number of actions through that, and we’re on track to have closed out all of those recommendations by the end of this financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you list the recommendations, please—what areas? I want to get a feel for it. The reason for that is that the ANAO recently told me they can’t investigate corruption, which includes fraud. So I wanted to find out who can and does.

Mr Worth: The first recommendation was that the NIAA fully implement its risk management policy and framework, including by conducting assessments of enterprise risk, undertaking risk assessments when developing business plans and policies, and undertaking specific activities. The second recommendation was the NIAA conduct fraud risk assessments regularly and develop and implement a fraud control plan. The third recommendation was that the NIAA ensure that advisory committee actions are in line with their terms of reference and that the annual report of ARC, the audit risk committee, to the accountable authority clearly highlights any deficiencies in the risk management and control framework that have been identified. The fourth recommendation is that the NIAA fully implement program and subprogram fraud risk assessments, organisational risk profiles and activity risk assessments, and monitor and fraud risk assessments. The fifth recommendation was that the NIAA implement proactive mechanisms for the detection of provider fraud and noncompliance. The six recommendation was that the NIAA ensure that it maintains a record of referrals, the basis of referral assessment and decision-making against transparent criteria, and makes decisions on whether to proceed with fraud investigations in line with the organisational risk appetite. The final recommendation was that the NIAA monitor and report on resources, time frames and outcomes of compliance reviews and fraud investigations.

Those recommendations were made off the back of the assessments made by the NIAA regarding the effectiveness of the control systems and processes that were in place. So it’s not that things weren’t in place; we did have processes, frameworks and so on. But the conclusion, through the audit processes, was that they were partly effective and not as complete as they needed to be—hence those recommendations. I think it’s worth noting that the audit report itself was issued in May 2023, but a program of improvement had already been well underway and indeed was already underway when the audit team arrived and were doing their work. Work has been progressing, as I said, and is due for completion, to address all of those recommendations, by the end of this financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Who can and does investigate corruption? ANAO told me they don’t.

Senator Gallagher: The National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it does now.

Senator Gallagher: Well, it does.

Senator ROBERTS: No, no—I’m agreeing with you, but is there any federal government agency that has a purview on that? And I notice that NIAA did a lot of this off its own bat. I’m not trying to single NIAA out.

Mr Worth: As with many granting agencies within the Commonwealth, NIAA has processes in place to proactively identify issues of noncompliance, fraud and corruption as well as a responsive mechanism whereby complaints or reports that are received by us are taken on board and investigated. As part of that process, we make an assessment of the accusation or concern and then respond accordingly. In some circumstances, from 1 July, it might be referred to the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In other circumstances, depending on the nature of it, it might be referred internally for further fraud investigation and then, depending on how that investigation goes, it could be referred to the authorities for prosecution, or it could be subject to an ongoing Australian Federal Police investigation, for example, or state police forces. For matters of noncompliance it could be referred internally.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Broun, could you tell me the main purpose of the National Indigenous Australians Agency please. What’s the main role? What do you hope to achieve?

Ms Broun: It’s in the annual report. It’s in our executive order, obviously, and that’s on page 9 of the annual report, if you’ve got it there. I’ll read from the annual report:

  • To lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery …
  • To provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister …
  • To lead and coordinate … Closing the Gap … in partnership with Indigenous Australians;
  • To lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation;
  • To build and maintain effective partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), state and territory governments and other relevant stakeholders to inform whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), and enable policies, programs and services to be tailored to the unique needs of communities;
  • To design, consult on and coordinate the delivery of community development employment projects;
  • To analyse and monitor the effectiveness of programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), including programs and services delivered by bodies other than the NIAA;
  • To coordinate Indigenous portfolio agencies and advance a whole-of-government approach to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s); and
  • To undertake other tasks the Prime Minister and the Minister require from time to time.

That’s the executive order.

Senator ROBERTS: The next question, Minister, is directed to Ms Broun, but it’s an opinion, in some ways, so maybe you’ll have to answer it. What are the main ways of addressing community needs, and what are the main community needs that you see in remote communities? I’ve been to every Cape York community and some of the Torres Strait Islands, and I’ve been to a couple of the Northern Territory ones. It reminds me of when I was a mine manager. Before becoming a mine manager, I worked on the coalface as a miner. When I became a mine manager, I was sent to various mines to turn them around. I’d walk in—and I was told by the previous mine manager, ‘They’re lazy; they’re incompetent,’ et cetera. I gave them accountability and autonomy and they were wonderful people—the same lazy miners! What I see in Cape York communities is people hungry for autonomy, and ready for it, but they seem to be squashed by what I’ll call—and I’m not referring to you—the Aboriginal industry, which is white and black activists, consultants, lawyers, bureaucrats, academics and politicians. The real people are just missing out. That’s why it’s such a—

CHAIR: That’s what everyone says about us, too!

Senator ROBERTS: I think they’re right; I agree with you! Is there any thought to allocating the money directly to communities and getting rid of the Aboriginal industry that’s feeding off—

Ms Broun: Thanks for that question—which is very broad ranging.

Senator ROBERTS: It is. I just want to start the discussion.

Ms Broun: The closing the gap national agreement identifies a whole range of areas we need to do better on. The Productivity Commission draft review identifies that we need to accelerate that effort as well—so it identifies some of the gaps. The minister has also consistently looked at those priorities around jobs, housing, health and education. Jobs is a really critical element of this, and it goes to your statement as well. In terms of funding communities directly, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy has a range of ways that that happens currently—so different programs go to different providers. One of the ones I mentioned in my earlier statement was the Indigenous rangers programs, and the funding that that provides to community organisations directly. It’s about jobs and about connection to country and culture as well. It has lots of elements to it and it currently employs about 1,900 people, with a plan to double that by 2030. That goes to your point around jobs as well. If there is more to that that you’d like answers to, I can get the right people up in terms of housing and jobs.

Senator ROBERTS: I was told by a very bright young councillor at Badu Island—I asked, ‘How’s closing the gap going?’ He said: ‘Mate, it’s not going. Whatever happens to the Closing the Gap campaign, there will be a gap because people are feeding off the money. It’s not the community’s.’ That’s what he said, bluntly. In America they have charter schools—I’m just trying to make a parallel and see what you can come up with. Charter schools are where the money goes from the government directly to the community for their school. They have found that, instead of going from the government to the bureaucracy, the locals have responsibility and the charter school flourishes because the principal and the parents take responsibility. I’m wondering if there is a parallel that can happen with the Aboriginal communities. These are wonderful people, very bright and ready to go; they’re just held back by bureaucracy and the Aboriginal industry. Is there any thought to giving the people the opportunity to develop their own future? That’s a sure way to get accountability.

Mr Brahim: Throughout Australia, there are quite unique and complex circumstances.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not easy.

Mr Brahim: In relation to the schools—and I know Education was here yesterday—across Australia there are—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I meant community things in general—giving more autonomy to the community, not just schools.

Mr Brahim: Using the charter schools as an example: the education department funds Aboriginal independent schools—so that goes straight to the schools. We fund a lot of community as well not necessarily through a provider, so the communities themselves—

Senator ROBERTS: When you say ‘we fund’—

Mr Brahim: The NIAA funds. There are different funding streams that go through different pathways. One pathway is through to the community organisations—so it’s not always through to a provider as such. Some communities are incorporated and will receive the funding directly from us.

Senator ROBERTS: I will finish up with this: I can remember, sometime around 2012-13, I was driving into Canberra listening to the radio, and they had allocated almost $1 billion back then—when a billion was a billion—and built 15 houses in 18 months. The people from the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal communities, were saying, ‘Give the money to us and let us build them.’ I think that was a fine idea, but instead the bureaucrats controlled it and got consultants, workers and contractors in from southern parts of Australia when the Aboriginals were hungry for jobs. It just didn’t make sense, and the outcome wasn’t there.

/6 Comments/by

Native Title Inquiry Needed Now

I spoke in support of Senator Hanson’s motion for an inquiry into Native Title.

The problem many of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders we speak to have continuously raised with us is that under Native Title the land is locked up and can’t benefit from it. That’s about half of Australia locked up under Native Title and held with the government. Is it any wonder the United Nations is so interested in Native Title?

The white and black aboriginal industry consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucrats. They all claim to be ‘closing the gap’ between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ standard of living and other non aboriginal Australians. The fundamental flaw in this system is that those running the industry are parasitically living off the money that is given to the aboriginal communities. It is a self-perpetuating problem.

Every year the billions of taxpayers’ dollars poured into solving the problem is being syphoned off by the same individuals who “claim” to be helping. Very little of the money makes it through to those in need.

You may recall when the Western nations were called upon to donate to ease the famine in African nations, very little of that aid often didn’t make it past the greedy government bureaucrats. This is what’s going on in Australia now. The pressure to scale it up is significant, but it will only increase the size of the industry and make it worse. What is needed is a solution to the Native Title problem that’s locking up the land. A sunset clause in the Native Title act should also be included. We need accountability within the white and black aboriginal industry.

Autonomy and accountability is what the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are hungry for, yet they are being blocked by those who are living off the industry in the cities, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

It’s time to close the gap for good. We need this inquiry.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to Senator Hanson’s motion, which I’ll read for clarification. It states:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 June 2024:

(a) the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made; and

(b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process.

We want an inquiry.

Since the concept of native title was accepted by the High Court in the case of Mabo there have been mixed views from Indigenous and non-Indigenous commentators as to the benefits that have flowed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The extent and nature of these was spelt out in the now rather complex Native Title Act 1993 and some further decisions of the High Court, including the Wik case in 1996. The act sets out a bundle of rights, some exclusive and some non-exclusive. Some exclusive rights relate to traditional activities, including the rights to fish, hunt and gather within the determined claim area—and I note as an aside here that Minister Plibersek’s latest piece of legislation seeks to take that away from Aboriginals, according to Aboriginals in northern Australia—but those rights cannot be transferred or on sold. Native title is extinguished by subsequent freehold and suppressed by leasehold, although that may revive at the expiry of the lease. Recent figures from the Native Title Tribunal indicate that determinations comprise more than 50 per cent of Australian land mass, more than half of our country.

One of the features of the Native Title Act is the attempt to balance the rights of all parties. The use of Indigenous land use agreements is a way of establishing possible land use, including mining leases and other means of gaining some commercial benefit, registered for the traditional owners. These can be varied at some later time through the National Native Title Tribunal.

When we were last in Cooktown we met with a local community leader, an upstanding man, who shared with us his views on native title and its impacts on his community and on many communities across Cape York. He said that native title was important from the aspect of recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and recognising that Indigenous people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they have inherent property rights in the land. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Indigenous people with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects.

It’s really about seizing the land, holding it and not giving it to anyone to use. It’s no wonder that we see the words ‘United Nations’ so frequently in the Native Title Act preamble. This is a land grab and the Aboriginals are not benefiting. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home because the property is now locked away out of reach. No-one is getting this land. The Commonwealth government are able to reclaim native title land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners, but this does not benefit any individuals. People in the cities think that this was all fixed years ago. They don’t realise that the No. 1 complaint in remote Aboriginal communities across the north of Australia is that they can’t get access to land to have their own houses and their own businesses. With land ownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial goals. My friend said that he wished to own his own place in this community. He cannot own his own place in the community. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner but he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners.

These comments were echoed right across the cape by constituents, council mayors and council members, and in the Territory and, we’ve heard also, in Western Australia. It was universal. Not one person to whom we spoke had a good thing to say about native title, other than that it provides some recognition of them as First Australians.

When asked about the government’s closing the gap policy, he made the telling comment that the government was not serious about closing the gap because that would be contrary to the white and black Aboriginal industry that thrives on keeping Aboriginals dependent. With the exception of two Aboriginal members of parliament, Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerynne Liddle, Aboriginal senators—the other nine—don’t talk about the white and black Aboriginal industry that consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucratics who are living parasitically off the money that is given to Aboriginal communities. They’ve stolen it from the Aboriginal communities. The billions of dollars that are poured into solving the problem are siphoned off by those supposed to be assisting, and little of the money and other handouts makes it to those in real need. That’s what’s going on in this country. It’s important for many people to keep the gap wide open.

I listened to a councillor on Badu Island, up in the Torres Strait, about closing the gap. I’ve been across the cape twice, and to some communities three times. In every community we asked, ‘What about closing the gap?’ Some people said, ‘What’s closing the gap?’ Others said, ‘It’s useless.’ When we asked this particular councillor on Badu Island, he said to me, ‘Malcolm, the point about closing the gap is that it will never be closed because there are people feeding off the maintenance of the gap.’ The parasitic white and black Aboriginal industry are feeding off closing the gap.

My friend went on to say that one of the biggest problems in communities was the lack of decent community housing. There were 19 people living in one of the local houses, and many people were homeless. In his community, 70 per cent of the residents were receiving welfare. Many were not coping. Mental health issues were climbing. What my staff have seen on Mornington Island is disgraceful. It’s caused by the white and black Aboriginal industry. They perpetuate the misery so that they can get the funds. As I said, this was a common comment across the cape and up into the Torres Strait.

Further north, a mayor told me that the problems also involved how grant moneys were divided up between the various interest groups, and again highlighted the housing and employment crises. There were no jobs and there was not enough housing.

Why will only two Aboriginal members of this Senate discuss the white and black Aboriginal industry? I have to commend Senator Nampijinpa Price for doing so with vigour. She points out that that white and black industry is destroying accountability, and things in Aboriginal communities won’t change without accountability. The people in the communities that I’ve listened to are hungry for autonomy and accountability. They want it.

I understand that in 1998 John Howard, as Prime Minister, attempted to amend the Native Title Act by putting in place a sunset clause. John Howard, I’m advised, moved to put in place a sunset clause. As Prime Minister, what advice did he get on the legality? Senator Cash would get some answers to clause (a) if there was some form of inquiry. What’s wrong with having an inquiry? Why do you keep blocking Senator Pauline Hanson wanting simple inquiries into basic, fundamental questions?

As I understand it, before Cook arrived the Torres Strait Islands had some form of property rights, handed down from generation to generation, where the holder of the land was clearly recognised. But the mainland not so, I’m advised. We were reminded by Senator Rennick that the High Court decision on Mabo was very close: four to three. We need an inquiry to see how it’s working and to go back to fundamentals. ‘Thirty-one years,’ Senator Rennick said. ‘We need an inquiry. We’re the house of review.’ I concur with Senator Rennick.

Senator Ayres raises the point about Aboriginal Warren Mundine possibly entering the Senate. I don’t know, but does Senator Ayres not want Aboriginals in the Senate because of their views? No-one tonight has offered a solution to the native title problem of land locking, although revisiting Indigenous land use agreements and considering leases for individual housing projects may deserve further consideration.

/7 Comments/by

Big consulting companies are draining taxpayer funds for nothing

The Government spends millions of dollars every year on consulting companies that overcharge to give the Government an opinion they want to hear.

Last week in the Senate I supported a motion creating an inquiry into the use of consulting companies so we can cut the waste.

Transcript

One Nation will be supporting Senator Barbara Pocock’s motion because we believe that the big consulting companies are basically guns for hire. They’re opinions for hire. They give the government what the government wants, at a million dollars a gig. Some of these big firms are multinationals out of Japan.

So we will be supporting this.

/2 Comments/by

High Speed rail isn’t practical for Australia

,

High Speed Rail! It’s a great slogan for politicians in election campaigns, but it just doesn’t work for Australia.

Our cities are too small, the distances too long and geography too complex to build it cheaply enough.

Our money is much better spent on other infrastructure like dams, power stations and a national rail circuit that’s up to scratch.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak to the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022—or, as I prefer to call it, the ‘elect Chris Minns as New South Wales Premier bill’. It’s not a coincidence that this bill provides for the national high-speed rail network proposal to start with just one section: between Sydney and Newcastle—just in time for the New South Wales state election in the coming March. Oh, the photo opportunities and announcements! I can see them now—for example, ‘Vote Labor and we will get you to work in 40 minutes.’ What dishonesty. What treachery.

I appreciate that that the Central Coast and Hunter are now dormitory suburbs of Sydney. Every day, more than 100,000 residents use rail and road on their daily trek to Sydney for work. High-speed would be a wonderful way to make that trip. One problem with making that promise is that high-speed rail on that route is never going to happen. It’s impossible. Here’s why. The route consist of mountain ranges, massive sandstone cliffs and waterways. Unless the High Speed Authority sprinkles magic dust, there is no way it will make a straight, flat track with the solid foundations necessary to sustain high-speed rail through the Hawksbury, Central Coast and Lower Hunter.

The current discussion involves sending high-speed rail along the existing alignment through the Central Coast, through the Gosford waterfront, through residential areas to Wyong and then via YE into the lower Hunter. The area’s geography makes any other route almost impossible, at least without substantial environmental impact, meaning massive, long tunnels and cuttings through national parks and equally long and heavily engineered bridges across the frequent waterways and soft ground.

Anything can be done at a cost, although the cost here will ensure a white elephant for taxpayers that will never recover the investment. I shudder to think how much the tickets will cost, certainly more than working families can afford, the families who are being targeted with this false, deceptive promise.

While Australia does need a modern rail network connecting our capital cities, airports and major ports, high-speed rail is not the answer. The federal government last examined the possibility of building a 1,748-kilometre high-speed rail link from Brisbane to Melbourne in 2013, when the cost was estimated at $114 billion, with the Sydney-to-Newcastle section costed at $17.9 billion. At that time, by the way, the Inland Rail was costed at $4 billion. It’s now $20 billion. That’s five times higher. So I would expect this same inaccuracy factor would apply to the fast rail, costing out the Sydney-to-Hunter section alone at $90 billion in today’s dollars.

The Grattan Institute has found high-speed rail projects have little chance of passing the cost-benefit test based on the typical discount rate used for transport infrastructure of about seven per cent. Marion Terrill, the current director of the Grattan Institute’s Transport and City Program, has said:

Australia is just not suited to high-speed rail because our cities are too small and too far apart.

Too small means the passenger volume will not be sufficient to justify the capital expenditure, leading to prohibitive fares or massive government subsidies—or, most likely, both.

To illustrate this point, when New South Wales XPT trains were purchased in 1982, the intention was to create fast rail in New South Wales. The XPTs are designed to travel at just 150 kilometres per hour. So what stopped fast rail at that time was the inability to build a track capable of supporting those speeds. This is essential for safety and reliability. Our rail lines curve around too much. The Great Dividing Range provides serious hurdles to fast rail, and our waterways along the coast complicate the flat sections that we do have. For clarity, fast rail is generally speeds up to 150 kilometres per hour. High-speed rail is 250 kilometres per hour to 300 kilometres per hour. Fast rail requires entirely different and substantially more expensive rolling stock and track.

It may be feasible with a large government investment to upgrade existing rail lines on the Sydney-to-Hunter route to travel express services at fast-rail pace rather than high-speed rail pace. One Nation would strongly support immediate feasibility studies on upgrading the Sydney-to-Hunter line to fast rail since New South Wales already has the rolling stock.

Senator McKenzie will be moving an amendment to this bill that will introduce Productivity Commission oversight of proposals and a transparent reporting system. If this amendment is passed, this bill will gain the checks and balances it should have had all along, and One Nation will support it. Without those checks and balances, One Nation will oppose this bill. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and we don’t lie for any reason—certainly not to the public to get votes.

/3 Comments/by