Posts

Return of Cheng Lei is NOT a Labor Government Achievement

The return of Cheng Lei is good news and I can only imagine how relieved her family must be. My intention here was not to discuss Cheng Lei’s release but to highlight the misinformation from Labor around this story, and how this relates to the ACMA Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill the government is aiming to implement.

Penny Wong, as Foreign Affairs Minister, last week took credit for the release of Australian journalist, Cheng Lei. That may be misinformation. According to a Chinese government post, Cheng Lei was released after serving her sentence in China for publishing information under an embargo. In other words, she completed her sentence and was sent home.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it himself: Cheng’s return was not part of a deal struck with Beijing and her release followed the completion of China’s judicial process. It couldn’t be more clear.

Yet the Labor government is passing off Cheng Lei’s release as a Labor government achievement with Penny Wong taking credit herself. The PM even advised his caucus in the aftermath of his failed $450 million Voice referendum to “focus on achievements” and placed the release of Cheng Lei at the top of the list.

Why did I feel this was important to point out in the senate and on the record? It’s an example of misinformation from a government that is about to censor everyone except itself and the accredited media. To a bureaucracy with a censorship hammer, every bit of unapproved information looks like a nail.

I think most of us agree after the past few years that if we are to combat misinformation and disinformation then the government and its media mouthpiece would be the best place to start.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. It’s based on a constituent’s inquiry. Australian journalist Cheng Lei was convicted in China of illegally providing state secrets to overseas parties and imprisoned. Cheng Lei was recently released and arrived back in Australia last week. Minister, can you inform the Senate what role you had personally, your department had and the Prime Minister had in the release of Cheng Lei? 

Senator WONG (Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank the senator for his question. Obviously, as you would expect, this is an issue on which there has been a lot of discussion at various levels with the Chinese authorities, urging the return of Ms Cheng and urging her to be able to return to Australia. I can indicate to you—and obviously some of this is at officer level—that, as I said publicly at the time, this was my first engagement with the then foreign minister Wang Yi, when I first met him at the first bilateral discussion in Bali. It is the practice of Australian governments to ensure that we raise consular cases with other countries, China included, at all appropriate meetings. 

I can indicate to the senator that Ms Cheng Lei was the subject of representations from me, the Prime Minister and officers, just as with other consular cases such as Dr Yang’s and with those obviously facing criminal charges. We made those representations at the Prime Minister level, at the foreign minister level and at officer level, and we will continue to do so. I would acknowledge also that this has been the practice under successive governments. I spoke to former senator Payne after I had met Ms Cheng Lei at the airport to let her know before the news became public. I acknowledge that she also raised this with the Chinese authorities— (Time expired) 

The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The Chinese ministry of state has posted on Weibo that Cheng Lei had been sentenced to two years and 11 months in prison and had been deported after completing her sentence. Minister, your words on Cheng Lei’s arrival at the airport, as quoted in the Guardian, made it clear that the government was taking credit for her release. They quoted you as saying: I made them a promise some time ago we would do everything, I would do everything I could, to bring her home …Minister, who is telling the truth—you or the Chinese government?

Senator WONG: Senator, you and I have differences of opinion, but I regret that you would use something I said about what I said to her children in that way.

An opposition senator: Seriously?

Senator WONG: No—not ‘seriously’. It was an expression of hope, emotion and a degree of humanity, because, like all Australians, I wanted to see a mother return to her children. That was also what I said publicly. The Chinese legal system has been completed. We have seen what they have said—that is, the articulation of the Chinese legal position. What I can say is that we made a priority to make representations— (Time expired)

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is this a case that proves the Albanese government’s misinformation and disinformation bill should not exclude ‘government misinformation and disinformation’ and
instead should include ‘government misinformation and disinformation’?

The President: Senator Roberts, I’m not sure how it relates, but I’m sure the minister will respond as she sees fit.

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, there is no misinformation on our side. There is no disinformation on our side. What we have said—and if you had actually tracked every engagement I have had with the Chinese authorities, what I have said afterwards when I have articulated, at least in summary version, what I said to the Chinese authorities and what the Prime Minister said to his counterparts—you would know that we have made these representations. All I can say is this: this is not a partisan issue, and this is not a political issue. This is an issue about an Australian who is now home with her children. Behind her were many Australians across this country and across the political divide who made the same representations to Chinese authorities at all levels that Australians wanted to see a mother united with her children. I think that is a good thing. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity— (Time expired)

Transcript 

Senator ROBERTS: I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Roberts today relating to the reporting of the release of Chinese Australian citizen Cheng Lei. 

The Chinese government announced that Cheng Lei’s release was simply a matter of her completing a sentence of two years and 11 months. In her explanation though the minister claimed an emotional high ground that is not supported by events at the airport. Minister Wong was most welcome to make remarks to Cheng Lei’s children in private, and she did so. The minister then restated and expanded her remarks to the press, which were widely reported. Further, at that press conference the minister stated that the release of Cheng Lei was a result of Senator Wong’s perseverance, which the minister did not restate in her answer to me. Did her representations have any effect on the Chinese government? Not according to the Chinese government. Who is right? We may never know. 

One Nation is concerned about the Albanese government’s misinformation and disinformation bill as applied to this situation. As drafted, the government and mainstream media are exempt from the bill. The Guardian‘s slobbering all over Minister Wong and the Albanese government over Cheng Lei would be exempt from this bill. The government can say whatever it likes and the mouthpiece media can repeat and even embellish those claims and that would be legal. Bloggers and social media companies who question the narrative though would be guilty of misinformation and fined or shut down. Weibo, which announced the Chinese government’s side of the story, has an office in Sydney and would be regulated under that bill. There’s no provision in the bill for truth as a defence. There’s no definition of what is misinformation. If this bill is passed, democracy itself will be at risk from an unending one-sided glorification of the ruling party. Last weekend, Australians rejected this sort of propaganda in the referendum campaign. The government proceeds with a misinformation and disinformation bill at its peril, because the people will see through it, just like they saw through the lies in the ‘yes’ case. This is about censorship. 

/8 Comments/by

Lack of Accountability Breeds Contempt

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.

/2 Comments/by

QANTAS Monopoly Puts Profits Over Service

I spoke in support of Senator Smith’s matter of urgency motion on airline competition in Australia to ensure transparency and scrutiny of the industry to protect consumers and promote healthy competition. It was once an iconic symbol that Australians could be proud of, but no more.

Qantas took and kept the Jobkeeper handouts during COVID then unfairly sacked ‘below the wing’ staff anyway. It outsourced the jobs to cut costs and as a result safety, despite the airline’s record profits.

That’s not all. The Australia Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) recently charged Qantas with selling flights that didn’t exist. Ghost flights. Qantas does it to hog the departure and arrival slots and restrict the competition that would bring down prices. Always it’s the passengers who suffer.

Qantas share registry is controlled by the same parasitic billionaires that are destroying our banking and other corporate sectors. BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street. There couldn’t be a clearer need for strong government and regulatory action to ensure honest competition and restore the calibre of Australia’s flying kangaroo.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I support Senator Smith’s matter of urgency motion. The level of corporate cronyism and greed in Australia’s airline industry is out of control. COVID was used to change the public’s perception of what constitutes fair and reasonable behaviour in the airline industry. Fares are up, service is down and luggage is nowhere to be found. One survey found that Australian airlines managed to lose baggage 10 per cent of the time. Qantas international fares are up 20 per cent in two years. International market share has doubled, and profits have followed airfares up and now stand at $2.47 billion. Despite this, Qantas COVID cancellation credits expire on 30 December. Virgin COVID credits expire on the same date. Is it a mere coincidence?

The ACCC recently charged Qantas with taking bookings on flights that were already cancelled. There’s a reason for that. Our established airlines have a legacy allocation of airport landing and take-off gates. In order to restrict competition that may bring down prices, airlines schedule fake flights and sell tickets with no intention of operating that service. By informing customers at the last minute of the cancellation, despite knowing of the cancellation for days or weeks in advance, the airline does three things. Firstly, it keeps that slot out of the hands of a new competitor who may compete with them on price or service. Secondly, it allows airlines to squash passengers into flights that become very profitable. The domestic load in March 2023 was 85 per cent. Thirdly, passengers suffer. Everyday Australians miss connections and lose time away from loved ones. Travellers are left to reorganise holidays on the fly, usually costing them more and taking days off their holiday break.

The predatory billionaires that own Qantas shares are perfectly happy with this. Billionaires use investment funds like BlackRock, Vanguard and First State in order to turn Qantas or, more accurately, everyday Australians, into cash cows. As long as they can use restrictive trade practices, like nobbling competitors, as they did with the recent Qatar airlines decision, and as long as they can get away with hogging landing and departure slots, their dividends will grow.

From where do these excess profits come? Everyday Australians of course. Taxpayers contribute yet more. Qantas took $900 million in JobKeeper payments during COVID and, despite record profits, kept them. The ACCC should look at all of these things, not just pricing. The power of parasitic billionaires must be cancelled out through strong government and regulatory action to restore honest competition, ending crony capitalism through restoring free markets and real competition.

/2 Comments/by

In Australia the Bank Robs You!

If you rob a bank, you go to jail. If the bank robs you, no banker will go to jail and they won’t even pay a fine. Maybe it has something to do with the Big 4’s top shareholders – Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, JP Morgan, Charles Schwab, HSBC and others.

After 6 years of inquiries and a Royal Commission, the final Financial Accountability Regime Bill contains no accountability for bad bankers. We supported Senator McKim in trying to make sure bankers could be liable for personal fines if they misbehaved but the Greens caved, joining Labor to pass through the bill without the penalties.

One Nation won’t stop our fight to make bank executives accountable and find justice for their victims.

Transcripts | Speech and Questions

Yesterday, as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I spoke on Senator McKenzie’s matter of public importance regarding the decision by Minister Catherine King to give Qantas a substantial commercial advantage in the Qatar Airlines application for more flights to Australia. I pointed out that the Qatari government owns Qatar Airlines, while Qantas’s most influential shareholders are the merchant banks that invest money on behalf of the world’s richest predatory billionaires. I raise the question: who does this government represent? Is it everyday Australians or foreign wealth?

Here we are again, the very next day, debating the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023—a bill devoid of financial accountability. A financial accountability regime bill with no accountability is a bill that could more rightly be called the ‘Letting bank executives do whatever they want bill 2023’. Banking executives in Australia are a protected species for the same reason Alan Joyce and Qantas are protected: crony capitalism.

The big four banks have almost identical major shareholders. They have the same owners as Qantas, including Vanguard with $15 billion in shares in the big four banks, BlackRock with $5 billion, and then the usual suspects with smaller holdings, such as State Street, JP Morgan, Charles Schwab, HSBC and others. With these common owners making up a controlling share, it means we do not have four big banks. We have one monstrous bank with four divisions working under four logos. Why would the banks compete with each other when that competition will lessen their profits and, in turn, reduce the flow of dividends to these investment funds?

Our banking legislation, our checks and balances, were not written for an eventuality where investment funds with A$40 trillion in funds available bought controlling shareholdings in all the big four banks and used those shareholdings for their own financial benefit in a way that reduces competition and has reduced competition. Investment funds get assistance from complicit executives. Those complicit executives know the deal when those same investment funds elect directors who then employ the executives. The same executives know that they have to follow orders to keep their jobs and their fat pay cheques. The same executives then pursue the now infamous ESG measures to ensure that a bank lends only for projects that meet so-called environmental, social and governance standards. ESG is shorthand for using banks to enforce political objectives, like enforcing net zero by defunding coal, gas and most mining while lending for speculative investments in hydrogen and similar unproven fantasy technology.

Why would banks take a course of action that puts shareholders’ funds at risk? It’s because these big investment funds own the companies that profit from those investments. ESG is nothing more than the billionaires who run the world using their ownership of our banks to lend to themselves for risky investments that, if they fail, will reduce their equity. It will reduce the equity of mum and dad investors more. They carry the risk. Everyday Australians are shouldering the risk of these misinvestments that benefit only the world’s most wealthy individuals. As George Carlin famously said, ‘It’s a club, and you’—everyday Australians—’ain’t in it.’

I wonder if whoever made the decision to take personal financial penalties out of the financial accountability regime is in the club. Are you? Those penalties were in this legislation when the Turnbull government introduced it—although, of course, it is not being used, because nobody in the Liberal Party or the Labor Party has the guts to take on these investment funds—least of all, it would appear, Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, who authored this bill.

Everyday Australians are feeling the pain from the failure of this government to govern without fear or favour. Bank branch closures and de-banking are hitting everyday Australians hard, and the banking cartel just sit back and count the profits—record profits. The most glaring exclusion from this bill is the absence of civil penalty provisions such as fines for bankers. To translate that into plain English, it means that senior bankers who behave badly will not, under this bill, face personal fines—no fines at all.

Making bad bankers pay big fines isn’t an idea One Nation and the Greens pulled out of thin air. The Treasury department was the one that initially proposed it. The proposal paper for the financial accountability regime that Treasury published in 2020 included civil penalties for bad bankers. The big bank lobby circled the wagons, mustering all of their high-powered lobbyists and industry groups to browbeat Treasury into removing the personal civil penalties. When the Morrison coalition government introduced the 2021 version of this bill, civil penalties had disappeared. Labor had a chance to fix that when they introduced their versions of the bill, first in 2022 and now with this one in 2023. Instead, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen ‘I love the bankers’ Jones, has joined Labor at the hip with their crony-capitalist banking suck-up mates in the coalition.

This bill’s time line is a glaring example of what’s wrong with our country’s governance. In 2017 I chaired the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, while at the same time we called for a royal commission into the banks. The horror stories we uncovered in that Senate inquiry were enough to make my skin crawl and my stomach churn: banks stealing land and even livestock straight out from under farmers’ feet, cattle rustling, foreclosing on properties where there hadn’t been breaches of loan repayments, preying on vulnerable people, stealing whole farms, and rewarding mates amongst insolvency practitioners and other farmers. Rabobank, after being fined hundreds of millions of dollars for serious breaches in America, was destroying families in our country. All under your watch.

The evidence of banking practices we uncovered during that inquiry forced the government’s hand. With the testimony of those victims, the government had no option but to call the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. This bill now before us supposedly implements recommendations of that royal commission. What a joke! It’s been more than six years since the Senate select committee I chaired was established. At the end of that long road not a single banker has been thrown in jail for their criminal actions—not one. To my knowledge, not a single banker has paid any civil penalty for the outright fraud uncovered in the royal commission—not one. At the end of the long road to this bill we have something that still will not impose personal civil penalties on bankers who breach their accountability regimes. And you guys just let it continue. If you want to know who holds all the power in this country, look no further than the fact that civil penalties have been dropped.

One Nation will be supporting Senator McKim’s amendment to insert civil penalties back into the bill, but, alas, that failed. If that amendment had been successful, we would have supported the bill. Without that amendment this bill does not go far enough to place accountability on misbehaving bankers, and we cannot support its passage. Minister, why does this bill not contain civil penalty provisions for senior bankers who fail their accountability obligations?

Minister Gallagher: Thank you and I acknowledge Senator Roberts’ speech. I don’t agree with large parts of it but in this bill there are penalties within the legislation before us.  They will, individuals can lose deferred remuneration – they can be disqualified from being able to work in the industry and there are individual civil penalties for assisting an entity’s contravention of obligations.

Senator Roberts: Minister, are you aware who owns our big four banks? Let me read the list of shareholders of those banks right now so that you may have some idea of where I’m going. Shareholders of National Australia Bank Limited are the Vanguard Group, with 3.3 per cent; BlackRock Fund Advisors; Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd; Norges Bank Investment Management; State Street Global Advisors; Colonial First State Investments; Goody Capital; BlackRock Advisers; Netwealth Investments; and Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec. Let me read them for the Commonwealth bank: Vanguard Group, BlackRock Fund Advisors, Vanguard Investments Australia, Norges Bank, Goody Capital, Australian Foundation Investment Company Limited, BlackRock Advisors, Netwealth Investments, FIL Investment Management and Vanguard Global Advisors. Westpac: the Vanguard Group, Vanguard Investments Australia, BlackRock Fund Advisors, Norges bank, State Street Global Advisors, Goody Capital, Advance Asset Management, BlackRock Advisors, Australian Foundation Investment Company, Netwealth Investments. ANZ group: the Vanguard Group—is there an echo in this room? BlackRock Fund Advisors—there’s that echo again! Vanguard Investments—it’s still here! State Street—another echo! Goody Capital—another echo! BlackRock Advisors—another echo! This place is an echo chamber, and that’s probably very appropriate. There’s Netwealth Investments—another echo! Dimensional Fund Advisors—they’re only in ANZ. There’s Vanguard—another echo! BlackRock investment—another echo! Minister, are you aware of this?

Minister Gallagher: I’m certainly aware there’s millions of shareholders in Australia’s big banks and across Australia’s financial system, yes.

Senator Roberts: So you allow it to continue with no accountability. It seems we don’t have 4 big banks. We have one monstrous bank working under 4 logos, 4 divisions. There’s no, there’s no difference between their primary products and services and their ways of operating. Their product, services and operations are similar. So similar that I recognised, as Chair of the Senate Select inquiry into lending the primary production customers back in 2017, that they operate as one. They are a cartel. Are you aware of the common ownership and common practice, product and services of these banks?

Minister Gallagher: Well, that information is available, as you know, to all of us.  It’s transparent around shareholding in big companies in Australia.  So I’m aware and you are aware, and you’re aware because that information is available.

Senator Roberts: The difference, Minister, between you and I is that I want to do something to fix it. Minister, what will your government do about protecting Australians from these parasitic predators?

Minister Gallagher: Well, I don’t agree with the language that you’ve used Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: The Minister says, in effect, that she agrees they are parasitic predators. So legislation needs to have teeth. Without teeth, massive regulation protects the Big Four from accountability because of the complexities needing deep pockets for deep pockets for lawyers. A farmer, small businessman, even a woman, cannot afford the lawyers that the big banks resort to at the drop of a hat because they’re protected by deep, complicated legislation. These barriers are barriers to accountability. Are you aware of that? And what do you plan to do about it?

Minister Gallagher: Well, no, I don’t agree with that. The bill we are debating or we completed debated of yesterday is the Financial Accountability Regime Bill. So no, I don’t agree with that. And I do believe since the Royal Commission there has been significant increase in and protections for us through legislative reform like this to make sure that we get a properly regulated and accountable financial system. This is one piece of that. So no, I don’t agree with you.

Senator Roberts: Minister, these regulations provide barriers to entry of new competition to the Big Four or the Big One. Are you aware of that and what do you plan to do about it?

Minister Gallagher: Sorry if your questions about do I think this is a barrier to competition? No.

Senator Roberts: That wasn’t my question. The massive amount of complex regulations, they’re protecting the big four banks, they’re a barrier to competition.

Minister Gallagher: I mean in a sense you’re arguing in a circle because we are putting in place legislative protections and regulations to make sure there is a stronger financial system in this country to deal with some of the problems that we saw come through in the lead up to and during the banking Royal Commission to protect consumers and to make sure that we have a strong, profitable, well led banking system financial system in this country. This legislative response is part of that. The regulations are there to offer that protection. They’re not there to limit competition.

Senator Roberts: They’re effectively working as such Minister. The government’s bank deposit guarantee scheme is worthless. Firstly, it’s not automatic, because the Treasurer has to invoke it and if he doesn’t, there’s no guarantee of bank deposits. Secondly, it covers only a maximum of $80 billion out of $1.3 trillion in bank deposits. For example, the Commonwealth Bank, I understand, has 30 million deposit accounts, meaning an average of $670 per deposit. Meanwhile, the previous government passed a bank bail-in provision that your party supported. These are other ways in which banks avoid accountability for their mistakes and greed. They take none of the risk and all of the profit. They have no penalty for excessive greed causing failure, because government bails them in. When will your government start protecting Australian citizens and revoke the bail-in, for example?

Minister Gallagher: Well, the work that has come out of the royal Commission, of which this is a part of, is precisely about that, Senator Roberts.

/2 Comments/by

QANTAS becomes a National Shame

In recent years, QANTAS appears to have lost the skill of delivering passengers and their luggage to the same city.

Some will try to say it’s the fault of capitalism. It’s crony capitalism that is actually to blame. Crony capitalism is the network of cosy relationships between selected corporate mates and the government. Unlike actual capitalism, it’s about using the government to squash competition and secure preferential treatment from the government.

QANTAS has received billions in taxpayer handouts in the last few years alone. The government has blocked competitors like Qatar Airways from entering the market. All of this is a form of corrupt crony capitalism and Australia pays for it.

It’s the government getting involved in the market that has allowed QANTAS and Alan Joyce to pull off their heist on Australians.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I wonder, as many constituents do, who does Qantas have photographs of? How can Qantas engage in restrictive trade practices, fraud and a scorched earth policy approach to industrial relations and still be called Australia’s national airline? Are these our national values now? 

The decision of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to stop Qatar Airways from increasing their number of flights to Australia provided a direct financial benefit to Qantas. As a result, everyday Australians are now paying higher airfares on those international routes than if Qatar had been allowed to provide competition to Qantas. I note that, over the last 12 months, Senator Sheldon has been resolute in his attempts to hold Qantas accountable through the Senate committee system. I welcome Senator Sheldon’s comments and appreciate his one-man war on the temple of uncaring corporate greed that Qantas has become. Let me be clear, Qantas is an embarrassment to free enterprise competition. Everyday Australians are now faced with dysfunctional, unaffordable air travel simply because the government keeps sticking its nose in where it does not belong. It shouldn’t be up to the government to decide how many air flights an airline has. The free market should sort that out. Free enterprise competition based on pricing, service, safety and availability would sort that out. 

Passengers make their purchase decisions on aircraft tickets based on the most fundamental duty of an airline, which is delivering a passenger to their destination at the same time as their luggage. It’s a skill Qantas seems to have lost. Free enterprise competition ensures the airline with the lowest fares, best service, safest planes and most reliable luggage will gain market share, and airlines who treat their customers with hubris and arrogance will fare badly. Free enterprise competition makes companies better. We do not have free enterprise competition in many industries in Australia, including with airlines. We have crony capitalism, a club of investment funds and their corporate henchmen who maximise short-term profits and dividends over the best long-term interests of a corporation or there’s personal greed from the corporation CEOs. It is a type of corporate asset stripping that’s behind the fall from grace of our once loved national carrier. 

To dress this decision up as being in the national interest is misdirection and misinformation. Qantas is a private company whose actions are decided by leading shareholders First State, Vanguard and BlackRock. Others pulling the strings at Qantas are JP Morgan, HSBC, State Street, Goldman Sachs, and Citicorp, which explains a lot. The Qatari government fully owns Qatar Airways. There is nothing in this deal for the predatory billionaires that control Qantas. Was this the reason for the decision to block Qatar Airways’ expansion? If so, who is really telling the Albanese government what to do? 

/3 Comments/by

Who will fact-check the fact-checkers?

The government’s response to news of shady foreign money potentially influencing the RMIT-ABC Fact Check partnership is silence.

The credibility of ‘independent fact checkers’ has been destroyed. It’s time for the government to abandon its ACMA Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, which relies on fact checkers being the arbiters of truth.

Update: ABC has ended its partnership with RMIT Exclusive: ABC ends seven-year partnership with RMIT Fact Check (crikey.com.au)

Transcript

I rise to take note of the answers the government gave today in relation to foreign influence of the RMIT-ABC Fact Check partnership. As anybody who has been put in Facebook jail knows, the credibility of fact-checkers is in shambles. The fact-checkers are meant to be independent yet they are not. Who fact-checks the fact checkers? Facebook has recently suspended its partnership with RMIT FactLab after media reports revealed the director, former ABC journalist Russell Skelton, is openly campaigning for a yes vote in the upcoming referendum while his organisation dishes out fact checks on the no campaign—hardly impartial, completely conflicted. Then there is the potential foreign influence on the fact-check partnership.

Here are some facts Minister Watt sought and ought to know. Financial statements from the International Fact-Checking Network, the IFCN, show a foreign organisation gave grants to the RMIT-ABC partnership. The IFCN’s funders are a combination of shady private foundations, foreign-headquartered technology giant Meta and even the United States government via its embassy in Bangkok. Why is the taxpayer funded national broadcaster, the ABC, seemingly receiving funds from potential agents of foreign influence for its fact checks? What sort of influence on fact checks do foreign agents buy with this money? These are all frightening questions about how far the influence of this shady, rapidly growing censorship industry reaches.

Fact-checking is being used in a censorship campaign to shut down dissent. During COVID, fact checkers in the Department of Health and Ageing told social media to take down a meme about masks being useless. That was always true. The gold standard Cochrane review confirmed masks are useless. The fact checkers’ outrageous behaviour demonstrates that the government’s misinformation and disinformation bill should be dead in the water. It’s time for the government to admit defeat and abandon their Orwellian censorship power grab. The key to human progress is freedom. Human progress starts with freedom of thought and freedom of sharing thoughts. Freedom of speech is fundamental to human progress.

Related:

Government Ignores Foreign Influence in RMIT-ABC Fact Checks
/1 Comment/by

ASIC and Senate Lock Horns Over Accountability

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.

/by

Labor Government copies Morrison Government’s Secrecy Tactics

The transparency and accountability systems that are meant to apply to government are broken.

Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, this Labor Government is pulling out every trick in the book to keep Australians in the dark about how they’re spending money and what they’re doing.

Transcript

Former Senator Rex Patrick said to me that transparency is a word that’s only ever shouted from opposition benches. After years and years of virtue signalling from Labor while they were in opposition about the importance of transparency and accountability and the importance of Senate estimates hearings, now that they’re in government it’s an entirely different story. Before they were elected to government we heard endlessly from Labor that the government should be accountable and one of the ways they should be held accountable is an order for the production of documents. Labor has resisted, has voted against or refused to comply, with almost every order for the production of documents on which this Senate has voted. That same attitude is prolific, and they’ve show up again over two weeks of Senate estimates hearings.

I’ve got plenty of criticisms about the Labor Party, yet I’ve got to ask some of the senators from the Liberals: it’s a little rich, don’t you think? While you are in government, there were plenty of motions for the production of documents and evasiveness at Senate estimates. When it comes to accountability and transparency of government information, unfortunately, the Liberal and Labor parties are two wings of the same bird. As former Senator Rex Patrick said so accurately, ‘Transparency is a word that’s only shouted from the opposition benches.’ Once in government it’s all quiet.

Let’s have a look at just some of the transparency that Labor has blocked. Motion No. 124, an order for the production of documents to tell the Australian people how much extra Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cost them to call parliament back for a ridiculous one day of sitting to push his gas industry nationalisation through. It likely cost millions of dollars, just so Labor could pull a stunt and claim they were doing something on electricity prices. Six months later, it’s done nothing. Looking good, not doing good—that’s what matters to Labor.

What was Labor’s response to the Senate ordering them to tell Australia how much this exercise had cost? They may as well have just put a middle finger in the envelope. Not one dollar in costings such is the contempt they have for this Senate and for Australian taxpayers.

Let’s look at motion No. 176, an order to produce documents relating to millions of dollars being paid to political parties for ill-defined grants and programs. What was Labor’s answer? Contempt. Not a single document related to the funding was produced.

What about motion No. 200? Just yesterday, documents were requested in relation to the MRH-90 helicopter crash in Jervis Bay, documents that would uncover if we are putting our Defence personnel at risk of death flying in dodgy helicopters. The government refused to return a single document—not a single document.

Of course this culture of secrecy extended to Senate estimates. We saw witnesses tell outright lies to the Senate and the Labor ministers sit by idly. Ministers raised flimsy public interest immunity claims, if they bothered to raise them at all. In the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade hearings, Chief of Defence Force, General Campbell, simply flatly refused to answer questions from myself and from Senator Shoebridge. That’s not how Senate estimates works. If a witness does not want to answer a question, they are obliged to take it on notice and then it is up to the minister to raise a claim of public interest immunity—not the witness. General Campbell knew this. He’s attended many estimates sessions. The Labor minister at the table knew this, yet sat there in silence as the witness treated questions with outright contempt. Again, transparency is a word only shouted from the opposition benches.

Now, we’ve had two constituents, one from Queensland and one from New South Wales, telling us about specific instances that indicate a senior member of one of the departments lied. We’re chasing that up now with a question on notice following Senate estimates. Let’s not forget the unanswered questions on notice. Answers to questions on notice were flowing in while the next Senate estimates had already started. Make no mistake, many of these answers were no doubt available, yet they probably sat on the minister’s desk waiting for a final sign-off. That’s why many of the questions on notice don’t arrive in time: ministers are holding them up. So much for transparency. There is no reason a minister needs to sign off on answers anyway. The truth is the truth. The agency’s answer is their evidence; it’s not for the minister to change.

None of this will change until the Senate fulfils its duty to bring contempt charges against those who treat it with contempt. It is within our power to enforce accountability. A few contempt charges and a couple of witnesses in jail should send a message to the others.

/2 Comments/by

The AEC are their own worst enemy!

,

I receive a lot of constituent inquiries regarding election issues. My staff look into these and we created a file of potential electoral irregularities. I have been working through these potential issues with the AEC for three years, and still there are questions on the list. The AEC are doing a great job of running elections and a crap job of explaining irregularities when they occur.

Elections can always be more secure and more efficiently run. The AEC would be well advised to work with critics to solve these issues off these issues or explain them openly and honestly. I was pleased that Commissioner Rogers met with my staff and reviewed these issues a few weeks ago. I thank the Commissioner and his team for his time. As a result many old issues were explained to our satisfaction. Today I asked about those that were not adequately explained.

The answers today on the quality of the electoral roll for instance confirms our suspicions that there are 1.5m incorrect entries on the roll, based just on a data matching exercise against known databases – usually drivers licenses. It is One Nation’s position that only a physical audit can really get to the bottom of how many orphan or incorrect entries are padding out our electoral rolls. This is an urgent issue. A request for the last known proper audit that was promised at our meeting was sidestepped, so this is something I will pursue.

Answers also dealt with the question of why some people get postal vote applications they did not request in the name of previous residents of their premises. Postal vote applications are often made after a letterbox drop by a major party or activist organisation. Those postal vote applications are returned to the political party, who have, according to testimony, created their own voter database of these likely supporters. Are these groups submitting postal vote applications on behalf of voters without their knowledge, including voters who have moved on? This is a really dodgy way to do postal voting. Applications must go directly to the AEC to prevent this sort of voter interference.

Mr Rogers did provide assurance on other issues around ballot box security, and we look forward to getting an actual ballot box seal to test for ourselves. One Nation believes the best system for moving ballot boxes from temporary voting locations to the regional counting centre is a point to point professional courier with GPS locating so there can be no doubt the ballot box was secure in transit.

Regional counting centres should also be equipped with alarms and security cameras.

Finally I asked about the new audits that the AEC were required to have conducted as a result of legislation passed in the last Parliament as a result of One Nation’s actions. There seems to be some confusion on which audit we were talking about, so I will follow that up with a more detailed request.

These issues should in no way discourage Australians from voting or be taken to mean our elections are rigged in any way. Every Australian can have confidence Australia has amongst the world’s most accurate elections, however there is always room for improvement. We live in an internet age where one report can be amplified thousands of time to create an impression of impropriety that is not fair on the 100,000 Australians who help run our elections. More effort by the AEC to address these “internet rumours” is needed.

Click Here for Transcripts

PART 1

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here again today. Firstly, Minister Farrell, thank you for  arranging the briefing by Mr Rogers and his team.

Senator Farrell: You’re always welcome, Senator, and if you have any other questions I’m sure the commissioner or his team would be very happy to help. And that invitation I extend to all senators.

Senator Roberts: We appreciate the briefing. We were very pleased with the briefing—the way it was conducted; the thoroughness of it. My apologies for not being there, but I got caught up in the Senate, I think, at the time. Anyway, the briefing was most helpful and cleared up a lot of questions that we had—a lot from constituents, of course. It’s very important for the AEC to have the confidence of the people of Australia in election results. I’ve got some follow-up questions, because constituents deserve an answer. It impacts on election credibility. In the meeting with my staff, you mentioned that the electoral rolls had been audited twice in the last 10 years, and I’d understood that the details of those audits would be sent through. We haven’t received them yet. Can you provide more details, please, of those audits?

Mr Rogers: I might just get Ms Gleeson to step up momentarily. I’ll follow up and find out what we said at that meeting and what we promised to provide, and we’ll provide whatever information we have on that.  But while I’ve got the floor, for the reasons that you said, it’s important, I think for Australians to have faith in the electoral system. It is great news, I think, that first of all the electoral roll is at 97.2 per cent completeness. It really is in many cases the envy of the democratic world, which is great. As to the processes that we have in place to ensure high integrity, Australians can be very satisfied with that. I think, in fact—I’m looking at Ms Gleeson—we put online every year the results of that.

Ms Gleeson: The Annual Roll Integrity Review is conducted yearly, and those results are available on the website.

Mr Rogers: And not only that. Every transaction we undertake with the roll—and there are millions on an annual basis—is an integrity transaction in any case. It’s interesting—it’s important, I should say—to reflect on what ‘integrity’ means with the roll, because there are two components for integrity which are very critical for us to think about. One is to make sure that only the individuals who should be on the roll are on the roll, and that’s a really critically important part. But the second part of integrity, internationally accepted, is to make sure that everyone who should be on the roll is included on the roll as well. So with those two metrics in mind—those two guardrails—over the last decade the AEC has gone to great extents to grow the roll and also to look at those aspects of the roll where individual groups have been underrepresented. As we said before, youth and Indigenous Australians have been traditionally underrepresented. We’ve been doing a lot of work in that regard, and we’re very satisfied with what we’ve done with that.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Ms Gleeson, I want to understand the details of the audits on the rolls. I think the last ANAO audit of the Australian Electoral Commission was in 2013, with a report that came out two years later, in 2015. So could you please send the details that were promised at that meeting?

Mr Rogers: Yes, sure.

Ms Gleeson: Of course.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. We don’t know what it audited, what the specific findings were and what rolls were involved, and it was 10 years ago. This is a follow-up question regarding the new audit provided in section 273AA of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, requiring a substantive audit of the Australian Electoral Commission computer systems by an auditor accredited by the Australian Signals Directorate.. Can you confirm that that audit is underway, and do you have an expected return date, please?

Ms Gleeson: Senator, can you repeat the section of the act you’re referring to, please.

Senator Roberts: Section 2733AA of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Ms Gleeson: Section 273AA is an assurance of the security of computer systems for Senate scrutiny, or the IRAP assessment. This is an assessment conducted by a person or body accredited by ASD—that is, an IRAP assessor. It provides a draft report from the assessor with recommendations and identified risks. The AEC actions recommendations and implements appropriate mitigations to manage those risks, and a public statement is published on the AEC website stating a security risk assessment has been completed as required. For the 2022 federal election, accredited assessors completed security risk assessments of applicable systems prior to the federal election. Recommendations made were accepted by the AEC, and prior to the election appropriate mitigations were implemented to manage those risks, and a statement of assurance relating to those assessments was published on 19 May on the AEC website. I’m happy to provide the link to that statement.

Senator Roberts: Yes, please, if you could take that on notice. I’d like that link. I understand there are three audits. One is a software audit that audits the software used to allocate Senate preferences, which you passed. Another is an audit of the accuracy of scanning Senate ballot papers, which was passed as well. Mr Rogers, while you and your staff were most generous in giving your time, there was one issue the meeting did not get to, and that’s postal voting. My office received many reports of people receiving postal votes in the name of past residents in their premises—sometimes multiple ballots. I’m trying to understand the system to see if an improvement can be made or if indeed this is still best practice. This line of questioning is based on the number of reports of multiple ballots arriving at the same address in the name of residents who have not been there for years but who are still on the rolls. This suggests that a third party—maybe a political party or activists like GetUp—could be recording applications from the previous election and re-using that data to put in fake applications. Is it true that any voter can request a postal ballot by filling out the application and posting it to the Australian Electoral Commission, who ensure the person is on the rolls and, if so, send out a ballot?

Mr Rogers: I might start on that. Postal voting is a legislative part of the Australian electoral process. Not only that, it provides access to the vote for a large number of Australians who would otherwise—

Senator Roberts: We accept that.

Mr Rogers: be unable to achieve it. There is a process in place. Citizens are able to jump onto our website and make an application for a postal vote, or the way it has worked in elections is that political parties also send out applications. Regardless of where the application comes from, we do a thorough check of the information coming back, so no vote is included in the count—let me be more accurate: no elector’s vote is included in the count unless we’ve first assessed that they have an entitlement for that process. So it’s not so much about the information that goes out; it’s what comes back that’s the most critical part of that process. Perhaps Ms Gleeson might like to add to that.

Ms Gleeson: The process that Mr Rogers is referring to is preliminary scrutiny, which is a process outlined under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That means that, when we receive back a completed postal vote, it goes through a process of checking that the information provided on the declaration certificate on the front of the postal vote is correctly completed in compliance with the Electoral Act. Then there is a check against the electoral roll to confirm that the elector is in fact enrolled and entitled for their vote to be counted. At that point, the vote is either accepted and progresses to further scrutiny or rejected and not opened.

Senator Roberts: Is it marked off once it’s accepted?

Ms Gleeson: Correct. If it is accepted it is marked off as that individual having voted.

Senator Roberts: The voter gets the application form by going to the website. Are there other ways?

Ms Gleeson: There are a range of ways that voters can access a postal vote application. Applications can be lodged online through our online postal voting application system, and the majority of voters do use that system.  There is also the option to use a paper form, which is available from our website or from AEC offices, and you’d be aware that there are also party postal vote applications, which the AEC does not issue but parties are entitled to issue under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Senator Roberts: So you don’t send out how-to-vote cards—sorry, postal vote application forms as a matter of course? You don’t letterbox drop; you don’t post them in the mail?

Ms Gleeson: No.

Senator Roberts: They can get them through political parties. So a political party can letterbox  postal vote applications, and, if completed by a voter, that application goes first to the political party and then to the AEC—is that correct?

Mr Rogers: That’s correct. Just to be very clear, though, because I know sometimes people get confused about that, political parties do not receive citizens’ votes. All they receive is the application form, which is then sent to us. The postal vote certificate, which includes the votes, is sent from AEC and never goes to the political parties.  It’s an important point to note because I know we get some complaints about that. And, only because you just mentioned it, Senator, I will deal at the same time with sending out how-to-vote cards. The AEC does not send out how-to-vote cards.

Senator Roberts: That was a slip of my tongue.

Mr Rogers: But sometimes we get that, and I might just opine on it, because I suspect what occasionally happens is that someone will receive possibly even a postal vote certificate from the AEC with their duly authorised postal vote, and, when they pick up the material from the letterbox and put it on their table, quite often there will be other material that’s distributed at election time. They’ll open the material and go, ‘Oh, my God, the AEC has distributed how-to-vote cards,’ because it’s on the list of materials. We do not ever distribute how-to-vote cards. It’s an important point.

Senator Roberts: There is a lot of distrust in the electorate right now because of what’s happened in the last three years. There’s been a lot of lost confidence in governments. So a political party can letterbox postal vote applications. What about the case of a renter, say, who’s just moved into his or her rental place and they’ve got five applications through the mail?

Mr Rogers: They might have received—

Senator Roberts: In different names.

Mr Rogers: I’m not aware of that, but they might have received five applications from different political parties or entities—but, again, what goes out is one thing. The important thing for us is what comes back and what we then mark off and that we then ensure that that voter has an entitlement to vote. It’s a legislative entitlement for political parties and entities to distribute postal vote applications. It’s actually enshrined in the Electoral Act. We have our own integrity measure for that coming back, and we’re confident that we’ve got processes in place that are robust.

Senator Roberts: Are there any rules around harvesting of the data by the political party?

Mr Rogers: What political parties do with the data they have is a matter for them. I know that all the political parties have databases that they use that are not controlled or contributed to by the AEC.

Senator Roberts: So can they go directly to the AEC if the applicant wants, or do they have to go through the party?

Mr Rogers: Not only that, Senator. I’m just expressing a personal preference here—I’m not annoying anyone—but if it were up to me I’d encourage citizens to come to the AEC website to apply for their postal vote application.

Senator Roberts: Chair, I am going to quickly read through some questions I’m going to submit on notice.  First, how many postal vote applications were received before the 2022 election? Second, of those, how many were duplicates—the same person applying more than once? Third, how many applications were refused after being checked on the electoral roll? Fourth, how many postal vote applications were approved and sent out? If not the same figure, please explain. Fifth, how many postal ballots were returned to the Australian Electoral Commission with a comment such as ‘not at this address’ or ‘didn’t request’, and, as a result, were any challenges issued to enrolled voters? Sixth, how many completed postal ballots were received back, whether in time to be counted or not? Seventh, how many people voted on polling day and then a postal vote was also received in their name? We’re just making sure that citizens can have confidence in the election.

Mr Rogers: We’ll provide that information. But just let me answer that last bit: citizens can have confidence in the election.

Senator Roberts: We’re getting a lot of questions that suggest they don’t. That may be due to the last three years; I don’t know.

Mr Rogers: Senator, we have one of the most transparent, robust electoral processes globally. On that, in terms of its transparency—because you raised the point that citizens need to have confidence, which we back up—we’ve given something like 12 hours of evidence at over 10 hearings since the election. We’ve submitted an untold number of submissions—43,000 words. At the election itself we made ourselves available for 400 media interviews, me included. We answered 4,000 media inquiries. Critically, one of those transparency measures was the 105,000 workers that we had who were members of the community, who were involved in every step of the process. Tens of thousands of party scrutineers were involved in that process. There was the fact that all the results were put online.  I know you know this, because you and I have spoken about this previously, but it’s always useful to remind citizens that there are so many transparency and integrity measures that underpin a really robust framework. Australian citizens should be rightly proud that we’ve got one of the most accessible electoral systems in the world, one of the most high-integrity systems and one of the most transparent. We’re very proud of that. A lot of that is due to the work of committees like this, with the legislation that buttresses the electoral system, but a lot of it also is the work of bureaucrats and members of the AEC over many, many electoral cycles, who have produced such outstanding results.  I know that you, as a member of parliament, won’t mind me saying that, because you’re aware of just how important it is that citizens do have confidence in the processes that exist. I know from time to time you ask these sorts of questions, but it’s important for me to respond that way so people understand that what we do is produce one of the world’s best electoral systems. Citizens should have great confidence in the outcomes of that process.

Senator Roberts: Thanks to your answers in past Senate estimates and our own research, on many of the questions that have been submitted to us—and we’ve had a number of topics covered—we can reassure people, which is important. There are some where we have not been able to reassure. The last election raised several issues that, bit by bit, have been resolved. The fact that we still get complaints, despite all the work you’ve done to publicise, shows how deeply entrenched that feeling is in the community.

Mr Rogers: Senator, it’s interesting—and I’m sorry for taking up your time here, but it’s worthwhile talking about that—that some of those many, many complaints, like things that we get, are not in any way tethered to the reality of the legislation or election delivery. We’re still getting stuff where people are telling us that we’re using Dominion voting machines. I’m sorry, I—

Senator Roberts: That’s an easy one.

Mr Rogers: But do you know what I mean?

Senator Roberts: I understand.

Mr Rogers: You’re talking about many complaints. If we get 10,000 people telling us we’re using Dominion voting machines, it’s irrelevant.

Senator Roberts: Yes.

Mr Rogers: That’s why it’s important for me to make those statements I made that we really do have one of the world’s best electoral systems and I’m very proud of the work that all of our staff have done. I know you’ll know this, but, every day in Australia, AEC staff do great work. We’re running close to, I think, 1,000 industrial elections of one sort or another a year. We’ve got 100,000 schoolkids most years pumping through the Electoral Education Centre here in Canberra. We’re looking after the roll. We’re working with our state colleagues. Every day, AEC staff are making a contribution to electoral integrity in Australia. It’s so important. I’m so proud of the team that support that outcome, and it’s important for the community to know that as well.

Chair: You do have to identify issues that affect the integrity of an election and respond accordingly, don’t you?

Mr Rogers: Absolutely, which is what we do on a very regular basis. Let me do another shout-out—it’s not just us; we’re supported by a range of other agencies who also assist with that matter of electoral integrity. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to say that, Senator. It’s just important for the community to understand that.

Chair: Can you think of an example, in 2013, when such an event happened?

Mr Rogers: Events like that are like a crucible, and they enable us to come out even better from the process, which is what we’ve done. It was an unfortunate circumstance in 2013. We went through a whole period afterwards analysing what we’ve done. Where we are today is significantly more advanced from that process as a result of—

Chair: As someone who lost their seat in that era, event or whatever you would call it, I express my confidence in the current processes. Thank you for your evidence today.

PART 2

Senator Roberts: The remaining questions go mostly to how ballots are moved. The movement of ballot papers continues to be something that constituents ask my office about a lot. The Australian Electoral Commission moves ballots from prepolls to regional counting centres as required to facilitate counting. Is that correct?

Mr Rogers: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: The movement is done by AEC staff in private cars—their own cars, presumably. The ballot boxes are sealed and there is a movement log to control the process. Is that correct?

Mr Rogers: That’s correct. And each of the ballot boxes is sealed in the polling place in the presence of scrutineers. The seal numbers are recorded. So, that’s a tracked process.

Senator Roberts: Having scrutineered, I can verify that—for the actual location, not the movement. Can I have a sample of a movement log, please, with personal identifying information redacted?

Mr Rogers: No, Senator. The time for the asking of those questions was in the 40-day period after the conclusion of the election, where those records are retained and opened for people to examine. But in terms of movement logs, they are certifications that are, to provide a chain of custody, signed by the officers at each point of the process. It is inherently personal, with their names, signatures, and other issues, so I won’t provide that.

Senator Roberts: Okay. I accept that. Does the log have the time that the staff member left the prepoll location and the time the ballots were signed into the regional counting centre?

Mr Rogers: I’m not sure—possibly.

Senator Roberts: There is a possibility that they could be left in the car overnight in the driveway, for example?

Mr Rogers: No. The material is returned.

Senator Roberts: Yes, but what’s the time elapsed from when it’s removed, picked up, and when it’s deposited?

Mr Rogers: They leave the polling place and then go back to the outposted centre for the material to be collated and checked in.

Senator Roberts: Directly?

Mr Rogers: Directly.

Senator Roberts: Do you require staff who are transporting ballots to travel from point to point, so they’re required to go straight from the prepoll to the regional polling centre?

Mr Rogers: That’s generally the assumption.

Senator Roberts: It’s an assumption. Do you require that?

Ms Gleeson: As you can imagine, there are hundreds of thousands of logistics routes that ballot papers travel during the course of an event, and each movement of ballot papers is planned and is signed off by the appropriate supervisor at the AEC.

Senator Roberts: The actual route used?

Ms Gleeson: Yes. We do route planning, and there are exception processes if there’s—

Senator Roberts: A flood?

Ms Gleeson: a long route to be travelled and a documented reason as to why a long route needs to be travelled. Our documentation supports that and is appropriately signed off, but there are a number of permutations that the movement may take, depending on the complex logistics that the ballot papers have to travel.

Senator Roberts: Could concerns about the integrity of these ballots running around in private cars be alleviated by using secure point-to-point couriers equipped with GPS, as couriers are these days?

Mr Pope: I don’t think there’d be enough trucks in Australia—I’m serious.

Mr Rogers: We’re talking about 8,000 polling places. We’ve already got 105,000 staff. Quite often these movements occur late in the evening. Effectively, that’s a process that’s used not only at federal elections but also at state elections and has been used for 120 years without any mishaps. So, I’m very confident in the processes we’ve got in place.

Senator Roberts: So, it’s not a matter of cost, because the minister’s just allocated $364 million for a referendum. It’s about logistics.

Mr Rogers: It would be a huge matter of cost, let alone of whether there is actually that number of trucks available at that time in Australia in those locations to do it.

Senator Roberts: That’s what Mr—Price, is it?—said.

Mr Rogers: Pope.

Mr Pope: Pope.

Senator Roberts: Pope—sorry. Have you personally examined the seal the AEC uses to seal the ballot box? Have you tried to open it without detection and generally assured yourself that it’s fit for purpose?

Mr Rogers: As it happens, I have.

Senator Roberts: Good.

Mr Rogers: I’m very happy with those seals, and I’m very happy with the process that we have in place.

Senator Roberts: Can I have one to examine?

Mr Rogers: Sure.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Maybe that’s a perfect video topic for you to quell any lack of confidence.  For clarity, please: videos showing the movement of ballot boxes posted online appear to show four seals on a ballot box. Is that correct?

Mr Rogers: I haven’t seen the video that you’re talking about, Senator.

Ms Gleeson: We have a range of types of ballot box, Senator. It depends on which one you’re referring to.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Each of the seals has a unique number?

Ms Gleeson: Correct.

Senator Roberts: All seals are accounted for at the end of the count?

Mr Rogers: They’re accounted for in the process of movement. They’re recorded at the point of departure.  They’re recorded at the point of arrival. So, in that sense, they’re accounted for.

Senator Roberts: Were any missing in the 2022 federal election, and were any duplicate seals, fake seals or boxes with broken seals detected?

Mr Rogers: No, absolutely not.

Senator Roberts: Do you do a reconciliation on ballot papers printed and ballot papers accounted for at the end of the process?

Mr Rogers: Yes, we do.

Senator Roberts: What was the figure in May ’22 for unders or overs? Zero would be impossible, of course; we understand the logistics effort. There had to be some variance. What is that variance?

Ms Gleeson: Could you clarify what you mean by ‘unders’ and ‘overs’, please, Senator.

Senator Roberts: Well, comparing ballot papers printed and ballot papers accounted for, sometimes one would be higher than the other. So what is that variance?

Ms Gleeson: We don’t have that to hand.

Senator Roberts: No, you wouldn’t have it here.

Mr Rogers: Let me take that on notice, Senator.

Senator Roberts: That’s fine. Thank you. Are watermarks on a ballot paper a feasible security option?

Ms Gleeson: Our ballot papers are watermarked, Senator.

Senator Roberts: Okay. That shows you I don’t pay much attention! Close enough!

Ms Gleeson: It’s deliberately difficult to detect, perhaps, but very obvious to electoral administrators.

Senator Roberts: This is just a matter of curiosity: are you examining online voting? I know some university academics have a system for secure online voting using blockchain technology. Minister or Mr Rogers?

Mr Rogers: Well, Senator, it’s a very interesting question, but, if you wanted a very short answer, the answer would be no. For us, paper based voting has a number of security aspects that are almost impossible to replicate online. But I guess there is a point at which, at some point in the future, supply of paper and printing is going to be an issue for Australia in the sort of quantities that we’re talking about. We’re not there yet, but, at a point, that will need to be looked at. But, just to be very clear, we’re not examining any online or electronic voting system for use in any federal election, referendum or by-election.

Senator Roberts: I’m with you. I like the paper system. It’s very hard to corrupt, because there are always people around. Will you be using scanning to count the referendum, or a manual count?

Mr Rogers: A manual count.

Senator Roberts: That’s why the cost is so high—$364 million.

Mr Rogers: Handcrafted.

Senator Roberts: Sorry?

Mr Rogers: Handcrafted.

Senator Roberts: Ha, ha! And how will scrutineers be picked? It’s not a matter of parties having scrutineers they can put them forward but some people loosely on a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ campaign. How will you select scrutineers?

Mr Rogers: The legislation is slightly different for the appointment of scrutineers at a referendum. It can be through the registered officers of political parties, but the state governors and the Governor-General can also appoint scrutineers. That’s pretty much the process, I think.

Mr Pope: The state governors and the Governor-General can appoint an authorised person who can appoint those scrutineers on their behalf.  But, just to be precise around your question, it’s got nothing to do with us. It’s not our appointment.

Senator Roberts: I know. That’s what I’m getting at: who does it? I didn’t think you’d be appointing them.

Mr Pope: Oh, I thought you said, ‘How are you appointing scrutineers?’

Senator Roberts: I’m sorry. I meant: how will you allow scrutineers in?

Mr Rogers: Again, the registered officers of registered political parties, state governors and the Governor-General.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/12 Comments/by

There are Jail cells underneath Parliament House, let’s use them

I’ve got a suggestion, if Labor wants to keep disobeying direct orders of the Senate we can show them why there are jail cells underneath Parliament House.

Transcript

I like Senator Farrell. He’s a good bloke. We don’t always agree. I accept that he’s overseas right now. Yet his repeated non-responses are not acceptable. His behaviour is not acceptable, because answering questions is important for accountability. The people that we serve deserve honesty and accountability. There’s only one word to describe this government’s attitude to Senate estimates, to questions on notice and to orders for the production of documents. That word is ‘contempt’. They continue to treat this chamber with contempt. Almost every order by this Senate to produce information is met with contempt from this government, and it is appropriate that we begin to treat appropriately the ministers who treat this Senate with contempt.

We have had explanation after explanation after explanation from ministers. Ministers are all too happy to come into this place and cop a lashing for an hour and continue to refuse to produce the information that this Senate has ordered. The explanations are not good enough. They are intentionally inadequate. It is not good enough that this Senate continues to accept them without any further action. It’s time for this Senate to use its constitutionally enshrined powers to hold ministers to account, and that must be through charges of contempt when they continue to disrespect this Senate’s orders.

I remind senators that it is this Senate, not the government-dominated privileges committee, that makes the final determination on matters of contempt. If this Senate is not happy with a minister’s disobedience of a direct order, then the Senate itself can vote on contempt, which we would do and which should happen. The time for meaningless, hollow blather, in explanation after explanation, is over. Start serving the people or face contempt motions. There are jail cells in the basement. It’s time for the executive government to be reminded why they’re there. That’s not a joke. That is fact. It’s time for the government to be reminded why there are jail cells in the basement.

/24 Comments/by